@protoaddct said in February 12, 2018 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
In summary, I think that 1) data matters, and 2) there are many people of good faith whose opinions are shaped by the story the data tells, for and against, restrictions, 3) and it's ok to use conventions or folk taxonomies as long as most people understand the meaning.
If the format was perfectly, mathmatically balanced ala rock paper scissors, and that was vetted out by the data, it would be bad for the game because people would get bored of it.
But even in that perfectly balanced format, there are better and worst scenarios. If there were 3 decks and each deck had a win ratio of 100% againt it's good matchup and a 0% against its bad matchup, this would be a worse set up than one where the fabored match was 75%/25%.
I only point this out because datas correlation to fun and feelings is loose at best. Some of the most broken formats are fun for some. No amount of data will convince me that workshops should not be on the restricted list, because my issue with it has nothing to do with win rate or representation.
I think data driven discussions are healthy and have a place, but I don't think you can have them in the same thread. I also think BR dicussions are healthy for the forum and important for the player base.
No offense, but it sounds like you are not well informed on the role that data plays in this debate.
There are well established benchmarks for Top 8 metagame penetration and win percentages that trigger restrictions.
Thirst for Knowledge was restricted when it was in 45% of Top 8 decklists. (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/17460_So_Many_Insane_Plays_The_Most_Dominant_Engine_in_Vintage_History_The_MarchApril_Vintage_Metagame_Report.html)
Treasure Cruise was restricted when it was 35% of Top 8 decklists.
Dig was restricted when it was 44% of Top 8 decklists.
And so on.
The explanation is simple: when a deck become too large a part of the Top 8 metagame, it begins to dominate the format. Note: we don't care about metagame %. A deck could be 80% of the metagame, but 0% of Top 8s and sub 30% win percentage. What matters is win percentage and Top 8 penetration.
The reason this matters is follows:
"Fun" is not entirely subjective. The core element to fun is meaningful choice: meaningful deck choice, meaningful game choices, etc. To have fun, players need meaningful choice among decks. This requires a diversity of decks. When a deck is monopolistic or dominant, there is no meaningful deck choice. Therefore, data is integral to B&R discussions. It's the main purpose of them.
Wizards has said this explicitly on multiple occasions. Most recently, it said "Data from twelve recent Vintage Challenges reinforces this, with 40% of the Top 8 decks being Shops and 30% being Mentor." This, in it's explanation of restricting Thorn and Mentor (https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/august-28-2017-banned-and-restricted-announcement-2017-08-28)
If the DCI uses Top 8 data to make restrictions, why the hell would the Vintage community separate data and B&R restriction discussion? That makes absolutely no sense.