Deck Build Lecture during the EC 2011?

Ok.
If you do come up with anything to take away from the discussion, like a PowerPoint or essay, I'd be happy to host it.

www.thelasombra.com/deck-building-theories.htm

Ofcourse! If anyone is willing to film it, it could go on to youtube.

You should probably do a bit on R&D. Quirky design and unexpected submetas don't appear unless you're willing to "not play to win" at times. In this context i refer to "play to win" as in maximising your chances in the metagame, not the tournament rule.

To quote David Sirlin:
"Playing to win and playing to learn are often at odds. If you play the game at hand to maximize you chances of winning, then you won’t take the unnecessary risks of trying out new tactics, counters, moves, patterns, or whatever. Playing it straight is the best way to win the game at hand, but at the cost of valuable information about the game that you may need later, and valuable practice to expand your narrow repertoire of moves or tactics."

Read some of his "play to win" articles at www.sirlin.net/articles/

Heavy experimentation in VTES is at odds with polishing new ideas, it's a problem I've experienced alot in Stockholm in particular.

The "good deck vs. creating new deck dilema" is one of the thing I'll talk about!

Pascal wrote:

...snip A-D...
E/ How to oust Erik.

Shouldn't that be point A, damnit?

Forhead wrote:

The "good deck vs. creating new deck dilema" is one of the thing I'll talk about!

I've been thinking alot about the "good deck vs. creating new deck dilemma" lately.

Extremes that change how the table should be played to win it has been something I've been experimenting with lately, the problem lies in keeping it secret long enough while at the same time being able to tune it into somthing tournament worthy.

Creating a new deck often makes for a whole new meta and sets a whole new rule for that particular table. A few examples would be the "Burning Anus" deck or the "Mindrape Abactor" deck, two concepts that take an idea to the extreme and kind of change the meta on how that particular table should be approached.

Once the deck's "one trick pony" has been exposed your playstyle accomodates and you can easily beat it with the top tourney decks, but creating a new sub-meta can win games almost by it's own since you can't expect it.

Applying this to the EC where several meta-games meet up is interesting, since it needs to be something extremely unexpected or strong to stand up to such a big pool of archetypes.