If there's a lot of go-wide aggro, doesn't that bode well for the midrange, interactive strategies people have been clamoring for?
Not really, because these decks also play a lot of disruptive creatures. They are go-wide aggro, but they kind of play like disruptive tempo decks too.
On an academic level, you're completely right, a few people don't validate the meta.
You do have to go with a gut check, too. My gut says there's going to be an aggressive shift like humans and other players trying to next level that prediction.
Mtgo has been a fantastic predictor for me, it's always ahead of schedule at what's in paper, but it catches up in paper too.
This is partially why I'm scared to bring e tron at a 1k tomorrow. I have more experience with eldrazi tron than jeskai though
If there's a lot of go-wide aggro, doesn't that bode well for the midrange, interactive strategies people have been clamoring for?
I must say modern isn’t that fun at all currently. Modo leagues are all storm and humans (new hot idea). Might as well just go back to Cheerios and try to t2 people again. All you have to do is dodge chalice on 0 and the tiny bit of removal and you’re golden. Modern imo is all about how fast you can kill right now.
We've heard these kinds of anecdotal opinions basically every month (every day, in all likelihood) since Twin got banned. Given that we have even less evidence of the actual MTGO metagame now than we did at any previous time, I'd say this assessment is even less accurate than it normally is. Cincinnati, an actual data point from a recent event, saw UW Control and Jeskai Control both barely miss T8 on breakers. D&T and Humans are also significantly more interactive than most Modern critics are willing to admit.
More importantly, we notice that BOTH E-Tron and GDS have both taken sizable dips since their earlier heights. This suggests the current metagame, which is definitely more aggressive than it was during E-Tron/GDS zeniths, is a reaction to other decks. GDS was big for a while, and then E-Tron came to beat it. Now we have more aggressive decks beating E-Tron. We'll see decks tailored to beat those aggressive decks, and the meta should keep shifting. At least, that's the hope, which so far has been carried through during this last year.
The only real worry I have is the PT, where players with significant time, expertise, and incentive will try to actually break the format to win big. This is where I think we'll see the "true" best decks in Modern emerge, which I suspect are GDS, E-Tron, and Storm. But if I'm wrong, which would be great, then we'll see an even more diverse field than we are seeing now.
Well watching Todd and Caleb’s streams as well as talking to the 3-4 local mtgo grinders that’s what most of them are seeing. I didn’t say anything about bans or unbans just that it’s boring.
If we are trying to rely on data, 5-6 people is not a very good sampling.
Given some of the kinds of cards on the banned list, their stances on consistency, their praise of the current meta, and their restriction on data, it seems this is EXACTLY what Wizards wants...
Diversity =\= variance. Diversity means you have lots of decks in a format. Variance means games just come down to the luck of the draw. I know you seem to hate the current Modern and think decks do come down to the luck of the draw, but many authors have explained why this isn't really the case.
I believe one of Modern's largest problems is player inflexibility. Players would rather complain than adapt their decks and card choices. This is why we don't see breakout decks more often and it takes a while for them to take root; players immediately doubt any new strategy. See ETron for many months. See JDS and GDS dropping their shares through natural shifts after many cried for bans. See Humans going undefeated at Cincinnati. I'd go even further to say that some Modern critics actively cheer against these decks because they want their negative format view to be validated. Wizards is partially to blame for this with the absurd number of bans, but players are responsible too.
That's not what I was referring to at all. Wizards WANTS a format with high variance, because they keep banning or not printing good consistency cards. They would love to have players randomly win against better skilled opponents due to lopsided matchups because it makes new players feel good to get wins with their weird brews. Their philosophy has been consistently to reduce consistency which in turn increases variance.
Okay i'm going to try one last time to explain my point.
