I think the article glossed over the impact of MTGO a little too thinly. > @Smmenen Do you think an article is warranted in the future regarding the massive impact MTGO has had on vintage. I can't think of anything else in the last 20yrs that has the power to pull the format in two directions as successfully.
That's interesting to me because a large bulk (perhaps even more than half) of this article was a description of how MTGO has shaped the Vintage experience. And not just that, but I felt as if I was offering novel or at least somewhat original observations about the impact of MTGO on vintage. For example, my entire discussion of the "three levels" or perspectives on change in Vintage in terms of different time scales specifically described how the third time scale or change scale is specifically a consequence of MTGO.
I'd love to hear thoughts on some of the following issues:
Fast moving Meta (we have new archtypes almost every other set)
Much higher data frequency than ever before
Elite vs casual
"Solving" the format
I think this article touches on nearly all of those. One of the fundamental tensions I highlight is the idea of Vintage as a format that is supposed to change slowly, and the imperatives of a dynamic (read: non-stagnant) MTGO player base.
Can vintage survive the increased scrutiny of a fast moving format that isn't watched by Wizards.
How paper prices vs. digital prices affect their respective format (ie: MTGO might deem Workshop over-powered, but paper wants to keep it viable). Or extrapolated into how a restricted list in MTGO could theoretically be different than one created for paper.
...and I think the most interesting issue, how Vintage will handle the paper vs. digital schism that is less prominent than for other formats.
I know a lot of these issues are pretty familiar to other formats, but that hasn't been the case with Vintage. It's always functioned on the side by its own rules. I'm not saying one way is better than the other, but we have to admit that Vintage is steeped in a lot of tradition, and people play it for many more reasons than simply to win.
I think MTGO was previously a nice way to jam in some extra Vintage practice now and then, but in the last year or so, (along with VSL) there are monthly tournaments and a much larger following. Some of these issues can't be ignored.
Agreed. They can't be ignored. But I do think a shift in perspective can help serve as a valve to release some of the pressure that's been building in some player segments.
If, for example, MTGO players can better appreciate the role that Vintage plays as an Eternal format that serves paper players who may only compete a few times a year, then some concerns they may have may seem less pressing or urgent. Similarly, if long-time player players can better appreciate the role that new printings have had in shaping the current metagame - not just B&R list policy - and how the rewards infrastructure of MTGO shapes the online metagame - then their concerns about the format might similarly be regarded as less urgent.