I think we all should agree that when a format has a thread going that is called the sate of Modern and it fills up with thousands of post the format is far from healthy and perfect.
...is that it assumes that there is only one explanation for the "thousands of posts", and that it assumes that all (or the majority) of those posts are criticisms of the format. There are other explanations that can exist. Simply because some number of vocal people complain about something doesn't mean that their complaints are justified.
On that note, I think it would likely benefit those of us who actually want to participate in a constructive analysis of the format and game if a new pinned thread were created for doing just that - Complainers can have their own thread.
It`s just a way of speech mate nothing more nothing less. Thousand of posts looks better then a couple posts right?
I know it is a group of people who like to complain but hey even if you get your own `constructive analysis` thread you really think complainers won`t follow you there?
Anyway I also see that some people share the same thought as me. I loved Modern when I started it and I played it a lot but the last time it is like I said before starting to feel more and more like a lotery.
I play Dredge in Legacy and Modern and I know I have my bad matchups in Legacy as well but they don`t feel like an instant loss. I feel and I know that I still have a chance of winning those with some tight play and sometimes a little but of luck.
I share your exact sentiment. How a game feels for many players cannot Be dismissed by anyone on here. Especially when thaycannot mathematically disprove this current statement on modern.
Enjoy legacy man its a great format, I wish I had the coin to join.
And thanks for being open minded and seeing both sides of the argument.
It's rare to find that in a person it seems on this inbred forum,Ruled by a few. Suspension issued for spamming the forum. -- CavalryWolfPack
Re: Legacy health
This always feels like a classic "grass is greener on the other side" argument. If Wizards got their hands on Legacy as a supported, competitive format, I'm positive they would treat it exactly how they treat every other supported, competitive format. See their track record with 1v1 MTGO Commander, Modern, and Standard. The primary reason something like SDT made it for so long was because Wizards has such a hands-off attitude with the format. I'm definitely not denying Legacy is skill-testing in a Magic fundamentals sort of way. I'm simply saying that a lot of what makes Legacy so beloved is the relative lack of Wizards interference. Most of the controversy around other formats doesn't surround inherent format problems but rather reckless and consistent mismanagement. It's gotten better in some areas but hasn't improved in others.
Re: matchup lottery
This argument is exhausting. Basically all the major authors have explained why it's no longer the case on any significant level and/or is manageable through deck familiarity and tight play. This was absolutely the case in 2016. It is not the case now.
you know what I love? Discrimination. If I flame someone a tad I get banned. Yet people can talk ***** in here way worse about poeple are fine.
You say one negative thing about modern and people lose it on here. It's just like that article about modern players. They Can't take criticism on Thier format.
Then they flame ya and condescend to ya and get away with it.
I disagree with your argument about matchup lottery.
Tron and eldra tron affinity where In the format in 2016 so how did things magically change since then? Your argument is just as a anecdotal as mine.
Modern really hasnt changed a ton since 2016 in terms of linearity.And uwr rose which is good yes. But overall all modern is still linear dominated.
Just because you disagree with my theory doesn't mean I'm wrong nor does it mean you Ban someone to silence them.
Those 'free wins' are what determine are the best decks in the format however. 'Fair Magic' is not what most high end players look for in a deck. This was commonly being discussed on twitter months and months ago.
this is the core of my issue.
Modern needs to be less broken Imo. Otherwise it's a Game of who can play the more broken deck.
Is thoughtsieze broken? No
Is snappy broken? No
Is Bolt broken? No
Push? No
Is a turn 2-3 1 mana 8/8 broken? Yes
Is a turn 3 karn broken? Yes
Is dumping your entire affinity hand pretty much making it impossible for the opponent to catch up broken? Yes
Is a Turn 2 tks or reality smasher broken? Yes
Is a turn 4 grapeshot lethal broken? Hell yes
People will say: but it's a small percentage that happens.
But combined with all the decks it happens more than I feel is healthy. Not to mention highroll magic is not a test of skill but rather a test of luck in which you pretty much auto lose that game no matter how good the answers are.
Well, yeah if they could make modern less broken we would probably all be happier. The trouble is that they basically can't without invalidating everyones current multi-hundred dollar deck that is literally only propped up by the fact that they have some metric of performance.
I don't mean the weaker ones though. I mean the more powerful ones, the ones That I feel are what hurt modern Imo.
I think we all should agree that when a format has a thread going that is called the sate of Modern and it fills up with thousands of post the format is far from healthy and perfect.
I started playing Legacy because I just got sick of Modern being, for a big part, a lottery on what deck you are facing and more of a sideboard battle.
