Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Admiral_Arzar
No, there's one. Our own DTB forum has one tier-one non-blue deck. In the current meta, you are handicapping yourself playing anything else and the numbers back it up.
That quote by maharis was incredibly prescient. Imagine if suddenly the next GP (a la the Dota international) had a multimillion dollar prize pool. The meta would likely be over 90% blue, if not close to 100%. There are plenty of people out there who don't play blue because they don't enjoy it. But when you get down to brass tacks, playing it gives you the best chance to win if real money is on the line. And Burn? Are you joking?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Finn
To be clear, we want the field leveled. Right now it is certainly not which is the reason people are opting for blue in such high percentages - around 75-80%. The numbers have backed that up for a long time. There is no dispute on this subject.
And there are eight distinct archetypes in the DTB forum which are all different in nontrivial and interesting ways. So: there is strategic diversity in Legacy. If there are lots of viable archetypes to choose from, why do we care about the five colors being represented equally? Why are non-blue decks being tier 1 an inherent good? It's speculative at best to presume that banning all the good cantrips will give us more strategic diversity, so it must be some other reason.
The justification can't just be because some people don't enjoy playing blue decks. The banned list can't be a vehicle for enforcing some arbitrary group of people's preferences. People find formats fun or unenjoyable for loads of reasons, and there's no reason to prefer any particular group of people's concerns over anyone else's.
I think the only sane policy is to use the ban list when strategic diversity is threatened by egregiously broken decks (and here, I'm talking about things like Flash/Hulk, not things like present-day Omni-Tell). In the current metagame, I don't know how one could possibly argue that this is the case.
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cartesian
Consistency is great for the game, because it reduces luck, and enables new combos, and synergies. We should ask for more consistency across all colors, not less by banning the best (admittedly blue) consistency tools.
Consistency is a double-edged sword. While it does blunt the impact of "unfun" variance (mana screw, land-flooding, losing to bad topdecks), it also introduces a host of problems. For one thing, it can reduce the built-in penalties to playing with certain cards, making them much more powerful (e.g. Brainstorm with Miracle cards, cheat-into-play combo pieces). And giving a shot in the arm to fast, non-interactive combo introduces a whole bunch of variance when it comes to the matchup lottery and the extremely skill-testing "draw 7" part of the game. Sometimes you just get Derp&Tell'd on Turn 2 with nothing you can do about it; more consistency only increases the likelihood of this happening.
Re: September B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peter_Rotten
This thread used to be 3 pages long; however, I just deleted all useless posts, one-line posts, two-line posts, posts that could have been PMs, and generally terri-bad posts.
Now the thread is just a page. Hmmm.
I actually went back to the first page and read it. It looks like there has truly been over 600 pages of Brainstorm discussion...
The quote above made me laugh and also wonder how many pages long this thread would be if this had been kept up.
I'm also aware of the irony that if that sort of thread maintenance had continued, this post wouldn't last long. :tongue:
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
theBloody
I hope many people will play DTT one last time this weekend. Because it will be the last :)
Re: September B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ace/Homebrew
I actually went back to the first page and read it. It looks like there has truly been over 600 pages of Brainstorm discussion...
The quote above made me laugh and also wonder how many pages long this thread would be if this had been kept up.
I mean, the poll say that this conversation was at one time about (in order of relevance) Sensei's Divining Top, Tarmogoyf, and Lion's Eye Diamond, so there'd probably be at least a little bit of content.
Re: September B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
iamajellydonut
I mean, the poll say that this conversation was at one time about (in order of relevance) Sensei's Divining Top, Tarmogoyf, and Lion's Eye Diamond, so there'd probably be at least a little bit of content.
LED seems like the most bannable, just hasn't found a deck broken enough yet :)
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stuart
That's a fine perspective to take. Personally, I'm not crazy about data and much prefer personal experience (though that does open me up to the whole "anecdotal" accusation). My experience via a variety of shops and tournaments is that the numbers don't follow our DTB, MtgGoldfish's meta breakdown, etc. People are playing and winning/losing with a wide variety of decks. I fully understand and believe that at the top tables at the biggest tournaments we're seeing a huge concentration of cantrip decks. However, B/R decisions effect local metas too, where I haven't found cantrips to be so problematic.
