Playing a single deck or keeping up with tech?

[apistat_commander]

Something I have been turning over frequently in my mind is the issue of sticking with a single deck. Legacy is unique in that there is a huge variety of viable strategies and very few decks ever truly die. Most decks, even Burn, can't be played to their full potential without a good deal of experience. Once you get into more complex decks the skill cap and power level of a deck can increase dramatically. The line of thinking from the "Magic Pros" is that you try to play the best deck for each tournament. While this approach might work if you are chasing SCG Opens from week to week, most of us are typically playing in a slowly rotating local metagame with the occasional large tournament.

Given this state of circumstances do you think it is better to master one deck/archetype or to adapt to the meta and adopt new tech as it comes out? Also do you think that your base skill level and experience with the format influences this (i.e. it is better for newer players to stick to one deck while more experienced players can easily switch)?

[Arianrhod]

I firmly adhere to the one-deck-and-stick-with-it theory. That said, I have the collection and the experience that when I feel like doing something different, I can, and I can usually get away with it....to a point. If you notice, by the by, most of the "pros" that hop decks from event to event stay within certain parameters. Soorani, for a very good and obvious example, always plays control, and almost never deviates from that ethic. Now, what breed of control he's playing might well change from event to event, but he's always in that general sphere somewhere. Conley plays mostly ramp decks of some variety or other. Kibler loves G/x aggro. And so on.

Since we're legacy players, though, as you noted, the extreme difficulty of the format as a whole and the challenging nature of its protean landscape resists the idea of changing decks often, even within the same ur-type. I've been playing Nic Fit for the past year and a half, and I've achieved a ton of success with the deck -- only, in my opinion, because I stuck with it for this long. I still wouldn't say that I've mastered everything that the deck is capable of, but I would say that I'm probably better with it than most, because of the amount of time that I've spent with it. Note that Nic Fit is an exceptionally hard deck to play in the first place, but, IMO, the point still stands.

Adopting and adapting to new tech is a constant process, IMO, and isn't really related to playing the same deck. The two usually don't overlap. I played Dreadstill a lot before Nic Fit, until Misstep was printed. "Adapting" to the new tech in that case basically meant, "find another deck." In order to survive as a pilot, you need to adopt and adapt every time the meta shifts or a new set comes out. Nic Fit is a hundred times better now that it has Sigarda and Thragtusk. That doesn't mean that I changed decks, or archetypes, or ur-types, or anything -- but, those two cards by themselves did fundamentally change how I played the deck and what my most common lines of play are.

This doesn't even get into the REALLY complex shit like Storm decks that you can only become a true terror with once you've played them for years. Most legacy players, IMO, have the skill and the card pool that they can pick up whatever they want and do passing well with it. Most pros can do the same. However, the longer you spend with one deck, the better you're going to do against the field, because, luck barring, the master should always defeat the acolyte.

[Cthuloo]

Let's try an overly simplificated approach, just because.

From a very basic standpoint you can model the overall player+deck strength as S=maximum_deck_strength*personal_proficiency (the latter going between 0-100%). The question you have to ask is how to maximize S. The "switchers" rouglhy follow the guidelines of the Pareto principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle): playtesting for a relatively short period of time they capitalize on the deck strength while still achieving most of the maximum possible proficiency.

After this point you should expect diminishing return to kick in: every extra hour of testing you put in will get you less and less proficiency gain, until you reach (asymptotically) perfection. So, pulling some numbers out of thin air, you may have the "switchers" playing with an 80% proficiency and the "stickers" playing with roughly 100%. It looks like you should prefer to switch if the new deck has a maximum strength at least 25% bigger than the old one and stick otherwise. This may very well be the case e.g. for Bryant Cook and TES: while non always the best deck out there, storm still manages to keep a resonable strength level constantly in time. If today TES maximum strength is 0.9 and e.g. RUG strength is 1, Bryant should still be able to prevail on a moderately unexperienced player. On the other hand, you have decks like Dragon Stompy or Spanish Inquisition that, while having a group of very loyal players using them possibly at full potential, lack the raw power to compete in general with the field.


