@LEH, that's a fair question, and I probably should have linked my evidence to begin with. But, we can see the trend of Jund from the inception of the Modern format, and it's presence.
Jund in the beginning was missing Abrupt Decay, as you mention, but was immediately one of the top contenders in Modern. The metagame consisted of Zoo, Tron, Twin, Affinity tied with Pod, and Storm tied with Jund for the top spots, in that order. There are articles about the deck, but since none of them offer any actual evidence, I'll forego those.
Being a Jund player since the start of Modern, I'd argue that Jund was a strong Tier 2 choice until DRS and Decay were printed then it blew up to Tier 0.5 until DRS finally got banned then it leveled out at Tier 1.
That timeframe between the beginning of Modern and the printing of DRS and Decay was all of about a year. That first year we had what we could call a "wild west" of broken decks, where in the matter of two months (September 2011 to December 2011) we saw eight cards banned to try to reign in the format.
Jund in the following year was gifted with both Abrupt Decay and Deathrite Shaman, as you mention. It could be argued that Deathrite Shaman was more important than Decay, as it was immediately played as a 3-4 of, rather than the 2-3 Decay that was adopted. It could also be said that maybe the Shaman was to blame for Jund's dominance at the time, rather than Bloodbraid Elf. Either way, Jund was a force to be reckoned with. Deathrite Shaman was banned the following February.
The year after that, WotC appeared to recognize how format warping Jund seemed to be:
JANUARY 2013
Banned: Bloodbraid Elf and Seething Song
Speaking of dominant, this was the time of Jund. A time when the midrangiest of midrange decks was considered by many to be the best deck in the format, and not easily addressed with other cards already in the format. Again, Erik Lauer summed it up nicely in the announcement.
"Since then, we have had four Modern Grands Prix. Jérémy Dezani won Grand Prix Lyon playing Jund. Jacob Wilson defeated Josh Utter-Leyton in a Jund-on-Jund finals to win Grand Prix Chicago. Willy Edel won Grand Prix Toronto, also playing Jund. And, finally, Lukas Jaklovsky came in 2nd, playing Jund, at Grand Prix Bilbao. Beyond that, Jund took six of the Top 16 decks at Bilbao."
Jund, Jund, Jundy, Jund, Jund. Bloodbraid Elf was the first card from Jund to get the axe, but not the last.
Thus, they banned Bloodbraid Elf early that year. We can speculate why they chose Bloodbraid over Deathrite Shaman, but I don't know that we can say for sure why they chose the one over the other that January.
In 2014 we see Jund start to normalize in numbers. It was still a top contender, even without Bloodbraid and DRS. Seeing as how dominant Jund had been the past two years, I could definitely see why they'd be apprehensive about re-releasing BBE into the mix.
2015 and 2016 both have Jund continuing to be one of the top tier decks of the format, again suggesting that maybe then was not the time to give Jund BBE.
Finally, in 2017, we see Jund's numbers start to drop. Thus, maybe now is a safe time to unban Bloodbraid. The best numbers I have to offer to support that argument is from the metagame numbers from MTGTop8. I don't know if there is any other data or evidence publicly available for us to make that call with confidence.
So I'm not saying that you're wrong. On the contrary, I think you're absolutely accurate in your statement about how dominant Jund was during the course of Modern history. However, with Jund as dominant as it was without Bloodbraid Elf, I think we can give WotC credit for not offering an already-dominant deck another demonstrably proven powerful card before other decks found a way to combat it.
@Thnkr - The problem is we live in a world with instant satisfaction, but truthfully it's laughable that BBE has been banned for 4 years. This isn't a case of Wizards being cautious, it's a case of Wizards not managing properly at that point. That's how it simply boils down. Everything else you posted I can agree with. I was once advised, that the worst action is to do nothing. They have done nothing for far too long.
I wouldn't necessarily agree that it's laughable that BBE's been banned for 4 years. Many of the core cards that are used in current decks were only printed in the last four years, and during that time we could just as easily say that BBE would have been overpowered, since we have no actual evidence to base each argument on. I'm not saying BBE would have been too good, but likewise, to say that it's rediculous that it hasn't been removed from the banlist in the past four years seems to imply that it wouldn't have been too good. The truth is that we don't have the data to show for either one, if we ignore that Jund with BBE was one of the best decks at the origin of the Modern format.
I would disagree with the statement that "the worst action is to do nothing". While it sounds very wise, it's not accurate. I can provide some examples in which the best action is to do nothing if at all possible, if you would like. Besides, this would imply that WotC truly has done nothing, which is very far from the truth. They've put out how many staple cards that were adopted into the Modern format? And banned and unbanned how many cards? Simply because they've appeared to do nothing with the state of whether BBE was banned or not does not mean that they've truly done nothing at all.