Likewise, it's possible that in a multimillion dollar tournament you'd see all blue. However 1) that tournament probably will never exist, and 2) as is, it seems silly to be playing this game for the money.
And yeah, I feel like Burn's positioned decently :smile: Of the DTB, I'd say it's got a fair-to-good matchup against most Delver variants and Lands. Miracles isn't the worst, either. Omni and ANT seem like the tough ones. But I could be totally off base there.
Local metas tend to have a lot more diversity (in my experience) because people play what they have fun with (this goes back to the quote in my sig). Card availability is also an issue. However, when those local players decide to go to a GP (or other competitive event), most of them are going to play the deck that gives them the best shot to win, card availability allowing. As for Burn, it has serious issue with combo but also Miracles. Counter-Top is lights out. It's solid in a meta full of Delver and non-Miracles fair decks in general, but a lot of the durdly midrange decks that it's best against (Shardless, Jund, etc.) are down right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
iostream
And there are eight distinct archetypes in the DTB forum which are all different in nontrivial and interesting ways. So: there is strategic diversity in Legacy. If there are lots of viable archetypes to choose from, why do we care about the five colors being represented equally? Why are non-blue decks being tier 1 an inherent good? It's speculative at best to presume that banning all the good cantrips will give us more strategic diversity, so it must be some other reason.
The justification can't just be because some people don't enjoy playing blue decks. The banned list can't be a vehicle for enforcing some arbitrary group of people's preferences. People find formats fun or unenjoyable for loads of reasons, and there's no reason to prefer any particular group of people's concerns over anyone else's.
Strategic diversity argument = blue apologism. I still have to play blue cards and blue lands as a prerequisite to participate in your "diversity."
Your second paragraph contradicts itself, as leaving the format on its current trajectory is blatant favoritism towards the concerns of blue players over everyone else.
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Crimhead
I'm becoming more sympathetic towards players who think the cantrip package is too strong/versatile. That said, I am extremely apprehensive about banning cards to enhance "people's play experiences". Market research has show that draw/go, prison lock, and fast combo decks have an adverse effect on people's play experience. This is why Modem has the turn four rule (which results in banned cards which do not threaten the strategic balance). This why these styles don't exist in Standard.
I'll respond to the rest of this sometime in the next few days, but I did want to address this part now.
First, the market research data comes from all players, and the overwhelming majority of peole who play Magic are Standard or casual players. I imagine that if the survey focused on Legacy and Vintage players, we'd see far more support for fast combo, robust counterspells, and prison than we see among a broader group of players.
Also, restricting a card to improve subjective play experience has precedence in Trinisphere. At the time it was restricted, Shop decks as a whole weren't dominating Vintage - in fact they were still only about even with Gro decks in terms of top 8 finishes. It was restricted explicitly because getting turn 1 Trinisphered is miserable. Yes, it's a different format, yes, it was over a decade ago, but the whole point of the B/R list in any format is to improve people's play experience. The fact that my play experience might be enhanced by making my opponent's play experience unpleasant is a feature that the game has lived with for its entire existence, and is part of what you sign up for in Eternal formats.
Also, I empathize with most of the people who want to see the cantrip cartel reigned in a bit. I don't agree with them, but most are arguing in good faith and sincerely believe that banning Brainstorm (at least) will be a major boon to the format. They're right that Brainstorm has a far larger metagame penetration than would be acceptable for another card, and that it's the best unbanned card. All we really disagree on is what the proper course of action is. If you want objective ban criteria, it's difficult to arrive at any that simultaneously allow for the banning of cards that are widely agreed to be banworthy and that exempt Brainstorm and Ponder unless one of criteria is that card selection/filtering tools that don't generate 'true' card advantage are exempt. Where thr pro-ban crowd and I differ is that I think that nerfing the cartel will do more harm than good, and they think it will do more good than harm.
Also, before someone inevitably points out that Treasure Cruise or Dig Through Time would be safe if Brainstorm and Ponder were banned - I strongly doubt this. They'd be banworthy if we were left with Opt, Sleight of Hand, and Portent.
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
btm10
Also, restricting a card to improve subjective play experience has precedence in Trinisphere. At the time it was restricted, Shop decks as a whole weren't dominating Vintage - in fact they were still only about even with Gro decks in terms of top 8 finishes. It was restricted explicitly because getting turn 1 Trinisphered is miserable. Yes, it's a different format, yes, it was over a decade ago, but the whole point of the B/R list in any format is to improve people's play experience. The fact that my play experience might be enhanced by making my opponent's play experience unpleasant is a feature that the game has lived with for its entire existence, and is part of what you sign up for in Eternal formats.
