Pros and the Internet [Archive]

Versus

10-26-2007, 08:05 AM

I dunno if this makes much sense, but that has never stopped me before, so...

I see articles and decklists on websites and forums and some of them make me scratch my head. It's one thing when these lists show up after winning tournaments. For one, there is no way to avoid that, but when I see so many strategies and deck lists that appear before a big event I have to wonder if that information is soild.

I guess what I'm saying is, if I'm a contender to bring home the big prize on my own merits and deck building, why would I share that information before the fact? I'm not a dick (okay maybe), if I were a better player/builder than the guy next to me I'd certainly help him with his deck, but I wouldn't give him mine.

I guess the question is, are these people on the level or are they simply giving misinformation and keeping the good stuff to themselves? I read some of these things after I build my own deck and start to second guess myself. I know I'm not good, but when I see things like Burrenton Forge-Tender (http://resources.wizards.com/Magic/Cards/LRW/EN/Card139395.jpg) MD'd in a non Kithkin deck I wonder am I really that bad?

ClearSkies

10-26-2007, 08:30 AM

You aren't supposed to be blindly copying people's list without knowing what they do. You are supposed to use your judgment to figure to out if a person's list is good or not. That is where all the discussion about different list among a deck type is usually based on.

Versus

10-26-2007, 08:36 AM

ClearSkies

10-26-2007, 12:24 PM

I don't, that's why I ask. However, if I see a Pro player discussing an Archetype I'm currently testing use something completely off the wall, I have to think to myself, does he know better?

I guess I don't have the confidence to back up my own ideas. I'm easily swayed when I see someone that honestly knows more than I and wonder if I should take that route or go with my gut.

I usually go with my gut then lose. I'd rather learn from my own mistakes. Still, I remain curious of their intentions.

You also have to consider that person may have a different metagame than you. In your example, that card is good against red. Maybe there is a big amount of red-based decks in that player's metagame for that player to MD it.

It does block Red-creatures and saves you from one lethal burn while having no cost to activate it. (Except Sacrificing it)

Bane of the Living

10-26-2007, 01:02 PM

If your talking about standard, and you seem to be. Never net a deck and bring it anywhere other than a FNM. No one posts what they're actually playing. Does Flores? Should you believe what he tells you to play is the right deck when he rips this Mishra/Epochrasite metagame shit out to qualify? You already know the answers to the question your asking.

Versus

10-26-2007, 02:30 PM

No one posts what they're actually playing

That's what I was looking for. I was talking Standard in my example, but it applies here. I noticed Pikula showed up in the Deadguy Ale thread, but the thread wasn't made by him obviously.

I never want to net deck, but I'm easily influenced away from my own choices by seeing those of people better at the game than I. It's kinda like avoiding spoilers for a upcoming movie you're dying to see. You try, but then you just take a peek and then it's too late.

troopatroop

10-26-2007, 04:19 PM

That's what I was looking for. I was talking Standard in my example, but it applies here. I noticed Pikula showed up in the Deadguy Ale thread, but the thread wasn't made by him obviously.

I never want to net deck, but I'm easily influenced away from my own choices by seeing those of people better at the game than I. It's kinda like avoiding spoilers for a upcoming movie you're dying to see. You try, but then you just take a peek and then it's too late.

You're missing the mark by a lot here. Would Thomas Edison tell everyone that he invented the lightbulb? Of course he would. People want everyone to know how smart they are, so they will obviously Champion their ideas here. Plus, posting your brilliance probably won't make your chances all that much less of winning, so why not?

etrigan

10-26-2007, 04:59 PM

You're missing the mark by a lot here. Would Thomas Edison tell everyone that he invented the lightbulb? Of course he would. People want everyone to know how smart they are, so they will obviously Champion their ideas here. Plus, posting your brilliance probably won't make your chances all that much less of winning, so why not?

I disagree. While Edison makes his money from royalties, pros get their money from purses. Edison wants his idea out there immediately, so he can start profiting. Pros want to wait until the last day, to maximize their chances of winning.

BotL is right. No one posts their best tech. The decks they post will often be something they've worked on and discarded (though not necessarily 'bad' decks, but something inferior to their best tech), or something that has been conjectured to be good in a given format (i.e. White Weenie in TSP block contstructed). I doubt that they will knowingly post awful decks, in the hopes of playing against them, but I could be wrong.

That said, these articles are far from useless. Take a hard look at their metagame analyses, and their metagame choices. In your example, Burrenton Forge-Tender is strong againsts sligh (which has a lot of tools right now), and can protect your Planeswalker for a turn.

troopatroop

10-27-2007, 12:48 AM

I disagree. While Edison makes his money from royalties, pros get their money from purses. Edison wants his idea out there immediately, so he can start profiting. Pros want to wait until the last day, to maximize their chances of winning.

BotL is right. No one posts their best tech. The decks they post will often be something they've worked on and discarded (though not necessarily 'bad' decks, but something inferior to their best tech), or something that has been conjectured to be good in a given format (i.e. White Weenie in TSP block contstructed). I doubt that they will knowingly post awful decks, in the hopes of playing against them, but I could be wrong.

That said, these articles are far from useless. Take a hard look at their metagame analyses, and their metagame choices. In your example, Burrenton Forge-Tender is strong againsts sligh (which has a lot of tools right now), and can protect your Planeswalker for a turn.

You wanna know what all the pros play? Type 2 and Limited. There is no tech in type 2 because the fucking card pool is tiny. Limited is so skill based that tech is just implied. There are no pros that "play" legacy, and all the best information in this format eventually leaks. Maybe it will make a big splash and then get revealed (Cephalid Breakfast), but post tournament decklists are always available.

So basically, you get one major win with tech before it gets exposed. Whoopadeedoo.

APriestOfGix

10-27-2007, 01:09 AM

also as good as a pro is, they can't beat 1,000 people.

They post what they actually play, for one simple reason. Hundreds of people (T2 and Extended) will look at the list, and try to make changes, the people make the deck perfect for them, and then they can go and make last minuet swaps on what they see other players playing that day.

Just look at Pre and Post tourny decks, they are almost identical

Shriekmaw

10-27-2007, 01:58 AM

You wanna know what all the pros play? Type 2 and Limited. There is no tech in type 2 because the fucking card pool is tiny. Limited is so skill based that tech is just implied. There are no pros that "play" legacy, and all the best information in this format eventually leaks. Maybe it will make a big splash and then get revealed (Cephalid Breakfast), but post tournament decklists are always available.

So basically, you get one major win with tech before it gets exposed. Whoopadeedoo.

The main reason why Pros play limited and type 2 is because those are the formats that Wizards mainly supports in terms of Pro Tours. Believe me if there was a Legacy Pro Tour Pros would show you why they are so good at this game and come up with some pretty unique and good Legacy decks.

