Variance vs Strategy

[iatee]

It's no wonder you won't drop it despite seemingly everyone disagreeing with you. It's no wonder that because blue players will exist and have fun, but shift to things like TNN and midrange strategies to get unhosed by Chalice has you so upset.

Eh, there were people who agreed on the other thread, I'm just willing to be more obnoxious about it. It's not gonna be popular to say 'it sucks that there's a new deck in legacy' before people are sick of it, but I think lots of people with Foil Brainstorms - i.e. a lot of people here - are gonna get sick of it before long.

Regardless, don't think anybody looking at the format could think that D+T is actually in a worse off place than it was before, if anything it's probably marginally better off. Eldrazi is a t1 deck that is 50-50 at worst. A lot of the rougher combo matchups get pushed out of the format with Chalices everywhere, but the Chalices aren't always great vs D+T. I beat Eldrazi all the time. I just think the games suck.

[GreatWhale]

Eh, there were people who agreed on the other thread, I'm just willing to be more obnoxious about it. It's not gonna be popular to say 'it sucks that there's a new deck in legacy' before people are sick of it, but I think lots of people with Foil Brainstorms - i.e. a lot of people here - are gonna get sick of it before long.

Regardless, don't think anybody looking at the format could think that D+T is actually in a worse off place than it was before, if anything it's probably marginally better off. Eldrazi is a t1 deck that is 50-50 at worst. A lot of the rougher combo matchups get pushed out of the format with Chalices everywhere, but the Chalices aren't always great vs D+T. I beat Eldrazi all the time. I just think the games suck.

I have to give you credit, this is the 3rd thread I've witnessed you argue with each person, and as they give up and a new one takes their place, you press on.

Personally, I think the Eldrazi players will get sick of the new deck before the brainstorm players. I think a lot of the people playing it are either only playing with their new toy, or think its the best deck in the format. The people who are playing with their new toy will find something new that's shinier and the players who are playing it because they think its the best deck in the format will drop it when its not that dominant (I think its a good and tier 1, but not some tier 0 monster that it was in modern). The only people left are the dudes that just jam stompy and have been jamming stompy long before Eldrazi was a glint in wotc's eye, they will continue jamming.

[tianyuan2k4]

I think the Eldrazi players will get sick of the new deck before the brainstorm players.

+1 here, Eldrazi is a beginner friendly deck and could definitely win some games by early chalice + TKS. But there are so many other interesting stuff other than the Eldrazi beatdown routine, people will move on to some other decks eventually.

[Echelon]

I mean 'making decisions' and 'answering anything thrown at you' are just different ways of talking about the same thing. Force of Will 'answers anything' but requires you to make a difficult and punishing decision in the process, that's why it's one of the most well-designed cards in the game. It's kinda a shame that they don't have more playable pitch cards for other colors.

In any case, why is the ability to answer anything thrown at you anything but a good thing? Threats vs answers is a core dynamic in the game. The argument should be that other colors should be given more room to interact consistently (I think this is true) rather than 'Blue is unfair because it has that ability.' By pushing the game to be more and more creature-based over time, as Wizards has, they've been effectively doing this, as creatures are the easiest thing to interact with.

Manaless Dredge wins by being hard to interact with g1, but once you start interacting with it, it falls apart. Nobody hates Grafdigger's Cage because it's a very fair card that anyone can play that just says 'People can't do exactly one variant of unfair things.' If you want to beat it, you can play a deck that does other things too (e.g Elves can still Glimpse into a million Elves) or play ways to interact with it (putting some lands and spells in your deck is a good place to start.)

Chalice comes close to being a Grafdigger's Cage for blue spells and that's exactly why I think it's eventually going to be banned.

Nice way of putting words in someones mouth. Where did I state that the ability to answer anything is a bad thing? All I said was that that is the kind of thing Spikes gravitate towards, period. I never said it was a bad thing, and I most certainly never said it was unfair.

Also, there's interacting and casting-a-single-card-that-kills-it-entirely. But hey, according to your logic the 1 mana "Fuck you, blue" artifact should be perfectly fair b/c, and I quote:

If you want to beat it, you can play a deck that does other things too

I say print that shit as a common and let's shake up the format.

On a sidenote: If CotV gets banned, so should all graveyard hate. Either we all get fucked in the ass occasionally, or noone does. Seriously, if something as easy to deal with as CotV gets banned there's someting seriously wrong with the people that do the banning.

[Chatto]

+1 here, Eldrazi is a beginner friendly deck and could definitely win some games by early chalice + TKS. But there are so many other interesting stuff other than the Eldrazi beatdown routine, people will move on to some other decks eventually.

Perhaps, but consider this: winning regurlarly is addictive.

[LegacyIsAnEternalFormat]

Many people like the Eldrazi deck because 1. It is cheap compared to rest of the decks 2. It is easy to play 3. It is fun to play for certain people that like casting big creatures and attacking with them 4. It is new and adds some long-needed change to the format.

I don't see why you are the person who is complaining either. You play Death and Taxes, a deck that isn't ruined by a chalice on 1. Maybe if you were playing some delver deck but death and taxes? Most decks in legacy right now have a chance against Chalice on 1. Chalice on 1 adds some interesting challenges and changes for players of most of legacy decks right now. For delver players I suggest changing their deck until chalice is no longer popular

Also, legacy is already a format of uneven matchups. Miracles vs Elves, 12post vs miracles, Storm vs BGx, etc. The variance added by chalice is comparable to playing 12post, you might go against the best deck in the format or you might go against storm. Variance is a part of magic and I don't see a problem with it.

