First, the major archetypes as defined by orbz621 in that thread:
Aggro- drop lots of threats, turn sideways. Control- answer threats from the opponent until the opponent is unable to do anything useful, then win. Tempo- drop threats, protect them with control elements while turning sideways. Combo- stall and dig until you combo out. Midrange- in between tempo and control, stops early threats, drops solid mid game creatures and supports them.
Unfortunately, it seems that the control archetype is suffering from a lack of card support.
While many decks care about card advantage, classic control (ie. Weissman style) aims to win via card advantage. The draw-go style can be fun to play, but I understand that it is not always the most fun to watch. This, I believe, is because draw-go players tend to focus on their hand instead of the battlefield. When televised games offer a top-down perspective of a game, the battlefield (and not the players hands) is what is visible. Thus, the viewer can't appreciate classical control as compared to the other major archetypes.
As I'm only a casual follower of the game, my viewpoint could very well be skewed - does this explanation make sense for Wizard's lack of support for the control archetype? Do they realize that showing the ENTIRE game on camera might improve public opinion of classic control? I'd like all of the archetypes to be supported and am wondering what options are available for ensuring that this widespread support will be desirable for Wizards in the future of the modern format.
While your idea is kind of interesting, WotC's position against control stems from the fact that so many players hate playing against it. Players have hated control for a long time - much longer than live coverage was as large an issue as it is today.
I think that's a very interesting observation. You have a good point and you're right that it doesn't fit well with televised matches that don't show hands but there are other factors as well.
I believe the primary reason that wotc prevents draw-go control from being viable is that many new players hate playing against control (the same is true for combo). Control and combo are archetypes that come from and require a deeper understanding of the game to build and play. A new player can understand that by playing creatures they lower their opponent's life to 0 but they probably haven't thought much about threat density vs answer density or card advantage. Those concepts are foreign to them so they don't think it feels fair when they lose to a control deck that counters every one of their plays.
If this type of control were viable in more formats then I would love to play it I want to win more games with Mishra's Factory.
TL;DR version: WotC started emphasizing more creature cards than spell cards based on new player market research, which neutered classic control. This decision was made before games were being televised with regularity.
I definitely recall Aaron Forsythe of WotC once stating in a video interview a few years ago (before the Modern format was created) that when they did their marketing surveys, new players did not like their spells being countered and they don't like control (when they knew what that style of play was). That is why the cards they produce today are more about attacking creatures and small combo (1-2 cards interacting for a small, but not overwhelming effect) rather than big combo or classic control. WotC have stated in the past that Counterspell was retired and lesser counter spell cards were being created. Draw cards are now carefully designed because even though those cards might help control, they also help combo decks.
Some people have joked that Magic has become more like Yu-Gi-Oh, because of the increased creature presence. Maybe WotC wants to attract those players.
Commentary including the content of players' hands would be difficult to produce. You'd need a camera behind both players because no one plays with his/her hand face up, and then you can't exactly announce the contents of each player's hand in the same place as the competition unless someone casts a Thoughtseize.
...unless I am getting the commentary process completely wrong.
Commentary including the content of players' hands would be difficult to produce. You'd need a camera behind both players because no one plays with his/her hand face up, and then you can't exactly announce the contents of each player's hand in the same place as the competition unless someone casts a Thoughtseize.
...unless I am getting the commentary process completely wrong.
The old coverage of magic on espn included commentary on hands. It was dramatically better than any of the current lame coverage.
It's important to note that control still exists in competitive form for all constructed formats, but it's no longer given access to universal answers that efficiently handle all threats from the field. This even includes legacy, where RUG delver and Maverick are keystone archetypes that prey on decks using countermagic.
I would agree that enhanced coverage of player hands would be a welcome addition to GP/PTQ/5K feeds, but it's by no means influencing player opinions of existing control archetypes.
It's important to note that control still exists in competitive form for all constructed formats, but it's no longer given access to universal answers that efficiently handle all threats from the field. This even includes legacy, where RUG delver and Maverick are keystone archetypes that prey on decks using countermagic.
I would agree that enhanced coverage of player hands would be a welcome addition to GP/PTQ/5K feeds, but it's by no means influencing player opinions of existing control archetypes.