I think type 2 is the most exciting format because every 3 months it changes with the release of a new set. Type 2 is the one format where you can become the most creative with new decks popping up all the time. It's refreshing to play a format where the best deck always is changing and is highly dependent on the metagame.

Versus

10-27-2007, 07:54 AM

Everyone makes good points. I guess it's a mixture of maybe saving that one BIG tech for the event in question, but otherwise being forthright. After all, it's more the pilot than the deck itself that wins games, right? Also as Troopa stated it could simply be for bragging rights. The first person to post it on the internet lays claim to it sort of thing.

Since Type 2 is coming up in the conversation I'll just post the list that has me in such confusion:

Creatures
4 Burrenton Forge-tender
4 Shriekmaw
4 Stonecloaker
4 Tarmogoyf

Enchantments
4 Oblivion Ring

Legendary Creatures
4 Doran, The Siege Tower
4 Gaddock Teeg

Planeswalkers
3 Garruk Wildspeaker

Sorceries
4 Thoughtseize

Basic Lands
1 Forest
2 Plains
2 Swamp

Lands
4 Brushland
4 Caves Of Koilos
4 Llanowar Wastes
4 Terramorphic Expanse
4 Treetop Village

Sideboard:
2 Serrated Arrows
3 Riftsweeper
3 Spectral Force
4 Slaughter Pact
2 Mirri, Cat Warrior
1 Garruk Wildspeaker

As etrigan points out the Forge-Tenders would be a metagame slot. Fine, I'll accept that, but I happen to disagree. I'd say the decks that will most likely make the biggest presence are Elves, Kithkin, Teachings, Blink, Rack, and Rule of Law. This slot is dead to all of those.

4 Teeg main decked Teeg. While good against some of the decks this becomes Grizzly Bears against aggro. Sligh is a form of Aggro which he is willing to sacrifice 4 slots for Forge-Tenders, yet they have no spells over 4cc. They would also most likely pack Magus of the Moon in the SB and unless he has Slaughter Pact in hand, that mana base is gonna be a problem.

Speaking of Teeg, he main decks 3 Walkers that can't be played when he's on the table.

Finally, that SB. Not a clue as to what he's going for? Riftsweeper? For what, to get back a Extirpated Doran? Why? A deck like this should be able to win with or without Doran. He has no other creatures that rely on him. Stonecloaker and Shreikmaw combat wise actually have a -1 disynergy.

I just don't understand where this deck is going. My deck shares less than half of the same slots and that's what got me second guessing myself. Had it been more like 70-80% similar I would have looked it over and chocked it up to preference choices. This just threw me for a loop.

ForceofWill

10-27-2007, 08:09 AM

Riftsweeper is for suspend cards and teeg stopping 3 of your own cards isn't that big of deal. You can also cast garruk add a loyalty play gaddock and stop them from playing their walkers.

Versus

10-27-2007, 08:50 AM

You're right. I don't know the game well enough I suppose. I don't think outside the box.

There were two ways to go about Doran. Throw in jank like Ornithopters and Watchtowers and hope Doran sticks or just build a good BWG deck that happens to have a 3cc 5/5. I chose the later and thought I was the better for it. I see something like that it really makes me wonder why I even play at all.

If the third route which runs (IMO) one-sided creatures, an overextended mana base, and some blatant disynergies turns out to be the right one, then I obviously have no idea what I'm doing.

This is why I won't drive 4 hours to get my ass beat in a Legacy event. Until I can get my mind back into a competitive state, I'll have it done 2 miles from my apartment.

Michael Keller

10-27-2007, 11:39 AM

Finn

10-29-2007, 10:17 AM

The main reason why Pros play limited and type 2 is because those are the formats that Wizards mainly supports in terms of Pro Tours. Believe me if there was a Legacy Pro Tour Pros would show you why they are so good at this game and come up with some pretty unique and good Legacy decks.
Sorry. Been there. Done that. We figured that this would happen at every step of Legacy's growth, and you know what? It is not true. It wasn't true at the first GP. It has not been true since. Pro card or not, there is no 17-year old on this planet who is going to make a dominating Legacy deck I am unfamiliar with. The best developers in Legacy have had so much time with the same cards that the probability of someone coming out of the blue with something to beat the likes of stuff as refined as Threshold and company is infinitessimal.

Yes, the cardpool is enormous. But that same sea of possibilty is a sea to drown in. That shit is daunting to people who dabble and expect to come out a winner.

By two months after its rotation, Standard has a few very good decks all with lots of people playing them. There are plenty of data to back them up, and as much written material as anything in this game. If I see one more article with the words "The New Standard" in the title, I'm going to mail the words "lazy fucking cliche" written in my own turd on a notecard, and mail it to the author. That way every person who comes in contact with that letter will know how shitty he is.

The pros need not start from scratch. Some do, but it is a lot less work than in Legacy with its often unpredictable metagames. I bet if Legacy were in fact part of the pro scene, you would see a wider range of winners, with plenty pros simply not showing for lack of advantage.

atv

11-10-2007, 07:12 AM

Believe me if there was a Legacy Pro Tour Pros would show you why they are so good at this game and come up with some pretty unique and good Legacy decks.

Absolutely. Hopefully the 6(?) rounds of Legacy at Worlds this year will spawn something interesting. Many will undoubtedly pick an established deck and run with it but I'm sure there will be some interesting innovations.

One name to look for: Guillaume Wafo-Tapa.

Cavius The Great

11-15-2007, 11:51 AM

As for the original topic, I have really strong feelings about people stealing your deck ideas. If I design a deck, I expect to get credit for it, no 'if ands or buts'. I'm a strong believer of this and you can compare it to anything else in life. Plagiarism is a crime and I think taking credit for a deck that you didn't design falls along the same lines. When rappers steal lyrics from another rapper, they use the term "biting" someone's lyrics and it's very looked down upon. I think the same can be applied to designing an original Magic deck.

T is for TOOL

11-15-2007, 12:32 PM

Nightmare

11-15-2007, 12:48 PM

Or by writing articles. That works too.

bigbear102

11-15-2007, 02:06 PM

Sorry. Been there. Done that. We figured that this would happen at every step of Legacy's growth, and you know what? It is not true. It wasn't true at the first GP. It has not been true since. Pro card or not, there is no 17-year old on this planet who is going to make a dominating Legacy deck I am unfamiliar with. The best developers in Legacy have had so much time with the same cards that the probability of someone coming out of the blue with something to beat the likes of stuff as refined as Threshold and company is infinitessimal.

Ok, did you not notice Pikula sitting in the finals with a deck that no one considered competitive at the time? Sure it wasn't a brand new idea no one had ever used before, but it was new to the competitive scene, and it was tuned to beat the 'refined' stuff that was out there.

