Location
State College, PA
Age
17
Joined
Last Online
Recent Posts
posted in Vintage Community read more

@ChubbyRain said:

most importantly MATH that assures players it's not a money-grabbing assault on their collections...

This, to me, is the important part. With the math they've given us, it doesn't look good (in my opinion). I'm not sure what the actual EV of a treasure chest will be, but if you look at a Vintage DE that launches with 16 players, the normal payout would have been ~162 tickets worth of product. If that stays 'flat', the EV of a treasure chest is ~1.05 tix. If this is truly the case, then a 4-0 loses 12+ tix of value (which is picked up by the 3-1s, so it really only hurts 1 player). If they are keeping the 4-0 payout 'flat', the EV of a treasure chest is ~3.6 tix meaning that the overall event payout will increase in value by more than 40 tix (a huge win).

I'm just becoming more pessimistic, I guess. It seems like relying on the secondary market to make up the value has definite upside for MTGO while transferring all the risk to the players.

posted in Vintage Community read more

Not sure this will help the daily fire or not, but pretty major change to the payout structure...

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/magic-digital/announcing-treasure-chests-2016-09-29

posted in Vintage Community read more

Am I missing something? Overall, I feel pretty unimpressed...

posted in Workshops read more

@ChubbyRain said:

@Fred_Bear said:

@defector said:

This could be a radical redesign that restores Shops to the top tables:
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=12315&d=271029&f=VI

Then again maybe not, but it looks very interesting and has one strong finish. I'm going to test this and see where it goes.

The guy's quote on the tournament page:

Favorite Card - Erayo, Soratami Ascendant
Why? - "Easy Victory (if flipped). Otherwise Shit."

I'm interested to see how it would play out, too.

That is the summary of my testing with it...

The deck has a lot of internal conflicts and inconsistencies. It probably preyed on unprepared opponents as well. For instance, I think a fair number of people would not board in Rest in Peace or Leyline of the Void against the deck, but these cards are great in the matchup. It was pretty sweet to go turn 1 Mox, Mox, Academy, Erayo, Thorn though. A fun deck but I doubt it has staying power, like most of the similar Tiny Robots/Affinity decks up until now.

I'm curious why the graveyard hate is good against the deck. I know it hoses Hangarback to stop Skullclamp shenanigans, but is there something I'm missing?

posted in Workshops read more

@defector said:

This could be a radical redesign that restores Shops to the top tables:
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=12315&d=271029&f=VI

Then again maybe not, but it looks very interesting and has one strong finish. I'm going to test this and see where it goes.

The guy's quote on the tournament page:

Favorite Card - Erayo, Soratami Ascendant
Why? - "Easy Victory (if flipped). Otherwise Shit."

I'm interested to see how it would play out, too.

posted in Vintage News read more

@Topical_Island said:

@Islandswamp Gush is crazy. The gush numbers are crazy I mean... but I think the takeaway might just be that MTGO tends to be a little swinging in terms of deck population.

Maybe. MTGO is certainly more flexible and players can swap decks much more easily than paper, but it's also a sharp (to use a gambling term) population of players who worry about and select events based on EV as much as anything else (there's even an event EV calculator on the goatbots site). [This is an MTGO generalization - not a fact about the Vintage P9 player population.]

That's what will be interesting to see if it shakes out. Two big questions moving forward will be: (1) Will the 'average' player continue to play Mentor? MTGO loves a net deck, but net decking @The-Atog-Lord 's deck doesn't necessarily get you his playskill. Based on the April P9 data put together by @diophan and @ChubbyRain, it's not an 'easy' deck to play by any means (really, what Vintage deck is?). From the data, 27 players 'sleeved up' Gush decks and 8 of them made top 16. Those 8 players had a combined 41-15 match record while the other 19 players combined to go 13-37 with the deck (I assumed that the top 8 matchups were included in the breakdown, otherwise my numbers may be slightly off, but still severely skewed towards the top 8 finishers with the deck). There are probably several players wondering why folks continue to call it the 'best' deck (or maybe Kai is correct and Gush is really just a bad card). (2) How quickly will a 'solution' emerge? I think there are a lot of things to consider as to how quickly a 'solution' will be discovered, if one is needed. Most decks in the format are still playable and can still win, especially if you get paired with Joe Blow on Gush/Mentor instead of @The-Atog-Lord . Are they good choices if you want to win a daily or a P9, though? I don't know, it seems like it may depend more on who you get paired with - a Vintage expert or a Vintage novice. Parsing through the data (which is still a small set), Mentor isn't as 'obvious' a deck choice (for the masses) as folks give it credit for being. You still need to know how to pilot it (like so many other Vintage decks). I'll be curious to see how the next big paper events go as well as how the online meta continues to evolve...