We are, at best, armchair developers. For them, it's their livelihood. I'm inclined to think that they are somewhat more competent than we think we are.
So that "logical inconsistency" may simply be a temporary state, for the sake of caution. It's not killing us to not be able to play Bloodbraid - it's simply a talking point for whiners like Hoogland to write articles about with zero data or testing.
So I've had a personal experience with Aaron Forscythe long ago at PTM15, and I would like to give credit to all of Wizards staff when it comes to managing the banned list in most situations, but they do not have enough ears to the ground.
Based on my memory, I began opening statements citing exactly some questions this very forum had (the PT event had computers people could publicly use, which was awesome), I then started mentally noting what I could, then I began deciphering the logic behind the bannings of specific cards.
What I didn't mention when the quote came to the discussion of Sword of the Meek, was that the conversation didn't start that way. (Just for reference Twin was Legal and Sword was not). It seemed that multiple people working for Wizards was under the impression that Twin was absolutely fine, but Sword of the Meek would destroy the Modern format in half if legal. I had a hard time explaining to them, the difference between a soft lock and a hard lock. Especially when the Soft lock is vulnerable to dozens more hate printed in the recent years.
To Wizards, it seemed like Sword of the Meek was a 15/10, and Twin was a 4/10. That's unacceptable, and that's too far out of touch. Now add in the timeline factor, it took them years to fix the situation.
People are complaining about each and every Magic format, and not the "good" kind of complaining either. There is no time to be "patient" they need to get in touch with the community, hard, not just say it, or post biased AMA's, or have some horrible and non-descriptive articles on a horrid looking website. They have needed some balancing action in the Modern format 3 months after Sword of the Meek got unbanned. They have had enough time. It took them years to figure out Wild Nacatl, Bitterblossom, Sword of the Meek, Ancestral Vision. Some of you may reference Golgari Grave-Troll, but I truly think that was also an out of touch issue with Wizards knowing they would print Cathartic Reunion, Insolent Neonate, and Prized Amalgam, by which GGT did jack-squat till they got a whole new dredge shell to work with.
Wizards shouldn't post messages such as "We are unlikely to do any changes!" But we allow it, we need to group together and put the sock in their mouth and tell them to unban the unjustified fair cards.
I could agree with you on some points here, but another view of the history since your post in 2014 and now is that they do question themselves and figure things out. Splinter Twin was banned just over a year later, and Sword of the Meek was unbanned shortly after that. Thus, it seems that they ended up looking at the evidence and agreeing with your assessment. I wouldn't blame them for worrying about Sword of the Meek and not worrying about Splinter Twin, especially considering that "pros" wrote articles about how "catastrophic" Sword being unbanned would be on decks like Jund.
I could be very wrong, but through hindsight, I'm starting to see a pattern in which it seems that WotC was originally using the same "metrics" of what was too good and what was okay (conjecture, appeal to authority, and the bandwagon fallacy) as the general Magic community, and that they changed that method some time just before the Twin ban to be more evidence-based. Again, this might just be an illusion.
Personally, when it comes to bans and unbans, I defer to WotC. I don't have the evidence or data to confidently state that my opinion is informed and correct. I doubt more than a single-digit amount in these entire forums and reddit do have the sort of evidence to make a valid claim. If they do, they're certainly not sharing it. Again, it's only conjecture from armchair developers. Even "pros" whose livelihood (assumedly) relies on the health of the game don't provide evidence for their claims. That amazes me. WotC, however, has evidence. Whether they use it or not is not something we have any way of knowing, but we do know they have it. So we can't even make a valid claim that WotC does or does not use that evidence, only conjecture on whether they do (as I point out above, my perception of how they've managed banlists might just be an illusion).
I can, however, say that they have been doing the right things recently with the banlists, or so the health of the metagame seems to show. Sure, there's plenty of complainers on the internet, but we will have those complainers no matter what happens. The best metric isn't the whining of a bunch of people who can't find the motivation to support their arguments with evidence, but with the evidence of viewership, participation, and variety of decks in the format.
So, sure, they didn't unban some cards that we think are fair when we wanted them to. But again, I prefer the company be cautious rather than be as impulsive and self-important as someone like Hoogland when it comes to a game this large. If it's truly fair, then I'd be inclined to think that it will be unbanned. We could point out where some of us might have publicly stated that some card is busted and needs banned, or some other card is fair and needs to be unbanned, and then few months to a year later that happens. Of course, we'd have to be careful that we're not falling to confirmation bias, because we could be forgetting the other claims that we made that were way off mark.