Granted there are a lot of cards in Legacy, the playable ones have mostly been found already, and there aren't going to be a lot of brand new ideas out there, even with the pros playing, but there will be some surprises.

I think if the format was supported by wizards, meaning it was worth it to the pros to play it, they would play. They would still have a huge advantage just in playskill. I doubt that our world would be turned upside down, but it would definitely be shaken up a bit.

GP Flash doesn't count for obvious reasons. There was a clear best deck and it won. No reason to innovate when you can just pay 1U and win the game.

Jak

11-15-2007, 02:40 PM

Ok, did you not notice Pikula sitting in the finals with a deck that no one considered competitive at the time? Sure it wasn't a brand new idea no one had ever used before, but it was new to the competitive scene, and it was tuned to beat the 'refined' stuff that was out there.

Granted there are a lot of cards in Legacy, the playable ones have mostly been found already, and there aren't going to be a lot of brand new ideas out there, even with the pros playing, but there will be some surprises.

I think if the format was supported by wizards, meaning it was worth it to the pros to play it, they would play. They would still have a huge advantage just in playskill. I doubt that our world would be turned upside down, but it would definitely be shaken up a bit.

GP Flash doesn't count for obvious reasons. There was a clear best deck and it won. No reason to innovate when you can just pay 1U and win the game.

Also, GP Flash was won by the best deck. Not because it had Flash in it, but because it had Flash and the CounterTop engine. IMO, that is what started the CounterTop craze and now everyone is playing it because it owns the Legacy meta just like the Flash Meta with a ton of Fish and Thresh.

Citrus-God

11-15-2007, 07:17 PM

Also, GP Flash was won by the best deck. Not because it had Flash in it, but because it had Flash and the CounterTop engine. IMO, that is what started the CounterTop craze and now everyone is playing it because it owns the Legacy meta just like the Flash Meta with a ton of Fish and Thresh.

What started the Counterbalance/Top craze was actually the Virginians. Nobody would ever touch those cards other than Machinus, Virginians, and my team. I think it was more popularized because Lam Phan and DicemanX put Counterbalance and Tops in the Sideboard after DicemanX lost to Machinus at the Legacy prelims. So I'd say the Legacy champs started the craze.

Nightmare

11-15-2007, 08:26 PM

I put countertop in thresh as soon as Counterbalance was spoiled. I have decklists including it on my team site if anyone needs proof. I dismissed it at first, because it sucks against Goblins, which was the best deck in the format at the time.

As Goblins dissappeared, or at least declined, and the format began to speed up (as far as mana costs are concerned), Countertop got better and better.

Jak

11-15-2007, 08:30 PM

Yeah, I believe you both. I just saw it erupt after it was used in GP Flash and everyone saw how strong it was in a meta full of combo and aggro-control; much like the meta we have right now.

Cavius The Great

11-16-2007, 10:56 AM

Posting a decklist on the internet doesn't entitle you to anything. The people credited with decks are the people that play and win with them at tournaments. Posting a list and then attempting to claim credit when other people win tournaments with similar decks is juvenile. If you want recognition, go earn it at a tournament.

I think you're wrong. Just becuase I don't have the cash to build the deck doesn't make me completely irrelevent. I've tested decks on MWS excessively, especially Nourishing Lich, before I posted the idea. I beileve that people should get credit for concieving the idea, not for doing well with it in a tournament.

CleverPetriDish

11-16-2007, 12:49 PM

Posting a decklist on the internet doesn't entitle you to anything. The people credited with decks are the people that play and win with them at tournaments. Posting a list and then attempting to claim credit when other people win tournaments with similar decks is juvenile. If you want recognition, go earn it at a tournament.
I'm not sure what the word "juvenile" means to you, but it sounds to me like you play at tournaments with other peoples' decks (with some alterations to your liking) and think that makes you an innovator. I constantly see juveniles feeling exactly the same way at my local scene. I guess they are just hoping that the rest of us will not find out that they read about them here.

Ewokslayer

11-16-2007, 01:26 PM

I am pretty sure that expecting credit and adulation after someone else does well with a deck that is similar to a decklist you posted on a website is juvenile.

As a general rule, expecting/demanding credit for a decklist is juvenile regardless of the circumstances.

CleverPetriDish

11-16-2007, 05:44 PM

TeenieBopper

11-16-2007, 06:04 PM

Right, because decklists are intellectual property.

/sarcasm.

Man, if I wanted to be an even bigger dick, I'd go around these boards demanding tribute and adulation for all the work I did in this format. But I don't, so I don't.

In short: If you want credit for decks, get the fuck over yourself.

Getsickanddie

11-16-2007, 08:04 PM

Man, if I wanted to be an even bigger dick, I'd go around these boards demanding tribute and adulation for all the work I did in this format. But I don't, so I don't.

You could, but since Wizards curb stomped your format (1.5), I don't think you'd get very far. I wonder how many people on this site, outside of the obvious long time members, even played this format before the split.

Bovinious

11-16-2007, 11:35 PM

You could, but since Wizards curb stomped your format (1.5), I don't think you'd get very far. I wonder how many people on this site, outside of the obvious long time members, even played this format before the split.

I only just turned 18 but I remember the good old days of 1.5, losing to Dragon, Oath, and Shop decks while playing Sligh/FCG, man were those the days...

Shriekmaw

11-17-2007, 12:39 AM

You could, but since Wizards curb stomped your format (1.5), I don't think you'd get very far. I wonder how many people on this site, outside of the obvious long time members, even played this format before the split.

One of my favorite decks in the old 1.5 was around 2000 where I either played Mono-Blue Control with Mana Drains/Morphlings/Masticore, or White Weenie with Land Tax, Cataclysm, Empyrial Armor, and shadow dudes. I remember those days, god it was fun.

Cavius The Great

11-17-2007, 11:31 AM

Ahh, general rules. I want to make one too.

As a general rule, expecting/demanding credit for a intellectual property is not juvenile regardless of the circumstances.

Seriously, though. According to the logic above, since I don't get to attend the kinds of tournaments that get a lot of press, I can either never be credited for my decks or travel to the NE enough times to attend large tournaments until I win with one. It's easy to feel that you have to win to be worthy of note when the opportunities are plentiful. It isn't so attractive a perspective to someone who has few opportunities.

I have to agree with PetriDish. magic decklists should be considered intellectual property to a certain extent. I don't expect people to worship the ground I walk on for designing a deck. But atleast freakin' cite my name for coming up with the innovation and pay respect. That's all I really ask, and if people win tournaments with my deck idea, I also believe they should get credit as well. Just as long as they cite the person who orginally came up with the idea. Taking credit for someone else's work is wrong, end of story. The closest thing I can compare it to is plaigarism and that's an act very looked down upon in the writing community and I think the same exact thing should be applied to the Magic community as well.