That type of control definitely does not exist in a competitive form in Legacy. The many tempo decks do play counters but that doesn't make them control. I'm pretty sure there hasn't been any serious control in Legacy since Mental Misstep's banning.
I don't believe draw-go control is viable in modern either but I don't know as much about that format. I know I haven't seen a competitive modern control deck yet at least.
edit: I guess there are Mystical Teachings decks in modern but they seem like fringe decks so far.
You just can't be entirely reactive anymore in large formats. The threats are too powerful and too varied to be able to build decks that don't apply pressure in any meaningful way, because you give your opponent too many opportunities to topdeck a win.
That type of control definitely does not exist in a competitive form in Legacy. The many tempo decks do play counters but that doesn't make them control. I'm pretty sure there hasn't been any serious control in Legacy since Mental Misstep's banning.
I don't believe draw-go control is viable in modern either but I don't know as much about that format. I know I haven't seen a competitive modern control deck yet at least.
edit: I guess there are Mystical Teachings decks in modern but they seem like fringe decks so far.
There's more to control than draw-go. The countertop package is still present in nearly every 5K Open in significant numbers, and stoneblade decks are almost always the reactive deck in any given matchup. Or are you making the argument that stoneblade is aggro? combo?
Even legacy reanimator has leaned more and more towards control with the advent of jin-gitaxis, since resolving him and protecting him gives you massive card advantage and the ability to continue protecting your win conditions. Obviously, the lines get blurred in legacy, with decks like RUG delver and Bant constantly modifying the stock lists in order to gain an edge on the meta, which means control elements vary on any given day. You are wrong in saying control doesn't exist in a competitive sense, or you mis-read what I posted and thought I referenced classic permission-based control.
This thread is about "classic control", that's what I'm talking about. Countertop/Thopters is a control deck but it isn't top tier. Countertop package in a RUG tempo deck is a RUG tempo deck with a control element that metagames against other tempo decks. UW stoneblade is a tempo deck. It often plays the control role if you choose to categorize every match as beatdown vs control but it isn't a control deck.
Our definitions of control are extremely different if you would classify Reanimator as control. That deck is combo with disruption. I don't consider decks with counters for disruption control decks. They aren't using their counters/answers in the same way a control deck does.
Players have hated control for a long time - much longer than live coverage was as large an issue as it is today.
I've certainly seen this, and it's been even more visible in new players, but if that's the end of the discussion, then WotC will never truly support classic control again. I'd like that not to be the case. Players like being able to affect the game state in some way. Countermagic denies them that ability - plenty of removal can be used reactively, but is usually more narrow than a counterspell. Since the primary offender here seems to be countermagic, perhaps there is development space for spells that can replace (at least partially) countermagic in classic control decks?
Requirements for such a card: 1. Must be able to be used reactively (at instant speed) 2. Must not provide card disadvantage 3. Must answer one or more threats (at least temporarily) 4. Must be able to answer a variety of threats 5. Must be defensive in nature (i.e. not provide a threat in itself)
I can think of a number of card variations that would fit these criteria. This may not be the correct forum to discuss such specific ideas, but I am curious if this might appeal to WotC. As I feel that they discovered that players dislike countermagic specifically and not control in general, providing alternatives to countermagic seems a more holistic approach than simply printing more powerful creatures.
As far as tournament commentary goes, if the players can hear the commentators while playing, there is something wrong with the venue. Poker tournaments are often televised, with commentary, and the cards are always captured on camera, even when those cards are lying face down 99% of the time. I don't think it's infeasible that a game as profitable as Magic can include cameras for this purpose at large events.
First, the major archetypes as defined by orbz621 in that thread:
Unfortunately, it seems that the control archetype is suffering from a lack of card support.
While many decks care about card advantage, classic control (ie. Weissman style) aims to win via card advantage. The draw-go style can be fun to play, but I understand that it is not always the most fun to watch. This, I believe, is because draw-go players tend to focus on their hand instead of the battlefield. When televised games offer a top-down perspective of a game, the battlefield (and not the players hands) is what is visible. Thus, the viewer can't appreciate classical control as compared to the other major archetypes.
As I'm only a casual follower of the game, my viewpoint could very well be skewed - does this explanation make sense for Wizard's lack of support for the control archetype? Do they realize that showing the ENTIRE game on camera might improve public opinion of classic control? I'd like all of the archetypes to be supported and am wondering what options are available for ensuring that this widespread support will be desirable for Wizards in the future of the modern format.
