Players can play in whatever setting they wish. I may find playing a Maze's End deck or a BG Dredge deck annoying to play against, but I certainly do not come out and talk about the match and my opponent as displayed in the OP, in a public forum. I am a dick, and I am completely willing to admit that, but I still value sportsmanship and talking about a match and an opponent who takes the game more serious than you (or less serious than you) is simply unsportsmanlike.
My point, which you have twisted into a focal point and an offense against me, is that there is a line that divides players. Some take the game serious, and some do not... but you can't be pissed about your opponent taking the game any more or any less serious than you. You don't have to like it, but you do have to be respectful about it.
My point was not about whether this was a GP, PTQ, or an FNM (hell it was not even about the deck), it was about the conduct displayed in this thread and how there are polar ends in this game that the original poster seems to forget.
Players can play in whatever setting they wish. I may find playing a Maze's End deck or a BG Dredge deck annoying to play against, but I certainly do not come out and talk about the match and my opponent as displayed in the OP, in a public forum. I am a dick, and I am completely willing to admit that, but I still value sportsmanship and talking about a match and an opponent who takes the game more serious than you (or less serious than you) is simply unsportsmanlike.
My point, which you have twisted into a focal point and an offense against me, is that there is a line that divides players. Some take the game serious, and some do not... but you can't be pissed about your opponent taking the game any more or any less serious than you. You don't have to like it, but you do have to be respectful about it.
My point was not about whether this was a GP, PTQ, or an FNM (hell it was not even about the deck), it was about the conduct displayed in this thread and how there are polar ends in this game that the original poster seems to forget.
You seem salty as hell towards new players. From what I gather you are the type that would have complained about playing against Brad Nelson's Naya Control list before he won an SCG Open with it. Or complained because you lost to a list similar to Mono Green Aggro that Mason Lange piloted to top8 an Open this past weekend. Or the RUG Walkers deck that T8'ed the Invitational in Charlotte. People innovate in the game, people build and brew. You know why some people play Maze's End? Because they are looking for the next Naya Control, the next Mono Green Aggro, the next RUG Walkers. I didn't pick up Maze's End to troll the competition. People were leaning too heavily on midrange and control decks and the burn players had gone to creature based strategies, Maze's End comes and wipes the floor a week or two in a row and people start packing hate for it again.
You speak of sportsmanship, and then go on to say how you would get annoyed with and consider yourself superior to anyone playing a deck not found in the Proven section of the boards. Talking down to other players and implying that they are inferior based on their deck choice is pathetic and unsportsmanlike.
It is a shame how people assume they know why people play certain kinds of decks.
As people have started pointing out, there is no one reason (ie to grief the opponent) to play a Maze's End deck right now, esp at FNM. Even if you think it isn't viably competitive, maybe other people think it is worth running, esp in certain situations and at certain times in the meta (they have won events before).
At an FNM, you can win a lot of games because of how far players overextened against this deck, for instance. It actually takes some skill to play against and I've had a person thank me for playing a fog deck at an FNM because of how much it taught them about not overextending (and learning when and when not to concede and go to game 2 incidentally).
I'm not convinced OP is just a griefer. He just wanted to play a game of magic and was disappointed when the other player didn't have the ability to think further than his tilt.
And there will always be rogue decks. And there should be. Get used to it.
I brought my Possibility Storm/Sphere of Safety deck to an FNM once. Went 2-3 but everyone had a great laugh at it and generally enjoyed their time. I wouldn't bring it again anytime soon though because being locked out of the game and having to die to 20+ Extort triggers isn't as enjoyable the second time around.
Point is I caught the vibe of my LGS. I realized it was a one-trick pony in regards to people enjoying playing against it and afterwards they would hate the thing. So I stopped bringing it. Didn't hurt that the thing was terrible and slower than UW Control to win.
Players can play in whatever setting they wish. I may find playing a Maze's End deck or a BG Dredge deck annoying to play against, but I certainly do not come out and talk about the match and my opponent as displayed in the OP, in a public forum. I am a dick, and I am completely willing to admit that, but I still value sportsmanship and talking about a match and an opponent who takes the game more serious than you (or less serious than you) is simply unsportsmanlike.
My point, which you have twisted into a focal point and an offense against me, is that there is a line that divides players. Some take the game serious, and some do not... but you can't be pissed about your opponent taking the game any more or any less serious than you. You don't have to like it, but you do have to be respectful about it.
My point was not about whether this was a GP, PTQ, or an FNM (hell it was not even about the deck), it was about the conduct displayed in this thread and how there are polar ends in this game that the original poster seems to forget.