I got days when I get my good matchups and stomp everyone and other days, even when my deck is working for me, I got the bad matchups and just get completely stomped.
Of course I know that a deck should not have good matchups or 50/50 matchups against the whole field but in Modern the difference is just to big if you ask me.
Also the constant complaining about what to ban, when to ban it and waht and when to unban it has pushed me away from Modern. Don`t get me wrong Legacy is also not perfect but there is a lot less complaining going on in that format. People just play the game and they are having fun doing it.
I been playing Modern since the first year it started, wich was also the first time I started playing Magic so I been through a lot of meta`s and chanced and you name it.
But I also noticed that if Legacy was more easily accecable and cheaper Modern would not even be discussed like this.
I too feel like legacy is way better than modern(not because it's blue dominated)
But because with the top decks I can, with skill, have a game against anyone, And so can they.
Unfortunately legacy is dead in attendance in my region,and unfortunately it's also way to expensive.
Those 'free wins' are what determine are the best decks in the format however. 'Fair Magic' is not what most high end players look for in a deck. This was commonly being discussed on twitter months and months ago.
this is the core of my issue.
Modern needs to be less broken Imo. Otherwise it's a Game of who can play the more broken deck.
Is thoughtsieze broken? No
Is snappy broken? No
Is Bolt broken? No
Push? No
Is a turn 2-3 1 mana 8/8 broken? Yes
Is a turn 3 karn broken? Yes
Is dumping your entire affinity hand pretty much making it impossible for the opponent to catch up broken? Yes
Is a Turn 2 tks or reality smasher broken? Yes
Is a turn 4 grapeshot lethal broken? Hell yes
People will say: but it's a small percentage that happens.
But combined with all the decks it happens more than I feel is healthy. Not to mention highroll magic is not a test of skill but rather a test of luck in which you pretty much auto lose that game no matter how good the answers are.
Not sure where you're going with that list of what's broken and what's not. Of course a single Bolt in a vacuum isn't as broken as a combination of multiple cards that result in a T2-3 8/8 or a T3 Karn.
As for the "game of who can play the more broken deck" comment, what format in any TCG isn't a battle of broken versus broken? Competitive environments will always drive players to either play the most broken decks or create decks that break the broken decks, which either become broken themselves or get beat by a different slew of broken decks it can't deal with.
and thats why the people in charge should deal with the problem instead of let the whole format become this way.
and I honestly wouldnt be asking for these insane bans if wizards would make fair decks just as powerful and prevalent as the linear broken ones.
its why I think we either level the playing field in 2 different ways.
multiple bans
or multiple unbans
Wizards just said the format was healthy and they only mentioned unbans. I know you don't like something about the format landscape and I see where your arguments come from. But I think it is actually you in the minority here and it seems very unlikely that Wizards and most players share this view. Look at the metagame in early October: that is Wizards' view of healthy. It's actually more diverse now with even more interactive decks than October. I just don't see any traction to these format complaints.
Again, I think there's a legitimate worry about what the PT is going to look like. But that's not on the table right now.
I partially disagree with what wizards considers healthy. Seeing as thought a part of healthy Imo isnt majority linear top tiers.
Where is jund in the top tier? It's interactive and powerful and stomps creature based decks.? And even does fine vs shadow decks.
Why is white the only colour that can deal with any eldrazi creature for 1 mana?
And why haven't we gotten SFM Jace and bbe yet?
As If they are more powerful than what can be done by turn 3 in modern.
I'd be with you on no bans. But unfortunately my faith in wizards giving us those 3 cards is nil.
You shouldn't have to wait a year everytime there is a ban or unban. It's ridiculous really.
Those 'free wins' are what determine are the best decks in the format however. 'Fair Magic' is not what most high end players look for in a deck. This was commonly being discussed on twitter months and months ago.
this is the core of my issue.
Modern needs to be less broken Imo. Otherwise it's a Game of who can play the more broken deck.
Is thoughtsieze broken? No
Is snappy broken? No
Is Bolt broken? No
Push? No
Is a turn 2-3 1 mana 8/8 broken? Yes
Is a turn 3 karn broken? Yes
Is dumping your entire affinity hand pretty much making it impossible for the opponent to catch up broken? Yes
Is a Turn 2 tks or reality smasher broken? Yes
Is a turn 4 grapeshot lethal broken? Hell yes
People will say: but it's a small percentage that happens.
But combined with all the decks it happens more than I feel is healthy. Not to mention highroll magic is not a test of skill but rather a test of luck in which you pretty much auto lose that game no matter how good the answers are.
