Yes, Brass you make a good point that everyone's goals are different in the sense of where we'd like to see Vintage as a format. Some of just want to play a bunch of blue mirrors all day that is what makes Vintage, Vintage to them. Some of us like the deck/strategy/color diversity that we see in other formats, and would like to see more of it here. Some of us want restrictions/unrestrictions to see a particular deck excel and/or others fail. In these senses, everyone comes into the discussion with a different goal in mind.
Where I will disagree is that everyone does have two goals in mind:
- They want to have fun playing Vintage.
- They want to see Vintage be successful.
I have a hard time believing anyone in one of these discussions doesn't have each other these larger goals in mind during the discussion.
Most people in this particular discussion also seem to have a similar idea in mind for improving those goals:
- Making a change to the restricted list.
Although, I don't think this is necessarily true of most discussions.
So no matter how anyone of us slicing and dicing the data up, or classifying each deck, or however they are coming their conclusions, we all have a common goal and a common path to said goal.
Going back to the data (I'll scrap the "blue" classification) over the last six months, I see the top 22% of the metagame is shops (mostly ravager?) and 16.5% of the meta is "Xerox" (previously Mentor and previous to that Gush) still leading the format in meta % AND match win % despite numerous restrictions, and ample time for the format to "adjust". Both decks being at the top for a quite a while (you can argue however long you like, but I believe its been at least a couple years of regular data showing them at top). I think we can all agree that this is the root cause of our frustration? We have seen numerous restrictions yet, none of them to date have worked.
So literally the only part we all seem to have disagreements on are:
- What action to take on the restricted list?
- How did we come to this conclusion?
What's funny to me is that two people can have totally different views on 2. yet still reach the same conclusion in 1. At the same time, people can have extremely similar views on 2. yet still reach a different conclusion on 1. Now does 2 really matter? I mean in the end, the only actual action being taken is 1. What I really have to wonder is why does it matter if we are reaching the same conclusion?
So the following conclusions were:
Restrict something in Workshops (no consensus on what, and most people can't even give a single card).
Restrict Mental Misstep.
Now, I would literally do all of these things. As I started this discussion, I'm really sick and tired of the format having the same decks at top for what seems to be quite a while (again I guess arguable as to how long; In my viewpoint its been 8 years, in others maybe only 6 months). So lets shake everything up. Do it all. Unrestrict everything that won't benefit the big 2. Restrict a bunch more cards in the big 2. At least we get a different, fresher format that people can start to enjoy again.