@shopsaholic said in How much shake up is too much:

TL:DR - War of the Spark didn't shake up the format and an actual shake up would be cool as long as the resulting metagame was balanced.

Top 8 stats for decks with fow without bazaar 3 challenges before WAR

April 28: 6/8
April 21: 4/8
April 14: 6/8

Top 8 stats for decks with fow without bazaar the 3 last MTGO challenges (after WAR, excluding the one that was immediately after release)

May 12: 2/8
May 19: 2/8
May 26: 2/8

Out of those 6 decks, 5 played narset...
There could be tons of reasons for this, people want to try new things etc. But it seems strange to argue that WAR didn't shake up the format...

@josefk They are defining a "shake up" as something that disrupts the Blue, Colorless, Bazaar triumvirate of Vintage, so this doesn't meet that definition since it merely changed the balance of power between the establishment. Colorless got more powerful with Karn. Blue got weaker with Narset cannibalizing it's own results. Your top 8 results show that (though they are somewhat skewed by the London mulligan testing in April).

I mean, it's an argument dripping in condescension for Vintage players (though I'm not even sure this person knows us that well), flawed in several ways, and is not even that original as I've seen it repeated several times before (green needs it's own Ancestral Recall, it's own Force of Will, it's own Workshop, etc...).

@chubbyrain

As almost all of these discussions end up, its all about how you are classifying decks. If you just want to look at:

Islands
Bazaars
Ancient Tombs

I won't tell you that you are wrong, but that classification system is never going to change much due to the inherent power in the mana-bases. The Islands decks looks dramatically different than they did a couple of months ago. The Ancient Tombs decks do too. And with the London Mulligan + Printings of Hagaak/Force of Vigor Bazaars will too.

@vaughnbros It's not my argument, so you are not telling me that I am wrong, unless you believe I summarized cardholics argument inaccurately...

In any case, I'm not really interested in another deck classification discussion. I've grown way too tired of them from the metagame reports we used to do.

@chubbyrain

I meant it as more a "you all", "y'all", "yose" than a true singular "you" aimed at the whole discussion, sorry if it made you feel singled out (I'll spare you from the English is not a good language rant) was just responding to the most recent comment.

My point is just that a person's perception of the format usually comes down to how a person is classifying the decks. If you make a classification in one way (by the mana bases), the format rarely changes, if you make a classification in another way (by win cons / enablers), the format is always changing. Everyone's classification seems to vary and all the times its been discussed, not one can agree, so yeah I'm not really into starting it again either.

@chubbyrain said in How much shake up is too much:

@josefk They are defining a "shake up" as something that disrupts the Blue, Colorless, Bazaar triumvirate of Vintage, so this doesn't meet that definition since it merely changed the balance of power between the establishment. Colorless got more powerful with Karn. Blue got weaker with Narset cannibalizing it's own results. Your top 8 results show that (though they are somewhat skewed by the London mulligan testing in April).

I mean, it's an argument dripping in condescension for Vintage players (though I'm not even sure this person knows us that well), flawed in several ways, and is not even that original as I've seen it repeated several times before (green needs it's own Ancestral Recall, it's own Force of Will, it's own Workshop, etc...).

This post is an entirely correct interpretation of mine.

@shopsaholic said in How much shake up is too much:

@chubbyrain said in How much shake up is too much:

@josefk They are defining a "shake up" as something that disrupts the Blue, Colorless, Bazaar triumvirate of Vintage, so this doesn't meet that definition since it merely changed the balance of power between the establishment. Colorless got more powerful with Karn. Blue got weaker with Narset cannibalizing it's own results. Your top 8 results show that (though they are somewhat skewed by the London mulligan testing in April).

I mean, it's an argument dripping in condescension for Vintage players (though I'm not even sure this person knows us that well), flawed in several ways, and is not even that original as I've seen it repeated several times before (green needs it's own Ancestral Recall, it's own Force of Will, it's own Workshop, etc...).

This post is an entirely correct interpretation of mine.

I disagree with your interpretations of my words. I specifically used the term shake up because it was subjective without clearly defined parameters. It is about a persons interpretation of what that is. I have personal feelings about what shakeup means mind you, but everyone defines their own. To some it could be entire pillar shifts, while to some it can be as simple as a formerly viable card getting the boot.

@protoaddict Please just ignore my post if you don't like my subjective view/definition of shaking up the format.

FWIW, I love the shake up that WAR and now MH1 is going to cause. The triumvirate, as rightly alluded to, is a narrow chunk of the whole of magic. I welcome more colors leaking into the format as major players. When a handful of decks/strategies become the only thing you need to worry about, it gets stale to me. I know others enjoy knowing they will only face 3 decks in 80% of their matches and making their main/sb accordingly. Others, like me, like facing an unknown field and making a well-rounded deck that is not inherently weak to anything, but not necessarily a slam dunk in any one matchup.

And the london mulligan is officially coming. We live in interesting times.