I'm not saying Modern should be all about grinding to the ground every game during hours(i don´t like it so there's no bias here), i'm saying that the NORM of a competitive format should revolve around decisions and skill, not LUCK. It's okay to have Storm vs Infect, i think that matchup it's quite interesting and has some game to it, but the norm will be 3-4 Turns of Magic where the Infect player will not care about the opponent because he knows he doesn't have many ways to disrupt him, and will probably kill him T3 or T4. Storm will try to its thing quickly too because he knows the other side packs few interaction too.
This gameplay is fine and perfectly viable, the problem starts when 10 out of 15 rounds you find yourself in this situation. Then you have to pray the dice likes you and you initial 9 cards are what the doctor ordered.
I'm NOT complaining or being salty, i like Modern and it's the only format i play, but i would like it to be less variance-driven so playing Magic actually serves some purpose.
LAST PS: If the format stays this way i'm okay with it, but they hinted at unbans, and this is basically all what this talk is about, how can Modern can improve via the banlist, and i think it could do. If WOTC actually finds it wouldn't improve, then let it be and let's keep on playing.
I think you are really overestimating the level of skill compared to luck in running a deck with more interaction. Maybe step one is understanding that basically every match will come down to variance. It's all variance, ultimately, because your options are determined by variance. You can't pick a starting seven from your deck for each game. Deckbuilding can reduce some aspects of this a bit, but that's about it.
Modern has never existed in a way that match results were based more on skill than luck.
Every deck is trying to be efficient, literally all the time. MTG is a game predicated on getting more out of your resources than the opponent. That's mana, your life total, loyalty counters...everything. So there's something a bit amiss about terms like "hyper efficient" used in a pejorative manner and especially "overly efficient."
I'm not the only person to say this, when people complain about interaction, they really refer to a certain kind of interaction which primarily revolves around counterspells. Fine, counters suck, there's like three worth playing in any deck. There's still discard, creature removal, mana disruption, board wipes. And again, your saying it looks bad is entirely your opinion. SCG has stated on the record that the turnout, twitch streams, and overall reaction to modern by the public being so positive is one reason they always have such a high volume of modern opens and classics. So while I don't have numbers, and you don't have numbers, I'm willing to suspect a business that relies on consumer information has some data to support the notion that modern is really only hated by a small number of people in the community. This vocal minority then claims to be a majority because they echo off eachother and never really give credence to opposing opinion.
Modern has changed, and I hope it doesn't go backwards. This format is incredibly fun to play and watch. I guess it's not such if you're trying to be an ace grinder, but the game really shouldn't kowtow to such a small group.
Of course that was point of view, but from what i've seen from almost 7 years playing Modern, people have always complained about Modern being too SB guided, matchup-centric and fast. In my eyes, that's strictly because Combo is better than every other archetype.
I've heard other pros say it to, it's a theory, but i'm willing to bet my entire collection that if a combination of combo cards get banned, Modern would be better for the competitive scene. This is a format where Combo gets Legacy cards, and answers are not at a Legacy level, so that creates a linear enivronment once players recongnize what decks are the best.
Some combo cards we don't have:
Chrome Mox
Ponder
Preordain
Lotus Petal
Seething Song
Rite of Flame
Show and Tell
Reanimate
Exhume
Entomb
Xantid Swarm
And hell I don't even play legacy, so there are probably more I'm missing. I also can only think of five answers that are not in modern and they are all blue, but then again legacy is DOMINATED by blue thanks to FOW, Mistep, Flusterstorm, Daze and Counterspell. I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm telling you that human perception makes anecdotal evidence very very unreliable. We all tend to associate with people in a situation who are thinking like ourselves. It is far more likely that you will notice and remember people agreeing with you than otherwise, and it is a proven psychological phenomena that people are more than ready to dismiss all evidence that contradicts their perception. That's why it is not a good argument to talk in terms like yours. In fact, Storm has really only been at the top for a few months. Eldrazi Tron is not combo, Grixis Shadow is not combo, Burn is not combo, Affinity is aggro/combo so I'll concede that, Hatebears is not combo.
