[Discussion] The Most Important Decision

[Ewokslayer]

But there are some people who has to give themselves unnecessarily hardships just because it make them proud and happy.

That's fine, but most of the examples you use:

those who climbs mountains, they find hardest path, sometimes with/without equipment, in hardest condition possible just to prove that they can do it. Of course, you can just take plane or something to get to the top. Anyone can cross dover channel with ferry, but not everyone can do so with swimming. There are easier ways of doing things, but that's nothing to be proud of.

are basically examples of rich jag offs with too much money and time on their hands.

In most real world events, providing yourself with unnecessary hardships is either stupid or showing off.

But what drives me nuts is those people trying to assume some sort of moral high ground.

Not playing the best deck in the format is not a reason to be praised.
If you didn't play Hulk Flash at GP Columbus you either
1) couldn't get the cards (unlikely)
2) didn't feel comfortable with any of the builds given the short time frame. (Understandable)
3) Made a deck choice mistake. (Probable)
4) Thought you could build a deck with a great Hulk Flash matchup (you were probably wrong on that one)

[AnwarA101]

Playing the best deck or one of the best decks can be very debatable point. Let's look at Legacy before Flash. Most people agree that both Goblins and Threshold were the two best decks in the format. They defined the format in ways that the other decks didn't. Does this mean that playing anything other than those two decks was foolish? The Top8 data from the last 3 months seems to suggest otherwise. Decks like TES, CRET Belcher, and RGBSA actually won or split in the finals of significant tournaments. This wouldn't happen if playing any thing other than the two best decks was pointless. The reason playing these other decks was worthwhile is that while Goblins and Threshold were the best decks they weren't overwhelmingly so. Goblins and Threshold had weaknesses that really mattered. Goblins had real problems beating combo. Threshold struggled against board-control decks. These weaknesses along with others were exploitable to a degree that other decks did well.

This wasn't the case with Flash at all. It weaknesses by comparison were almost nonexistent. A combo deck that could win on turn 1, with Force of Will and Daze protection, and had the ability to beat even anti-combo decks like Fish at least 50 percent of the time. There was virtually no drawback to playing Flash and thus no real argument for not playing it.

It is in this context that playing anything other than Flash makes no sense. Something I did and understand was incorrect. Everyone is playing to win and when the path to winning has many roads you can make the case for different decks. But let's say there is only one road you can take to win. You either take that road or you don't. One can lead to winning, but the other almost guarantees failure.

[MattH]

One reason not to play Flash would be that Flash is a difficult deck to play correctly. Sometimes you luck into the fast win but when faced with disruption or hate, it becomes very tricky business to push your combo through. Some people just want to throw their spells down and watch their deck work, and you can't do that with Flash.

Of course, if you weren't in the mood for playing tough Magic, you were pretty much wasting your time attending a GP. But some people might have though that way.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

This wasn't the case with Flash at all. It weaknesses by comparison were almost nonexistent. A combo deck that could win on turn 1, with Force of Will and Daze protection, and had the ability to beat even anti-combo decks like Fish at least 50 percent of the time. There was virtually no drawback to playing Flash and thus no real argument for not playing it.

It is in this context that playing anything other than Flash makes no sense. Something I did and understand was incorrect. Everyone is playing to win and when the path to winning has many roads you can make the case for different decks. But let's say there is only one road you can take to win. You either take that road or you don't. One can lead to winning, but the other almost guarantees failure.

This is all very true. Of course, that's why such warped metagames are undesirable- in essence, the game is already "solved". You know what the best deck is. We weren't (and still aren't) quite there in knowing the exact optimal maindeck and board, but the choice was ultimately boringly simple on the question of playing Flash versus playing something else.

On the other hand, it's understandable to try and find a "secret" answer when the obvious one is so boringly simple, especially when you're used to a mature and complex metagame. Don't beat yourself up about it too much. Here, have some George Michael to make you feel better.

[DeathwingZERO]

They do. How many pro players you see playing Legacy? Not many.....

And there's a good reason for that. Our format doesn't shift every few months, and our "Flash" fiasco is EXACTLY what they try to do with Extended and Standard. All they want is whatever wins most often, and that's fine. It's just too bad that the only time they want to play this format (and I'm sure Vintage is the same, for that matter), is when some absurd "I beat the world" deck is found. Other than that, they could care less. To me, that's basically taking a bad situation and gaining from it. I'd like to see how many of them would pick up a Goblins or Thresh build with the same "little to no testing" and make the same results as Flash got them. Then I'll show some respect.

No, but they are. They could easily turn around and say, "If you're not here to win, to try and take it to the next level, you should stay out of GP's and high level events....

And I could easily say "Oh, so what do YOU believe Hulk does at taking Legacy to the next level? How does it improve my abilities to continue winning when it finally gets axed?" Case closed on that. They obviously didn't care, or thought it was perfectly fine to stick around. That pretty much equates to "I want to continue win, so it should stay". So hell, as long as they want to win, we might as well continue having a degenerate format, it's that much less work for them.

Yes, it's a game. But some people take great pleasure in winning. In getting better. I'm one of them. Get off your high horse and stop thinking you're better than them because you think your goal is more noble than theirs.

My goal in a tournament is to win, just as anyone else's. But again, winning in the format after actually putting some real effort into it is how I go about it. They do the same thing in Extended, Block, Standard, etc. They didn't do it here. I have every damn right to say my goal is more noble than theirs, I'm here to support the format, their here to destroy it. They didn't get better, their playing abilities or understanding of the game didn't get any deeper. Had they wanted that, they would have been in this format long before Flash, or at least keep on board with us after it's gone.

Look at it this way. If Flash stays in the format and becomes "perfected", and all you had to look forward to in your road trip to victory after victory (big tournament and small) is Flash and terrible "Anti-Flash" decks, would you stay in that format? Because in all honesty, if you say yes, your not playing anymore. All that does is basically force every opponent that doesn't play Flash to concede to you. This no longer merits nor improves skill, intelligence, dedication, anything. Is that honestly how you'd want to win?