|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Feb 21, 2020 18:38:53 GMT
Maestra, some music, please.A few days before I wrote this column, I had an idea for a complete revamp of the Pro Tour (“Another one? So soon already?”) I know, I know, but this one might actually solve some problems instead of creating them. Quite the novel concept, right? So, the idea was that instead of bringing their own decks, each Pro Tour competitor would be assigned a random mystery deck, from a pool of decks sent in beforehand. These lists would remain unpublished until after the Pro Tour, the Selection Committee would be made up of people from inside WotC, the Commander community, the kitchen table collective, and a few token pros. Deck submissions would be closed to everyone EXCEPT filthy casuals. Pro Tour competitors would be disallowed from viewing their decks and sideboards until the first time they have to search, or side in some cards, whichever comes first. The whole point of this exercise is to fully test the competitors’ skills with completely unknown decks. Plus, as a bonus, it’s almost impossible to cheat or mark cards when you have no idea what your targets are. Also, if the top competitive decks are all just kitchen table jank, that might help to lessen the SERIOUS BUSINESS mindset. Or mebbe I’m just talking out of my ass, and have no idea what I’m saying. It was just a thought I had, and badly pinned down into words here. You ever get one of those? An idea that seems so obvious, and obviously profound, in your head, but when you try and put it to words, it just turns into utter claptrap? How does one transmit an idea via bypassing the intermediary step of translating it to unworthy verbiage? Anyway, that was just my musing for this week. Just so you know, now that No Reservations II is over and done with, the column is gonna be more like this – aimless, unmoored ramblings – for the foreseeable future, until I can come up with a structure to follow. One final thing: I’ve been collecting Card of the Week challenges for if I ever won, and since I don’t ever seem to do all that much winning, I’ve developed quite the backlog. So, rather than Consign them to Oblivion, I thought I’d just start posting them here. You’re all welcome to post your entries for the prompt below. Until next time, bye.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Mapi on Feb 21, 2020 20:36:01 GMT
I like the idea, but I'd let players specify a deck type when they sign up. Nothing more specific than "Red Aggro" or the like, but enough so that you don't end up with a bunch of people getting decks assigned to them that they can't use to the fullest.
Sounds kinda KeyForge-ish, honestly.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Feb 21, 2020 20:50:28 GMT
I like the idea, but I'd let players specify a deck type when they sign up. Nothing more specific than "Red Aggro" or the like, but enough so that you don't end up with a bunch of people getting decks assigned to them that they can't use to the fullest. Sounds kinda KeyForge-ish, honestly. That is an excellent suggestion, and I'm upset with myself that I didn't think of it. My only excuse is that I might've wanted players to stretch their playskills when given a deck so far outside their comfort zone. Imagine forcing a diehard control player to pilot a casual midrange/combo deck, or a balls-to-the-wall, all-in aggro list. |
|
|
|
Post by Daij_Djan on Feb 21, 2020 21:30:30 GMT
Here's my theoretical From 0 to hero entry, showcasing a blue/black mill mechanic on a simple common:
On a sidenote: I hate the new DeviantArt website. Not sure what they did, but my normal browser won't even access their website unless I'm using private mode - and even when I make it to the website, the search restrictions seem to be completely broken  |
|
|
|
Post by Lady Mapi on Feb 21, 2020 21:52:17 GMT
sdfkjgh - I think you'd get more buy-in if people can at least assure that they won't get a deck that they'll absolutely hate. Daij_Djan - If you have a Deviantart account, you can go back to the old layout. For now, at least.
|
|
|
|
Post by ZephyrPhantom on Feb 21, 2020 22:35:06 GMT
I like the idea, but I'd let players specify a deck type when they sign up. Nothing more specific than "Red Aggro" or the like, but enough so that you don't end up with a bunch of people getting decks assigned to them that they can't use to the fullest. Sounds kinda KeyForge-ish, honestly. That is an excellent suggestion, and I'm upset with myself that I didn't think of it. My only excuse is that I might've wanted players to stretch their playskills when given a deck so far outside their comfort zone. Imagine forcing a diehard control player to pilot a casual midrange/combo deck, or a balls-to-the-wall, all-in aggro list. I agree with Lady Mapi on this one fwiw, it gives people signing up a degree of control over much they want to be surprised. Maybe they'll just want to sse new cards or maybe they'll want a different deck entirely, but those are likely different people. I.e. It only helps your event's attendance numbers if you broaden the restrictions. Fwiw I'd be interested in trying an event like this if there was enough people. |
|
|
|
Post by gateways7 on Feb 23, 2020 16:46:27 GMT
This is a cool idea - way too wacky for a Pro Tour, but I think it would be a really fun GP or even just a FNM / casual event idea. I'd be super-interested in it personally.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Feb 27, 2020 2:51:47 GMT
Lady Mapi, ZephyrPhantom: This may be because, except for one hyperaggro Red Deck Wins, I've faced nothing but control decks all damn day since noon on Arena, but I'd like to add a corollary to your suggestion of archetype preselection:
Anyone requesting a control deck will be handed a 78-card deck with nothing but 5+ cmc spells that counter themselves on resolution, four lands, an no other way to generate mana. If they complain, they're politely told to enjoy the taste of their own medicine, then, as politely as possible, punched in the stomach. |
|
|
|
Post by Lady Mapi on Feb 27, 2020 3:07:28 GMT
Lady Mapi , ZephyrPhantom : This may be because, except for one hyperaggro Red Deck Wins, I've faced nothing but control decks all damn day since noon on Arena, but I'd like to add a corollary to your suggestion of archetype preselection:
Anyone requesting a control deck will be handed a 78-card deck with nothing but 5+ cmc spells that counter themselves on resolution, four lands, an no other way to generate mana. If they complain, they're politely told to enjoy the taste of their own medicine, then, as politely as possible, punched in the stomach. I mean, the whole idea is that Spike has to play decks that Timmy made. You aren't going to have solid, consistent control decks. Plus, I think everyone's going to get a unique deck, which goes a long way towards preventing a proliferation of control decks. |
|
|
|
Post by ZephyrPhantom on Feb 27, 2020 3:49:12 GMT
Lady Mapi , ZephyrPhantom : This may be because, except for one hyperaggro Red Deck Wins, I've faced nothing but control decks all damn day since noon on Arena, but I'd like to add a corollary to your suggestion of archetype preselection:
Anyone requesting a control deck will be handed a 78-card deck with nothing but 5+ cmc spells that counter themselves on resolution, four lands, an no other way to generate mana. If they complain, they're politely told to enjoy the taste of their own medicine, then, as politely as possible, punched in the stomach. I mean, the whole idea is that Spike has to play decks that Timmy made. You aren't going to have solid, consistent control decks. Plus, I think everyone's going to get a unique deck, which goes a long way towards preventing a proliferation of control decks. Just to expand on what Lady Mapi's said: Is a Stalking Yeti / Deadeye Navigator with Open Fire keep-creatures-off the board 'control' as much of a threat as say, someone doing RTR-standard style Sphinx's Revelation and Detention Sphere stuff? I think it's safe to assume that no one's going to submit a diehard control deck either especially if the premise is explicitly "let's encourage people to try out jank they're not used to". |
|
|
|
Post by Lady Mapi on Mar 5, 2020 18:00:46 GMT
Crossposting with my Garbage Budget Decks thread (because that seems to be what I'm doing these days)... what if there was a strict budget limit on the decks that are submitted? Not only would it heavily dial back on a lot of more degenerate decks, it would A) force decks to be distinct from year to year due to "must-have" cards phasing themselves out of the format, and B) it would help show new players that you don't need to spend hundreds of dollars on the secondary market to have a competitive deck. |
|
|
|
Post by ZephyrPhantom on Mar 5, 2020 18:11:12 GMT