Let's look at things another way. Some people believe modern will be bad until blue is dominant, because a format lacking in powerful counters is deemed to be "uninteractive." Aggro basically sucks in legacy, but I'm hard pressed to find a loud contingent within the legacy playerbase calling for bans, unbans, or new cards to make go-wide aggro great in legacy. That format is midrange/tempo/control/combo. Standard will generally lack combo and prison entirely. No format has everything. That's just reality. The perfect balanced meta is a pipedream.
I've mentioned before, I hate BGx midrange, and while I know its only opinion, I feel compelled to say it over and over to make the point that no, the entire modern community is not sitting around waiting for jund to be great again due to something I can only describe as a weird nostalgia for a format two years old that probably wasn't as good as people make it out to be.
When evaluating an unban, we really should ask three questions. I'm sure these are similar enough to the questions Wizards asks.
1. Does the unban increase/decrease net diversity?
2. Does the unban create a potential T4 rule violator?
3. Can we prove 1 and 2 with limited testing in small groups on tight schedules?
Incidentally, 1 and 2 are also ban criteria.
Some users, notably GK in recent posts, have accused Wizards of making up ban criteria in the past. I see where this comes from but ultimately don't belive it's true. All of their ban/unban rationale relates to 1 and 2 above, even if poorly phrased. Twin ban? It's diversity. Probe ban? T4 rule. GGT? Diversity, but framed through sideboards. Sword and AV? Attempts to increase diversity too. "No changes" in the last bunch of updates? Diversity and T4 rule not jeopardized.
Once we realize these two criteria are the guiding stars of Modern, we can evaluate any unban or ban through their lens. At least, with the caveat for unbabs that Wizards doesn't make unbans with millions of test games but rather smaller test samples and lots of discussion.
This is why a card like BBE seems very safe. It isn't a T4 rule violator, and it almost exclusively goes into Jund (for tiered decks) and maybe Temur (for untiered decks with potential). The rise of those decks would be unlikely to push anything out either, because competing midrange decks are few and far between. As those decks kind of suck right now and for most of 2017, this seems like an easy way to boost format diversity, and an easy case Wizards can make in a meeting.
I agree with you but i also have to be fair to GK. The lines WOTC draws in their criteria are VERY thin and unconvincing. As you say, they frame their reasonings behind concepts that make banning cards much more abstract and likely. That's why someone could make the arguement Collected Company should be banned, they could easily phrase that one to fall under their categories. Whenever they talk about Modern, the lines get blurrier and people freak out(in my humble opinion, they do it and they have the right to do so because recent years have seen many pillars nuked and people's trust in the format spiraled down very quick).
I just hope someday we get a Modern where the Top decks are not super linear and combo isn't the best archetype in Modern. In the end i think that's what most people want. Combo is the reason this format has so many competitive woes.
PS: @gkourou: Listen, i think you are right to care about those goals, but ulitmately, they will look at BBE and say, hey Jund sucks and Jund is a good deck for the format overrall as it promotes healthy gameplay, let's unban this toy and let them have fun, test the waters for future unbans and let them put Kalitas,Huntmaster and Olivia as SB options for metagame shifts.
Except you don't know what most people want. At least Ktenshinx relies solely on information from WOTC and event results. Nobody on this website can claim to speak for 10% of modern players, let alone 51%.
I don't really see any benefit to the PT over an SCG open. I'm always confused when people on this thread try to claim people at one event with 500+ is so filled with "lesser skilled" players that the results cannot be used to determine a deck's validity or dominance. The PT is just one more data point to tack on to those events and GPs. Here's what I'd like to see:
significant meta share taken by one deck overall, like 25%+, or a deck with significant success over others, now the markoff for this is ultimately arbitrary, but if a similarly large percentage of X-2 decks in the modern portion went to one type, I'd be similarly concerned. I don't like using individual matches featured to determine things like turn 3 kills or overall power, because DSJund had people freaking out earlier this year when really it was just new and people weren't ready.