Edit: ... and just becaus I have nothing useful to do right now, here's a graph of S (maximum_deck_strength*personal_proficiency) versus time necessary to achieve such proficency under the hipothesis that it follows a Pareto distribution with alpha=1 (for 3 values of maximum deck strength).

http://oi50.tinypic.com/2rgdngp.jpg

Looking at the number it's interesting to note that:

- for t>5 the red S is greater than the maximum possible black S
- for t>9 the blue S is greater than the maximum possible black S
- for t>10 the red S is greater than the maximum possible blue S

The lesson is: even small gaps in deck strength can require a huge amount of time to be overcome by experience with the deck.

[Richard Cheese]

I have a bad habit of playing different decks every few weeks. It's not that I'm trying to metagame real hard or anything, I usually just get bored of something. I keep saying I need to find something and stick with it for a few months to prepare for large events, but I'm not good at predicting the meta for those kinds of things, so I end up making a last-minute decision.

[TheUnthinkableGlimpsed]

This doesn't even get into the REALLY complex shit like Storm decks that you can only become a true terror with once you've played them for years. .

God, I hope so. I started playing ANT a few months ago and I'm still getting wrecked at every tournament.

[Jenni]

I think whichever suits you more is fine, really.

For me personally, I get bored of the same deck after a while, and switch. I usually I have 2-3 decks I've got prepared so I can switch between them on a whim. When I get bored of a deck I tend to go on autopilot and make really stupid mistakes (missed triggers, forget to activate a planeswalker, once I even broke my own standstill!).
I tend to stick to decks that suit my playstyle though, so I suppose in some sense, all of my "different" decks are fairly close to the same in terms of the skill set required to play them.

Lately I've been branching out a bit more, though, I think I'm going to try out Manaless Dredge sometime in the near future since it's cheap and I've never given dredge much of a chance before. Or maybe just No-LED dredge (I'm not investing in LEDs right now, just not worth it to me, since I am not dedicated enough to combo for them.)

For people who can dedicate all their time to mastering just one deck, though, then it's easier for them to play their deck as close to perfectly as is possible, and playing well can often overcome poor matchups or making a bad metagame call a good amount of the time.

[Anen]

I am playing the same deck in tournaments for more than a year, and I am always making misplays time to time. So I am not even close to drop it, unless a huge metagame change happens.

However, I am playing a huge variety of deck online. In order to understand my opponents' game plan during real life tournament, it is very helpfull to have the basics of playing with each decks. I can load within a click maybe 20 different archetypes. Recently, a guy I was giving advice (he draw instead of winning g3) told me something like "you sound to be playing Goblins very well". Well in fact no. I don't even own a single card from a Goblin deck, I just learned to play with it online. I am not saying I am a master playing each decks, I just have the basics.

In order to be efficient, you have to know your deck and your opponent's deck. Know your deck, know your matchups and your opponent's out to certain situations will certainly improve your experience.

[aahz]

Even if one does not play with many different decks in tournaments, it's still important to play them in testing. This makes it much easier to figure out what your opponents are likely to have in hand, what to play around, etc. I've had plenty of matches where I knew my opponents deck better than he did (even though I don't ever play it outside of testing) and could just dominate as a result. Being really comfortable with your own deck may be more important, but at some point you need to be familiar with the other decks/strategies in the format to really excel consistently. Playing many different decks helps with this considerably.

Unless, of course, you are playing Belcher or Spanish Inquisition. Then you might as well get liquored up and enjoy the ride (I need to get a T-shirt that says "Show me the Force" for such occasions).

[Koby]

Even if one does not play with many different decks in tournaments, it's still important to play them in testing. This makes it much easier to figure out what your opponents are likely to have in hand, what to play around, etc. I've had plenty of matches where I knew my opponents deck better than he did (even though I don't ever play it outside of testing) and could just dominate as a result. Being really comfortable with your own deck may be more important, but at some point you need to be familiar with the other decks/strategies in the format to really excel consistently. Playing many different decks helps with this considerably.


