I'll just come out and say it.
Card value has nothing to do with the health of the metagame.
I don't mind statements, but I like to see arguments to support them. You have not addressed what I have said, which does imply that card value has something to do with the health of the metagame (even if indirectly), nor have you provided evidence for your claim.I'll just come out and say it.
Card value has nothing to do with the health of the metagame.
Summarizing my argument:
Evolving metagames require evolving card usage.
Evolving card usage is based on evolving card pool boundaries (B/R lists, etc.)
Evolving card pool boundaries limit the usage and demand for cards.
Limiting demand for cards lowers card prices.
People don't want to lose card value, thus, they will have a difficulty in playing in formats with evolving metagames.
Proxies eliminate that problem of course...such as playing online. You just need a community that can build a proper tournament and gaming structure, in part, it rests upon our shoulders to help meet the demand of an evolving metagame.
Of course, if you don't wish to actually support your argument or claims, and just flat disagree, that is your choice. I do hope that if you reply, it will take into account what I've said, using true counterarguments, instead of just merely throwing away what has been written so far.
If you are interested in a good read: http://www.hypercynic.com/?p=8
That might help some...
Otherwise, I suppose we can agree to disagree.
peace,
4eak
I intended to refute each point as it was presented, but I reconsidered. Your points in themselves are not incorrect, however your underlying assumptions are. You feel that in order for a metagame to be evolving, there needs to be a significant upheaval to the status quo. That's false. You also assume that there is a significant portion of the potential Legacy player base that stays away from the format based on some cost barrier associated with the format. From my experience, this is also false.Originally Posted by 4eak
Those two false assumptions lead you to believe that in order to maximize the player commitment to Legacy, the value of top-tier cards must be artificially lowered by an outside influence, be it proxies or bannings, and that bannings should be used as price control as much as power-level control.
The more likely scenario is, you ban a bunch of cards with "high" price tags, like Force of Will, and the cards that are suddenly tier 1 spike in value (see: Flash). Not only that, but one of the most potent cards for keeping degeneracy in check is now gone, and you lose more players to "stupid combo decks" ruining the format than you ever would gain from a lower entry cost.
"Evolving" would indicate such upheaval. Show me how this is false. Of course, feel free to define a "healthy" metagame for me please.You feel that in order for a metagame to be evolving, there needs to be a significant upheaval to the status quo. That's false.
No, I'm applying Economics 101 and drawing a fair conclusion. It isn't like I made this "supply/demand/price" issue up. Show me where I'm wrong beyond your "experience".You also assume that there is a significant portion of the potential Legacy player base that stays away from the format based on some cost barrier associated with the format. From my experience, this is also false.
Show me where I said this please. From what I can tell, I was showing how Legacy was defined and how we can redefine it if we so choose.Those two false assumptions lead you to believe that in order to maximize the player commitment to Legacy, the value of top-tier cards must be artificially lowered by an outside influence, be it proxies or bannings, and that bannings should be used as price control as much as power-level control.
peace,
4eak
Evolution doesn't need to be drastic. We don't need a sixth finger to prove we've changed. Take for example, the last six months of Legacy (excluding the month of Flash), where we saw the metagame evolve from a Goblins/Threshold metagame, to one more focused around the better combo decks in Legacy. This wasn't due to banning the best cards available, but rather due to the introduction of new, strong contenders. You dismissed this as inconsequential here:
Note that TES is one of the least expensive decks in the format to build, which further deconstructs your theory that price and strength are proportional.Cards at the top of the list would be forced out not by newer cards, but the the B/R list.
As for a healthy metagame, we've never had one as healthy as exists today. There are a plethora of viable decks, and none stand heads-and-shoulders above the rest as the "best deck." There is a wealth of new development, due in no small part to the release of Future Sight, which makes the graveyard/dredge strategy much more potent. Again, this is not due to B&R changes. If we can all agree Mind over Matter sucks (relatively speaking), and Replenish is decent, then the B&R list change has established 1 new deck (Pandeburst), while the release of a single new set has spawned at least two in the same amount of time (Ichorid and Cephalid Breakfast).
How much does a Bazaar of Bagdhad cost right now? Mishra's Workshop? Time Vault? Illusionary Mask? Demand dropped off significantly. Supply therefore increased, since people planned to sell. And yet, the price is still high.No, I'm applying Economics 101 and drawing a fair conclusion. It isn't like I made this "supply/demand/price" issue up. Show me where I'm wrong beyond your "experience".
Show me where I said this please. From what I can tell, I was showing how Legacy was defined and how we can redefine it if we so choose.Which implies your goal is to lower the value of cards to increase the people willing to pay for them.The higher the value of cards, the fewer number of people there will be able and willing to pay for them.
You sound comfortable with the current metagame, but this is not the same thing as knowing what a healthy metagame is...You do not provide arguments regarding what a healthy metagame exactly is in the first place, nor why that definition is correct (albeit, nor did I until I posted that link for you).
I think you still need to support your claims regarding:
a.) What is the meaning and purpose of a metagame, and what exactly is a healthy metagame, and why?
b.) How healthy is the Legacy metagame according to the definition?
