Vintage Format Health Update from WOTC
-
@iamactuallylvl1 said in Vintage Format Health Update from WOTC:
Displacer Kitten and Vodalian Hexcatcher
I have played in several leauges and a challenge and have never seen either of these cards cast. Hexcatcher is obviously in merfolk but what deck suposedly plays displacer kitten? I also enjoy the idea that wizards thinks dispacer kitten, a card I learned about while reading this post, is more format impactful than boseju.
-
-
I think Vintage is heathy from a diversity stand point but very unhealthy from the perspective that the format is not fun right now.
I have done a few pushes to play and I usually do not play mainstream decks and the play patterns of the format are really around the "no bad cards" mantra.
What I mean by this is that decks have a high concentration of the best and most disruptive cards. This is typical for Vintage but the concentration of haymakers is so high that when you are in top deck mode it does not feel like there is any skill involved.
There are a non-trivial number of games that just feel like non-games. I have been evaluating my relationship with the format and I trying to decide if I just say "can't beat 'em join 'em" or do I try to attack the meta game.
Deck diversity is overall better than it has been in years but the play patterns feel toxic, and this is an emotional response. I realize that I see a lot of new names in leagues and paper is slowly coming back. My opinion may be in the minority here but the format does not feel fun right now.
-
With all do respect, I’ve played against you in league and you were noticeably not playing well. It takes consistent practice to play at a high level.
Personally I haven’t been playing as much during the week because of responsibilities and as a result I haven’t been doing as well in the challenges. There’s a correlation between how much time you put into it and how often you win.
I agree though that, grinding leagues every day is not fun. Losing isn’t fun either, so you have to find a middle ground or just dont play.
-
@faithloverful said in Vintage Format Health Update from WOTC:
With all do respect, I’ve played against you in league and you were noticeably not playing well. It takes consistent practice to play at a high level.
Personally I haven’t been playing as much during the week because of responsibilities and as a result I haven’t been doing as well in the challenges. There’s a correlation between how much time you put into it and how often you win.
I agree though that, grinding leagues every day is not fun. Losing isn’t fun either, so you have to find a middle ground or just dont play.
Haha, I couldn't help laugh at the implied translation, whether meant or not:
"It's plain to see, you suck at magic.
You don't play enough to be any good.
Devote every waking minute to magic, or quit playing."To Marland's point, the saturation of "bombs" has made it hard to attack the meta...cards have gotten so good and the color pie so blended, that a variety of strategies just have "I win" play patterns and the games play out as "I executed or I didn't" and the opponent has little to do with you winning or losing. Your deck craps out or it goes bonkers. Sometimes your opponent goes bonkers before you. It's a bit like playing "war" - sometimes you get the ace, sometimes your opponent does, but what card you flip has little to do with you. There seems to be a bit of a lull in chaining spells, timing strategy, etc. You just throw bomb after bomb until one sticks, or draw/counter until you have your bomb, 12 cards in hand, and super counterspell backup (freakin' blue).
-
@faithloverful I do not always play to win just FYI. I am often trying out various decks, similar thought process to Against the Odds at MTG Goldfish. No one likes to lose but playing a game is not always about winning.
If all I wanted to do was win then I'd just play a decks that throws bombs and not worry about trying to do something different or fun.
I think the current game play of Vintage is going to be a problem long term. I am starting to just learn toward combo decks where my opponent does not matter and I either win or lose quickly.
My concern is not about deck diversity but about the play style and how games feel. I played Oops all Spells some months back and the deck got a lot of fast wins and I got 4-1 and 3-2 league wins very often but I did not feel anything when I played the deck. It was like playing solitaire.
My feelings are probably in the minority and I will start leaning toward decks where there is little to no interaction if this is where Vintage is but I'm not sure that will get me to play more Vintage.
