@evouga said in My Condolences to The Academy:

As usual I greatly enjoyed the VSL last tonight, and especially the first match of LSV vs Brian Kelly, though it's too bad the "home teams" won't be going to the finals.

LSV got very lucky during multiple matches, but his performance last night, and all season really, has been extremely impressive. It has cemented my opinion of him as a master of the game, independent of format. Is there anything we can learn from his play? Is he taking lines the "Vintage experts" don't?

I don’t think there’s any doubt that he took unique & prescient lines of play in the match up against my team.

Although, there is also no doubt that the deck he played was a completely rogue option, and which involved inherently unusual lines.

I know well the difference between what is and what should be. But over the decades of my involvement in this format, management of the restricted list has moved much closer to what should be than what was.

My entire previous post was based upon how the format should be managed, not how it is currently managed. And implicitly a critique of your preferred approach, which leads, in my opinion to too many restrictions.

Do you know how some people say there was never a war John McCain didn’t support? Unfortunately, that’s my perception of your views of potential restrictions. I think most of vintage players are more concerned with having a smaller restricted list than the considerations that you seem most concerned about.

@chubbyrain said in JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE:

As for the PO debate, the salient quote is:

@smmenen said in JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE:

Years ago I wrote a long post or article that attempted to delineate the various facets of fun, and came to the conclusion that the key to fun is “meaningful choice.” This concept applies to deck selection, in-game play, sideboarding, etc.

Strategic diversity doesn't reflect the degree of meaningful choice of in-game decisions.

I know that. But what I have said over & over is that a policy of maximizing one can undermine the other - that is what I mean when I say that the various facets of fun can be in ‘tension.’ The way to resolve this tension is to decide which are most important.

IMO, metagame diversity is most important. A restriction that makes players feel more interactive but dramatically reduces metagame diversity would be a bad choice. I am not necessarily referring to PO here.

Also, a schemata that gives too much importance to ‘counterplay’ is biased in favor of blue decks with countermagic. Metagame diversity is both a more objective AND strategically neutral criterion. That is not to discount other considerations, but it is to be clear about their relative importance.

I think we discussed this a bit on Twitter. I personally feel that PO leads to uninteractive gameplay. I think that impacts my enjoyment of the format to a degree (I have not played it much recently, though that is influenced by factors independent of the format). If I was the only person playing to format, I think WotC should restrict PO. However, I am obviously not the only person playing the format. From the facebook group and this thread, I think it's pretty clear that I'm in the minority. So be it. Again, WotC has an interest in maximizing fun on the way to maximizing profits. If a clear majority of Vintage players enjoy PO or are indifferent, my personal thoughts on the matter should be overruled. End result: At this current time, PO should not be restricted.

I agree with your conclusion, but fundamentally disagree with your reasoning. Although the goal should be to maximize fun, this should not be a democracy. As I’ve said many times, that approach encourages factionalism/tribalism, where different ‘schools’ of players lobby to use B&R Policy to restrict strategies that predate or are favored against those schools, and B&R policy becomes little more than interest group politics.

That's a horrible model. B&R policy should be based on neutral standards, not just objective facts. Thats why there is a policy maker instead of just a poll. They should act in our best interests, not for our desired interests. It’s like when goverment taxes us even when we dont want it. Its for our own good. So is resisting popular calls to restrict.

@chubbyrain said in JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE:

Edit: @Smmenen? I actually think the restrictions of Gush, Mentor, 2 Delve spells, and 3 lock pieces have created more entertaining and interactive games with more diversity in deck selection. Hinging an entire formats health on one card seems frankly absurd.

My belief is that restricting PO would basically rewind Vintage back to last November, which was a disaster, but after all those restrictions.

What changed since was that PO with Hurkyls has been retuned to trump Shops, opening up the metagame.

Restrict PO, and you go back to the format as it was last November.

Thats why i said the following on twlink textitter & earlier in this thread:

Paradoxical Outcome is the glue keeping the Vintage format & metagame balanced & diverse.

It’s Shops predator. Restrict it & the format goes back to the hot mess it was for the preceding 5 years. Restricting it is a bad idea, especially since it is not remotely dominant.

PO strategies are the proximate cause, in my estimation, of this opening up of the metagame.

Edit:

On a general note, the users saying that "fun should never be factored into B&R decisions" are making emotional appeals to an arbitrary sense of justice and not dealing with reality. It's pretty clear that Wizards takes fun into consideration when designing sets and managing formats. It's a game, not a court of law. The purpose is fun, not justice

Im not sure whether you are referring to my posts, since I never said any of the statements you are arguing against. I agree with the premise that the purpose of DCI policy is to promote fun.

To be clear, fun has many facets, but there is broad consensus that fun formats provide diverse competitive options.

Years ago I wrote a long post or article that attempted to delineate the various facets of fun, and came to the conclusion that the key to fun is “meaningful choice.” This concept applies to deck selection, in-game play, sideboarding, etc.