This. This. This.
Knowing the decks and how they progress through their lines of play are just as important as knowing your own deck.

[TheArchitect]

Unless, of course, you are playing Belcher or Spanish Inquisition. Then you might as well get liquored up and enjoy the ride (I need to get a T-shirt that says "Show me the Force" for such occasions).

QFTW!



What I follow, and what I advise friends to do when they are wondering what deck to play, is to play what you're best with (could also apply to a more general archtype that you know well, storm, Ux tempo, GWx, etc.). If you see RUGs been doing will and pick up a copy of the latest RUG list that won the last SSG open, chances are there is someone else in the room playing RUG that is better at the deck than you, and/or have made their 75 slightly more tuned than yours. They will do better than you in their all matches and in the mirror they should win as well. Now, unless you're really good at RUG, and honestly think your the best RUG player in the room, you should just play a deck that you know you are good with.

Now if you are like a pro and magic is your life you probably will get to know how to play many decks really really well, and then you should obviously play whichever one you think will do the best. Chances are, you are actually the best pilot in the room.


This. This. This.
Knowing the decks and how they progress through their lines of play are just as important as knowing your own deck.
I agree with this too. Ideally youd know all other decks just as well as yours, but thats just not going to happen. Be the best with your deck, and know the other decks as well as time permits.

[Megadeus]

I have only played against Nic Fit a few times since I switched decks, but since I played it for a decent amount of time I knew how to beat it and I have only lost to it once. And when I did play it, in the mirror against people who switch around a lot I have been able to beat them.

[Richard Cheese]

This. This. This.
Knowing the decks and how they progress through their lines of play are just as important as knowing your own deck.

Thirded (fourthed?). Local games in Cockatrice have been a godsend. It's also a great way to progress into a new deck that you want to learn. Grind a bunch of games against it with something you're good at and you'll get a feel for it a lot quicker.

[.dk]

Thirded (fourthed?). Local games in Cockatrice have been a godsend. It's also a great way to progress into a new deck that you want to learn. Grind a bunch of games against it with something you're good at and you'll get a feel for it a lot quicker.

i sure wish there was a better solution than that. playing against myself in cockatrice with perfect information is abysmal. try as i might to not "know" what the other deck has, it's next to impossible to actually get real games in. it will give you a feel for the deck - but one can only do that for so long. or maybe it's just me... i like switching up decks with testing partners and and just playing against each other. but of course, then you need to have them proxied out or built or something.

basically there is no good solution for this. :(

[xfxf]

I've been trying to settle down on a single deck for the past 18 months but by the time I get comfortable with a deck, metagame shifts and my deck gets pushed a little out of the format. All this time I tried goldfishing and playing me vs me games on Tappedout to experience different decks and get a feel to what I might like best, or what would hold its ground throughout metagame shifts in addition to my actual decks. I came to the conclusion that switching decks every so often leaves you unsatisfied with everything and whatever you pick, it will always be weak to something during your time with the deck. I think if you can find your deck try to stick with it and fight through metagame shifts because I believe it gives you the most satisfaction and attachment to the game you are playing.

When I was entering in the format I tried to use my resources carefully to have enough options to be flexible in my deck choices and have the ability to switch over to similar decks with minimal entry costs. Currently I can build all sorts of RUG, BUG, UR, UB tempo decks with minimal additions but I'm seeing that they are all almost the same thing with a different set of pros/cons, all metagame dependent. I don't see a point in just sticking to a UB tempo build when the meta calls for RUG or vice versa. So I decided to settle down on a different pair of decks with a little more emphasized character and not as meta dependent good stuff decks for this year. I'm hoping, settling down on a pair of different decks for a longer period will be more fun and rewarding while also providing some level of flexibility.

[Chikenbok]

Just sticking with Doomsday.... for the last 2-3 years and into the foreseeable future.

I play BUG control/landstill casually but its never been a real exciting deck for me.

