First of all, that's the biggest bunch of angry venom I've seen here in a long time. In the good ole days, most of that post would be scrubbed as inflammatory, but since it's not, I'll response point by point.
@ChubbyRain said in Vintage Challenge - 6/17/2017:
- We've had a handful of events that would be considered tiny in relation to any other format. Many prereleases and FNMs are larger than these challenges. Wizards gets more data about the state of Standard in a week than Vintage gets in a year. The entire point of this exercise is to track changes in the format over time and aggregate the results, because anyone with a basic understanding of statistics knows that sample size is critical to making empirical judgements about complex systems.
What do you think I'm doing? There have been 6 Challenges so far. if I were looking at just a single event, and "cherry picking" (your favorite phrase), then you would easily call me out on it.
But I'm not. There is a clear trendline here. That's why I looked at all of the data together.
This isn't a table that shows random data points. The data all show a stable pattern with a stable trendline. The metagame picture is clear. Shall I draw it for you?
Oh look! How funny is that!
It's exactly what I predicted many months ago:
Any dummy can look at those charts and tell that there is something discernible happening here. This isn't random data points. They are part of a clear pattern and direction. It's not "noise."
I don't know if you are being willfully ignorant or you're still going through the bereavement process - either way, it's getting tiresome to deal with this week to week.
Just like it was tiresome, for more than two years, to hear you complain about Gush over and over again. Deal with it.
The DCI made two restrictions accompanied by an explanation that contained predictions that Mentor and Shops decks would decrease. Neither is happening. The data is showing us this. Pointing this out is a duty, to hold the DCI accountable, as well as the people who misled the DCI into thinking this would happen.
People have a right to complain about the gross incompetence and mismanagement of the format.
- Innovation in Vintage is driven by a handful of competent brewers. The list you played in this event had some minor tweaks from the version I used to win a Lotus three years ago (some were terrible...Chewer is mediocre and doesn't work well with JVP - it's no surprise Jazza trounced you). That list seems pretty obvious and standard now, but it took about a month of tuning to get it right and the reason I didn't play it in Champs (with 1-2 more Digs) that year was because I didn't feel it was ready. The Drain Tendrils list I used to win the Challenge a couple of weeks ago took about the same amount of time. I get that you used to take other people's decks, tweak a couple of cards, and call them "Meandeck whatever". That's not how Vintage works right now, and your poor performance in the later iterations of VSL is a result of that (God, that Dark Petition Oath deck was an abomination). Maybe some of this is unnecessarily mean, but the point is that Vintage has a considerable amount of inertia given the small player base, few number of innovators, time it takes to adequately tune a brew, and the large number of old hacks who don't understand the modern metagame, yet think they are still relevant.
Keep it classy, as always, Matt!
I'm not sure what your point is here, except to spew vitriol, but suffice to say, Ingot Chewer is the only reason I was able to beat every other Shops/Eldrazi match I played in the rest of the tournament. My top 8 deck from April had 0 Ingot Chewer, and I lost to Jazza in the Top 8 of that tournament as well. I specifically switched to Ingot Chewer based upon testing that it improved my Shops (and Eldrazi) matchup. I don't know if you've noticed, but Mentor has been getting crushed by Jazza and other Shops players recently in these tournaments. The Mentor players aren't running an anti-Shops configuration that is capable of reliably competing, and Shops is the best deck in the format. Ingot Chewer was actually amazing against Jazza. I probably made some miscues against him, and it's possible that I could have won the match, but it wasn't because of Chewer. But Ingot Chewer was actually amazing. By Force is simply not reliable against Shop decks. That's dreamland for Mentor decks.
As for "consistent brewers," I was one of the very first people in this format to play with Young Pyromancer (Rich and I both Top 8ed the same first tournament it was legal, but I played it in a 4 Gush deck, and he didn't). And I brewed one of the very first Mentor decks and won a local tournament in a shell that would pretty much resemble what later emerged, and also the very first to play Mentor on the VSL (along with DW, who played my deck). The shell I built is basically the shell that exists to this day, including the list that I played a 3rd place finish in the Asian Vintage Championship last year. I also won a bunch of local tournaments over the last few years with essentially the same deck, including one at the beginning of April.
- Final point and I apologize for the occasional use of caps for emphasis. However, I'm at a loss as you seem unable to comprehend what I think is a relatively simple concept. The MAJORITY OF VINTAGE PLAYERS IN VARIOUS POLLS agreed with you that Mentor should have been restricted. A SUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGE felt Gush should also be restricted. This is completely beside the point, because NONE OF THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RESTRICTIONS ARE ON THIS WEBSITE.
Oh please. That's completely BS, and everyone knows it.
You bragged about relentlessly giving "feedback" to the DCI about Gush. If there is a single person responsible for incessantly whining, complaining, and rousing the rabble against Gush, it's you.
You were the very first person to post on TMD (the previous version) that Gush should be re-restricted, and slowly pressed your case. Do you now deny arguing that Gush should be restricted?
Because you were the chief person who misled them.
Posting here each week only serves to fuel your rampant narcissism and remind us what a self-absorbed ass you are.
Wow, pot meet kettle. You are the very stereotype of an angry nerd sitting behind his computer desk spewing venom. Get out more. Seriously.
Absolutely nothing I said in this thread was narcissistic. Please, tell me what is narcissistic about this post:
You are delusionally reading things that aren't there.
I didn't even mention my performance in this tournament, or self-congratulate myself. All that I said was the format is awful, and that the DCI's predictions about the format are failing to materialize; and in fact, the opposite is happening.
The fact that you read my complaints about the format as self-absorption or narcissism is hilariously revealing about your own psyche.
The DCI doesn't check this - they already have more complete results than we can collect. Your rants on this blog don't influence policy.
Uh, we already know that members of R&D who communicate with the DCI do check this.
Perhaps a better use of your time would be to churn out more Old School content or to get Paul to teach you some new sleight of hand... Hell, you could take over this data collection for us, because I'm really close to not bothering with this crap anymore.
You already said "People have a right to be angry with and/or disagree with the DCI's decisions. It would be hypocritical of me to think otherwise."
So stop being hypocritical, and don't complain about people's justifiable criticism.
The restrictions of Gush and Probe were the wrong restrictions. The polarization you complained about has either persisted or gotten worse, and you are partly responsible for it. And, unfortunately, I have a feeling things are just going to get worse. Who knows where this train ends up, but it's not likely some place good! Probably more unnecessary restrictions.