Vintage Challenges - March 2018

Let me start by saying I really appreciate all of the effort that is put into to getting this data.

But, I am very tired of being dismissed about my point that Paper events are showing more innovative decks and more diversity. Just checking this site I get found these results: (12 players)
1st Xerox
2nd 2 Card Monte (27 players)
1st Paradoxical Mentor
2nd White Eldrazi
3rd Dark Petition Storm
4th Two Card Monte (22 players)
1st Hydra Gush
2nd Dredge
3rd Dredge
4th Wizards

I see that the MTGO Challenges are getting 40 - 50 players, which is awesome. I also see a ton of discussion on Vintage Lands and 8 Moon, which you will never see top 8 on MTGO. Is it because the people that play these decks are bad players? The answer is NO. There is a population of players that do not play MTGO but play Magic at a high level. The answer is YES. They may not be as good as the Champs on MTGO but their decks and their innovations are not in the MTGO data.

I am about to sell all of my MTGO cards and get off MTGO. I do not like it, but I do see value in having it and looking at the data. I also see value in looking at what people are playing in Paper.

last edited by moorebrother1

@moorebrother1 said in Vintage Challenges - March 2018:

I also see a ton of discussion on Vintage Lands and 8 Moon, which you will never see top 8 on MTGO.

This is an unfair assessment. I streamed myself playing Vintage Lands on Thursday and ran into the 8 Moon matchup (match starts around 1h05m). I also managed a 5-0 with Vintage Lands (second result down). You are pushing a narrative for two decks that weren't good enough to get paper results yet are showing up on MODO. What exactly are you trying to prove?

We know via replays and published results every deck that's played in the Challenges. Lands has seen play several times and NolaGold (notable legacy Lands pilot) streamed it this past weekend to a 2-3 record. 8 Moon saw play right after Champs and I think cracked a top 8, but left the metagame as it was unable to sustain success. 2CM sees play once in a blue moon, but it does see play. Hydra Gush has seen an uptick in play as well recently. I think you are underestimating how competitive the MTGO challenge metagame is and how quickly it adapts, relative to the paper metagame. The lack of top 8's comes from increased competition rather than being completely absent from the metagame.

It's also ironic that the 1st place Xerox list is a tweaked version of my MTGO list. If you are using it as an example of innovation, that came from MTGO...

@hierarchnoble I was specific to discuss the Challenges, not the Leagues. There is a lot of diversity in the League.

I'm a Shops apologist, but those win rates are pretty damning.

last edited by Stuart

@chubbyrain I was trying to highlight the 2 Card Monte deck, not Xerox. I have only seen it once on MTGO but several times in Paper.

Please try and find a way to celebrate the interesting decks in your metagame without trashing the decks in someone else's metagame. This goes to both sides of this discussion.

@moorebrother1 With that logic some number of paper events need to be discounted as well. I've always been a fan of ignoring Top 8 results of events with five or less Swiss rounds (32 or less players) because of the small amount of skill it takes to get published. That used to be the metric of So Many Insane Plays back before the release of Vintage Master online, and may still be.

@brass-man I'm not trashing anything or anyone. This is a thread about the MTGO challenge metagame for a specific month, not any of the individual paper metagames. I think that is pretty clear and am frustrated that "but paper is different" was brought up. It is in my opinion beyond the scope of this thread (especially since there was already a thread titled "MTGO" that discussed this).

last edited by ChubbyRain

@chubbyrain That is a fair point. I was only replying because you said that you had addressed this. I won’t bring up on these threads anymore. I’m sorry and I appreciate all of your efforts in analyzing this data. Thank you

@moorebrother1 On the other hand, if you want to make a similar thread and highlight interesting decks from your meta (or paper events you follow), that would be pretty awesome 🙂

  • 18
  • 3218