[Vacrix]

I'd say keeping up with the metagame is much harder if you limit yourself to 'decks' rather than 'format staples'. Cards like Swords to Plowshares, Force of Will, Lightning Bolt, Brainstorm, Dual lands, fetchlands, etc. have yet to be replaced by power creep and have therefore stood the test of time. So if you're building a deck like RUG which is more a collection of staples than a deck, it will probably be good for a while and when it dies, you can use those staples to build something else.

Then again, you can look at staple strategies of the format as well that will always be relatively viable, though perhaps not always tier 1 decks. I'd say those are UBx Storm, Goblins, RUG, Lands, Enchantress, Burn, Belcher, and Dredge. These 8 decks are basically Legacy if you want to condense it into a very, very small nut shell. Besides RUG, these are system decks that can play slight variations to adapt to the metagame. Because the system is powerful, the deck can't really die out. Each system has its own niche in the metagame to the point where the format staples that come out aren't really as relevant unless the staples printed are good enough to hate out the system. For example, look at all the storm hate thats been printed in the past few years. Flusterstorm, Snapcaster, Spell Pierce, Thalia, and others. And yet the deck hasn't keeled over. Even Goblins, which fell out of the metagame's favor for a time was still like a Tier 1.5 deck when Zoo was hailed as the aggro deck of choice. RUG/Threshold/Canadian Threshold most of all has stood the test of time probably in the DTB for longer than most other decks to my knowledge. Lands hasn't really been in DTB for an absurd amount of time but its still going to be a great deck against aggro. Enchantress isn't going anywhere either and it keeps getting new little variations every so often to make it better in the current metagame. The blue variation with Words of Wind in particular is pretty fucking amazing. Belcher will always be there for when you've taught your 7 year old brother basically how to play and count his age on his fingers.. while Burn is always there for people who know how to play '40 spells that costs R deal 3 damage'.dec. Dredge... oh god Dredge. The format doesn't have a love/hate relationship like it does with Dredge. Sometimes its the best deck in the format... and sometimes everyone and their mom has half a board for it.


Honestly, I'm about ready to add Maverick to that list though. I think its an archetype thats here to stay. UW Miracles, Stoneblade, etc. are fringe decks based on emerging powercreep and as powercreep gets better, these decks will change with the time just like Landstill adapted into Miracles and Blade Control. In a few years, we'll have completely different slow-roll-control decks.


Then again... if you play something like Tempo, slow-roll-control, midrange, stax, etc.. you are forced to keep up with the times and buy shit tons of new cards or just play a different deck because these decks are basically just a bunch of staples thrown together to create a synergistic strategy rather than a system strategy. When powercreep rolls around the corner, you're forced to play the better staples along side the undying staples like STP, Force, and Brainstorm. When you play a deck like this, you're automatically going to be spending more money. Granted, if you're willing to spend more money.. format staples like Goyf that get outclassed in certain archetypes by new staples like Ooze can still be played but you might have to buy some other shit to actually play Goyf optimally.

[Oiolosse]

I like to have several archetypes built for options. Elves is my go to combo deck and TES needs two more LEDs! UW Miracles as my go to control deck with BG //BGw Pox in the brew. Well, I guess I don't really play aggro. I could build Goblins easily but I'd rather just play Elves which has an aggro component.

[Richard Cheese]

i sure wish there was a better solution than that. playing against myself in cockatrice with perfect information is abysmal. try as i might to not "know" what the other deck has, it's next to impossible to actually get real games in. it will give you a feel for the deck - but one can only do that for so long. or maybe it's just me... i like switching up decks with testing partners and and just playing against each other. but of course, then you need to have them proxied out or built or something.

basically there is no good solution for this. :(

I actually like having perfect information on both sides. It makes me recognize better lines of play a lot faster. I'll try to look at the board state and think what I would honestly do, then play it out a few different ways to see what puts me in the best position. Also makes me feel a lot more familiar with different lists than just reading them for some reason.

What I REALLY hate is getting interested in something in N&D or Established, thinking it's well-positioned, practicing with it a bit, then right when I feel like taking it to a big event, it takes like 3 spots in a StarCity Top 8. Stupid good players!