Therefore, the interest in promoting format diversity is actually serving the ultimate goal of fostering a fun format. Thus, when I say that metagame diversity is the primary and most important ground for restriction, I am essentially saying the same thing as the pupose of restricted list policy is to promote fun, not the opposite.

The problem is that multiple facets of ‘fun’ can be in tension. Restricting cards on grounds other than competitive balance & strategic diversity ultimately risks reducing the one ground that virtually everyone believes is a prerequisite for ‘fun.’

I am not categorically opposed to restricting cards on grounds other than dominance (see http://www.eternalcentral.com/so-many-insane-plays-suggested-banned-and-restricted-list-updates-2018/ for a fuller elaboration of my views on B&R Policy). But the bar should be high, since any restriction on grounds other than dominance is likely to undermine format strategic diversity.

@wfain said in JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE:

@smmenen if you’re going to quote someone, at least quote them. I think you misinterpreted exactly all of what I wrote in the post you were attempting to quote.

Ummm. I literally used the quote function to quote you verbatim. I did, actually, quote you.

I am pointing out that the concept of “power level” is non-existent as you conceive it & hopelessly contextual, and therefore a terrible ground for restriction. If PO were that powerful, it would be banned in Legacy like Gush & Treasure Cruise. It’s not even close.

In your own post this becomes evident as PO does have to be built around to maximize:

It doesn’t require much in the way of special deck-building, intelligent play, or complex sequencing. You just play cards you’d play in your blue vintage deck anyway (aside from Mox Opal), you get to stop playing expensive sorcery speed cards (like Tezzeret) and the most commonly played anti-combo and anti-shops cards aren’t even that good against it. Unlike Bargain..

Actually, it’s exactly like Bargain in that respect. You need more accelerants to support & maximize it. And, yes, Bargain generates mana via card advantage.

We restrict cards primarily in Vintage based upon tournament performance. Anything less risks harming the competitive balance & diversity of the metagame.

In addition to being the first good deck in ages to knock Shops off its perch, PO has brought big blue decks with Tinker, Yawg Will & Time Vault back to the center of the Vintage metagame. That is a GREAT thing. This deck has been virtually absent for almost 5 years, and the format has been stuck in the nightmarish quagmire of Shops v Xerox. PO is helping break that open.

The Vintage format is better now than at any point since Khans of Tarkir. PO is the reason.

@wfain said in JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE:

@necrogeist no, but it literally is not my argument. I personally don’t mind F6’ing and watching them go through everything. I think the opposite- saying it is fun to play with- is not a relevant reason to keep it.
My objection to the card is purely power-level vs downside. Super high power-level with very little downside vs similar blue spells that are already restricted.

Cards should never, ever be restricted in Vintage for “purely power level reasons.” Such a criteria could be used to justify a restriction of a card that has no tournament impact, and thereby unnecessarily curtail player card & deck options. Bargain is way more powerful than much of the restricted list, but not problematic in tournaments.

@wfain said in JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE:

@smmenen In my experience you’re way underselling Outcome. As I’ve already admitted, Gush is more flexible and fits in more decks, but P.O. isn’t “simply the best unrestricted” drawing engine. What other blue draw engines have we seen that improve with each one you cast, incentivize uninteractive gameplay, and produce combo kills just because they resolved once or twice? Aren’t all of those restricted? Are you really arguing P.O. doesn’t do that? Or is it that P.O. fits what you think is a required space in the field? Seems like you believe the latter while espousing the former, because it is genarically “good against Shops” and “bad against fair blue” it somehow isn’t troublesome. Or is it simply a numbers game? It isn’t the most played/most successful deck so it doesn’t deserve to be restricted? Or are you thinking it is worse than Bargain?

I really am not sure what your view is?

It’s really simple: cards that power decks that dominate the format need to be restricted. Cards that don’t do that don’t deserve restriction, with few exceptions. PO is not even close to dominant.

The comprehensive, detailed explication of my views are presented here: http://www.eternalcentral.com/so-many-insane-plays-suggested-banned-and-restricted-list-updates-2018/

@neo_altoid said in JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE:

@wfain Paradoxical has far more fail points than Gush, but yes, I agree, once it starts going, the game is literally over. I think from a high point, Outcome is better, but from a median perspective, Gush is better (and it's not by a small amount).

4 Gush decks are capable of dominating Vintage, and have multiple times.

PO isnt. Gush is leagues ahead of & better than paradoxical outcome.

Gush is one of the deepest, most unique and singular dry engines ever created. PO Is simply the best unrestricted blue draw engine in the format, for which there will always be one.

Outcome is the glue holding the Vintage format & metagame together.

Restrict it & the format goes back to the hot mess it was for the preceding 5 years. Restricting it is a terrible idea. Especially since it is do beatable and not remotely dominant.

Such requests need to arrive in advance of our recording I wish someone had requested Teferi, but alas, no one did.