Not sure where you're going with that list of what's broken and what's not. Of course a single Bolt in a vacuum isn't as broken as a combination of multiple cards that result in a T2-3 8/8 or a T3 Karn.
As for the "game of who can play the more broken deck" comment, what format in any TCG isn't a battle of broken versus broken? Competitive environments will always drive players to either play the most broken decks or create decks that break the broken decks, which either become broken themselves or get beat by a different slew of broken decks it can't deal with.
and thats why the people in charge should deal with the problem instead of let the whole format become this way.
and I honestly wouldnt be asking for these insane bans if wizards would make fair decks just as powerful and prevalent as the linear broken ones.
its why I think we either level the playing field in 2 different ways.
multiple bans
or multiple unbans
Okay quick reminder folks:
Splinter Twin is not a fair friggin' deck.
That is all.
ah but when you combine things like linearity and interactivity into the discussion things change.
and shouldnt you like twin? your a spike who plays broken decks.
Those 'free wins' are what determine are the best decks in the format however. 'Fair Magic' is not what most high end players look for in a deck. This was commonly being discussed on twitter months and months ago.
this is the core of my issue.
Modern needs to be less broken Imo. Otherwise it's a Game of who can play the more broken deck.
Is thoughtsieze broken? No
Is snappy broken? No
Is Bolt broken? No
Push? No
Is a turn 2-3 1 mana 8/8 broken? Yes
Is a turn 3 karn broken? Yes
Is dumping your entire affinity hand pretty much making it impossible for the opponent to catch up broken? Yes
Is a Turn 2 tks or reality smasher broken? Yes
Is a turn 4 grapeshot lethal broken? Hell yes
People will say: but it's a small percentage that happens.
But combined with all the decks it happens more than I feel is healthy. Not to mention highroll magic is not a test of skill but rather a test of luck in which you pretty much auto lose that game no matter how good the answers are.
Not sure where you're going with that list of what's broken and what's not. Of course a single Bolt in a vacuum isn't as broken as a combination of multiple cards that result in a T2-3 8/8 or a T3 Karn.
As for the "game of who can play the more broken deck" comment, what format in any TCG isn't a battle of broken versus broken? Competitive environments will always drive players to either play the most broken decks or create decks that break the broken decks, which either become broken themselves or get beat by a different slew of broken decks it can't deal with.
and thats why the people in charge should deal with the problem instead of let the whole format become this way.
and I honestly wouldnt be asking for these insane bans if wizards would make fair decks just as powerful and prevalent as the linear broken ones.
its why I think we either level the playing field in 2 different ways.
@Darkest_before_dawn, That's a fair point. I suppose that I do lose patience after a while, when there is an attempt at a constructive discussion and it is met with those who seem prone to espouse opinions with little or no effort to actually contribute to the progression of the discussion. I do feel that it's fair to request that, if someone claims that there is a problem with the current decks, and percentages of those decks, in the metagame, they then provide what they think it should be. I feel that simply coming in to complain with little or no effort to provide their own perspective of what it should be (being specific, not vague so as to avoid doing real work to support their arguments) is not only silly, but counter-productive and juvenile.
I gave you a constructive answer the best that could be explained in a simple way, and you answer it with a condescending and impossible question.
the perspective has been provided. and asking enough questions to write a book in a single post is something few people with lives have time for.
I know you think your theory is god. but honestly unless you can prove to me mathematically right now and apply it to modern and then disprove my points with it, then we are both just as theoretical and anecdotal as each other.
Those 'free wins' are what determine are the best decks in the format however. 'Fair Magic' is not what most high end players look for in a deck. This was commonly being discussed on twitter months and months ago.
this is the core of my issue.
Modern needs to be less broken Imo. Otherwise it's a Game of who can play the more broken deck.
Is thoughtsieze broken? No
Is snappy broken? No
Is Bolt broken? No
Push? No
Is a turn 2-3 1 mana 8/8 broken? Yes
Is a turn 3 karn broken? Yes
Is dumping your entire affinity hand pretty much making it impossible for the opponent to catch up broken? Yes
Is a Turn 2 tks or reality smasher broken? Yes
Is a turn 4 grapeshot lethal broken? Hell yes
People will say: but it's a small percentage that happens.
But combined with all the decks it happens more than I feel is healthy. Not to mention highroll magic is not a test of skill but rather a test of luck in which you pretty much auto lose that game no matter how good the answers are.
It feels like you want midrange to dominate the format. That was my sense of it when you disliked the idea of a draw go control deck as tier 1 (which GBx is awful against).