LordEvilTeaCup

11-17-2007, 11:58 AM

Cavius The Great

11-17-2007, 01:28 PM

I have not been in this format for very long and I seriously doubt I will create a new archetype or the latest craze; however credit should be given were credit is due. Its not terribly arrogant and needy to want a bit of respect and adulation from your work. Especially for those who spend hours upon hours testing and tweaking. I wouldn't want some punk to steal my concept and lists that I spent some much time laboring over without a little props. It isn't difficult. You just throw the dudes name in your props portion of your tourney report and viola!

I agree with you 100%. How much effort does it take to cite someone's name? a few keystrokes. Now unless you have no arms or have a condition which prevents you from typing such as carpel tunnel syndrome, you have no excuse to not cite someone. It's as simple as that. I actually think that it's more arrogant to not cite someone's name. Not citing someone is a 'kick in the balls' to the innovator and I think that people should come to realize that. What the fuck is wrong with giving someone props?? Absolutely nothing. And that's the main point I'm trying to make.

kirdape3

11-17-2007, 03:29 PM

1. It's (insert powerful team's name here)'s format and you all just live in it.

2. Cavius: When you have made a good deck, that actually has a serious showing at a high-level event or two, then maybe you can whine. MWS testing is irrelevant.

Artowis

11-17-2007, 03:39 PM

I came up with Affinity, because I noticed the Synergy between artifacts and Arcbound Ravager. WHERE ARE MAI MAD PROPS?!?

In all seriousness, for 95% of the decks you see it's going to be impossible to really say, 'oh yeah, totally my idea, nobody else had it'.

If you want credit for a deck you either go and win a major tournament with it and hope people notice/care or you write articles about it somewhere visible.

Jak

11-17-2007, 04:38 PM

Also, it is way to hard to give out credit where it is due. You may post it on the internet, but someone else here or on a different site will say they thought of it first or something and a flame war ensues. This is why, if you want credit, you need to actually win with the deck. If someone posts a random list on the forum and a month later the deck gets big from a new card being printed or a total meta shift, should I give that person credit for "inveting" a top legacy deck. I would not.

Cavius The Great

11-17-2007, 06:44 PM

2. Cavius: When you have made a good deck, that actually has a serious showing at a high-level event or two, then maybe you can whine. MWS testing is irrelevant.

It's funny you should say that. Almost everyone on these forums know that I conceived the first primitive versions of Nourishing Lich. Later a version of Nourishing Lich made Top8 in a Legacy Championship event in Germany. This was fine with me, I enjoyed the success of my idea. But what really bothered me afterwards was when Doug Linn aka Hi-val made an article about the success of Nourishing Lich on SCG.com without citing my name at all. I have alot of respect for Doug, I have more for him now once I got to know him a little better, but it's only natural for a person wanting to be a part of that success, which was rightly so in my case scenario, since I did invent the combo. It's only human nature to want to be a part of something great, that you truly were involved in, and that is the point I am basically trying to get across.

troopatroop

11-17-2007, 07:03 PM

It's funny you should say that. Almost everyone on these forums know that I conceived the first primitive versions of Nourishing Lich. Later a version of Nourishing Lich made Top8 in a Legacy Championship event in Germany. This was fine with me, I enjoyed the success of my idea. But what really bothered me afterwards was when Doug Linn aka Hi-val made an article about the success of Nourishing Lich on SCG.com without citing my name at all. I have alot of respect for Doug, I have more for him now once I got to know him a little better, but it's only natural for a person wanting to be a part of that success, which was rightly so in my case scenario, since I did invent the combo. It's only human nature to want to be a part of something great, that you truly were involved in, and that is the point I am basically trying to get across.

Your personal idea to create it is yours. You didn't "create" it. That implies noone else has ever come up with the idea, period. That simply isn't the case. If that guy in Germany came up with the same deck idea, did he steal it from you. No. You're being childish.

Afro

11-17-2007, 09:00 PM

It's funny you should say that. Almost everyone on these forums know that I conceived the first primitive versions of Nourishing Lich. Later a version of Nourishing Lich made Top8 in a Legacy Championship event in Germany. This was fine with me, I enjoyed the success of my idea. But what really bothered me afterwards was when Doug Linn aka Hi-val made an article about the success of Nourishing Lich on SCG.com without citing my name at all. I have alot of respect for Doug, I have more for him now once I got to know him a little better, but it's only natural for a person wanting to be a part of that success, which was rightly so in my case scenario, since I did invent the combo. It's only human nature to want to be a part of something great, that you truly were involved in, and that is the point I am basically trying to get across.

Please get off your high horse. If this was true every time a lava dart hits the board Albany NY should be credited with being the founders of such tech. We were years ahead of T1. But you know what? WHO FUCKING CARES. You want serious credit for doing something then do it in an avenue other than some obscure game or win a PT. That is all.

T is for TOOL

11-17-2007, 09:26 PM

I think you're wrong. Just becuase I don't have the cash to build the deck doesn't make me completely irrelevent.
Strawman are better used in corn fields.

I've tested decks on MWS excessively, especially Nourishing Lich, before I posted the idea. I beileve that people should get credit for concieving the idea, not for doing well with it in a tournament.
Credit for what? Posting a decklist on a website? Also, not that it directly relates to the topic, but MWS is awful.

I'm not sure what the word "juvenile" means to you, but it sounds to me like you play at tournaments with other peoples' decks (with some alterations to your liking) and think that makes you an innovator. I constantly see juveniles feeling exactly the same way at my local scene. I guess they are just hoping that the rest of us will not find out that they read about them here.
I alter other people's decks and claim innovator status becuase you don't know my definition of 'juvenile'? Since that veiled insult makes no sense, I don't really take any offense.

Seriously, though. According to the logic above, since I don't get to attend the kinds of tournaments that get a lot of press, I can either never be credited for my decks or travel to the NE enough times to attend large tournaments until I win with one. It's easy to feel that you have to win to be worthy of note when the opportunities are plentiful. It isn't so attractive a perspective to someone who has few opportunities.
Get over yourself. 'Juvenile' means childish. Acting so self-centered that you don't think other people can have the same original idea is juvenile. Implying that there is a NE conspiracy to determine not only what decks are successful, but who receives credit for deck creation, is juvenile. Also, for the record, I live in Kentucky where there are no local Legacy tournaments. I haven't played a single game of Legacy in months.

