Do you play to win?

I feel that people try to build decks too hard sometimes and try to be too "creative". Especially trying to invent something new just for sake of inventing it and being different. Just playing with strong and well known decks (which there are very many anyway) is very fun also. But this is more of what part of game each player like. I like the game play more than tinkering about weird decks. I feel that I don't have to re-invite the wheel again every time.

Surreal wrote:

I feel that I don't have to re-invite the wheel again every time.

Of course not and you also don't have to be one of the best players ever to play vtes, to enjoy or even win a tournament or to be a valued member of the vtes community.

But this seems to be a discussion of playing at the very top level and winning. Tell me, of all the most skillful, successful and famous vtes players throughout the nearly 20 years the game has been out, how many of them didn't innovate the crap out of this game when it came to deck building? I honestly cannot think of a single one.

vtesocrates wrote:

Of course not and you also don't have to be one of the best players ever to play vtes, to enjoy or even win a tournament or to be a valued member of the vtes community.

But this seems to be a discussion of playing at the very top level and winning. Tell me, of all the most skillful, successful and famous vtes players throughout the nearly 20 years the game has been out, how many of them didn't innovate the crap out of this game when it came to deck building? I honestly cannot think of a single one.

While invention and the creation of new tier 1 decks is part of the game and can be very strong in tournaments, it needs to be analyzed in the light of playing to win. I would believe that there is a solid testing phase behind every innovative deck, I doubt good players would take an untested archetype into a tournament, while it might be new to everyone else, it should be well founded by the player.

Myrdin wrote:

While invention and the creation of new tier 1 decks is part of the game and can be very strong in tournaments, it needs to be analyzed in the light of playing to win. I would believe that there is a solid testing phase behind every innovative deck, I doubt good players would take an untested archetype into a tournament, while it might be new to everyone else, it should be well founded by the player.

I don't think I've been defending the idea of not testing decks. However, there can be worlds of difference between casual and competitive play. I'm not saying that players should show up with random garbage and hope it works. I am saying that the best players in the game don't merely play the best deck, they design it.

Do you play to win?

Yes.

TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote:

I read Sirlin's articles a long time ago. I decided he and I are radically different people.

He would still be playing a Malk'94 variant in every tournament. It's pretty clearly the most broken 2-discipline combination in the game. It largely reduces the 5 player game to a series of 1:1 duels with your prey, peppered with "I [insert Wake effect] and Deflect." Same deck, 15 times in a row at WoN, for 18 years straight.

Thank God I'm not Sirlin - it might be worse than being Sklansky.

If that's your conclusion, I don't think you comprehended Sirlin's articles. Reread them. Seriously, not trying to be flippant.

I also don't think you're the audience for an article like Myrdin's. You're the type of player who innovates, thinks about cards and metagames, and brings his best to a tournament. This kind of "hey you're in a tournament, try to win it" message is for that asshole who keeps bringing his "lolravnos" deck that he plays every week in your casual games to the tournament. No thought about what people might play, or how the deck will stand up against tough tier 1 archetypes. Maybe you all have a good time. Maybe he's the dead weight on the wrong side of the table and you can't use him to get your game win.