To be fair, at least from a modern day perspective, a turn one Trinisphere is a bit more than a "miserable" experience. But I do agree with the general sentiment.
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
btm10
Where thr pro-ban crowd and I differ is that I think that nerfing the cartel will do more harm than good, and they think it will do more good than harm.
Also, before someone inevitably points out that Treasure Cruise or Dig Through Time would be safe if Brainstorm and Ponder were banned - I strongly doubt this. They'd be banworthy if we were left with Opt, Sleight of Hand, and Portent.
I think this hits close to home for those who resist a Brainstorm ban. These Delve cards were a mistake for eternal formats.
I may be the only pro-Brainstorm person who considers the cantrip strategy to be an archetype. I would rather see the cantrip density thinned without banning Brainstorm however. Give me Brainstorm, Opt, and Sleight of Hand, just please leave Brainstorm.
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Crimhead
It would also help if players would broaden their horizons. I suspect Aggro Loam (with Chalice) is better positioned than its numbers reflect, and that Maverick/Junk players are shunning the deck almost out of spite (they shouldn't have to run Chalice).
Real quick, I have a big problem with this statement right here. I have played Maverick for years and only recently acquired the cards to build Kronberger's Loam list. To do so, I turned in some chaff I had lying around, and knocked about $100 off the price to buy into Loam while keeping the stuff to play Maverick. Even then, I had to pay around $400, and I was able to pick up cards relatively cheaply from friends. Without turning cards in, and at market prices, I would probably have paid around 600USD to make the switch. Don't assume a choice is made "out of spite." Legacy prices have soared, and that is a factor in this.
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Admiral_Arzar
That quote by maharis was incredibly prescient. Imagine if suddenly the next GP (a la the Dota international) had a multimillion dollar prize pool. The meta would likely be over 90% blue, if not close to 100%. There are plenty of people out there who don't play blue because they don't enjoy it. But when you get down to brass tacks, playing it gives you the best chance to win if real money is on the line. And Burn? Are you joking?
Not to mention that the quote is terribly reminiscent of the "Gentleman's Agreement" behind the Mystical Tutor ban and why the numbers didn't live up to the power level. If they didn't take action against Mystical when they did, it would have a meta penetration similar to Brainstorm now. You could reasonably slot it into any Brainstorm deck today and it would improve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
iostream
And there are eight distinct archetypes in the DTB forum which are all different in nontrivial and interesting ways. So: there is strategic diversity in Legacy. If there are lots of viable archetypes to choose from, why do we care about the five colors being represented equally? Why are non-blue decks being tier 1 an inherent good? It's speculative at best to presume that banning all the good cantrips will give us more strategic diversity, so it must be some other reason.
Yet those decks are the same in 50% of their cards. I don't care how different they play, there is a core of 4 BS/Ponder/FOW+blue fetches/duals, then 0-4 Probe/Preordain/Dig/Daze for nearly every DTB in Legacy. All decks have the same engine with a different strategy. Not healthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bruizar
I hope many people will play Brainstorm one last time this weekend. Because it will be the last :)
FTFY. ;)
Re: All B/R update speculation.
I think many in the ban DTT camp are forming their opinions based disproportionately on just how one-sided the fight is between fair decks and omnitell. In a grindier game vs omnitell a fair deck is only going to face 1x DTT [legitimately cast] on turn 3 or 4; the Digs after this are all going to be free. If a deck isn't going to fight the card show and tell in the first place, I don't know that it makes much sense to fixate on DTT (especially the free ones) - there are certain spells in legacy that, uncontested, are supposed to result in a loss [i.e. the resolution of show and tell].
The more important takeaway though is that Omnitell is an outlier in the DTT debate; exclude it and you will find few 4x DTT decks, and indeed fewer decks that fire off digs without its biggest non-fetch enabler: gitaxian probe. Ban gitaxian and you slow down the delve and break the patently unfair I-know-your-hand cabal therapy. There are plenty of cards that can strand digs in hand, but they're all soft to probe/cabal.
Decks with DTT but no probe, will generally run two copies at most (and honestly they'd just be JTMS if dig were banned). In these 2 dig decks, the card is basically ancestral recall with a "can't be cast, nor resolve in the first 5-6 turns of the game" clause; begging the question: why is the game not over yet? If DTT decisively ends such a grind, I'd consider it a good thing - certainly better than spamming JTMS activations and passing turns.
Re: All B/R update speculation.
You guys do understand that if they were to ban Brainstorm, there would be massive financial repercussions in the secondary market, right? Do you know how much an Underground Sea or Volcanic would tank? How about Force of Will? What would happen to combo pieces? Thoughtseize might top it's old price tag. It's not just about gameplay, money makes magic go 'round.
From my phone. I do my best, dammit!
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Secretly.A.Bee
Do you know how much an Underground Sea or Volcanic would tank?
Like five bucks?
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Sure. I've got some farmland in Florida I'll sell ya...
From my phone. I do my best, dammit!
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Admiral_Arzar
Strategic diversity argument = blue apologism. I still have to play blue cards and blue lands as a prerequisite to participate in your "diversity."
Your second paragraph contradicts itself, as leaving the format on its current trajectory is blatant favoritism towards the concerns of blue players over everyone else.
Every format has constraints that exclude certain classes of strategies from the top tier. You're not entitled to win no matter how much you love your deck if it just isn't as good as the top decks. Formats can be healthy in spite of this, because there are multiple strategies you can choose which, given tight play and a little luck, can win a large tournament. That state of affairs exists in Legacy. There are viable blue aggro, control, and combo decks and everything in between to accommodate nearly every strategic preference one could conceivably have.
If the color of the border of the cards is the problem, then I don't know what to tell you. Banning cards until you see more black ink, red ink, etc. around the text box instead of blue ink would not necessarily have any positive impacts on the format, simply because the color of the card border has nothing to do with how many viable archetypes exist, etc. It is just unrelated to the qualities that make a format healthy! What if the DTB forum had 1000 very different decks in it that were all roughly as good, and every single one of them played 4 Brainstorms. Would you still be in favor of banning Brainstorm despite the huge diversity of strategies that you could choose from?
As for the second point, the status quo doesn't "favor blue players" because people who play blue decks aren't a monolithic entity. There are people who play Delver, who play Miracles, who play Omnitell, who play Grixis Control, etc., and they have different interests. If Delver of Secrets were banned, you can bet that Omnitell players would not react the same way as Delver players, for instance.
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
iostream
If Delver of Secrets were banned, you can bet that Omnitell players would not react the same way as Delver players, for instance.
You just used your own argument against yourself;
Quote:
Originally Posted by
iostream
What if the DTB forum had 1000 very different decks in it that were all roughly as good, and every single one of them played 4 Brainstorms. Would you still be in favor of banning Brainstorm despite the huge diversity of strategies that you could choose from?
Explain how every delver deck is the same, but not every brainstorm deck is the same?
#NOT-ALL-DELVER-PLAYERS
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stevestamopz
You just used your own argument against yourself
Explain how every delver deck is the same, but not every brainstorm deck is the same?
#NOT-ALL-DELVER-PLAYERS
They're obviously not literally the same deck, but they're all playing a similar tempo style with Dazes and Wastelands. The difference between RUG and Grixis Delver is not as great as the difference between the Delver archetypes and Omnitell, for instance.
I don't see how I'm using my argument against myself. Banning Brainstorm would greatly harm the entire spectrum of blue decks and basically overturn the balance of the format for no clear benefit whatsoever. Banning Delver could conceivably be reasonable if it got strong enough because it's only one particular style of tempo deck - i.e. it's just one small sub-sector of the format. It wouldn't also randomly handicap the various other top decks at the same time.
I get that people have their pet decks, but be realistic: the format is healthy, and you have lots of choices. You just don't like them, so maybe the format's not for you.
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
iostream
Banning Brainstorm would greatly harm the entire spectrum of blue decks and basically overturn the balance of the format for no clear benefit whatsoever.
Lol, what balance does Legacy have right now?
Of all formats, Legacy has the least balanced metagame. Even Vintage is healthier than Legacy, and you literally have to play some variation/combination of P9 + other incredibly OP cards to be competitive. Do you want to know why?
Brainstorm.
Pure and simple.