It's funny you should say that. Almost everyone on these forums know that I conceived the first primitive versions of Nourishing Lich. Later a version of Nourishing Lich made Top8 in a Legacy Championship event in Germany. This was fine with me, I enjoyed the success of my idea. But what really bothered me afterwards was when Doug Linn aka Hi-val made an article about the success of Nourishing Lich on SCG.com without citing my name at all. I have alot of respect for Doug, I have more for him now once I got to know him a little better, but it's only natural for a person wanting to be a part of that success, which was rightly so in my case scenario, since I did invent the combo. It's only human nature to want to be a part of something great, that you truly were involved in, and that is the point I am basically trying to get across.
How were you involved in the Top8 at the Legcay Championship event in Germany? Did you personally know the pilot of the Lich deck? Did you discuss your list with him and make recommendations? Do you have any kind of proof that he based his list off of yours or that he didn't come up with the idea entirely on his own? You saw that an idea was good, someone else saw the same thing and placed in a tournament with the same idea. Now you say, see, that was a good idea and clearly I deserve part of his glory. Grow up.

Peter_Rotten

11-17-2007, 09:44 PM

It's funny you should say that. Almost everyone on these forums know that I conceived the first primitive versions of Nourishing Lich.

What the Hell is Nourishing Lich?

And, btw, who the Hell didn't capitalize the "I" in "Interweb?" I'll fix it.

Cavius The Great

11-18-2007, 11:38 AM

How were you involved in the Top8 at the Legcay Championship event in Germany? Did you personally know the pilot of the Lich deck? Did you discuss your list with him and make recommendations? Do you have any kind of proof that he based his list off of yours or that he didn't come up with the idea entirely on his own? You saw that an idea was good, someone else saw the same thing and placed in a tournament with the same idea. Now you say, see, that was a good idea and clearly I deserve part of his glory. Grow up.

It's only common sense that he got the idea from the threads I posted both at TMD and here at the Source. The Nourishing Lich deck he top8ed with happened in a Germany Legacy championship around 3-4 months after I posted the thread and got around 4000+ views. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together. I don't have a doubt in my mind he didn't get the idea from netdecking.

Silverdragon

11-18-2007, 12:08 PM

It's only common sense that he got the idea from the threads I posted both at TMD and here at the Source. The Nourishing Lich deck he top8ed with happened in a Germany Legacy championship around 3-4 months after I posted the thread and got around 4000+ views. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together. I don't have a doubt in my mind he didn't get the idea from netdecking.

Uhm LOL? Sorry but did it cross your mind that the person in question being german and all might not be able to understand enough English to visit TMD/the Source? Anyway what makes you so sure that he was one of only 4000 people looking at your threads? I admit the overall Legacy community in the world is a rather small community but even if there were only 5000 people total you could not be sure whether he came up with the idea himself or took your idea.
In the end I personally think you are right he most certainly got the idea from your posts but I just wanted to point out how useless it can be to argue about these things.
For another example, in my mind I still believe that I was the first to come up with the Magus of the Tabernacle + Armageddon synergy in Stax (I had the idea at the moment I first saw Magus of the Tabernacle on the spoiler) but I don't complain about Machinus taking most if not all the credit for it because he brought Stax to the public and is therefore associated more with the deck than me. Personally I'm happy that the deck is doing well and that's it.
Of course it'd be cool if everybody was talking about Silverdragon's deck but as I wouldn't get anything aside from an ego boost I'm fine with the way it is now.

edit: Another thing I want to add is that for people writing articles it can be very annoying to check every single website and every single forum thread looking whether a decklist can be credited to another person than the player piloting the deck or whether it really is the creation of its pilot. On top of that a writer might be afraid of losing some credibility if he attributes a decklist (that has placed in a big tournament) to an obscure internet personality.
For example I'd be a bit weirded out if I had to read something like this in an article on SCG: "2nd place Jon Smith with Lich [...] This decklist, created by Cavius The Great, is an example..." I'd be thinking "Who is this Cavius The Great? Is he some kind of royal in an unknown country?..."
Of course I know that Cavius The Great is the nickname of a guy posting in several forums but many people do not know this (maybe even including the author of the article). Even if Mr Linn knew about Cavius The Great posting lists of Lich decks how could he know whether that german guy was in fact posting as Cavius The Great or not. I mean in this case it's easy to guess but in the above example maybe this Jon Smith uses the nickname Cavius The Great and by separating the two there'd be an even bigger error. (For example you want to get credit for your deck and place highly at a tournament only to have it credited not to your real name but to an online nickname)

Machinus

11-18-2007, 12:30 PM

For another example, in my mind I still believe that I was the first to come up with the Magus of the Tabernacle + Armageddon synergy in Stax (I had the idea at the moment I first saw Magus of the Tabernacle on the spoiler) but I don't complain about Machinus taking most if not all the credit for it because he brought Stax to the public and is therefore associated more with the deck than me. Personally I'm happy that the deck is doing well and that's it.

I think that particular combination of cards is one of the more obvious interactions in the Stax archetype, and I'm aware that several people simultaneously worked on it when Magus first came out. I am sure I wasn't the first person to publish the idea online, but I wasn't trying to be either. I waited until I thought I had developed a really good shell around the deck to suggest it as a different direction for the deck.

I appreciate your stance on this issue, and I think you deserve credit for adapting the deck to your metagame and making it work for you. The tournament reports and card discussion in the Stax thread are really interesting, and I'm sure they are very useful for other Stax players.

I still haven't done any official introduction or primer on Armageddon Stax, and I may do that in the future if it becomes important enough.

Peter_Rotten

11-18-2007, 12:38 PM

I posted the thread and got around 4000+ views. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together. I don't have a doubt in my mind he didn't get the idea from netdecking.

This proves nothing. 4000+ views only means that the thread has been viewed 4000+ times. Although unlikely, it could mean that 2 ppl could have checked 2000 times each. Hell, think about how many times you checked that thread? 100, 500, 1000? All that number means is that that specific thread has been viewed 4000+. It cannot tell us how many different ppl viewed it.

Cavius The Great

11-18-2007, 12:53 PM

This proves nothing. 4000+ views only means that the thread has been viewed 4000+ times. Although unlikely, it could mean that 2 ppl could have checked 2000 times each. Hell, think about how many times you checked that thread? 100, 500, 1000? All that number means is that that specific thread has been viewed 4000+. It cannot tell us how many different ppl viewed it.

I really doubt that only 2 people have veiwed the thread 2000 times. 120 people actually posted on this thread and I rarely check the thread anymore and the number of views is already 5000+.

For another example, in my mind I still believe that I was the first to come up with the Magus of the Tabernacle + Armageddon synergy in Stax (I had the idea at the moment I first saw Magus of the Tabernacle on the spoiler) but I don't complain about Machinus taking most if not all the credit for it because he brought Stax to the public and is therefore associated more with the deck than me. Personally I'm happy that the deck is doing well and that's it.