I think more important than the PT is the influence on the public the PT has. Let's say E-Tron does very well, regardless of whether it hits any of our personal benchmarks of ban target-worthiness. More people will start playing the deck as a result, and even a popular but not dominant deck runs the risk of creeping up that metagame share.
I wouldn't be shocked if a pro tour team somehow found a way to break Eldrazi Tron.
I don't think they will. But if they do adapt I hope they fail, I don't want to see a piece/pieces of the deck banned due to a one time result.
That actually leads to the most important question in my mind regarding the upcoming pro tour: what kind of results would people/players need to see to justify a ban/unban after the first PT? What do you think wizards would need to see (rather than snarky "it doesn't matter they have no rhyme/reason" responses)?
I could see them banning a storm piece after one solid showing just due to the nature of storm and how much they dislike the mechanic. I have a harder time saying the same for E-tron. I'd say any non-storm deck placing three copies in the top 8 would cause concern and potentially a knee-jerk reaction, but most decks would be safe even if they placed two copies in the top 8, at least initially.
Personally? I understand that because all events cut to a top 8 playoff that we tend to look at top 8 as if it had some grand meaning over top 16 or top 32, but when it comes to bans it seems extremely shortsighted to only look at that point. For instance, let's say storm fails to place one player in the top 8, but puts 20 into the top 32...that would be more cause for alarm than three top 8 spots. Top 8 is just more visible. I think for data collection in general, given how events will have hundreds or thousands of participants, to stop at the top 8 is an incorrect method of analysis.
I would love more 4 cmc cards to be introduced into the format.
A good thought experiment would be this one:
What ban / unban / new print would make Modern's curve higher than it is without presenting any significant problems into the format?
For example, Bloodbraid Elf would surely make Kalitas, Huntmaster and Olivia and all future 4cmc creature cards obsolete. I would want the card to come back, but it is what it is.
Splinter Twin, as much as I think it was wrongly banned, would not make the format's curve higher.
Honestly, I dont think any unban would make Modern's curve higher.
It's some bans that would make it's curve higher. Mox Opal,
free mana lands(although those cards you play 7 and 8 mana bombs it's toxic in the sense that it makes some players go aggressive to beat those kind of Eldra Tron decks),
and honestly most of 8th/9th edition cards would make the trick.
Now, I hate bans and I don't want any ban(even if Storm is going to be subject to bannings soon I imagine, because it wins too fast on top of being super consistent). This was just a thought experiment and nothing else.
I think there is a flaw in that question in that there is no reason to believe that raising the average mana curve of the format is a good thing. TKS on turn three triggers so many people here already. UW tops out at 5 cmc with Gideon, Ad Nauseaum is there too, after that any expensive threat or answer is played earlier through mana dorks, delve, etc.
Not to say that this question shouldn't be asked, but why does the format need more expensive cards being played in a way that I assume does not involve some sort of acceleration?
I am okay with unbanning a card if the best argument is that newer standard cards might not ever best it. People complain about TKS all the time for reasons I fail to understand in a format with Vendilion Clique.
I agree with LEH in that many of these opinions are just over what type of deck is "supposed" to be the best in the format, a fast aggro deck, powerful ramp, linear combo, or grindy midrange. Our limited data hints that no deck is dominant in terms of meta %. I hate jund, and would prefer to see it gone completely but am okay with just not running into it twice per FNM. I get that some people feel that way about storm, but hell six months ago people were calling for shadow bans until we all adjusted. Perhaps more people need to stop complaining and start adjusting.
Twin actually did kill diversity. There were zero URx decks besides twin, and a twin unban with a storm ban would lead to zero URx decks besides twin, as opposed to our current jeskai flash/grixis shadow/storm existence. Just a quick reminder that there are decks that beat storm, like those other two URx builds. Again, just because storm beats someone's preferred deck does not make storm a juggernaut. I maintain that its low price point is the main reason storm is very popular, and when you have a significant portion of the players joining modern to play a cheap, good deck, that high play volume will lead to more high results.