-
I agree that the format's in a great spot, even if the reasoning was misguided at best and "Just Consume Product and Then Get Excited for Next Products" at worst. Not having fun because you're "not playing to win" and think picking bad decks and playing poorly are the same thing doesn't make the format bad, just your personal experience.
-
@optionparalysis said in Vintage Format Health Update from WOTC:
I agree that the format's in a great spot, even if the reasoning was misguided at best and "Just Consume Product and Then Get Excited for Next Products" at worst. Not having fun because you're "not playing to win" and think picking bad decks and playing poorly are the same thing doesn't make the format bad, just your personal experience.
#ThingsSpikesSayToTimmys
-
Thankfully an ad hominem attack isn't a counterargument.
-
I'm glad we all agree that the format is healthy but I am disappointed when I point out that the format may be less open and to some extent less fun. This is not about being good or bad at magic.
I don't need validation from MTGO to tell me if I am good or bad at magic. I play to have fun and part of that is trying new things. When I go into try hard mode I usually win, but I can only sustain that for a short period of time before it makes the game un-fun for me.
I think discussing deck diversity and the fun factor is looking at the health of the format overall. The fun factor will influence deck diversity over time. It is not something easy to measure but it will also have an impact on the number of players actively playing.
-
@marland_moore Define healthy. Here are some things we know to be true about the format:
- It is not attracting new blood at a sustainable rate
- It is more expensive to play paper than ever before
- it is not supported in full on what seems to be the premiere online format, Arena
- Newer cards are being powercreeped out at a pretty fresh clip but nothing has really moved the needle to devaule Power/Duals/Fetches/Bazaar/Workshop.
From what I inferred from the post, what WOTC said with this update is they do not need a ban/restriction to account for format balance because there were over X amount of unique decks, not format fun or "format attractiveness" as it were.
At some point the powercreep is going to get to an unsustainable level, where your haymakers are also your protection spells are also your ramp and every deck has far less variance because of the redundancies. Look at the utility and versatility they are shoving into things like DFCs and Boseju for no reason. I know we cannot technically call these cards strictly superior, but they are in many cases effectively superior to all previous iterations of these effects. At this rate at some point your land base is also going to be your disruption base is also going to be your win con.
At that point the people who play this format are going have to make a call as to what they want the format to be. If it's just a consistent format of opps I win cards, great, you got what you wanted. enjoy the downward spiral into insolvency. If they want to maintain the spirit of the format, the use of almost every card from every set and some of the most powerful ones ever, then they are going to have to start restricting a lot more until eventually that lever does not work anymore either. After that point I think you are looking at some more even drastic steps to make the format viable, like making it a 60 card singleton format to make sure that there is some level of needed variance, and then still having to ban Lutri as a companion because it becomes a free roll for every deck.
The amount of releases and mistakes in the past 3-4 years has only accelerated this timeline.
-
This 60 card sibngelton future has been predicted since at least the early 2000s and has yet to come to pass. I am not saying that it should be dismissed out of hand but at one point the mindslver lock was getting thirst for knowledge restricted and mentor was the best thing we had going on. Now I hear talk about unrestricting mentor(an idea I do not agree with BTW) and I haven't seen a thirst cast since the unrestiction. Rising seas may raise all ships but that rise is far from even and as a result the march to singleton is far from guarenteed or linear. Also in repsonse to the idea that your mana base is also your disruption base, they need to pass the other format check so I would be very suprised if FOW were going anywhere from it's position of best disruption in the format. FOV is a genuinely busted card and even that failed to topple FOW off its lofty perch.
-
@thewhitedragon69 said in Vintage Format Health Update from WOTC:
@faithloverful said in Vintage Format Health Update from WOTC:
@marland_moore
Haha, I couldn't help laugh at the implied translation, whether meant or not:"It's plain to see, you suck at magic.
You don't play enough to be any good.