That's a more obvious combo than Nourishing Shoal+Wurm+Lich. It takes a little more thinking and creative effort to actually discover the Nourishing Lich interaction. Magus and Armageddon are alot more easily perceived by the naked eye.

Of course I know that Cavius The Great is the nickname of a guy posting in several forums but many people do not know this (maybe even including the author of the article). Even if Mr Linn knew about Cavius The Great posting lists of Lich decks how could he know whether that german guy was in fact posting as Cavius The Great or not. I mean in this case it's easy to guess but in the above example maybe this Jon Smith uses the nickname Cavius The Great and by separating the two there'd be an even bigger error. (For example you want to get credit for your deck and place highly at a tournament only to have it credited not to your real name but to an online nickname)

My real name is Carlos Colina. I hope that clears up any confusion. :wink:

In the end I personally think you are right he most certainly got the idea from your posts

I think I rest my case.

Peter_Rotten

11-18-2007, 01:14 PM

120 people actually posted on this thread and I rarely check the thread anymore and the number of views is already 5000+.

I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but as much as I can't prove that the German in question did NOT use your idea, you cannot prove that he HAS used your idea.

5000 views is actually not that much. The Goyf-Sligh thread which has only existed for 3 weeks has 7,813. DragonStompy has 12k+, The Cure has 5000+, DemonStompy 7000+, SmallPox Dicussion thread 15k+, and the thread about made-up cards for Source Members has 11k+.

Cavius The Great

11-18-2007, 01:20 PM

I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but as much as I can't prove that the German in question did NOT use your idea, you cannot prove that he HAS used your idea.

5000 views is actually not that much. The Goyf-Sligh thread which has only existed for 3 weeks has 7,813. DragonStompy has 12k+, The Cure has 5000+, DemonStompy 7000+, SmallPox Dicussion thread 15k+, and the thread about made-up cards for Source Members has 11k+.

I'm not trying to brag, PR. I realize that 5000 veiws isn't that much. But for a dead thread that hasn't been discussed in months, it's not too bad.

troopatroop

11-18-2007, 02:47 PM

I'm not trying to brag, PR. I realize that 5000 veiws isn't that much. But for a dead thread that hasn't been discussed in months, it's not too bad.

You champion your ideas in your signature like you're a god damn picasso of Magical Cards. You want to know what step 1 of getting recognised for those ideas are? Winning. Winning, not to be confused with the similar sounding whining. You seem to be doing alot of whining. You don't seem to understand that putting a certain combination of cards in a deck and trying it, in no way makes you the owner of that combination of cards. I don't give a damn if you you think you tried Nourishing -Wurm - Lich before everyone else in the world. I tried it first. Way before you. Prove me wrong right? You can't and noone can. That's why you get no credit until you put it in stone.

Nightmare

11-18-2007, 03:36 PM

GetSickAndDie had a Lich deck months before you posted that thread. You should give him the credit for your ideas, plagiarizer.

Silverdragon

11-18-2007, 03:42 PM

I don't give a damn if you you think you tried Nourishing -Wurm - Lich before everyone else in the world. I tried it first. Way before you. Prove me wrong right? You can't and noone can. That's why you get no credit until you put it in stone.

That's the point I was trying to make with my Stax example and this is true for everything in Magic deckbuilding. You can NEVER prove that someone somewhere didn't invent a deck before you, so unless you ask every single Magic player where they got this or that idea, rigorously claiming ownership of a deck idea will only lead to unneeded arguments.

btw Did you know that I wrote an article about the Lich + Nourishing Shoal combo right when Shoal was first spoiled? It was posted on a really really really small tahitian Legacy board but the server hosting the forum burned down, my harddrive exploded and all other storage mediums containing it burned down too. There also was an alien radiowave beam that erased the combo from everybody's mind except mine and that of the german guy who placed in that one tournament. It's sad isn't it :-)

mikekelley

11-18-2007, 03:52 PM

Quit being whiny bitches. I just read this whole thread, it was good entertainment, but man, what a petty thing to argue.

It's not unlikely that people will make a deck very similar to one another, without even talking to one another about it. The card pool in Legacy is very large, but there are a disporpotionatley small amount of playable cards. Throw them together in a certain combination, or say, you want to use Lich, there are a small number of cards that can only be played with it. Not really rocket science here.

frogboy

11-18-2007, 04:14 PM

This thread makes me want to play in a tournament with one of Cavius' decks, win, write a report about it explicitly not mentioning his name, and then when he whines mail him one (1) cookie of his own choosing.

mikekelley

11-18-2007, 04:17 PM

Don't even let him choose. Or send him a cookie for that matter. Shit in a bag on his doorstep, ring the door bell and run.

Nihil Credo

11-18-2007, 04:30 PM

You forgot the "set it on fire" part. Geez, youngsters these days, can't even do petty vandalism right.

Bovinious

11-18-2007, 04:30 PM

That's the point I was trying to make with my Stax example and this is true for everything in Magic deckbuilding. You can NEVER prove that someone somewhere didn't invent a deck before you, so unless you ask every single Magic player where they got this or that idea, rigorously claiming ownership of a deck idea will only lead to unneeded arguments.

Im not sure this is entirely true, I dont think anyone would seriously argue that the great David Gearhart did not invent Solidarity, or the High Tide-Reset interaction at least (no sarcasm intended). This whole arguement is moot anyways, Lich is a bad deck/archetype so I dont know why this QQer wants credit, but maybe we should give it to him. YOU CREATED A BAD DECK, GRATS2U...but seriously none of this matters.

EDIT: Typo.

troopatroop

11-18-2007, 05:43 PM

Im not sure this is entirely true, I dont think anyone would seriously argue that the great David Gearhart did not invent Solidarity, or the High Tide-Reset interaction at least (no sarcasm intended). This whole arguement is moot anyways, Lich is a bad deck/archetype so I dont know why this QQer wants credit, but maybe we should give it to him. YOU CREATED A BAD DECK, GRATS2U...but seriously none of this matters.

EDIT: Typo.

Gearhart got recognition because he won with it first.

Bovinious

11-18-2007, 05:51 PM

Well that and he, you know, invented it.

So Annoying My Account Is Banned

11-18-2007, 09:36 PM

Hey guys, just popped in to say that I invented the Worldgorger Dragon combo.

And I invented the Flash combo as well.

all me, I'm taking credit for those decks. Everyone fine with that?

Bryant Cook

11-18-2007, 09:45 PM

Whats this Gearhart created Solidarity shit? Does Herbig get no recognition for his hours on end of testing and tuning?

Peter_Rotten

11-19-2007, 07:32 AM

Whats this Gearhart created Solidarity shit? Does Herbig get no recognition for his hours on end of testing and tuning?