Where we disagree is obviously on the definition of a healthy metagame. While I might admit that Legacy's metagame is currently "healthier" than ever before, that does not mean it is healthy, nor does it mean the game or format is anywhere near a healthy metagame (which is the ideal we are pursuing, no?).
I directed you to an article on the subject of gaming which clearly defines metagame for us. It is obvious that you didn't read it. If you want, I can post it for you, otherwise, you can just click on the link and read the article. We need to have a good point of reference from which to make arguments; we have to agree on the definitions to understand each other.
Assuming you read and understood that article (which I felt was too long to post in this thread, so I linked it instead):
The fair and evolving metagame tests skill in every sense of the term, and nothing else. It means that a skilled deck builder is given the opportunity to do more than just "tweaking" and "fine-tuning" of older decks, it means that their skill is used to its maximum, with near infinite possibilities of viable decks. Evolving metagame also would simply have to mean that there are more than 1 or 2 new decks that are "viable" a month, it means that decks are viable completely based on the skill of the builder and the player playing them, requiring a much larger variance in the metagame. Evolving does mean something very drastic, almost chaotic. The point of an evolving metagame is that it eliminates a player's ability to meaningfully metagame (the verb) beyond just the skill with which their own deck is created and played. While the true evolving metagame may not be practical, it is certainly a goal which gamers can strive to reach.
So, yes, Legacy possesses a much healthier metagame than other formats, and definitely healthier than most other games, however, this does not mean that is Legacy's metagame is actually a healthy and evolving metagame in the pure sense of the term.
Ah, good card choices to miss the point. Each of these cards are extremely difficult to acquire in the first place. Demand will always be artificially high for these cards, not just in virtue of there use to the metagame, but in virtue of both their natural scarcity and innate powerlevels which are judged to be most likely useful in the future of the Vintage metagame. There are more reasons than the current metagame that pushes the demand and prices so high for these particular cards, however, this is not the case for most mtg cards.How much does a Bazaar of Bagdhad cost right now? Mishra's Workshop? Time Vault? Illusionary Mask? Demand dropped off significantly. Supply therefore increased, since people planned to sell. And yet, the price is still high.
My goal is not to lower the value of cards, nor increase the people willing to pay for them. My goal was to show how increasing the number of people willing to pay for cards could be brought about. There is a difference. I'm just showing that we do make a choice to create a card-value barrier to play Legacy.Which implies your goal is to lower the value of cards to increase the people willing to pay for them.
Currently, we have created a less than perfectly evolving metagame for the sake of card value. If this is what we want, then that is fine. If you wanted a "deckbuilder's paradise", then we've got other issues at hand to deal with...and thus, the end question still remains, how do we want to define Legacy? Do we want to define it through a lense seeking a true evolving metagame or through a lense concerned more with card value.
peace,
4eak
I guess I have an additional thing to say, forgive me if you (4eak) reply before I do.
Why should Legacy strive to exist as a format more similar to Standard than Vintage? After rereading your posts, it seems like that is your underlying theme. In order to fit your personal view of the "deckbuilder's dream" which, in my own humble opinion, is unrealistic in and of itself, you contend that significant changes in the card pool are required at fairly frequent intervals. I know, speaking only for myself, that a format of that type holds very little appeal to me, and all my experience (which counts for something, whether you accept that or not) tells me that I would not be alone in that waning interest.
it stands to reason that you, as the proponent of the changed format, bear the burden of convincing me, as a supporter of the status quo, that your suggested format is preferable to the one which exists today. I've seen you discuss what would be different, but I don't believe you've sufficiently described why this is desireable.
You are very smart, and I understand exactly why you have said what you have said. If I were in your shoes, I hope I would say the same thing as well as you have said it. And, I agree, I failed to show why such an evolving metagame is desirable. My apologies.as the proponent of the changed format, bear the burden of convincing me, as a supporter of the status quo, that your suggested format is preferable to the one which exists today. I've seen you discuss what would be different, but I don't believe you've sufficiently described why this is desireable.
I hope the article will fill in the gaps of my reasoning. That is the definition of metagame, and I think it is at the heart of the matter when we are attempting to define "Legacy", either through the form of gaming and the fair and evolving metagame or through some degree of card-value retention. The spectrum exists if you understand and agree with the definitions presented in the article.
Again, my goal isn't necessarily to bring to people to push for an evolving metagame. My goal is to help them understand what that evolving metagame means and what it entails, such as how they value their cards. I think the "sleeping" gamers inside people will awaken to the truth of evolving metagame, and I think hardcore gamers will be in a better position to demand exactly what they want after understanding the distinctions I've made.