I believe the primary reason that wotc prevents draw-go control from being viable is that many new players hate playing against control (the same is true for combo). Control and combo are archetypes that come from and require a deeper understanding of the game to build and play. A new player can understand that by playing creatures they lower their opponent's life to 0 but they probably haven't thought much about threat density vs answer density or card advantage. Those concepts are foreign to them so they don't think it feels fair when they lose to a control deck that counters every one of their plays.
If this type of control were viable in more formats then I would love to play it I want to win more games with Mishra's Factory.
I definitely recall Aaron Forsythe of WotC once stating in a video interview a few years ago (before the Modern format was created) that when they did their marketing surveys, new players did not like their spells being countered and they don't like control (when they knew what that style of play was). That is why the cards they produce today are more about attacking creatures and small combo (1-2 cards interacting for a small, but not overwhelming effect) rather than big combo or classic control. WotC have stated in the past that Counterspell was retired and lesser counter spell cards were being created. Draw cards are now carefully designed because even though those cards might help control, they also help combo decks.
Some people have joked that Magic has become more like Yu-Gi-Oh, because of the increased creature presence. Maybe WotC wants to attract those players.
...unless I am getting the commentary process completely wrong.
The old coverage of magic on espn included commentary on hands. It was dramatically better than any of the current lame coverage.
I know ESPN used to cover Magic but had no idea it covered MTG!
I would agree that enhanced coverage of player hands would be a welcome addition to GP/PTQ/5K feeds, but it's by no means influencing player opinions of existing control archetypes.
That type of control definitely does not exist in a competitive form in Legacy. The many tempo decks do play counters but that doesn't make them control. I'm pretty sure there hasn't been any serious control in Legacy since Mental Misstep's banning.
I don't believe draw-go control is viable in modern either but I don't know as much about that format. I know I haven't seen a competitive modern control deck yet at least.
edit: I guess there are Mystical Teachings decks in modern but they seem like fringe decks so far.
Current post- Grand Prix KC Modern Postmortem (7/7/13)
There's more to control than draw-go. The countertop package is still present in nearly every 5K Open in significant numbers, and stoneblade decks are almost always the reactive deck in any given matchup. Or are you making the argument that stoneblade is aggro? combo?
Even legacy reanimator has leaned more and more towards control with the advent of jin-gitaxis, since resolving him and protecting him gives you massive card advantage and the ability to continue protecting your win conditions. Obviously, the lines get blurred in legacy, with decks like RUG delver and Bant constantly modifying the stock lists in order to gain an edge on the meta, which means control elements vary on any given day. You are wrong in saying control doesn't exist in a competitive sense, or you mis-read what I posted and thought I referenced classic permission-based control.
Our definitions of control are extremely different if you would classify Reanimator as control. That deck is combo with disruption. I don't consider decks with counters for disruption control decks. They aren't using their counters/answers in the same way a control deck does.
I've certainly seen this, and it's been even more visible in new players, but if that's the end of the discussion, then WotC will never truly support classic control again. I'd like that not to be the case. Players like being able to affect the game state in some way. Countermagic denies them that ability - plenty of removal can be used reactively, but is usually more narrow than a counterspell. Since the primary offender here seems to be countermagic, perhaps there is development space for spells that can replace (at least partially) countermagic in classic control decks?
Requirements for such a card:
1. Must be able to be used reactively (at instant speed)
2. Must not provide card disadvantage
3. Must answer one or more threats (at least temporarily)
4. Must be able to answer a variety of threats
5. Must be defensive in nature (i.e. not provide a threat in itself)
I can think of a number of card variations that would fit these criteria. This may not be the correct forum to discuss such specific ideas, but I am curious if this might appeal to WotC. As I feel that they discovered that players dislike countermagic specifically and not control in general, providing alternatives to countermagic seems a more holistic approach than simply printing more powerful creatures.
As far as tournament commentary goes, if the players can hear the commentators while playing, there is something wrong with the venue. Poker tournaments are often televised, with commentary, and the cards are always captured on camera, even when those cards are lying face down 99% of the time. I don't think it's infeasible that a game as profitable as Magic can include cameras for this purpose at large events.