[iatee]

Again, I'm not complaining because of self-interest for my pet deck's win % - as you said, D+T will do fine - I'm complaining because I like legacy for its complex and interesting games and I think Eldrazi decreases the number of interesting games that get played.

[LegacyIsAnEternalFormat]

Sometimes arguments come to the point were you've done and said all you can to try and challenge your opponent's opinion, but your opponent still holds that opinion. You can't prove an opinion wrong, you can only change someone's opinion. I have stated my opinion and you have stated yours. Don't know what else to say, but that I have realized that those who try and change your mind are wasting their time.

[iatee]

Yes, trying to change my opinion on what type of magic I enjoy playing is like trying to change my opinion on what flavor ice cream I like.

[Chatto]

This is the third(?) thread with a similar discussion (but in my opinion is no discussion at all), which ends in this stalemate. Why do people argue without listening? If you have an opinion, and won't even consider discussing it, just don't bother to discuss. Just saying, not judging.

[LegacyIsAnEternalFormat]

What's the point of discussing? I said my opinion, what else am I supposed to say? We've discussed with this guy every single pro of the Eldrazi deck and he says that the cons still outweigh the pros. But one thing for sure, this guy's opinion is not popular and Chalice will never be banned in legacy.

[powerhawk]

How does the degree of variance in a game affect strategic depth?

There is a common bias against variance - the idea being that variance only serves to undermine strategy (the most carefully laid plans can fall apart with one bad "toss of the dice"). Others think that varinace can (sometimes) increase complication and actually enhance strategic depth. This is the position I plan to argue, and I would like to demonstrate it with two similar Magic cards:

VS

For the purpose of this discussion, we assume Therapy is being cast without knowledge of the opponents hand. Otherwise Therapy is just a strictly better Thoughtseize.

Most will agree Cabal Therapy is a more skill intensive card. With Thoughtseize the active player sees a handful of cards and must rank those cards via a threat assessment. With Therapy the player must assess the potential threat level of every relevant card the opponent might be holding, and weigh this against the probabilities (generally an estimate) that the opponent actually has that card. What's more the threat assessment itself is more complicated because the threat level of any given card is sometimes dependant on what other cards the opponent is holding - also a probability assessment.

But Cabal Therapy also introduces more variance than Thoughtseize. In fact it is because of this variance that Therapy is so much harder to play well! Sometimes playing around randomness and having to take risks in order to gain can actually add depth to strategic decision making. And Therapy is no exception. The above process is par for the course in decision theory problems.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory

More thoughts:

Some would argue that Thoughtseize facilitates strategy more than Therapy does, as a good player is more likely to get a favourable outcome. I have two responses to this:

1. This isn't a fair comparison - Thoughtseize is (generally) a more powerful card, especially compared to blind casting Therapy (which is the comparison in question, otherwise Therapy does not bring variance or extra demand for skill). A better comparison is how these cards fare in the hands of players of various skill. Most competent players will Thoughtseize properly most of the time. A good player will usually chose the same card as a great player (when they don't, it will mostly be a borderline case where neither card is very much better than the other). With Therapy, there are a lot more variables and naming the right card is much harder for a merely good player.
   
   In other words, Thoughtseize will separate the good players from the bad players; while Therapy seperates good players from great players.
   
2. my second objection is that the extent to which a game rewards skilled play is not a true measure of strategic depth. The real test is how difficult it is to play optimally. Tic-tac-toe absolutely rewards skilled play! If you play that game correctly you will never lose and will beat all but the toughest opponents. But that doesn't give it depth! Depth comes from difficulty in determining the best line of play. Whether that line of play might randomly back-fire doesn't take anything away from the skill required to determine that line of play. It just means you don't always get credit for your brilliance.
   
   Imagine we play chess, but we add a rule that after a checkmate we roll a die and on a '6' the mated player is the winner. This addition of variance reduces the impact of skill in terms of the outcome, but it doesn't make the game any less deep. The skill set needed to play well is identical to that of regular chess. All the same strategic decisions still apply.

Obviously I'm saying variance necessarily adds depth! But it certainly can add depth by making optimal plays more elusive and harder to see.

I actually do research related to mathematical decision theory (I do economic modelling). I agree with the point you make, though technically, you aren't referring to a "pure variance" effect here. Instead, its many effects commingled when comparing those two cards.

A pure variance effect will always reduce the impact of skill. A pure variance comparison would be to take Cabal Therapy, and then add text to it that says, say, with probability .5, switch the card you named to a random card from the entirety of magic history. Clearly, that kind of effect can only reduce skill - it's almost by definition the case.

On the other hand, and the point you raise (which is an interesting one - one I will actually think about for the sake of my own research), is that there is a common correlation in a lot of different activities in economics where skill is correlated with variance. If the set of possible actions a player can take (or say, an action taken by a CEO) is purely deterministic, then clearly there is no skill. A lot of times, raising the set of possible actions that can be taken is accompanied by raising the variance of the outcome conditional on a selected action.

[Crimhead]

A pure variance comparison would be to take Cabal Therapy, and then add text to it that says, say, with probability .5, switch the card you named to a random card from the entirety of magic history. Clearly, that kind of effect can only reduce skill - it's almost by definition the case.

I'd argue this doesn't reduce skill at all. To play your card optimally requires the exact same problem solving skills as are required to play Cabal Therapy optimally.

Your modification does not in any way detract from the skill intensity of the card. It only effects the extent to which superior skill is rewarded.

So I guess it depends on why a person wants strategic depth. Personally I want to be faced with difficult and challenging decisions. I want the opportunities to outplay my opponents - that's strategic depth. Whether superior play gives me a 5% edge or a 20% egde is kind of trivial. I don't need a gold star every single time I outthink the opposition.