Oh, and I apologize for the number of edits I have made. Sometimes I think of something else I wanted to say and just put it in moments after submitting the original...
peace,
4eak
That link does nothing to describe the ideal metagame, nor could it, as there is no such thing. Each person plays this game (moreso than many similar games) for their own reasons. Personally, I get little satisfaction out of the deckbuilding aspect of the game, outside my personal metagame tweaks and tuning. Perhaps I am in the minority. That perspective means I have a different view of the ideal metagame than you, an advocate of deckbuilder's paradise. You look for a wide open meta where literally any reasonably well constructed deck is viable. I, as a player more focused on tournament results than deck development, look for a more predictable environment, where my tuning and accurate predictions of the metagame can garner me an advantage in readiness. Neither of these views are incorrect or unreasonable, but my view tends to be the more popular one, as most of the focus of the B&R lists is centered on high level (sanctioned) tournament play.
As I said in the interim post, the burden of convincing is on you, as the DCI (the ultimate jury of this discussion) is already convinced that my perspective is in line with their own.a.) What is the meaning and purpose of a metagame, and what exactly is a healthy metagame, and why?
b.) How healthy is the Legacy metagame according to the definition?
As said above, I agree our fundamental disagreement is on what defines the ideal metagame. This is due to our own varying perspectives on the game itself, and our roles within the metagame.Where we disagree is obviously on the definition of a healthy metagame. While I might admit that Legacy's metagame is currently "healthier" than ever before, that does not mean it is healthy, nor does it mean the game or format is anywhere near a healthy metagame (which is the ideal we are pursuing, no?).
You posted it after I had begun my reply, I've read it now. I assume this point:I directed you to an article on the subject of gaming which clearly defines metagame for us. It is obvious that you didn't read it.
refers to this paragraph:The fair and evolving metagame tests skill in every sense of the term, and nothing else.
Which I agree is the most significant part of the article. However, I think the point the author is trying to make falls short in its applications to Magic, as the scope of skill is drastically different when applied to the spectrum of skillful aspects to the game.A game is a contest or competition, physical and/or mental, according to certain rules, which is perceived to have irrelevant outcomes beyond the fact you win, lose, or tie, such that: the gamer would play the game simply in virtue of the opportunity of playing the game itself. Perfect games test the skill of the player and nothing else. The game can be against yourself or others (environments are rulesets, not opponents). But, in the end, gaming is a test of one’s skill that should have no real consequence beyond winning, losing, or tying.
More succinctly, there is a very different skillset utilized to develop decks than there is to play one perfectly, than there is to metagame properly, than there is to outplay your opponent mentally, etc. It's nearly (I'd argue absolutely) impossible for a single metagame to test all those skills together, and as each person can be more skilled at one than another, their personal view of the perfect metagame is varied.
At this point, I'm going to end the line of discussion on card value, as I think it's less interesting and fundamental to the discussion than the rest of the debate. I don't want the conversation to get too broad, so let's focus on the other topics.Ah, good card choices to miss the point. Each of these cards are extremely difficult to acquire in the first place. Demand will always be artificially high for these cards, not just in virtue of there use to the metagame, but in virtue of both their natural scarcity and innate powerlevels which are judged to be most likely useful in the future of the Vintage metagame. There are more reasons than the current metagame that pushes the demand and prices so high for these particular cards, however, this is not the case for most mtg cards.
My goal is not to lower the value of cards, nor increase the people willing to pay for them. My goal was to show how increasing the number of people willing to pay for cards could be brought about. There is a difference. I'm just showing that we do make a choice to create a card-value barrier to play Legacy.
Double edit - Just so you know, I'm enjoying this discussion a lot. Also, I'm getting lunch. Back at 1.
As I take the title of this post: “The Purpose of Legacy” quite seriously, I realize that I am forced to discuss a relatively broad topic. I cannot answer that question without answering more fundamental ones. Obviously, the assumptions we make will be foundational to how we answer, “What is the purpose of legacy?”.
You have to think first,’ what is a game?’, and ‘what is the purpose of it?’, etc.
Game
MTG
Legacy
There are many, many things to consider in this hierarchy, and understand how we resolve the meaning, origins, and purpose of Legacy from MTG from Game is, unfortunately, a fairly broad topic.
I admit that it is no easy task, and I can see I have not sufficiently described this hierarchy. But, bare in mind, the people who CHOOSE the status quo do need to give an explanation for it, and proper discussion does require them to answer the broad questions regarding the above hierarchy and even the smaller edge issues of things like card-value (which I can see you don’t wish to discuss, even if it an eventual issue that must be discussed to answer the main question of this thread).
So, yes, I agree that I need to provide good arguments. And, I also think that the rest of you do too…you have no warrant to disagree with me if you can’t provide support or evidence for your current beliefs. You also have not provided a proper response or completely supported argument either is the point. This, of course, does not make either one of us correct, I am simply showing that your belief has not been justified as of yet, and so while it is wise to ask me to provide a better argument, it is certainly not wise to think your conclusions are safe without a better argument.
However, in the interest of pursuing truth, I will continue to explain my position. Bare with me, I too have to get to lunch, so my proper response will be later, as I will need a good deal of time to address how the article does give us the proper foundation from which to understand MTG and Legacy in terms of gaming, how we can define their metagames, and even how skill is tested in these environments. In the meantime, it may be worth mulling over that article once again, as it is really aiming at a universal conception of gaming, which is an important part of the hierarachy to be used in defining the purpose of Legacy.
peace,
4eak
Props to 4eak for carrying the torch.