But if all decks can run it.. why would it be so broken.. i mean isnt that better than some of these cards that only some decks can run?
If it answers itself then that would be more fair than say a thoughseize where you cant do anything at all..
I still dont understand it. It would make for more interesting gameplay and would make you think twice before you just blatantly path a creature no questions asked.
Also wouldnt mental misstep be better then say chalice of the void. Where chalice stops you indeffinitely, mm can only stop 4 spells at best.
Hmm perhaps i have to see gameplay. But i read a tcg article where the author discusses the possibility of it being unbanned as well as how its not as terrible a choice as people think.
It would also help slow down some decks like affinity so midrange decks could have more of a chance.
I dont know..it just seems like it would pretty interesting unban though i see your guys points i think that if all decks have it then that kind of evens the field..
MM would become an auto 4-of in every deck, and several games would come down to "who drew the most copies of it." Competitive diversity is a goal for modern, and mistep directly opposes that goal.
It seems insane to me to unban Blazing Shoal. No way should it come back.
I wouldn't mind seeing GSZ, it would be really good but probably not OP.
In terms of what to ban, I'm usually not for any bans but you wouldn't have to try very hard to convince me that Tron lands and Storm should take a hit.
As someone whose two decks are mono blue tron and storm, this makes me sad. I already lost kiln fiend combo dammit let me have a deck!
The humans list that won last weekend's scg open reminded everyone that combo loses to disruption + a clock. That means death shadow midrange and delver style decks are rough matchups, as are the humans lists. I guess I just feel like pointing out sometimes that a player runs deck A, deck A has a bad matchup to deck B, so that player's reaction is to claim a card in deck B is unfair and needs a ban. I am perhaps too optimistic, but I see spell based combo as the means for decks like delver and humans to start to do better.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's better than ramp.
If there's a lot of go-wide aggro, doesn't that bode well for the midrange, interactive strategies people have been clamoring for?
If we are trying to rely on data, 5-6 people is not a very good sampling.
Opt.
I think you are really overestimating the level of skill compared to luck in running a deck with more interaction. Maybe step one is understanding that basically every match will come down to variance. It's all variance, ultimately, because your options are determined by variance. You can't pick a starting seven from your deck for each game. Deckbuilding can reduce some aspects of this a bit, but that's about it.
Modern has never existed in a way that match results were based more on skill than luck.
I'm not the only person to say this, when people complain about interaction, they really refer to a certain kind of interaction which primarily revolves around counterspells. Fine, counters suck, there's like three worth playing in any deck. There's still discard, creature removal, mana disruption, board wipes. And again, your saying it looks bad is entirely your opinion. SCG has stated on the record that the turnout, twitch streams, and overall reaction to modern by the public being so positive is one reason they always have such a high volume of modern opens and classics. So while I don't have numbers, and you don't have numbers, I'm willing to suspect a business that relies on consumer information has some data to support the notion that modern is really only hated by a small number of people in the community. This vocal minority then claims to be a majority because they echo off eachother and never really give credence to opposing opinion.
Modern has changed, and I hope it doesn't go backwards. This format is incredibly fun to play and watch. I guess it's not such if you're trying to be an ace grinder, but the game really shouldn't kowtow to such a small group.
Some combo cards we don't have:
Chrome Mox
Ponder
Preordain
Lotus Petal
Seething Song
Rite of Flame
Show and Tell
Reanimate
Exhume
Entomb
Xantid Swarm
And hell I don't even play legacy, so there are probably more I'm missing. I also can only think of five answers that are not in modern and they are all blue, but then again legacy is DOMINATED by blue thanks to FOW, Mistep, Flusterstorm, Daze and Counterspell. I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm telling you that human perception makes anecdotal evidence very very unreliable. We all tend to associate with people in a situation who are thinking like ourselves. It is far more likely that you will notice and remember people agreeing with you than otherwise, and it is a proven psychological phenomena that people are more than ready to dismiss all evidence that contradicts their perception. That's why it is not a good argument to talk in terms like yours. In fact, Storm has really only been at the top for a few months. Eldrazi Tron is not combo, Grixis Shadow is not combo, Burn is not combo, Affinity is aggro/combo so I'll concede that, Hatebears is not combo.