posted in Vintage News read more

@MaximumCDawg said:

The point is that Gush was a safe unrestriction only because of the power of Workshops. Once you snip off some of the thorns of the format's best control deck, now suddenly we see why Gush was restricted in the first place.

I think this is significant, though, as it represents the 'choice' the DCI is exercising. Do we (a) allow powerful decks and strategies so that more cards/strategies are viable or (b) restrict cards to maintain (or try to maintain) an arbitrarily 'safe' power level? As more cards are printed, it seems like the power creep at any given time of an individual deck is inevitable. It becomes vague as to how 'over-powered' a deck can be allowed to become and for how long it can be be allowed to 'dominate' before intervention (no assumption on what this may be) is required.

I still think the timeline is one of the largest question marks. How long does it take for a solution to evolve in Vintage? It seems like 3 or even 6 months is a very short period of time and, if you compound it by only making 1 change at a time, the format really needs to be slow-moving. This is aggravated by cost/availability issues within paper and a small player base online. @joshuabrooks raises an interesting point. MTGO may push towards a shorter timeline. It's certainly faster evolving as it's much easier (and less expensive) to shift between Shops, DPS, and Gush decks, but what effect will the small player base have? 60 players in the P9 Challenge (the Vintage Premier Event) isn't going to make Vintage an automatic 'money-maker' for Wizards when you compare it to the 100s of players who show up for a Standard, Modern, or Limited event.

I think it's an interesting discussion point that @Topical_Island makes, too - if the DCI is willing to step in to stop 'over-representation' through restriction, what is the reward for working towards a solution? Shops (pre-restriction) was arguably being solved within the metagame. It was still being played in the 20-25% range, but it may have continued to lose ground without a restriction (regardless of its inherent power level). Without Shops, Gush/Mentor has spiraled. There are a ton of threads here talking about how to 'solve' it, but I've read just as many opinions that (to paraphrase) 'it's not worth worrying about it, since it won't be around by eternal weekend'. To me, that's not indicative of a healthy format. [I'm also not suggesting that it's the 'only' opinion.]

posted in Workshops read more

@DragkionDragemna I tend to agree with your assessment. It may not be worth it in this deck. As @joshuabrooks pointed out, there are a lot of play lines to choose from in 5c and Chalice, while strong, doesn't provide consistency on any play line. It's great disruption, but there is huge variance even on whether you are better to put it on 0 or 1. Yes, putting it on 2 or even 3 can provide an advantage in some specific situations, but it can also be a completely useless topdeck. Chalice has been one of the easier cards to cut from 1 to 0 (in a lot of Shops lists) simply because you play so many games where you never see it anyways. Totally a good card to test, but also an easy card to cut for consistency.

posted in Workshops read more

@joshuabrooks I agree with a lot of your points. I would even go so far as to say several of your points apply to Martello or Ravager Shops as well. You hit the nail on the head with the 'trap' hand comment. There are a ton of hands that give you a couple spheres, some acceleration, but no threat. They looked great until you get to turn 4 and your opponent has developed a board while you flood on land and resistors.

posted in Workshops read more

@gkraigher said:

Juntu stakes also hits Jace Vryn's prodigy, deathrite shaman, noble hierarch, random tribal decks (elves, goblins).

It's not an awful card.

Yes, it is. I understand that it will randomly hit some other stuff (including Welder), but with Mentor, they will still attack, they will still grow - it effectively does nothing... (note it also won't stop JVP from flipping when activated)