@FoodChainGoblins, I'd agree that it's probably best not to dismiss a claim outright based solely on who made it (that would be an ad hominem fallacy). "Even a broken clock can be right twice a day." Personally, I dismiss the statements in Hoogland's article, and similar statements, based on the lack of objectivity and work done to test the validity of the statements, and consideration of various alternate explanations for what is instead deemed "contradictions". His tendency to write and speak in that manner make me more skeptical to anything he does write, though I do make efforts to not dismiss his ideas outright.
So if cards that are less offensive banned, and cards more offensive on the spectrum legal in the format. Then yes, I think there is a logical inconsistency, and with most fair cards on the banned list, that's the exact case.
The issue here is the expectation that WotC should have foreseen that it was safe to unban Bloodbraid while simultaneously doing their previous changes. They have to be very careful about banning and unbanning too many cards at once, as they need to slowly adjust the gates. They are already working with a very complicated situation, and doing too many changes too quick can lead to simply being further criticized for not being careful. If it's safe to unban BBE, I wouldn't doubt that it'll be unbanned in the near future. But that's their job, not mine, and they have way more data on the situation that I do. Just as there was information that they had that we didn't concerning the banning of Gitaxian Probe (the impending printing of Baral), maybe there's some information that they have that we don't here as well? We are, at best, armchair developers. For them, it's their livelihood. I'm inclined to think that they are somewhat more competent than we think we are.
So that "logical inconsistency" may simply be a temporary state, for the sake of caution. It's not killing us to not be able to play Bloodbraid - it's simply a talking point for whiners like Hoogland to write articles about with zero data or testing.
The character writing this article is very headstrong and mathematically inclined, and since it's 2017 and we still cannot properly put most decks on some type of weird Venn Diagram based on levels of interaction, it's not difficult to see why Magic is hard to classify or even much less justify in specific areas as to what's "good" or "bad" for a format.
I agree that it's difficult to categorize decks, but a few pages back I pointed out that there exists methods for doing just that - it just requires work. I've been working on it (although I'm self-taught, so it's taking quite a while). It's a portion of game theory called expectimax. Understanding it also helps us understand that we've been using the term "interaction" completely wrong, preferring to define it based on a self-centered basis - "Does the deck interact with my deck in a way that I prefer?" If we consider this question for a bit, we can see how silly it is. When was the last time we built a deck for the purpose of interacting with the gamestate in a way that the opponent would prefer? The whole point of how a competitive deck is built is to minimize the opponent's ability to interact, and maximizing our own.
@Lohse20:
How do you know his bans wouldn't make modern any better?
Well, xxhellfirexx3, welcome back I suppose You've used this fallacybefore.
Read Hoogland's article. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that he's provided zero games of playtesting with the proposed adjusted format, just conjecture on what he thinks it would look like. Noted, moving on then...
@Vissah, The problem with all of that is that Sheridan actually showed, with evidence, that this is not the case. I see that you've made the claim that "in Legacy you can jam one deck and have a good chance against almost the whole field". Do you have any evidence to back up this statement, or is this something you just believe to be true?
Simply because Tom Ross says something doesn't mean it's true. So far we have Tom Ross saying what he prefers to do vs. actual verifiable evidence.
As far as xxhellfirexx3 goes, it seems to me that they can't construct and keep to a coherent argument without appealing to one or more fallacies of reason. I have yet to see a decent argument, supported by actual evidence, that contributes to any conversation. When they made the claim that Sheridan ignores posts from others that contains data that's been presented before, and then was called out for that being false, they posted a two year old article of an outdated metagame rather than the link to someone posting previous data.
As for how I view this "matchup lottery" debate, I feel that anyone making this claim needs to do two things:
1. Support this claim with evidence that others can verify. A claim made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
2. Consider the alternative. There seem to currently be quite a few viable options available in the modern metagame. If we don't like this diversity, and the correlating "matchup lottery" (should it actually exist, despite evidence to the contrary), then what is the alternative? That we all are forced to play one of a handful of decks that we may or may not enjoy?
I'd be inclined to think that the goalposts would then move when people continue to lose. No longer would people fall to the "matchup lottery" excuse, but to the RNGesus of drawing the right cards at the right time, and being outdrawn rather than outplayed, or losing to the dice roll of being on the play rather than the draw, or losing to unfortunate luck with mulligans.