Enough out of you. You should counting your lucky stars that I'm letting you use my monster combo deck, TES. After all, I was the one who created the idea of casting a bunch of spells and then casting a spell with Storm.

- PR, creator of TES, Threshold, and Rotten-Sly (formally Goyf Sligh).

Cavius The Great

11-19-2007, 11:23 AM

This whole arguement is moot anyways, Lich is a bad deck/archetype so I dont know why this QQer wants credit, but maybe we should give it to him. YOU CREATED A BAD DECK, GRATS2U...but seriously none of this matters.

Coming from the person who invented "Pitch World". I love this irony.

GetSickAndDie had a Lich deck months before you posted that thread. You should give him the credit for your ideas, plagiarizer.

My version is completely different, you know that, Nightmare. His version doesn't even run Nourishing Shoal. =P

So Annoying My Account Is Banned

11-19-2007, 04:24 PM

Coming from the person who invented "Pitch World". I love this irony.

I love this irony too.

I think "Pitch World" was a joke though, not to be taken seriously or anything like your deck should. Right?

Bryant Cook

11-19-2007, 04:26 PM

I love this irony too.

I think "Pitch World" was a joke though, not to be taken seriously or anything like your deck should. Right?

Owned.

Bovinious

11-19-2007, 05:51 PM

WOW guys, I am both shocked and appalled. Pitch World is a serious contender in the current meta-goyf, I dont know how anyone couldnt see that...

Isamaru

11-19-2007, 07:17 PM

How long is this bashing going to go on? 3 more pages or 4?

Is this all that goes on over here? - sitting on computers and textually insulting any deck builder who doesn't rape drunk women before tournaments as a sign of their epic 4chan /b/wins?

I know that by sticking up in part for Cavius I am almost literally hanging myself up on the punching bag hook, but I foolishly believe that more than one side could be expressed in this argument. (Though if every thread here is simply an argument, why would I be able to change a paradigm anyway?)

I argue that, even if this way of thinking is here to stay, it sure is a crappy one, and it's one of the reasons I hate the players of this game. In the academic world, plagiarism is frowned upon of any sort, while in Magic, it is accepted and encouraged as part of the game. (Those deck-tech videos on Wizards MtG YouTube official account make me sick: does Randy Buehler actually believe that these people thought these ideas up?)

So, did I probably waste two and a half years of my time developing a deck that someone may eventually get credit for other than myself, or did I definitely waste two years of time? I'd like to know so I can quit while I'm ahead (or at least I have already tried, in a way).

I am sorry to disagree, but the "somebody else was thinking of it too, but didn't post it on the internet" case is becoming a poorer argument every time one of you repeats it on one of the hundreds of threads of this same subject.

It is sad that the ignorant are so quick to place false credit. To the ones who know little in each area, Michael Jordan is the best Basketball player, Tiger Woods golf, Tony Hawk skateboarding, Mia Hamm and David Beckham soccer, Gadiel Szliefer mtg player, Wastedlife inventor of Burning storm combo in Legacy, and Gearheart corresponds to Solidarity. I am not saying I am above this either; I only know of Solidarity in regards to Gearheart, and Tiger Woods is the only golfer I am familiar with. It is unfortunate that humans categorize and interpret everything through their own, often misguided and barriered, filters in their minds.

I know that anything I say cannot sway those set in their ways, because it this issue an integrated part of one's entire outlook on the game itself, but I would hope that if anything does come of this, it would be that you at least rethink your outlook on this policy in the real world.

Thanks for keeping an open mind,
-Stephen

Bovinious

11-19-2007, 08:13 PM

So Annoying My Account Is Banned

11-19-2007, 08:33 PM

@ Isamaru:

I think you were saying something similar to what I was saying, give people credit for what they build, but after your reading your post I feel like I want to disagree/flame you b/c you came off so whiny.

Anyways, I think people should get credit for their ideas, because like you said then there is little incentive to innovate (for some people) and time gets "wasted". What I think is dumb is trying to take credit for a bad idea that isnt even clearly yours, in some attempt for false/undeserved glory. I mean, if Im wrong here some link me, but I dont think anyone would honestly say I didnt invent and first post the broken-ness that is Pitch World (See N&D Forum), but Im not flaunting it in multiple threads or in my sig trying to be revered and praised like some people apparently do. That is all.

Is it getting hot in here, or is it just me? =\

This conversation has gotten so convoluted, it started as someone's conspiracy theory that people lead false clues in their decklists hoping people will play it and then they will have their secret tech for it, and it turned into a flame war hotter than the holocaust. Could someone remind me why it matters who gets the credit for building a deck first? The first version of any competitive deck is always the worst, it never reaches it's full and true potential until it gets critiqued and polished by other deckbuilders of the community.

T is for TOOL

11-19-2007, 08:42 PM

Could someone remind me why it matters who gets the credit for building a deck first?
It doesn't. However that fact irks some people to the point that they argue otherwise simply because they don't want to accept it.

frogboy

11-19-2007, 08:43 PM

Isamaru

11-19-2007, 09:49 PM

I don't think a lot of the "deckbuilders" realize that most people who tend to win tournaments have a mindset more focused on playing than building and thus it never really occurs to them that other people might actually care more about who created the list than the list itself and who won with it.

You make a very good point. You said what I felt too: sometimes those building the decks are spending so much time in development that they don't have the time to drive to as many events. So nobody can blame the other, it is simply a different distribution of time. It's just unfortunate that winning with a deck does mean more than building with it (even though I don't disagree that this trend is true, I disagree with the trend itself).

Cavius The Great

11-20-2007, 07:06 AM

I love this irony too.

I think "Pitch World" was a joke though, not to be taken seriously or anything like your deck should. Right?

Nourishing Lich wins games while Pitch World, like you said, is a joke. Comparing Nourishing Lich to Pitch World is like comparing steak to a hotdog. The steak is just a notch above in quality. You guys also need to stfu if you've never tested Nourishing Lich. The facts speak alone, the deck archtype has Top8'ed in a Legacy German Championship which is enough credibility in itself. I've also Top8'ed myself in a 30+ man tournament with Enchantress Bloom.DEC, another one of my godly creations, and once I get Nourishing Lich built, I will be Top8ing with that as well.

Lukas Preuss

11-20-2007, 07:32 AM

The facts speak alone, the deck archtype has Top8'ed in a Legacy German Championship which is enough credibility in itself.

I really don't want to engage in this discussion, but this is simply not true. Someone played the deck at the German Legacy Champs in 2006, but scrubbed out with it. He later wrote a report on the tournament, getting all kinds of things wrong. That's all.

Maybe he made T8 at a smaller tournament later, but you should not cunfuse these things.