[kwis]

I personally think that the best way to approach a local meta is to have two decks with very different attack angles sleeved up in the same kind of sleeves such that you always have the ability to be bluffing or double bluffing the opponent across the table who you probably know.

It has worked especially well for me since one of the decks I enjoy playing is Manaless Dredge and sometimes people will put me on the play when I'm using an entirely different deck like RUG delver.

[r3dd09]

I personally think that the best way to approach a local meta is to have two decks with very different attack angles sleeved up in the same kind of sleeves such that you always have the ability to be bluffing or double bluffing the opponent across the table who you probably know.

It has worked especially well for me since one of the decks I enjoy playing is Manaless Dredge and sometimes people will put me on the play when I'm using an entirely different deck like RUG delver.

I was kind of doing the same thing but with 3 different decks. But when in doubt, I go with the deck that I'm most comfortable with.

[bruizar]

always sling artifacts. If they come prepared, play artifacts with welding jars obv

[Amon Amarth]

I just stick with one deck and then adjust as needed. For me that deck has been Goblins which requires very little change in regards to cards printed but often requires a change in tactics depending on what decks are in vogue at the time.

[zeagle]

I secomd the notion of having two decks with different attack angles. Having only one deck leaves you vulnerable to being hated out. Some decks are more susceptible to being hated out of a meta than others. For example, if you show up with burn, dredge, or storm week after week people will show up with the relevant hate cards and ruin your day.

[bruizar]

I actually play every deck. You don't really understand the weaknesses of a deck until you play with it.

[Dark Ritual]

I usually just play storm combo. Thinking about the BUG train right now with deathrite shaman and abrupt decay for GP Denver, although I'm unsure as of yet. Storm combo is almost always good in the hands of a good pilot except when misstep was legal. I don't have the most experience with control though so I'm hesitant.

Overall though I generally stay with one deck for a while with minor tweaks to it here and there unless I think I have the optimal list. Even then I usually agonize over slots though.

[Aggro_zombies]

There tends to be a single style of deck I play because it's intuitive for me to play those decks - stuff like Aggro Loam in this format. It helps to compensate for the fact that long tournaments tire me out very quickly.

However, there are very few decks in Legacy that are good for more than a year or two - combo decks that don't get nerfed (Storm, Dredge) and some intrinsically powerful decks like RUG tend to be the only things most people can play for years and still consistently place outside of regional metagames. I played Zoo for a while but I remember that only being good for a year or a year and a half after it became big before it fell off the radar again.

I'd say there isn't really a need to build the latest week-on-week tech unless you want to test for an upcoming tournament - the signal to noise ratio is pretty high when you're limiting your data to just Top X for large tournaments and you won't get a complete, or even good, picture of the early rounds. Multi-month trends are more important to keep up with for testing, especially new sets coming out since those are the main ways for the metagame to shift in the long term. If there's a certain style of deck - midrange, control, whatever - that you feel you can play consistently well on little practice, you might want to choose a deck in that category since the time to mastery will be lower.

[Iare]

A little of both is what I go with. I have the cards to play optimal Zoo, Big Zoo, Burn, Kitty Sligh (Steppe Lynx, Wild Nacatl and lots of burn) and various black based decks. For the most part I only take something black if I think aggro is going to be hated on.

So in the end I am only realling playing one archetype, but I have many different cards to switch it up to adapt to the metagame as needed. Sometimes it comes down to making your own tech if you want to take something that might not be the best choice, but its what you are comfortable with. For example, when counterbalance was everywhere, I ran big Zoo and boarded Siege of Towers as a finisher for them (And, landstill which was pretty popular around here at the time). Right now I can't seem to avoid tons of black control/aggro control, so I am testing kitty sligh with Grim Lavamancers and Vexing Devils with Proclimation of Rebirth in the sideboard.

So in short, if you are going to play one deck, make one that is easily adaptable to any situation. Keeping up with tech will be minimal, since you only need to pickup a few cards here and there to add to the pool to select your current decklist with.