How did you reach that conclusion?
Enter the purpose of Legacy as a format;More succinctly, there is a very different skillset utilized to develop decks than there is to play one perfectly, than there is to metagame properly, than there is to outplay your opponent mentally, etc. It's nearly (I'd argue absolutely) impossible for a single metagame to test all those skills together, and as each person can be more skilled at one than another, their personal view of the perfect metagame is varied.
Vintage by its powerful card pool tends to make decks gravitate to a few tried and true strategies. As long as the dominating cards remain legal, even if only as 1-ofs, the skills used in Vintage are really only going to be deck-tweaking and playing. There's not much room for whole-sale deck innovation in Vintage, and when asking yourself The Question, your possible answers are always going to be rather limited. So with regards to Eternal formats, there is a format that supplies a largely predictable meta-game.
Legacy should ideally be on the other end of the spectrum. The answer to The Question should never be totally clear. If the answer is obvious, then the meta-game is solved, and there's no incentive for good players to try anything new.
More decks that are viable answers to The Question = More cards that retain value as an investment.
More cards that retain value = More reason for people to consider buying cards in the first place.
How many people would have actually started playing Magic if there was no secondary market? How many of you would still be playing today if your cards became worthless as soon as you opened the pack? The continuing value of cards after they've been opened, and then after they rotate out of newer formats, is very important for the long-term health of the game as a whole. Legacy is the best vehicle for insuring the long-term value of cards.
If this long-term insurance only applied to a handful of cards, it would be meaningless in all practical terms. It must apply to a wide variety of cards in order for there to be true security for people starting to play the game.
Early one morning while making the round,
I took a shot of cocaine and I shot my woman down;
I went right home and I went to bed,
I stuck that lovin' .44 beneath my head.
Why? First of all, I disagree that Vintage is the pinnacle example of the stagnant metagame. Again, I point to the introduction of cards into the metagame at regular intervals to back that point. Certianly, the endgame strategy is similar between a few decks, ie; Storm, but the overall plan to reach that endgame is varied for sure. Even taking your point about vintage as a given, what makes Legacy the default polar opposite? Why should it exist as a completely unpredictable metagame, and what is the allure of such a format? I know, as a player, (and I realize I'm reiterating here) this type of format has far too much unpredictability to be attractive. You can't sufficiently metagame (verb) in such an environment, and you go into every event basically blind. I'd much prefer a format with a defined upper tier of decks, which allows for second tier decks to compete as metagame foils (see: Legacy, today).
How many people do you think actually gave that any amount of thought before beginning the game? They were far more likely to say "Hey, this game looks fun" than "hey, I can resell all my cards if I decide I don't want to play this format anymore." You seem to be forgetting that the largest group of players in the game doesn't adhere to strict format restrictions, they play with whatever cards they have, regardless of what their value is.How many people would have actually started playing Magic if there was no secondary market?
This is false, Matt. How many cards retain their value once they rotate out of Standard? The answer is, as many as see significant play in Extended, which is a significantly lower number than in Standard. Say, 1:10 as a generous estimate. How many retain that value when they rotate out of Extended? Giving the benefit of the doubt, we'll say 1:10 again. That's 1 card out of every small set, and 3 out of every large set that's playable in Legacy/Vintage, and retains its value past Extended. Every card that makes it that far has to compete against every card in existance for the slot in a deck. The longer the game goes on, the more difficult the competition will be. If anything, Legacy is the reason mediocre cards lose their value, not why good ones retain it.How many of you would still be playing today if your cards became worthless as soon as you opened the pack? The continuing value of cards after they've been opened, and then after they rotate out of newer formats, is very important for the long-term health of the game as a whole. Legacy is the best vehicle for insuring the long-term value of cards.
What you're suggesting is artificially deflating the value of good cards by disallowing people to play with them, and artificially inflating (albeit slightly) the value of mediocre cards by proxy. This isn't a solution to the supposed problem at all.
But what you're suggesting doesn't fix that issue. You're taking the insurance away from the cards that need it (the ones with the real investment associated with them), and giving it to the cards which are easier to come by, and therefore in less need of the protection you're giving to them in the first place.If this long-term insurance only applied to a handful of cards, it would be meaningless in all practical terms. It must apply to a wide variety of cards in order for there to be true security for people starting to play the game.
Last edited by Nightmare; 06-21-2007 at 01:28 PM. Reason: Missed a tag
People stay away from Legacy for one reason and one reason only: They don't want to deal with cheesy shit and would rather complain about it than change their decks from casual Legacy decks to either ones packing adequate disruption cards or the contenders themselves.
Maximizing attendance is not the same thing as maximizing competition. This is a HUGE mistaken assumption you're making.It would be 'ridiculous' to say that card value isn't a barrier to maximizing the competitive gaming environment.
You are confusing aesthetic/play value with monetary value. They are two very, very different things.People do irrationally overvalue their cards, and yet they also want to play a game. But, they don't seek true gaming, just some degree of 'gaming' without eliminating their irrational overvaluing of their cards.