Silverdragon

11-20-2007, 07:32 AM

The facts speak alone, the deck archtype has Top8'ed in a Legacy German Championship which is enough credibility in itself.
I don't want to insult you but please get your facts right. The Lich deck top8'ed at a local tournament in Hanau not a German Championchip.

I've also Top8'ed myself in a 30+ man tournament with Enchantress Bloom.DEC, another one of my godly creations, and once I get Nourishing Lich built, I will be Top8ing with that as well.
Again I don't want to sound rude but maybe the reason people are making fun of you and your creations is because you sound like an arrogant jerk sometimes.

Finn

11-20-2007, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makes_Loves2homarid
Could someone remind me why it matters who gets the credit for building a deck first?

It doesn't. However that fact irks some people to the point that they argue otherwise simply because they don't want to accept it.Well, it does to some degree. Most of us strive to contribute in some way. I can certainly see the argument Cavius is making. It does not matter if he foolishly put "the great" in his name or that he has all of his decks in his signature. It is equally unimportant how good his decks are. He gets a thrill talking about his "creation". To him, the design is all important. He puts a lot of work in to it, and it is entirely human for him to want to see credit. Who are any of you to tell him what matters to him?

People coming to his defense are uniformly designers by nature. Those opposing him are not. (If any of you actually are - shame on you for not having the balls to show us your work.:)) Everyone thinks they are innovators. Only a tiny fraction of those people actually are. There is nothing wrong with the others. They are just a different type of person. Design is certainly an art. It is not finite, and some folks simply are not artists. Others are not sharp competitors. Cavius is clearly one of these.

Would the winner of a GP be fine with having his reward money given to the deck's designer? Oh and that ticket to wherever as well? And what about his name on Wizards' page the next day? Would that be OK with most competitors? Design and credit therein are Cavius' reward.

There are two sides to the game and they are equally important.

I don't think a lot of the "deckbuilders" realize that most people who tend to win tournaments have a mindset more focused on playing than building and thus it never really occurs to them that other people might actually care more about who created the list than the list itself and who won with it.
The discussion should have ended here.

Obfuscate Freely

11-20-2007, 11:06 AM

I think a lot of you are missing the point.

Nobody has the right to claim any sort of credit for the decklists that show up in tournament coverage, except the people who played them. This is because, even if a given list looks exactly like something you may have posted beforehand, there is no way to know whether the person who played the deck ever even saw your thread, let alone whether or not he/she took anything from it.

The Lich thing is a prime example, and Cavius' stance is absurd. Nobody here has ever even spoken to the guy who played the deck, and we have no way to know how he developed it. It is completely unfair to that player to assume credit for his deck.

Versus

11-20-2007, 11:35 AM

If I came up with a solid Archetype that people were winning events with I'd be pretty fucking stoked reguardless if anyone even knew who I was. It would be cool to be credited, but not a big deal.

Machinus

11-20-2007, 11:52 AM

There are no design competitions in Magic. There is tournament play, and then there is casual magic.

Isamaru

11-20-2007, 12:55 PM

There are no design competitions in Magic. There is tournament play, and then there is casual magic.

This really is a dictionary-example of narrow mindedness.

If I came up with a solid Archetype that people were winning events with I'd be pretty fucking stoked reguardless if anyone even knew who I was. It would be cool to be credited, but not a big deal.

True, but none of us have apparently been in the others' shoes, nor can be, so we'll never really know, but I think that you wouldn't take it so lightly (as you say) if it really were to happen to you.

Would the winner of a GP be fine with having his reward money given to the deck's designer? Oh and that ticket to wherever as well? And what about his name on Wizards' page the next day? Would that be OK with most competitors? Design and credit therein are Cavius' reward.

There are two sides to the game and they are equally important.

The discussion should have ended here.

Well said. And yes, we can probably end this discussion.

I think that Cavius defeated his points by acting like an airhead at the end there. I'd like to say that he's to developers what Chris Crocker is to transvestites, so don't get the wrong impression.

Machinus

11-20-2007, 01:29 PM

This really is a dictionary-example of narrow mindedness.

How am I being narrow minded? I am saving everyone a lot of time by warning them that there are no rewards for deck design. Everyone and their little sister can design magic decks.

Competitive Magic is built on tournaments. You don't get prizes for thinking of new decks. A million people think of new decks every day, but none of them matter very much unless they are part of a tournament. You have to play and succeed before a design is relevant.

Isamaru

11-20-2007, 02:14 PM

Cavius The Great

11-20-2007, 06:29 PM

I think that Cavius defeated his points by acting like an airhead at the end there.

Is your definition of an airhead a brilliant minded, intellectually superior, super genius? Cuz it sure sounds that way. :wink:

MattH

11-20-2007, 11:20 PM

How am I being narrow minded? I am saving everyone a lot of time by warning them that there are no rewards for deck design. Everyone and their little sister can design magic decks.

Competitive Magic is built on tournaments. You don't get prizes for thinking of new decks. A million people think of new decks every day, but none of them matter very much unless they are part of a tournament. You have to play and succeed before a design is relevant.

It's narrow-minded because you think the only rewards the game has to offer are T8 prizes.

Machinus

11-20-2007, 11:22 PM

It's narrow-minded because you think the only rewards the game has to offer are T8 prizes.

That's how the game is designed and marketed. Everything else is casual magic.

I think it's pretty naive to call it narrow-minded when the other millions of tournament players are all after the same thing.

Jak

11-20-2007, 11:28 PM

True, and I did ask whether I wasted two and a half years of my time. (I guess I have the answer.) I suppose it was enjoyable, though, at certain points, it's just that in the end it's sad that it doesn't really "count" in any tangible way.

If you build an awesome deck, then your reward would be winning with it. It does count if you build a good deck, but this game is about winning.

Bryant Cook

11-20-2007, 11:31 PM

If you build an awesome deck, then your reward would be winning with it. It does count if you build a good deck, but this game is about winning.

Pft, I'm awesome.

Nihil Credo

11-21-2007, 01:34 PM

If you want to get rewards for deckbuilding, here's how:

0) (optional) Join a team
1) Come up with an excellent deck on your own, or within the team. Do not publish it on a public web site.
2) Give it to pilot to the best player on your team, on agreement that he'll pay you a percentage of whatever he wins.

That is exactly how it works in any other competition where winning involves skills other than the player's. Does a great football strategist get a cup of his own when his athletes win? No, but the athletes themselves will pay him for his game plans.
Same thing here. Make a name for yourself, then you will be able to offer people decks in exchange for a fee - I think Mike Flore did that several times. I'm pretty sure, Cavius, that if your decks consistently performed well, and you told people that you have another deck of the same caliber up your sleeve, then some Worlds competitor would be more than willing to offer to share a part of his winnings in exchange for the list.