Your vision of modern looks---selfish? I don't know how to word it better, I'm really not throwing that out as an insult.
I actually think a meta with control being a large chunk in it would be great.
And I know midrange wouldn't push it out for your mentioned reasons.
If you look at it as:"I want midrange the gathering so my jund deck can beat everyone" of course that looks selfish. But that's your view on it and its incorrect.
In my modern ideal world there would be equality in linearity it wouldn't dominate but it would still be good.
Where merfolk and humans elves ect where the aggro decks
Bgx and urx where control and midrange ect
And infect
Coco
Dredge
Boggles
Ad nauseam
Ect where combo
The fact is there are soo much decks in modern. It's foolish to think there wouldn't be others to rise in Thier place.
And I truly feel affinity is too much of a sideboard battle for soo many decks
Storm wins way too quick
Tron and Eldrazi and valakut(ie big mana) don't have adequate hate vs them so they just stomp slower decks.
I don't find that healthy....
If I was bias id be not complaining about affinity and storm cuz I play interactive decks wouldn't I? Ask yourself that.
I literally played every tier 1 to 3 deck intimately and have tried even the ones I hate. So that I can get an intimate understanding of modern. I've logged hours in the thousands in modern.
And in my travels I looked for the more skilled player winning more often. I did not find this enough. Instead I commonly found matchups and sideboards to often dictating the tide of the games. This is the core to what I find unhealthy.
Big picture man..
One question: do you primarily play modern on paper or online?
I've played in paper for years in fnms ptqs pptqs. And magic online aswell.
It feels like you want midrange to dominate the format. That was my sense of it when you disliked the idea of a draw go control deck as tier 1 (which GBx is awful against).
Your vision of modern looks---selfish? I don't know how to word it better, I'm really not throwing that out as an insult.
I actually think a meta with control being a large chunk in it would be great.
And I know midrange wouldn't push it out for your mentioned reasons.
If you look at it as:"I want midrange the gathering so my jund deck can beat everyone" of course that looks selfish. But that's your view on it and its incorrect.
In my modern ideal world there would be equality in linearity it wouldn't dominate but it would still be good.
Where merfolk and humans elves ect where the aggro decks
Bgx and urx where control and midrange ect
And infect
Coco
Dredge
Boggles
Ad nauseam
Ect where combo
The fact is there are soo much decks in modern. It's foolish to think there wouldn't be others to rise in Thier place.
And I truly feel affinity is too much of a sideboard battle for soo many decks
Storm wins way too quick
Tron and Eldrazi and valakut(ie big mana) don't have adequate hate vs them so they just stomp slower decks.
I don't find that healthy....
If I was bias id be not complaining about affinity and storm cuz I play interactive decks wouldn't I? Ask yourself that.
I literally played every tier 1 to 3 deck intimately and have tried even the ones I hate. So that I can get an intimate understanding of modern. I've logged hours in the thousands in modern.
And in my travels I looked for the more skilled player winning more often. I did not find this enough. Instead I commonly found matchups and sideboards to often dictating the tide of the games. This is the core to what I find unhealthy.
Big picture man..
Did you see that part that I underlined where I asked you to give specific decklists and specific percentage points of the metagame you think those decklists should occupy?
EDIT:
So, my question is, what specific decks do you think should comprise the metagame, and at what exact percentages? And when I say specific decks, I'm looking for specific examples of a decklist. Being vague here only serves as a cop-out for doing actual work. Additionally, which of those decks would you be choosing to play? There is one more follow-up question, in the request that you actually playtest those decks against eachother, at least in double-digit numbers of matches, and provide the data (in a manner that everyone else can check), so that everyone can be sure that those percentages are realistic for each deck in the metagame.
how the hell can I ask such a thing from a game?
Yea I want jund to be exactly 8 percent of the meta and burn 6 affinity 7.
No one cannot answer that. Noone can. I've provided you with my answer. I can't make it any clearer.
Those decks most certainly will if I can focus on them a lot more.
I'm a midrange player and what you're proposing isn't fair whatsoever to the base
the decks I mentioned isn't fair either. I feel that's a double standard statement. Also how do you know midrange would be so dominant to such an exaggerated state.
I'd love to be a jund deck that can just focus on mirrors and small creature decks. I'll gladly play 4x leyline of the void if I don't need land destruction
I don't see this being fair to the base. I think combo and aggro would be very difficult to play. We are just turning modern into a standard format with a larger pool of fair cards.