Finally, you are wrong to assume that price barriers automatically lower the level of play. Attaching a cost to play actually increases the level of competition, as long as the cost isn't [i]too[i/] high. Firstly, it makes sure that only the people who are serious about the game are playing in tournaments, weeding out the people who only want to toss some cards around. People don't take a game seriously when they have nothing on the line. Secondly, because some people have to do without certain cards, it can force people to use their creativity more and invent workarounds.
This is completely false. First off, sanctioning gives a host of benefits to a tournament, which you did not address at all. Rating is just a side benefit. To the extent that Vintage has successful unsanctioned tournaments, it is because they take great pains to replicate as best as possible those benefits that sanctioning brings.If people are truly concerned with gaming, and not card value or any other superfluous issues, then they won't care about 'sanctioned' tourneys or not. Look at Vintage. Those people play games, regardless of rating. It is obvious that, in this respect, they play magic to play magic, not for rating.
Second, by your logic, there should be a spate of infinite-proxy vintage events. Yet there are almost none. The standard for proxy tournaments is nine proxies, because most decks have about nine cards which push the "price barrier" past the limit I referenced above. A nine-proxy Vintage deck costs about the same as a Legacy deck.
In my experience, they also do it because they don't own the cards for it. And it is not simply price barrier; it is usually the case that they COULD afford to play, but they would have to give up Standard or Extended to do so, and are not willing to.
In my experience, what it takes to be a Legacy player is not so much willingness to pay a high monetary cost (no format is cheap), but rather a desire to play with cards that other formats won't let you use. Legacy is relatively unpopular - you have to WANT to play it, it's never just playing what everyone else is playing.
First, the fact that you use the word “metagame” to mean something at all implies there is a point of reference that explains the perfect function and form of a “metagame” in a universal sense (that goes for all instances that “metagame” can be attributed). You can’t escape the possibility of the ideal X of something as a reference; it is a logical requirement of language. The article gave a solid definition of the universal metagame; it is simply up to us to understand how MTG/Legacy attempts to mimic that form. Clearly, MTG and Legacy do not mimic it perfectly, and insofar as it doesn’t, it is not a pure game, nor does it possess a pure, evolving metagame. Certainly the perfect and pure game just might be impractical, but it is the ideal that existing games attempt to mimic.That link does nothing to describe the ideal metagame, nor could it, as there is no such thing.
The reality is that MTG as an activity (and Legacy as a sub-game type) doesn’t conform to the ideal, pure game. This doesn’t mean that we can say, “it has nothing to do with the universal form of gaming or metagame”. The imperfect attempt to mimic the universal form of gaming prevents us from calling MTG/Legacy a perfect game with a perfectly fair, healthy, and fully evolving metagame.
Without a doubt. People participate in the activity called “Magic the Gathering” for different reasons (hopefully their own---darn those blasted robots and flocking individualists!). The point I’m making is that only some of those people participate in MTG (or Legacy for that matter) for the sake of pure gaming (seeking the deckbuilder’s paradise), and also that many people who think they seek pure gaming often don’t actually seek pure gaming (they just don’t realize it). What I have previously described points towards a community that participates in MTG and Legacy, some for pure gaming, some for card-value, a lot in between, and others for miscellaneous reasons. In the end, the vast majority of people who call themselves “competitive Legacy players” fall into the spectrum I’ve presented.Each person plays this game (moreso than many similar games) for their own reasons.
Ah, so that is the point. You do not participate in Legacy to game in the absolute sense of the term, clearly you wish for Legacy to be defined as something other than pure competitive gaming. You have justified that you aren’t purely gaming, and you have essentially explained that you prefer a metagame that doesn’t test skill in every sense of the term, and nothing else. I find nothing wrong with that, it is completely up to you what you pursue.Personally, I get little satisfaction out of the deckbuilding aspect of the game, outside my personal metagame tweaks and tuning. Perhaps I am in the minority. That perspective means I have a different view of the ideal metagame than you, an advocate of deckbuilder's paradise. You look for a wide open meta where literally any reasonably well constructed deck is viable. I, as a player more focused on tournament results than deck development, look for a more predictable environment, where my tuning and accurate predictions of the metagame can garner me an advantage in readiness.
I have no problem with your desires in this respect. Honestly, if you participate in Legacy for other reasons than pure gaming, that is your choice. However, this does not mean that you can say that a.) the current MTG/Legacy environment is pure gaming and b.) you currently are gaming in a fair and evolving metagame when you participate in Legacy. You can certainly say that you participate in Legacy to do as you have explained. And, if the majority of Legacy players hope to do as you explain, then great!—this is the choice of the market, and how the market chooses to define itself on that spectrum is what the meaning and purpose of Legacy will be.