Devote every waking minute to magic, or quit playing."The idea that this is implied is frankly absurd, while the idea that the comment is a bit eliteist is at least reasonable (although I disagree) the phrasing you use here is unreasonably extreme and frankly more than a little hostile.
-
@iamactuallylvl1 How do I mute my own post
-
Between the unnecessary aggression and dislike of the format that this website is entirely based around I can only assume he's an Old School player.
-
@botvinik I'm not saying he meant it to come out that way; that's just how I read it.
I think @Marland_Moore is thinking about Magic in the wrong way. In the competitive scene, the goal is to win, not have fun. In the casual scene, it's mainly to have fun, not just win. There's a middle ground area where folks like to win while having fun, but they're generally okay with losing. The problem is when you look at the competitive Vintage scene and gripe that it doesn't allow you to just "have fun" and still win. Competitive formats are for Spikes, and you have to realize the main goal, if not the only goal, is to win.
It's like you having fun playing football in your backyard with friends. Win or lose, you can probably pull off some whacky plays and you guys will all have a good time. But you can't then look at the NFL and complain it's not fun because it wouldn't allow you to pull off your double-reverse, triple flea-flicker play and ever score a TD. Backyard is for fun. Big leagues is for winning. And you can't measure one arena by metrics of the other.
-
@thewhitedragon69 I have played magic very competitively and somewhat competitively for years. The key thing about Magic is that it is a game. There are no stakes. This is not poker.
I like playing this game at a high level but more that anything I want the game to be fun. Playing at a high level and winning is awesome but making it more than a game is really not useful to me in my life.
As Brian Coval likes to say in his podcast, I am probably dead money most of the time in a MTGO event. If I'm having fun then I'm ok with that.
The funny part to me is that I just don't see Vintage as a competitive format right now. I am very competitive in Modern and I have very competitive Legacy decks but I can play those in paper and as long as Vintage is mostly a digital format I don't see much of a point in being competitive.
-
@marland_moore I don't think it's a matter of a "format being competitive". You can play any format competitively or casually. If you're playing in leagues and tourneys, you're playing competitively where people just want to win. If you're playing at a LGS or kitchen table or local 10-person tourney, it's mainly just fun and bragging rights. You can't look at MTGO leagues as un-fun, because they don't exist for fun, they exist for competition. They might be un-fun, but it's not their purpose, just like the NFL isn't meant for fun, whacky plays. It's meant for Ws, full stop.
To you, MtG is a game, and just an avenue for fun. There's an arena for that. To others, it's a chance to be a champion and crush others on the way to victory. There's an arena for that. Taking the "fun" approach and being upset that the cutthroat Spikes' version of the game is "un-fun" doesn't really make much sense. Vintage can be fun. Vintage can be purely competitive (thus your previous arguments about too many best netdecks and low diversity). You're looking for the "fun" version of the game in the wrong arena.
-
@thewhitedragon69 I'm sure people are tired of me talking so I'll be very brief.
Why does it need to be one or the other? I am a spike. When I play Modern FNM I expect to top 8. When I play Vintage seriously I spend months practicing and studying. There is also a point where I expect that this GAME is fun. Everyone has fun their own way and one does not push out the other.
-
@marland_moore It's just a matter of goals. If your goal is to flat out win, like in a tourney, you just play the most powerful, efficient, linear deck and smash face. If it's not fun, it doesn't matter, because your goal is to just win.
If your goal is to have fun, just have fun.
If your goal is to have fun AND win, you'll just have to accept losses. You honestly can't expect to play "fun" decks against purely optimized decks that may be linear and boring but highly efficient and expect to win more often than not. You can play West Coast Offense, OR you can play Flea-Flicker-Rama. You can't expect to consistently beat WCO with FFR though.
While you are viewing this as "just a fun game" with no stakes, your competition is not viewing it that way. They are seeing it as a way to "be the best" at something and attempting to steamroll you, whatever the cost...even if they are playing something they find boring, because the result is a win, and they find winning fun.