What's going to prey on midrange? I don't see it without some kind or triangulation on making it difficult
I think midrange struggles to do well without big mana. Just because your on jund doesn't auto win a game vs Coco for example.
Enjoy legacy man its a great format, I wish I had the coin to join.
And thanks for being open minded and seeing both sides of the argument.
It's rare to find that in a person it seems on this inbred forum,Ruled by a few.
Suspension issued for spamming the forum. -- CavalryWolfPack
You say one negative thing about modern and people lose it on here. It's just like that article about modern players. They Can't take criticism on Thier format.
Then they flame ya and condescend to ya and get away with it.
I disagree with your argument about matchup lottery.
Tron and eldra tron affinity where In the format in 2016 so how did things magically change since then? Your argument is just as a anecdotal as mine.
Modern really hasnt changed a ton since 2016 in terms of linearity.And uwr rose which is good yes. But overall all modern is still linear dominated.
Just because you disagree with my theory doesn't mean I'm wrong nor does it mean you Ban someone to silence them.
Gotta love a dictatorship..
I too feel like legacy is way better than modern(not because it's blue dominated)
But because with the top decks I can, with skill, have a game against anyone, And so can they.
Unfortunately legacy is dead in attendance in my region,and unfortunately it's also way to expensive.
Where is jund in the top tier? It's interactive and powerful and stomps creature based decks.? And even does fine vs shadow decks.
Why is white the only colour that can deal with any eldrazi creature for 1 mana?
And why haven't we gotten SFM Jace and bbe yet?
As If they are more powerful than what can be done by turn 3 in modern.
I'd be with you on no bans. But unfortunately my faith in wizards giving us those 3 cards is nil.
You shouldn't have to wait a year everytime there is a ban or unban. It's ridiculous really.
ah but when you combine things like linearity and interactivity into the discussion things change.
and shouldnt you like twin? your a spike who plays broken decks.
and I honestly wouldnt be asking for these insane bans if wizards would make fair decks just as powerful and prevalent as the linear broken ones.
its why I think we either level the playing field in 2 different ways.
multiple bans
or multiple unbans
the perspective has been provided. and asking enough questions to write a book in a single post is something few people with lives have time for.
I know you think your theory is god. but honestly unless you can prove to me mathematically right now and apply it to modern and then disprove my points with it, then we are both just as theoretical and anecdotal as each other.
Modern needs to be less broken Imo. Otherwise it's a Game of who can play the more broken deck.
Is thoughtsieze broken? No
Is snappy broken? No
Is Bolt broken? No
Push? No
Is a turn 2-3 1 mana 8/8 broken? Yes
Is a turn 3 karn broken? Yes
Is dumping your entire affinity hand pretty much making it impossible for the opponent to catch up broken? Yes
Is a Turn 2 tks or reality smasher broken? Yes
Is a turn 4 grapeshot lethal broken? Hell yes
People will say: but it's a small percentage that happens.
But combined with all the decks it happens more than I feel is healthy. Not to mention highroll magic is not a test of skill but rather a test of luck in which you pretty much auto lose that game no matter how good the answers are.
And I know midrange wouldn't push it out for your mentioned reasons.
If you look at it as:"I want midrange the gathering so my jund deck can beat everyone" of course that looks selfish. But that's your view on it and its incorrect.
In my modern ideal world there would be equality in linearity it wouldn't dominate but it would still be good.
Where merfolk and humans elves ect where the aggro decks
Bgx and urx where control and midrange ect
And infect
Coco
Dredge
Boggles
Ad nauseam
Ect where combo
The fact is there are soo much decks in modern. It's foolish to think there wouldn't be others to rise in Thier place.
And I truly feel affinity is too much of a sideboard battle for soo many decks
Storm wins way too quick
Tron and Eldrazi and valakut(ie big mana) don't have adequate hate vs them so they just stomp slower decks.
I don't find that healthy....
If I was bias id be not complaining about affinity and storm cuz I play interactive decks wouldn't I? Ask yourself that.
I literally played every tier 1 to 3 deck intimately and have tried even the ones I hate. So that I can get an intimate understanding of modern. I've logged hours in the thousands in modern.
And in my travels I looked for the more skilled player winning more often. I did not find this enough. Instead I commonly found matchups and sideboards to often dictating the tide of the games. This is the core to what I find unhealthy.
Big picture man..
Yea I want jund to be exactly 8 percent of the meta and burn 6 affinity 7.
No one cannot answer that. Noone can. I've provided you with my answer. I can't make it any clearer.
Nor merfolk, nor dredge, nor humans nor urx