@winterstar said in How much shake up is too much:

And the london mulligan is officially coming. We live in interesting times.

"Ancient Chinese curse"

From I have seen so far, I'm not sure if we have shake up or polarization.

When Lavinia was release she polarized the format in a very negative way and the format adjusted. When the London mulligan was being tested, it polarized the format but then it went away.

Now, we have Karn and Narset creating a polarization that I have not seen since Dig Through Time and Treasure Cruise. Even 2016 with the Eldrazi onslaught does not measure up to this insane amount of polarization.

The meta-game is ok for now but the community is fractured in a negative way. The polarization creates contempt and that makes for some really bad feelings about the format.

If it's any consolation, I'm liking the format right now. I know it isn't. I know you don't care. I wouldn't too. But I'm liking it.

Peace.

@gutocmtt I’m not saying the format is bad or not fun. I’m saying that it is an us versus them aspect to it that makes people upset.

Example - I’m not a fan of prison decks. I hate losing to prison decks. Right now, one of the best decks in the meta is a prison deck. So, when I lose to the deck, which will happen, I feel worse than losing to a Xerox deck or Dredge deck.

This feeling makes for a feeling that the game or the format is not fun. I’m concerned about this based on the arch types that we have now and how good they are in the meta.

I’m just starting to play more and I am also enjoying the meta so far. I feel like I can experiment with just about anything right now.

@moorebrother1 I know, I was just passing by to say that. Mostly for people who think this kind of discussion means no one is liking the format. If that was true, you would be the most unsatisfied person on TMD, but I know you are just someone who likes to discuss things to get (or not) to conclusions on some matters, being satisfied or not.

@moorebrother1 said in How much shake up is too much:

polarization

When I see this word used about vintage do not think of it as I would in other formats. In Standard or modern, polarized usually means you get a Rock Paper Scissor meta where decks tend to have like a 25/75 ratio. You can still win, but it is an uphill climb.

In vintage I perceive this meaning that there are more hopeless non games. Beating shops/drazi with spheres when they are on the play may just be a function of if you drew a good opening 7 without having to mulligan, otherwise you'll never get out from behind the spheres. Or having a critical counterspell against an early combo deck. Some games are just decided on turn 0.

The cards that tend to see play in the format have some of the highest blowout potential in all of magic. Now some of the counters to them have some of the highest blowout potential. Force of Vigor of instance is almost always going to either be a dead card or the most important card you can draw, but almost never just going to be just ok. By and large the format is made up of Haymakers, not incremental gains, and I think it can be argued that the coinflip matters more and more, not less as one would hope.

At least, that is my perception of a polarized meta in vintage, which if it is changing in one direction or the other too much would def feel like a shake up of the whole game to me. No one wants vintage to be the coin flip format that people who do not play it often think it is, but as the game expands it could very easily travel in that direction.

I don't enjoy enduring this sort of shake up when it was obvious that the new cards were going to be broken.

Looking at other player-moderated formats like Old School and how it thrives, I think it would be nice to have the Vintage format be regulated by dedicated players who are capable of identifying potentially problematic cards prior to release, and taking preventative measures to stop the format from becoming a hot mess following each release of a powerful card; or otherwise capable of acting quickly once a card is identified as problematic following release.

I wonder how long it'll take for Karn and/or Narset to be officially restricted. Vintage could be a much better format than it is now, and it doesn't ever have to be in the kind of state that it is in right now with competent management of B&R.

Random question (though relevant):

Does anyone know the amount of unique sets (not including things like Mythic Edition or Spellbook) Wizards puts out a year right now, versus year's past. Regular and supplemental? Has it remained constant?

@joshuabrooks I combined the list of edition of MTG Wiki with the data base of card of MTGJSON (used by Cockatrice), Un-set are excluded. I got a total of 18909 cards.

The number of set (with at least one new card) by year:

The number of new printing by year:

The year 2019 is ongoing so the number are incomplete.
There seem to have an increase in the number of new printing in the last few years.

I have avoided complaining and ranting but I will put my rant hat on for a minute. So be warned.

The issue is not the shake up itself, it’s the balance of how we shake things up. Wizards is printing hosers. They print cards to mess with your deck and your plan but not the solution to fight it.

People love free counterspells and they love super tutors and lopsided hosers. These cards and the tactics that they promote polarize the meta game and community around it.

I hate this aspect of the game.

I brew quite a bit but I’m tired of having to spend a ridiculous amount of money and time to get a deck that feels right. After playing for as long as I have I should have the an arsenal that allows me to compete. Adding to an arsenal should not be cost prohibitive.

With that said I don’t expect to play the same deck forever or the same cards forever either. I expect balance. If you print super good planeswalkers then print super good removal. If all the colorless creatures are curved low then the removal should be too. If you allow people to easily blow up lands and artifacts give people a method to recover. And if counterspells are going to be free make better discard spells or more uncounterable work arounds.

The power creep is eventually going to break the eternal formats all of them. That’s my rant for what it’s worth.