Let's look at things another way. Some people believe modern will be bad until blue is dominant, because a format lacking in powerful counters is deemed to be "uninteractive." Aggro basically sucks in legacy, but I'm hard pressed to find a loud contingent within the legacy playerbase calling for bans, unbans, or new cards to make go-wide aggro great in legacy. That format is midrange/tempo/control/combo. Standard will generally lack combo and prison entirely. No format has everything. That's just reality. The perfect balanced meta is a pipedream.
I've mentioned before, I hate BGx midrange, and while I know its only opinion, I feel compelled to say it over and over to make the point that no, the entire modern community is not sitting around waiting for jund to be great again due to something I can only describe as a weird nostalgia for a format two years old that probably wasn't as good as people make it out to be.
Except you don't know what most people want. At least Ktenshinx relies solely on information from WOTC and event results. Nobody on this website can claim to speak for 10% of modern players, let alone 51%.
significant meta share taken by one deck overall, like 25%+, or a deck with significant success over others, now the markoff for this is ultimately arbitrary, but if a similarly large percentage of X-2 decks in the modern portion went to one type, I'd be similarly concerned. I don't like using individual matches featured to determine things like turn 3 kills or overall power, because DSJund had people freaking out earlier this year when really it was just new and people weren't ready.
I think more important than the PT is the influence on the public the PT has. Let's say E-Tron does very well, regardless of whether it hits any of our personal benchmarks of ban target-worthiness. More people will start playing the deck as a result, and even a popular but not dominant deck runs the risk of creeping up that metagame share.
Personally? I understand that because all events cut to a top 8 playoff that we tend to look at top 8 as if it had some grand meaning over top 16 or top 32, but when it comes to bans it seems extremely shortsighted to only look at that point. For instance, let's say storm fails to place one player in the top 8, but puts 20 into the top 32...that would be more cause for alarm than three top 8 spots. Top 8 is just more visible. I think for data collection in general, given how events will have hundreds or thousands of participants, to stop at the top 8 is an incorrect method of analysis.
I think there is a flaw in that question in that there is no reason to believe that raising the average mana curve of the format is a good thing. TKS on turn three triggers so many people here already. UW tops out at 5 cmc with Gideon, Ad Nauseaum is there too, after that any expensive threat or answer is played earlier through mana dorks, delve, etc.
Not to say that this question shouldn't be asked, but why does the format need more expensive cards being played in a way that I assume does not involve some sort of acceleration?
I agree with LEH in that many of these opinions are just over what type of deck is "supposed" to be the best in the format, a fast aggro deck, powerful ramp, linear combo, or grindy midrange. Our limited data hints that no deck is dominant in terms of meta %. I hate jund, and would prefer to see it gone completely but am okay with just not running into it twice per FNM. I get that some people feel that way about storm, but hell six months ago people were calling for shadow bans until we all adjusted. Perhaps more people need to stop complaining and start adjusting.
MM would become an auto 4-of in every deck, and several games would come down to "who drew the most copies of it." Competitive diversity is a goal for modern, and mistep directly opposes that goal.
As someone whose two decks are mono blue tron and storm, this makes me sad. I already lost kiln fiend combo dammit let me have a deck!
The humans list that won last weekend's scg open reminded everyone that combo loses to disruption + a clock. That means death shadow midrange and delver style decks are rough matchups, as are the humans lists. I guess I just feel like pointing out sometimes that a player runs deck A, deck A has a bad matchup to deck B, so that player's reaction is to claim a card in deck B is unfair and needs a ban. I am perhaps too optimistic, but I see spell based combo as the means for decks like delver and humans to start to do better.