I will reiterate once again (because I think you have not understood exactly what I am advocating/explaining), I’m not necessarily advocating that Legacy should conform to form of gaming (or, atleast, I did not mean to do so). What I am saying is that we need to call what we are doing what it is….not entirely pure gaming in a fair and evolving metagame. If that is what people want, then fine, our work is done. However, if people want to reach the ideal pure game, then obviously there is work to be done. My explanation is not meant to promote a direction I believe Legacy or MTG should or should not go (not that I don’t have a preference). My original explanation was to explain how to understand and achieve the aims of SpatulaOfTheAges, who appeared to seek to challenge the status quo, wishing for the meaning and purpose of Legacy to better conform to the form of gaming with a fair and evolving metagame. Since that post, I’ve been explaining why Legacy is what it is, and the reason it currently isn’t a pure game with a perfectly evolving metagame, why it is what is, and hopefully, how it is possible to change the meaning and purpose of Legacy if the market so chooses (educated markets make educated choices).
With respect, you have done a good job of explaining (even if you didn’t mean to) where I believe the majority of Legacy participants stand on the issue of the Purpose of Legacy. You describe something that isn’t pure gaming, and if Legacy participants seek such a thing, then good for them! I assume Legacy will continue on its path, one that remains on the spectrum I have described, and one that, to some degree, still attempts to mimic the form of gaming, even if imperfectly. For those who are not pleased, either seeking more or less gameness, (for example: those seeking a deckbuilder’s paradise), I described the mechanism of understanding the issue, and I hope at least a few could find it useful.
The mechanism I describe is not flawed. However, it is clear that people have very different preferences about the meaning and purpose of Legacy. Additionally, people don’t like to be told they aren’t purely gaming and that Legacy doesn’t possess a perfectly fair and evolving metagame. The pursuit of the status quo leads them to deny the mechanism, but without justification. Embrace the mechanism, just state that you don’t want pure gaming, it is that simple. In your case, you prefer Legacy to be defined as somewhere more in the middle of that spectrum, in my case, I prefer something closer to pure gaming. I’m not saying either of our preferences are incorrect, I’m simply showing how we can understand those preferences.
peace,
4eak
I disagree, but that's already been established. The concept of "ideal" is subjective, and what constitutes your ideal metagame can be, and is, very different from my own interpretation of the ideal metagame. I accept the quoted part of my post was misleading, it probably should have said, "nor could it, as there are so many interpretations of what it is, that coming to a concensus on a single perfect metagame is improbable enough to make it an unrealistic expectation."
If, by its intrinsic nature, can't conform to the concept of the "perfect game," why destabalize the existing structure of the game in order to force it to try?The reality is that MTG as an activity (and Legacy as a sub-game type) doesn’t conform to the ideal, pure game. This doesn’t mean that we can say, “it has nothing to do with the universal form of gaming or metagame”. The imperfect attempt to mimic the universal form of gaming prevents us from calling MTG/Legacy a perfect game with a perfectly fair, healthy, and fully evolving metagame.
I'm hoping you're just lightening the discussion, and didn't miss my point. Let's assume that's the case.Without a doubt. People participate in the activity called “Magic the Gathering” for different reasons (hopefully their own---darn those blasted robots and flocking individualists!).
This is also my point. Furthermore, the portion of the people who are striving for pure gaming are such a minority that it would cause WotC more harm than good to cater to those players, as it would fundamentally alter the structure of the game, and it's the game as it exists today (well, up to this point, anyway) that drew the players here to begin with.The point I’m making is that only some of those people participate in MTG (or Legacy for that matter) for the sake of pure gaming (seeking the deckbuilder’s paradise), and also that many people who think they seek pure gaming often don’t actually seek pure gaming (they just don’t realize it).
Perhaps it's the nomenclaiture that's the problem. You refer to the manner in which I play the game as "other than pure," which implies it is somehow incorrect or impure. Obviously, I have to take offense to that. To further state that the way I play the game isn't a test of skill (or rather, not every skill and only skill) further exasorbates the offense. Tell me, if not skill, then what am I testing?Ah, so that is the point. You do not participate in Legacy to game in the absolute sense of the term, clearly you wish for Legacy to be defined as something other than pure competitive gaming. You have justified that you aren’t purely gaming, and you have essentially explained that you prefer a metagame that doesn’t test skill in every sense of the term, and nothing else. I find nothing wrong with that, it is completely up to you what you pursue.
Not only am I not going to say Legacy is pure gaming, I'll say again that I don't believe it should be! It changes the fundamental dynamics of the tournament level experience in a manner that is unsuitable for those hoping to gain advantage from format knowledge and preparation. In your concept of the ideal metagame, every round would be a complete crapshoot on what deck I would play against, and I would literally have to prepare for every possible contingency (without access to any cards which give me a significant edge) to hope to compete. That holds no attraction for me.However, this does not mean that you can say that a.) the current MTG/Legacy environment is pure gaming and b.) you currently are gaming in a fair and evolving metagame when you participate in Legacy.
Additionally, I absolutely can say with belief and conviction that I am participating in a fair and evolving metagame when I participate in Legacy. Only someone unfamiliar with the workings of the format could disagree. Perhaps the evolution doesn't come as fast as you would like, or isn't as radical as you would like, but it's anything but stagnant.
However, meaning to do so or not (lots of "o's" in that fragment), that's exactly the position you've placed yourself in. For example:I will reiterate once again (because I think you have not understood exactly what I am advocating/explaining), I’m not necessarily advocating that Legacy should conform to form of gaming (or, atleast, I did not mean to do so).