You seem salty as hell towards new players. From what I gather you are the type that would have complained about playing against Brad Nelson's Naya Control list before he won an SCG Open with it. Or complained because you lost to a list similar to Mono Green Aggro that Mason Lange piloted to top8 an Open this past weekend. Or the RUG Walkers deck that T8'ed the Invitational in Charlotte. People innovate in the game, people build and brew. You know why some people play Maze's End? Because they are looking for the next Naya Control, the next Mono Green Aggro, the next RUG Walkers. I didn't pick up Maze's End to troll the competition. People were leaning too heavily on midrange and control decks and the burn players had gone to creature based strategies, Maze's End comes and wipes the floor a week or two in a row and people start packing hate for it again.
You speak of sportsmanship, and then go on to say how you would get annoyed with and consider yourself superior to anyone playing a deck not found in the Proven section of the boards. Talking down to other players and implying that they are inferior based on their deck choice is pathetic and unsportsmanlike.
I hate to break it to you, but just because I think something does not mean that I base my behaviors on in. There is a difference between being annoyed and not saying it in show of good sportsmanship, and thinking it and then voicing it on a public forum. If you have been around the block on these forums, you would also know that I love innovation and brews, however I also know when to let a brew die out when it becomes nothing more than kicking a dead horse and I also know that competitive settings that I intend on winning, are not the time and place most of the time.
Also, I called the deck inferior, not the player. Nice try though.
There are reasons to concede a game early, just so everyone is aware.
To attempt to finish a match if the round goes to 3 games and in game 1 the opponent is ridiculously far ahead for whatever reason you may just want to concede. So we might have an actual winner instead of the potential for the 1-1 draw.
Crap against decks like the recently partially banned Eggs deck I have picked up the second they start to really combo off in game 1, because letting them complete the combo in game 1 usually means they win the match 1-0. People that complain about early concessions have no clue what the point of conceding is.
There are reasons to concede a game early, just so everyone is aware.
To attempt to finish a match if the round goes to 3 games and in game 1 the opponent is ridiculously far ahead for whatever reason you may just want to concede. So we might have an actual winner instead of the potential for the 1-1 draw.
Crap against decks like the recently partially banned Eggs deck I have picked up the second they start to really combo off in game 1, because letting them complete the combo in game 1 usually means they win the match 1-0. People that complain about early concessions have no clue what the point of conceding is.
That all sounds right, but that is not really what is at issue here.
To give the OP the benefit of the doubt, it sounds like his opponent quit on him in game 2 being already down a game when it was actually not beneficial to do so, as far as winning goes. His oppnenet still had a chance, maybe even a good chance, to win. Big picture-wise, the dude might even have only tied with the OP, gone 1-1 and still came in 1st in the tournament, let alone going to game 3 and possibly winning it outright.
So, the issue seems to be if it should be frowned upon if people concede just because they have a hard time coping emotionally (and otherwise) with a particular kind of deck, or if they should stick it out despite their annoyance to try and win anyway. This is not about strategic conceding, this is about conceding because of the way a deck makes you feel.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Until you have lived as a statue, do not talk to me of pigeons."
—Karn, silver golem
I love Maze's End. I enjoy playing the deck, and it's the only deck in this standard I care to play, mostly for personal amusement.
Knowing when and why to concede is a skill, just like knowing when to mulligan and why you do it in certain match-ups. It's is as much a skill as side boarding correctly and playing to your outs. You can concede for any reason at any time. There are strategies for when and why you should or should not concede based on the flow of a match or match-up.
Try not to get annoyed by such small actions of others. Plenty of times at FNMs where people have had me dead to rights given the info in my hand and they concede. Give em' a handshake and crack a smile as you shuffle your hand into your deck for next round.
On the topic of playing brews at more competitive events. When the Star City Open came to Orlando I sleeved up a pretty fun semi-competitive (probably bout tier2/2.5 at the time) straight white weenie deck. About half way into the tournament I find myself across from a so called "Grinder". Playing a pretty stock control deck, obviously a great match-up for the tempo of my deck. Go 2-1 against him in close games, winning mainly due to him getting blown out by rootborn defenses. He literally pitched a rage fit at the table like a five year because "My ***** deck just wasted his weekend.". I laughed in his face, called him an infant and suggested he dropped. I ended up with an over 50% record, yet far from top contention and had a good time.
Moral of that anecdote- Don't let immature people who take losing too harsh get to you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A man is but a product of his thoughts. What he thinks he becomes."
This deck is awful to play against, not fun at all, and you guys need to suck it up if you have a problem with people conceding early. It's completely fair in this situation.
/rant
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My point, which you have twisted into a focal point and an offense against me, is that there is a line that divides players. Some take the game serious, and some do not... but you can't be pissed about your opponent taking the game any more or any less serious than you. You don't have to like it, but you do have to be respectful about it.
