Where is Vintage?
TappedOut forum
Posted on May 24, 2015, 6:36 p.m. by Kryzis
I just finished a Vintage deck, and went to look for a place to post it to look for help on the sideboard, and discovered that TO doesn't have a Vintage Forum. Calling on yeaGO to change this, I'm really looking for a place to get Vintage help.
Vintage isn't even really popular enough on the site to warrant a forum, unfortunately.
May 24, 2015 6:45 p.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #5
May 24, 2015 6:52 p.m.
Every player who has finished drafting a vintage deck upon seeing the price of their new creation:
So yeah, forgive us if most of us would rather become home owners...
May 24, 2015 9:19 p.m.
We could just rename Legacy to Legacy/Vintage
But as epoch is saying you can't post decks there for help either way
May 25, 2015 8:40 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #9
Well, Legacy and Vintage are entirely different things. If we were to accommodate Vintage, it would need to be a separate forum. The thing is, there's so little interest in it that it doesn't really seem to do much for anyone.
May 25, 2015 8:57 a.m.
They aren't really that different. It's the same set with a different banlist.
May 25, 2015 8:59 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #11
I think having access to things like Black Lotus and Ancestral Recall does make them different fundamentally, even though they draw from the same card pool. I think the communities are also different, but I'm not a part of either, so I couldn't tell you with absolute certainty whether it would work or not.
May 25, 2015 9:03 a.m.
Maybe if people saw a Vintage forum that could help to bolster interest by letting new players see it and become more interested? Of course, most of the people in there wouldn't actually own the decks, it would be a theory and net-deck center, but the interest could be sparked.
May 25, 2015 9:05 a.m.
And they are totally different, the restricted list is what defines Vintage, almost every deck is centered around at least 1 of the restricted cards.
May 25, 2015 9:06 a.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #14
I'd be down for having discussions regarding the Vintage Super League and Eternal Weekend. I mean, when I play paper Vintage, it's proxy Vintage since $20k in paper power is a bit much. I should note however that a Vintage deck in MtGO is actually less than a paper Legacy deck costs.
May 25, 2015 9:17 a.m.
right but then we don't accommodate the tiny leaders folks which I think would have a far more active forum. And I'm sure they make similar arguments....
May 25, 2015 9:17 a.m.
yeaGO however, TL isn't yet a supported format. WotC endorses Vintage as a format, and once they do the same for TL I think it should be added.
May 25, 2015 9:20 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #17
Would it be easier to include these forums if they were integrated with the deck directories?
Reformatting the forum page could also help.
May 25, 2015 9:23 a.m.
I don't care about official support really. It's just about accommodating sizeable audiences.
May 25, 2015 9:28 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #19
Forum/subforum might also help. Standard, Modern, Legacy, Vintage, and Limited could all be covered under "Competitive," and Commander (with Duel Commander as a sub-subforum), Tiny Leaders, Kitchen Table, etc. could be covered under "Social."
May 25, 2015 9:31 a.m.
That draws a false dichotomy between social and competitive that doesn't have to exist.
May 25, 2015 9:37 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #21
How would you organize them, then? I don't think it's any news to anyone in the community that Standard, Modern, Legacy, Vintage, and Limited are all played competitively. Of those, the only one that bridges the two camps is Limited, which covers cubing and is the most likely to also be played socially amongst friends.
May 25, 2015 9:41 a.m.
why are there thousands of modern decks tagged casual then....
May 25, 2015 9:44 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #24
I wouldn't necessarily trust the tagging and labeling systems as an accurate indication of what people are actually doing. We can't even begin to assume or enforce any kind of uniformity regarding how people apply them.
May 25, 2015 9:48 a.m.
Putting a format in a specific camp is a massive 'screw you' to all the people that play the format in a way that you haven't recognised. You are forcing a label onto people and the way they play that they may not identify with. This is something you have written about in your commander series.
I know plenty of individuals that would never touch modern as a competitive format but use the modern rules and modern decks for social play. So it does not follow that modern is explicitly by nature competitive.
Equally forcing commander under the social category that you have specifically separated from the competitive category is another way of signalling 'this is not a competitive format' which isn't the case at all. It does not follow that commander is explicitly by nature NOT competitive.
Pragmatically how would I do it?
Singleton Formats
Commander
Tiny Leaders
Other
Non Singleton Formats
Standard
Modern
Legacy
Vintage
Maybe a separate forum for budgetary constraining formats?
Pauper
Peasant
Limited
Cubes
Draft
Sealed
Everything Else
Economics
Spoilers
Gear
Blind Eternities
May 25, 2015 9:52 a.m.