Again it comes back to tone. Based on this quote, you state that what we are playing in is not ideal, and that there is a "more perfect" way to play, which implies that you would like to play in such a "perfect" environment, which makes you an advocate of said environment.What I am saying is that we need to call what we are doing what it is….not entirely pure gaming in a fair and evolving metagame. If that is what people want, then fine, our work is done. However, if people want to reach the ideal pure game, then obviously there is work to be done.
The educated choice is not necessarily your choice. Don't imply that if the market choses not to conform to your concept of the ideal game that it is somehow because we are uneducated of our alternatives. Even with the knowledge of this alternative you present, I still chose the way we play today.Since that post, I’ve been explaining why Legacy is what it is, and the reason it currently isn’t a pure game with a perfectly evolving metagame, why it is what is, and hopefully, how it is possible to change the meaning and purpose of Legacy if the market so chooses (educated markets make educated choices).
I assure you, I meant to.With respect, you have done a good job of explaining (even if you didn’t mean to) where I believe the majority of Legacy participants stand on the issue of the Purpose of Legacy.
People don’t like to be told they aren’t purely gaming and that Legacy doesn’t possess a perfectly fair and evolving metagame... just state that you don’t want pure gaming, it is that simple... I prefer something closer to pure gaming.Just that yours is more correct.I’m not saying either of our preferences are incorrect,
Ideal is not subjective. Ideal is not relative. This is the reason we have reference in language. While we can both say that the other doesn't know the ideal, you still have to assume the ideal exists in a static absolute, else what is the point of talking? (There is no point to talking if A is not absolute A).The concept of "ideal" is subjective, and what constitutes your ideal metagame can be, and is, very different from my own interpretation of the ideal metagame.
Additionally, "Ideal" has only referred to a point on the spectrum. If a game is "ideal", then it is a pure game. This is very different from whether an activity is "ideal" my friend. If an activity is "ideal" then it is purely that activity. Legacy is certainly purely Legacy, and you believe it is "ideal" where it is right now. However, this does not say anything in the way of whether or not it is the "ideal" game (pure game).
I didn't say we should destabilize the existing structure of the game, but I did I say it was possible to change it on the spectrum. I also said for those who wanted to change the purpose of Legacy, they should go for it. You obviously don't want it...so? Does that give you the right to deny the desires of others to change Legacy to something different? Honestly, I look at it as a market choice...I'm saying this is how it occurs, I'm not saying what should occur.If, by its intrinsic nature, can't conform to the concept of the "perfect game," why destabalize the existing structure of the game in order to force it to try?...the portion of the people who are striving for pure gaming are such a minority that it would cause WotC more harm than good to cater to those players, as it would fundamentally alter the structure of the game, and it's the game as it exists today (well, up to this point, anyway) that drew the players here to begin with.
Yeah, I was just kidding around (all in good fun). I hope the rest of the post showed I didn't miss your point.I'm hoping you're just lightening the discussion, and didn't miss my point. Let's assume that's the case.
You keep missing the point. There is a difference between calling something what it is (defining it), and advocating what it should be. You think I'm just advocating that Legacy should move towards the form of gaming. You base this upon my use of the word pure...so i'll define pure for you.Perhaps it's the nomenclaiture that's the problem. You refer to the manner in which I play the game as "other than pure," which implies it is somehow incorrect or impure. Obviously, I have to take offense to that
I look at Orange, I say, that is neither pure red nor pure yellow. Orange is defined as being in the middle of that spectrum. Move your hue-marker on the spectrum in one direction or the other and that point's purity of either red or yellow will increase while the other decreases. Take pure in the sense of a color spectrum, not pure to mean "sinners and saints".
I definitely mean you don't advocate "pure" gaming as well.
Without a doubt, and I've explicity stated it several times, MTG and Legacy do attempt to conform with the form of gaming. Yes, the activity we call Legacy really is very, very close to pure gaming. It, however, is not pure gaming, nor does it have a pure evolving metagame. Your preference and this fact are very different.Not only am I not going to say Legacy is pure gaming, I'll say again that I don't believe it should be! It changes the fundamental dynamics of the tournament level experience in a manner that is unsuitable for those hoping to gain advantage from format knowledge and preparation. In your concept of the ideal metagame, every round would be a complete crapshoot on what deck I would play against, and I would literally have to prepare for every possible contingency (without access to any cards which give me a significant edge) to hope to compete. That holds no attraction for me.
While pure gaming "holds no attraction for [you]", it does for others.
I apologize if I've somehow made you think that I don't consider Legacy to have some evolution in its metagame. The point is that it isn't a perfectly evolving metagame--which you have over and over stated you don't want...which is fine. However, as you have already stated, Legacy isn't about pure gaming, and if this is the case, then by definition, Legacy does not have a perfectly fair and truly pure evolving metagame. Certainly it evolves at the rate and degree that attacts you, but this is very different.Additionally, I absolutely can say with belief and conviction that I am participating in a fair and evolving metagame when I participate in Legacy. Only someone unfamiliar with the workings of the format could disagree. Perhaps the evolution doesn't come as fast as you would like, or isn't as radical as you would like, but it's anything but stagnant.