Crossposting with my Garbage Budget Decks thread (because that seems to be what I'm doing these days)... what if there was a strict budget limit on the decks that are submitted? Not only would it heavily dial back on a lot of more degenerate decks, it would A) force decks to be distinct from year to year due to "must-have" cards phasing themselves out of the format, and B) it would help show new players that you don't need to spend hundreds of dollars on the secondary market to have a competitive deck. I'm 100% into this idea. Based on MTGGoldfish, Budget Modern Decks are usually 60 to 100 USD, and Pauper Decks are usually around 30 to 80 USD. Heck, there's even a $15-$17 USD BG Aristocrats deck that would fit in the budget deck thread.Limiting by budget and format is a great way to control power level in tournaments like these in general. Something I've done previously as well is to select a bunch of sets that could work together and make it a format, sort of like an expanded Block Constructed. |
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Mar 5, 2020 20:02:25 GMT
Crossposting with my Garbage Budget Decks thread (because that seems to be what I'm doing these days)... what if there was a strict budget limit on the decks that are submitted? Not only would it heavily dial back on a lot of more degenerate decks, it would A) force decks to be distinct from year to year due to "must-have" cards phasing themselves out of the format, and B) it would help show new players that you don't need to spend hundreds of dollars on the secondary market to have a competitive deck. I'm 100% into this idea. Based on MTGGoldfish, Budget Modern Decks are usually 60 to 100 USD, and Pauper Decks are usually around 30 to 80 USD. Heck, there's even a $15-$17 USD BG Aristocrats deck that would fit in the budget deck thread.Limiting by budget and format is a great way to control power level in tournaments like these in general. Something I've done previously as well is to select a bunch of sets that could work together and make it a format, sort of like an expanded Block Constructed. These are all superb ideas, but WotC would never implement them, because if they did, that would mean they'd have to openly acknowledge the secondary market's existence, and that must never happen, because reasons. |
|
Ketsuban
0/0 Germ
Posts: 11
Color Alignment: White, Blue, Red
|
Post by Ketsuban on Jul 4, 2020 15:46:23 GMT
Also, if the top competitive decks are all just kitchen table jank, that might help to lessen the SERIOUS BUSINESS mindset. I question the degree to which you can call them "top competitive decks" when you're doing your level best to prohibit people who know what they're doing from submitting decks, to the point of inventing a group called "the kitchen table collective" to embody what you think Magic should actually be about. [ I]f there was a strict budget limit on the decks that are submitted [...] it would help show new players that you don't need to spend hundreds of dollars on the secondary market to have a competitive deck. I don't see how you're demonstrating that money doesn't buy victory when your ruleset goes to great pains to prevent people even having the option. People aren't going to politely ignore the powerful cards in the set just because they didn't see anyone using them at the Pro Tour - they'll know full well that the rules were changed (if Wizards don't publicise it, the pros being asked to follow this labyrinthine ruleset sure will) and ignore it in favour of tournaments which don't hobble the players for ideological reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Jul 4, 2020 17:56:27 GMT
Ketsuban : I'm not actually proposing the creation of a new official group. The kitchen table collective is just a name I came up with on the spot for the players who mostly play the so-called "kitchen table Magic".
Also, you'll find that I get very salty at control, so my soapbox will be filled with harangues against it. If you have a Magic-related subject you're passionate enough to write about on a regular or semi-regular schedule, why not talk with the Mods about starting your own column here? One of my goals when I started my column here was to spark the impetus for other members to start their own columns. I guess I kinda let that one fall by the wayside, but now, no more!
So yeah. Not so much creation of a new governing body, more just empty anti-control grumblings (I'm a Social Gamer Timmy/Johnny, with some vestigial Spike leanings, so my view is that fun should be maximized for everyone involved, and looking at having fun like it's a zero-sum game turns it into a negative-sum game. But, I'd still prefer to win), and you should start your own column, if you feel you're motivated enough. |
|
"When in doubt, do a common." 