My point was not about whether this was a GP, PTQ, or an FNM (hell it was not even about the deck), it was about the conduct displayed in this thread and how there are polar ends in this game that the original poster seems to forget.
You seem salty as hell towards new players. From what I gather you are the type that would have complained about playing against Brad Nelson's Naya Control list before he won an SCG Open with it. Or complained because you lost to a list similar to Mono Green Aggro that Mason Lange piloted to top8 an Open this past weekend. Or the RUG Walkers deck that T8'ed the Invitational in Charlotte. People innovate in the game, people build and brew. You know why some people play Maze's End? Because they are looking for the next Naya Control, the next Mono Green Aggro, the next RUG Walkers. I didn't pick up Maze's End to troll the competition. People were leaning too heavily on midrange and control decks and the burn players had gone to creature based strategies, Maze's End comes and wipes the floor a week or two in a row and people start packing hate for it again.
You speak of sportsmanship, and then go on to say how you would get annoyed with and consider yourself superior to anyone playing a deck not found in the Proven section of the boards. Talking down to other players and implying that they are inferior based on their deck choice is pathetic and unsportsmanlike.
As people have started pointing out, there is no one reason (ie to grief the opponent) to play a Maze's End deck right now, esp at FNM. Even if you think it isn't viably competitive, maybe other people think it is worth running, esp in certain situations and at certain times in the meta (they have won events before).
At an FNM, you can win a lot of games because of how far players overextened against this deck, for instance. It actually takes some skill to play against and I've had a person thank me for playing a fog deck at an FNM because of how much it taught them about not overextending (and learning when and when not to concede and go to game 2 incidentally).
I'm not convinced OP is just a griefer. He just wanted to play a game of magic and was disappointed when the other player didn't have the ability to think further than his tilt.
And there will always be rogue decks. And there should be. Get used to it.
—Karn, silver golem
Point is I caught the vibe of my LGS. I realized it was a one-trick pony in regards to people enjoying playing against it and afterwards they would hate the thing. So I stopped bringing it. Didn't hurt that the thing was terrible and slower than UW Control to win.
I hate to break it to you, but just because I think something does not mean that I base my behaviors on in. There is a difference between being annoyed and not saying it in show of good sportsmanship, and thinking it and then voicing it on a public forum. If you have been around the block on these forums, you would also know that I love innovation and brews, however I also know when to let a brew die out when it becomes nothing more than kicking a dead horse and I also know that competitive settings that I intend on winning, are not the time and place most of the time.
Also, I called the deck inferior, not the player. Nice try though.
To attempt to finish a match if the round goes to 3 games and in game 1 the opponent is ridiculously far ahead for whatever reason you may just want to concede. So we might have an actual winner instead of the potential for the 1-1 draw.
Crap against decks like the recently partially banned Eggs deck I have picked up the second they start to really combo off in game 1, because letting them complete the combo in game 1 usually means they win the match 1-0. People that complain about early concessions have no clue what the point of conceding is.
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
That all sounds right, but that is not really what is at issue here.
To give the OP the benefit of the doubt, it sounds like his opponent quit on him in game 2 being already down a game when it was actually not beneficial to do so, as far as winning goes. His oppnenet still had a chance, maybe even a good chance, to win. Big picture-wise, the dude might even have only tied with the OP, gone 1-1 and still came in 1st in the tournament, let alone going to game 3 and possibly winning it outright.
So, the issue seems to be if it should be frowned upon if people concede just because they have a hard time coping emotionally (and otherwise) with a particular kind of deck, or if they should stick it out despite their annoyance to try and win anyway. This is not about strategic conceding, this is about conceding because of the way a deck makes you feel.
—Karn, silver golem
Knowing when and why to concede is a skill, just like knowing when to mulligan and why you do it in certain match-ups. It's is as much a skill as side boarding correctly and playing to your outs. You can concede for any reason at any time. There are strategies for when and why you should or should not concede based on the flow of a match or match-up.
Big Thanks to Xeno for sig art <3.
On the topic of playing brews at more competitive events. When the Star City Open came to Orlando I sleeved up a pretty fun semi-competitive (probably bout tier2/2.5 at the time) straight white weenie deck. About half way into the tournament I find myself across from a so called "Grinder". Playing a pretty stock control deck, obviously a great match-up for the tempo of my deck. Go 2-1 against him in close games, winning mainly due to him getting blown out by rootborn defenses. He literally pitched a rage fit at the table like a five year because "My ***** deck just wasted his weekend.". I laughed in his face, called him an infant and suggested he dropped. I ended up with an over 50% record, yet far from top contention and had a good time.
Moral of that anecdote- Don't let immature people who take losing too harsh get to you.
"A man is but a product of his thoughts. What he thinks he becomes."
/rant