That's a rough breakdown of headings and subheadings that could be used.
May 25, 2015 9:53 a.m.
I think ChiefBell has the right idea here, singleton, non-singleton, and general is probably the best way to organize this.
May 25, 2015 9:58 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #28
This isn't a Tumblr social issue. Ease up.
I grouped the formats in that way because they are, the majority of the time, played in that way. When people talk about playing Standard or Modern, they're almost certainly talking about playing it competitively at an FNM or event. Competitive play is so commonly assumed that people who play it differently go out of their way to clarify that they do so because they know that it's not the norm.
And I hardly think that acknowledging that reality is in any way dangerous to the people who play the format differently. "Social" is an unbiased descriptor on its own. "Competitive" was chosen because those formats are almost exclusively competitive in practice (again, Limited notwithstanding). I hardly think someone who takes the time to explain that they play Standard casually will be met with disdain. And the Kitchen Table forum would be a viable alternative to the Standard forum in that case.
The issue with your grouping is that there are various side formats, such as Planechase, that are collectively handled by the Kitchen Table forum and that don't really fit very well into your categories. Couldn't it be said that any non-singleton, non-Limited format belongs in the Non-Singleton grouping? At what point, if any, do you have to draw the line and say "No, these should be grouped differently"? Is it pragmatic to try to separate the formats with greater granularity?
May 25, 2015 10:05 a.m. Edited.
Care to all not to turn this into a carnival of overbelabored points
May 25, 2015 10:12 a.m.
Putting any format in a 'competitive' or 'social' grouping just leads to two things 1) alienation of people that play that category but not in the manner described by the supergroup and 2) the opportunity for other users to get shitty if people post in a format category about a type of play that doesn't match the super grouping. Like, essentially - why force people to even have to acknowledge that? It's a completely subjective, personal, and arbitrary distinction. We all play magic in different ways so I just don't feel it's necessarily suitable to put that judgment there as like literally the first thing any user would see.
These are not things that certainly will happen but they are things that /may/ happen, and yet could be easily avoided by using a different organisational system.
Also, is that actually an issue, if Planechase is put in a non-singleton category? I mean if people want a planechase forum then sure, that's fine. You could put an 'other' category under singleton and an 'other' category under non-singleton?
May 25, 2015 10:14 a.m.
yeaGO or Epochalyptik, someone should make a featured post that asks for the communities opinion. Since this is about making it easier for the community to use, shouldn't we try to get their input as much as possible? And some of them may have some much better ideas than here.
May 25, 2015 10:15 a.m.
I acknowledge that Epoch is talking about the majority of cases but I still don't think that's a valid defence when we're talking about an issue that could super easily just be avoided altogether?
May 25, 2015 10:16 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #33
I'd also argue that because the primary purpose of the Standard, Modern, etc. forums is to discuss the meta, having discussions about casual play environments is something that is better suited to Kitchen Table to begin with. And, in the event that a casual Standard post is made in the Standard forum, is it really that likely that the user is going to meet resistance if he or she specifies that the context is a casual game using Standard's rules?
Now, this isn't to say that your grouping wouldn't work or that I prefer the one I proposed. I'm just asking whether you genuinely believe that "competitive" and "social"—two of the most obvious and fundamental labels regarding format/game discussions—are going to generate animosity and alienation in the community.
May 25, 2015 10:21 a.m.
I am saying that the possibility that they could generate some animosity from some people makes those labels worth avoiding if we reasonably can with little effort. And I think it is possible to avoid them.
Well occasionally people in modern discuss jank builds that are far from competitive but a bit above kitchen table level. You get all sorts of funny things going on in that regard. Like what would you call a tier 3 mill deck in modern? It's not kitchen table exactly - sure you can take it to fnm etc. and you might beat a few guys so it's not really casual. But equally its not like PTQ material so it's not truly competitive at a good level? This is why I think the whole competitive / not competitive / kitchen table thing is kind of confusing? I would just keep those labels out of it if possible.
Kitchen table works at the moment because I view it as a marker of popularity. Not too many people play tiny leaders as compared to modern so modern gets a big forum and TL has to share a forum. Not many people play planechase so it doesn't get its own forum. I viewed the whole sorting system as based on volume of posts rather than competitive indications.
May 25, 2015 10:26 a.m.
I'm looking forward to what the community has to say on this, I think that the forums are due for an update, and I can assume I don't speak alone.
Epochalyptik says... #2
If you're looking for a place to post for deck help, the Deck Help forum would be a good choice.
Also, you don't need to tag us. We're subscribed to this forum.
May 24, 2015 6:42 p.m.