Refer to the Red-Yellow Spectrum where Legacy is Orange. I'm considering how close Orange is to either 'pure and perfect' Red or 'pure and perfect' Yellow.Again it comes back to tone. Based on this quote, you state that what we are playing in is not ideal, and that there is a "more perfect" way to play, which implies that you would like to play in such a "perfect" environment, which makes you an advocate of said environment.
You still miss the point. Education has everything to do with understanding the mechanism and where you are on that spectrum of preference. So, when you become better educated about where you are on that spectrum, you are in a better position to demand exactly what you want.The educated choice is not necessarily your choice. Don't imply that if the market choses not to conform to your concept of the ideal game that it is somehow because we are uneducated of our alternatives. Even with the knowledge of this alternative you present, I still chose the way we play today.
Lol. It is true, I am correct about the definitions presented. However, you keep putting words in my mouth, reading into my tone instead of my content, when you think I'm saying that "my preference for Legacy is the 'more correct' preference to have". I have explicitly stated this isn't the case. What I saying is this: My understanding of what Legacy currently means (its purpose) is more correct than yours. Knowing what Legacy is (by definition) and knowing where it ought to be are strictly different things--do no confuse these please.Just that yours is more correct.
I'm saying I know where Legacy is (orange), and I understand the red to yellow spectrum, and that I'm advocating such a spectrum is the reality of the situation. This does not mean I am advocating any place for Legacy on that spectrum. The only times I advocate a place on a spectrum is when I see an iteration of desires for MTG/Legacy (Spatula or you for example) where I can explain how your desires fit on the spectrum.
I'm not here to argue about where it should be, first I'm here to argue how we can even speak about where it should be....Once that is accomplished, then we are in a better position to make "educated" judgements.
The preferences for Legacy are strictly different than the system used to explain them. I'm explaining the system, and how your preference works in that system (even if I don't prefer the same thing as you in that system). This is the market at work. You hate it or love it, but you are a part of it. If Legacy changes, then of course, your preference will be "destroyed" as you put it. Such is the way of the market.
The system works. Don't throw the system away because you misread my tone or because you don't like how the system reveals the possibility of the market changing and implications of it.
And, finally, I apologize if you take the discussion as a personal attack. I was trying to speak about the argument at hand. I mean no personal offense to you.
peace,
4eak
This is possibly the most helpful description you've posted. It makes more sense in an unbiased way under this depiction. The question that begs asking, though, is: If pure gaming is yellow, what's red?
Also, you didn't answer what was a non-rhetorical question:
if not skill, then what am I testing?I agree. That isn't what you stated, though. It doesn't matter, we're debating semantics on this point.Legacy isn't about pure gaming, and if this is the case, then by definition, Legacy does not have a perfectly fair and truly pure evolving metagame. Certainly it evolves at the rate and degree that attacts you, but this is very different.
Again, with this new Y---R analogy, I can better see your position.You still miss the point. Education has everything to do with understanding the mechanism and where you are on that spectrum of preference. So, when you become better educated about where you are on that spectrum, you are in a better position to demand exactly what you want.
I think we both have a firm grasp on what Legacy currently means, although your assessment looks at it in relation to where it can potentially be on the spectrum, while mine is focused on where it is now. Subtly, but importantly different.My understand of what Legacy currently means is more correct than yours. Knowing what Legacy is (by definition) and knowing where is ought to be are strictly different things--do no confuse these please.
4eak,
I'm not sure "social contract" means what you think it means, particularly with regard to economics.
When in doubt, mumble.
When in trouble, delegate.
I will get to your post on Monday (I hope you don't mind the wait). Weekend-Junk will keep me too busy to answer your questions and reply to your comments with the proper responses they deserve.
Until that time, I suggest you re-read what I has been written and also that article as well (I know I'll be doing the same come Monday). Now that we've had some time to "flesh-out" the discussion further, and we seem to be speaking the same language a little more, I think we may be in a better position to consider the article and the posts we've made.
I believe the answers to your questions (or at least the premises to make such conclusions) have already been written, and that is why I ask you to go over those posts once again. Don't think I didn't purposefully skip certain comments and questions--I skipped them because I felt they would not be fruitful to the discussion at the time. It isn't that I don't have the answer, it is usually that someone isn't ready for that answer until I've defended something more germane to the argument (arguments are like building blocks, you definitely need the foundation before you can understand the conclusion). And, if you still can't think of the answer, I'll be back to show it on Monday. I suppose it would have been better if my first post were an elaborate article on the subject; however, for some reason I answered more whimsically, and obviously it has required me to draw the argument out in an inefficient (yet still productive, thankfully) manner.
Cheers.
peace,
4eak
P.S. Please excuse my personality. I always sound arrogant, that doesn't make my arguments wrong though...it might mean I am an a-hole, and I'm willing to accept that. Usually my comments are still worth having around, regardless of the tone extracted from the contents of my writing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote