Spiderman said:
They did, it was in the Duelist which was the main source of communication between WOTC and the players back then. I'm not sure what the problem you have with "popular" is; my definition of "popular" is "the vast majority uses it". Which they were.
That's not the definition of "popular." The "vast majority" is necessarily more than 50%. How much more depends on just how "vast" we have to be, but I'd say someone claiming 60% is a vast majority is misleading. It's got to be more than that. On the other hand "popular" doesn't even have to be a majority. It just means that it's prevalent or that lots of people like it.
And certainly not every card that's been popular has been restricted. Basic lands, for example have never been banned or restricted anywhere, but they sure have been prevalent.
I don't know if you're losing track of the various quotes bouncing back and forth, but if I ask if you keep up with Vintage and your reply is "not really" or "not much", that pretty much says something about currency. And it's not even implied, it's stated right there.
Really? Because I still don't see it. I don't see the word "lately" or any of its synonyms.
Oversoul said:
Short answer: I was following the format to a minor extent and after this last round of restrictions will probably stop entirely.
Long answer...
Not too much this year because I'd been busy with school. Also, some things kind of turned me off to the whole competitive scene. Specifically, I really disliked the Trinisphere restriction not so much because of the effects as because the rationale seemed to be that because Trinisphere made lockdown viable and some people couldn't stand being locked down, the card needed to be restricted. The Shahrazad ban was even worse because I had a soft spot for that card and the rationale there seemed even worse. More importantly, I've also realized that I probably won't be throwing out the kind of time and money I'd need to in order to actually compete in Vintage tournaments, which years past I'd had some hope of eventually doing. On the other hand, Gush being unrestricted, Flash becoming good (again), and storm combo catching up to control decks (in part thanks to the restriction of Gifts) changed things up and made the format more interesting and diverse. So I've tried to keep some track of what's stayed good and what's fallen by the wayside as well as what emergent decks are doing well in multiple tournaments. I've checked StarCityGames and TheManaDrain on occasion, read some articles, and mostly just browsed recently (I used to do more). I'm by no means an expert on the current state of Vintage or anything, but I've seen what's generally been doing well.
If it had been any one of these cards except Ponder, I would still have questioned it, but I wouldn't have been so critical, especially because I haven't been keeping up with Vintage all that much for the past several months. Part of what makes me more confident that I'm not missing anything too huge in my assessment is that it was all of these cards at once. Restricting Flash and Gush both at the same time is huge by itself because these restrictions don't attack similar problems at all. They're key cards in very different decks. I'm always wary of an action like this.
Merchant Scroll just doesn't make any sense. At least it probably won't affect the format much. But the combination of Brainstorm and Ponder is even more severe than the other restrictions. Brainstorm isn't a combo card. Combo decks use it because it draws cards. Control decks use it for the same reason. It's part of a small core of cards that are nearly ubiquitous and help control the pace and nature of the format. I'd put it in the same category is as Force of Will. But even disregarding all of this (and ignoring that we're already shaking up the format by restricting Flash and Gush), I can't accept that not only is Brainstorm so bad it needs to be restricted, but a card that's hardly ever used and could potentially serve as a crappy supplement for the loss of Brainstorm also needs to be restricted.
So while I may not be perfectly on top of the state of Vintage, for something this big, I don't need to be. It's so over the top it seems like a joke.
Hmm, I thought that was pretty clear. I ran on for a while. But here I admit to not following the format a lot "this year" (I should really have said for the past year or so, but whatever). I also state why I was regaining some interest in the format before these restrictions. And I make the point that I don't need to be an expert in order to see the problem here. But I can see how it would be lost in the rest of my ranting about individual cards and stuff...
But then in this post I conclude with with the the problem I see. And the very last sentence describes it without really leaving any room for misinterpretation that I can see...
Oversoul said:
We're told that a core of "blue deck manipulation" makes "blue" combo decks too good. Presumably this is referring to storm combo, which has been one of the most powerful deck types. That's where some of these cards usually appear, and it might be where they're strongest. So we have Brainstorm, Merchant Scroll, and Ponder all restricted because storm combo (or at least some form of combo) is too dominant. In fact, it's so dominant that we need to restrict not just one card but three in order to stop it (so I guess that when Workshop Aggro wins a tournament, it's just a gigantic magical fluke that we can ignore).
The explanation about Gush only mentions its interaction with Fastbond. I'll admit that this can happen in combo decks, but those aren't the combo decks that are most prominent right now. The most successful deck to exploit the Gush/Fastbond engine is GAT. But really, it doesn't matter. If it's GAT that's the problem, when we were told that the other cards had to go because of dominant combo decks, that wasn't true. Restricting Gush alone would do the trick. And if it's Gush-reliant combo that's too good, restricting Gush would still solve the problem. Restricting Brainstorm and other cards is redundant.
And the rationale for restricting Flash is the Flash decks are dominant. If that's the case, then restricting Flash solves the problem.
Furthermore, not all three of these things can be true. We can't have storm combo, GAT, and Flash decks all dominating at the same time.
We're told that the restrictions are because of dominance issues, but we can't have three decks dominating at the same time. Clear, yes? But maybe one might miss it, distracted by something else that causes one to focus on my understanding of the format. After all, if I don't understand the format, I don't really have a basis for criticizing restrictions...
Spiderman said:
All I'm saying is that you're admittedly not up with the Vintage scene and so it sounds like your reasons are based off of what the scene was *when* you were up on it. Maybe you're not and basing them off of the latest tourneys, but again, WOTC has data on almost every reported tournament just for DCI points, if nothing else. They surely are seeing some trend somewhere; after all, these cards weren't unrestricted 3 months ago when the last decision was made.
Okay, so I should probably have nipped this in the bud and I didn't. But "you're admittedly not up with the Vintage scene and so it sounds like your reasons are based off what the scene was *when* you were up on it" gives me, at least, an impression that's completely different from what I was actually talking about. It makes it sound like I knew a lot about the format earlier and haven't kept up to date. But I've NEVER been an expert on Vintage, and when I was following it most closely, these issues didn't exist. But I've tried to keep tabs on it pretty consistently for the past few years. There was something of a dead zone where I didn't have time to look at it at all, not even a little bit, from oh, let's say October to March. Probably less than that. Before and after that, I'd read some articles, look at some tournament reports, trends, etc. I didn't go into this detail because this thread isn't about the history of Oversoul and Vintage Magic.
Spiderman said:
Well, this is the casual players, so you don't necessary have to follow the "tourney" restrictions when playing... just modify them and have house rules. I mean, which of us can play with a full set of Moxes (like 4 of one kind) anyway? Or does 1-2 turn kills like with Flash-Hulk (which I've never heard of, because I don't even have those cards to begin with). WOTC has to watch out for the competitive scene though, so if some cards are appearing to be stronger in those "cutthroat" formats, they have to do something. I think it's kinda naive? presumptuous? to try to say to WOTC that they can't restrict something when we don't even play in that sandbox to begin with...
I let this go at the time because you never mentioned me by name, but in retrospect I couldn't see who else it could be talking about. And if it was talking about me, this was the first time in the thread you took what I said and turned it into something I had not or had not been meaning to espouse. Nowhere in my text do I find anything about what the DCI "can't restrict."
Seeing that my experience and credibility is a sticking point for you, I address this part to you by name, to make sure that you take note of it...
Oversoul said:
Okay Spidey, this part will be to you specifically, since you've brought it up: You've raised the issue at least twice now that I'm not an expert on the exact state of Vintage tournaments and don't have all the data available to the people who did make this decision. That's fair, but for me, that's not the issue. I do believe the metagame was pretty balanced, and if you or anyone else does have information to the contrary, I would be glad to look at it and discuss it. That data is pertinent and it is out there. And yes, I've not seen all of it or even most of it. But my take isn't that the restrictions were bad because the metagame was balanced. It's that this is against the spirit of the format. Restricting a staple card (Brainstorm) is a serious matter. It shouldn't be done lightly and it should be done in a controlled setting, preferably with no other restrictions or unrestrictions taking place at the same time. But this is FIVE cards. That's a lot, even for the most extremely unhealthy metagame where things need to change, that would be too much.
This is five cards when two of them are vital to run certain first tier decks, two are staples and the last one is a potential supplement for one of the staples being restricted. Even though the tone of the explanations is, "There's a problem and we need to fix it" the reality of this huge action is clearly more like, "We want to turn the format on its head. Out with the old Vintage, in the with the new."
And then in your next post...
Spiderman said:
I'm not sure how you can say in one sentence that you don't have all the data for Vintage yet in another say that you believe the metagame is balanced. That's like coming into a debate without doing any homework or research whatsoever yet expecting to be taken seriously
Again, I'm not sure how long it's been between the last round of mass unrestrictions and this, but I'm pretty sure WOTC isn't "taking this lightly". If they had done this with only the three month window in between restriction announcements, yeah, I would agree with you. But since more time than that has passed, I think they've taken a more serious look than a "light" one.
So with that first paragraph, you portray me as contradicting myself. Even though by now I had made multiple times (and even addressed it to you specifically one of those times) that my central argument, the bit about the scale of the restrictions and its reconciliation with the explanations, doesn't rely on having ANY data, and I'd always maintained that I knew enough to conclude that the format was balanced, I'm supposedly doing the equivalent of going into a debate and saying that I haven't done any research. I did debate in high school. I know what doing that would be like. And it's not at all like what I said in this thread.
In your second paragraph (out of this excerpt), you portray me as claiming that the DCI took restricting cards lightly, even though I never said that.
And then in your next post...
Spiderman said:
That's the only rebuttal I can make because frankly, you're not making your point based on any information at all. If you could provide some info that might illustrate your point, I might agree with you, but so far, from what I'm getting, you're just basing it off of either the past or non-current data and just personal feelings of how Vintage is being played without actually investigating how it's being played. It's like me trying to make a point of Vintage or Standard when I haven't played or looked to see what's being played. Again, a vent or rant I can understand, but in my experience, when additional info is made about the issue, the vent/rant becomes more informed and less of a vent/rant.
Not making my point based on any information at all? And supposedly I'm basing something on outdated data? Again, this is your claim about what I've said, and I don't recall any resemblance to what I've actually posted.
So in my next post, I address that bit about outdated data, although it seems to have come from your imagination anyway...
Oh, and I point out that what I said did NOT imply that that the DCI took action lightly. And I raise my central argument yet again...
Oversoul said:
Okay, first off, I am making my contentions based on information. It's information based on my entire experience, so I couldn't possibly provide everything that's influenced what I've said, but I could give some examples. Neither you nor anyone else asked for them. Had you asked, I would have made some attempt to accommodate, but really, you have access to the same sources as I do.
What's this nonsense about outdated data? If I haven't provided any hard data, which I think we both agree I have not, how are you in any position to claim that my data is outdated?
No. Just because YOU inferred that, doesn't mean I implied it. There's a context to what I was saying there (in that whole paragraph I was mainly explaining my perspective--had it been in a paragraph where I was directly referring to the DCI's actions, I could see the cause for confusion) and saying that restricting a staple card shouldn't be done lightly was just for emphasis on the fact that it was a huge change. And that was merely to point out what has become my central argument, which you haven't addressed and which circumvents any hypothetical mass of tournament data or argument based on the prevalence of any of these cards, so I'll repeat again in greater detail...
It was FIVE restrictions at once, three for the same reason and two others for different reasons. The explanations made the case that ALL of these restrictions were because of dominance issues. Any one or even two decks dominating the metagame could easily be solved by restricting about two cards, rather than a full five. And when one of the cards is a staple across the board, this sudden volley of restrictions comes much too fast and changes the face of the format completely.
Under the criteria the Vintage community has gotten used to regarding restrictions (although Trinisphere was an exception), there is no possible set of tournament data that justifies all five of these restrictions at once.
See my central argument. The idea that these restrictions are all to stop domination doesn't hold water. They can say whatever they want. If they say that these restrictions are to stop domination, they are lying. As for "bringing balance" that could mean anything. Banning everything but Forests would bring balance, but that's not necessarily a good thing.
But even after addressing this "currency" issue you've contrived, you bring it in again...
And to top it off, you say that when you asked whether I kept up with the Vintage scene, I said "no." Funny how I didn't ever say that.
You also claim that I started looking at the data only after we started this discussion, which like your other claims about me in this thread, doesn't seem to show up in any of my posts.
Spiderman said:
But again, what is your experience worth if it's not current? I could provide you with my experience based on Standard when the environment consisted of the Ice Age/Mirage block. That's not worth beans now.
That is why I asked you way back whether you kept up with the scene, to which you replied no. If you had said yes, then we wouldn't be here today.
I believe you started looking after we started this discussion, which is fine now. But spot-checking here and there doesn't give the full picture of what's happening overall.
And after I'd addressed the "no information at all" post earlier, you bring it in again with "isn't backed up by anything" and "unsubstantiated." I could almost understand it if my comments were in some other conversation where people were actually looking at data, but so far I'm the only one that's alluded to actual data (albeit without actually posting any tournament records, but I have at least mentioned the decks that these cards are being used in). You've simply assumed that the DCI has extremely important data I'm missing out on. Assuming that doesn't make it true, and I've argued that it doesn't even seem possible for such data to exist (my central argument).
Even if we were both coming into this with no data or experience, and you cried "unsubstantiated" about me, that would make you a hypocrite...
Spiderman said:
Heh. Maybe a little, but it's more the issue of someone having an opinion that isn't backed by anything AND keeps pushing it. I don't mind the opinion part, it's the part that it's unsubstantiated that bothers me.
A lot? It was just one line... and again, you're the writer. You're probably not going to see it. But that doesn't mean it wasn't there.
One line, eh? More like seven or eight. I'm beginning to get the impression that I live on Earth, where people communicate using language, and you live on Fantasy Planet, where people mean whatever Spiderman finds convenient.
Focusing on the claims was the entire point of the discussion, because I didn't feel you had a solid analysis if you weren't current with the environment. I didn't say anything about the claims themselves because *I* certainly don't keep up with Vintage and don't know whether you're right or wrong or can make a rebuttal. But if you're not current with the environment, I can't even take your claims seriously (or anyone else). Like you said, if it's a rant or venting, that's fine. No one really cares then.
And here we go again with the currency.
I'm not sure how one can justify believing in the DCI when they're the ones in charge. I mean, yeah, I haven't seen their data, but come on, you think they'd make this kind of decision blindly (well, from our conversation so far, you probably do
).
Wait, what? Are you saying that the DCI doesn't exist or something? Blindly? That's yet another misrepresentation. This is beginning to look intentional. Are you messing with my head or are you just really bad at setting up straw men? I mean, I did already say that I thought the explanations were a load of crap and that what they were really doing was turning the format on its head. Out with the old and in with the new. All that jazz. How do you get "blindly" out of that?
And again, I disagree with your statement that you don't need to be current to disagree with the "mass" restrictions, at least for your opinion to be taken seriously and not a rant/vent. Although it seems you have changed since the beginning of the discussion about your status of keeping current anyway.
Another misrepresentation? And are you obsessed with "currency" or something? Is it not possible for me to only somewhat keep track of the format over a long period of time. Must it be that I once kept track of it and then stopped sometime in the recent past?
And practically everything I've posted in this thread that wasn't to you specifically has been a rant or venting or whatever. If you don't want to take it seriously, then fine. I never asked you to take it seriously.
But again, no one knew that when the cards were unrestricted. Your prediction may have been true, but there had to be others who claimed it "was the end of the world" for the cards to be unrestricted (and if there weren't anyone, I'm frankly amazed). So with these cards being restricted, either it's not going to be a big deal and the decks are still viable or you'll be right and the decks will fall off the face of the earth until the next unrestrictions. But no one knows right now.
Why did there have to be others who claimed that it was the end of the world? It's not like I am prescient or was incredibly lucky. What I was saying about those unrestrictions was apparent to anyone who was paying attention. And why is it that if I'm right, the decks that used these cards will "fall of the face of the earth"? I don't recall saying anything like that. I already mentioned that almost all decks used Brainstorm. But surely not all of them will be completely compromised without it.
You've been here a long time and I've read thousands of your posts. I think you might have more posts in this community than any three other people here. And you're an administrator. But if I didn't already have some idea about you, I'd instantly assume from this that you were trolling.
You've been harping on my credentials (rather than my actual claim, despite the fact that I've stated, numerous times, that my expertise isn't relevant to my central argument) this whole time. Then after I've said something on a completely different issue as an aside to someone else, you snip one sentence out of context, and point at it. Are you really going to sink that low, or did you just want to see how long you could get me to argue with you before I noticed you were just spouting nonsense and quoting bits without actually making any contentions or rebuttals?