It seems to me that the truth is that people in general look for external excuses for losing while claiming internal reasons for their wins.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you are stating that they are writing articles to generate traffic, and focusing those articles on their performance. If so, I would agree with this, and I personally feel disappointed that the two largest outlets of "informational" Magic the Gathering media works this way. I am simply stating that I would prefer to have actual information in my "informational media". Instead, what we get are:
...That's some free ones, let's get to the articles that are supposed to be so good, you have to pay for them. Of course, if I'm honest, I have to admit that I refuse to pay for them, so maybe there's some decent information to be had and it's just hidden. However:
Seriously, I have better things to do than try to find articles that are actually informative to the point where I feel I've actually learned something that I couldn't have just figured out by looking at the decklist. Frank Karsten's article is probably the only one that actually has some supporting data, and even then it's about a format that I just don't care about. So, while better, it's a gem that I wasn't actually looking for. Credit goes for maybe helping out someone else, though.
Could you imagine, however, if every article had that level of actual information? Not just, "Look at this deck that did well at an event! This is how it works, in case you couldn't figure it out" and other such "information". Maybe I'm just being mean, or my expectations are just too high, but that's where they are, for better or for worse. If that's the level of "informational media" we can expect, can we really expect a good amount of Magic players to have a deeper insight into the game, or at least deep enough to hold an intelligent conversation about something like the current state of Modern?
@Howwish/duplicate account person: So wait, you say that Sheridan ignored when other people posted data, and instead of linking to the data that was posted previously and ignored, you post a link to an article that is over two years old that is analyzing a metagame from over two years ago, that has a significantly different metagame? Yes, it's 28k games of outdated data.
I'm afraid it may be slightly off topic, but I think you hit the nail on the head when you note that a good deal of ban talk, matchup analysis, "matchup lottery" claims, etc., seems influenced by articles on CFB, SCG, and their ilk, by people who are presumably authorities on the subject but provide zero data or evidence to back up their claims. More than anything, I feel that conversations about the state of Modern and suggested changes are largely knee-jerk reactions by people whose motives, judging by their methods of providing zero data, is to excuse away their lack of success that they somehow feel entitled to. It's a self-appointed feeling of superiority, which seems to say more about the character of the person than they may care to admit.
Thus, while the state of Modern is probably (but I could be wrong) extremely healthy, the state of the character of many who play it may be demonstrated best by the entitlement that those players feel: For not being awarded the wins they feel entitled to, or that people respect and agree with entitled opinions with no work done or shown to support those opinions, etc. I am often disappointed with the amount of cognitive bias that I see from many players (even some pros!), who will justify their victories by their tight play and correct deck choice, but will excuse their losses by whatever external source they can point a finger at, and vice versa when they view the wins and losses of others.
I do very much wish that there were an alternative to CFB, CSG, etc., that provided hard numbers and thorough research. The only reason I go to those sites any more is for a minigame I've created for myself (counting the daily number of "!"'s on SCG's homepage and keeping track of high scores). I do recognize that such an alternative would require dedicated authors who are actually skilled in writing, but also motivated to do the work I mention. I do a ton of work for my deck, keeping track of all sorts of statistics and whatnot, but that's only for my deck, and it takes up a huge amount of time and effort. I imagine for someone to try to keep track of all statistics it would be an absurd amount of work. But, with a few volunteer contributors who don't care to be authors, maybe it would be possible.
Either way, I feel that the state of Modern is fine, but the state of Magic the Gathering informative media is abysmal.
@Sheridan, Forgive me if you covered this, but I didn't go back to read the past few pages. When you ran your numbers and whatnot, did you consider that many of those "professional" players might have some increased percentage of chances to win simply because they participate more often, and if so, made any attempt to account for this increased chance?
I haven't controlled for participation yet, but I think it shouldn't be too hard to add. I'll get back to you.
How would you go about adjusting for participation? I tried to imagine a way to do it, but wouldn't we have to have some data on the the average participation rates of the average player(s) (after defining what an average player is) as well as below average players (and after defining who should fall into this category)? Do we have a way to obtain that data?
EDIT: I would like to be clear, I'm not trying to say that there is or is not a matchup lottery. I do have a bias in the subject that I have to admit: I am inclined to think that "professional" players are more inclined to do well simply due to increased opportunity to participate (privilege). My justification for this is from observing the nature of the average article put out by pros - They seem more like clickbait than anything to me, and I have rarely, if ever, actually seen data to support any claims made. Of course, maybe they're just better at playing the game than they are at writing truly informative articles.
@Sheridan, Forgive me if you covered this, but I didn't go back to read the past few pages. When you ran your numbers and whatnot, did you consider that many of those "professional" players might have some increased percentage of chances to win simply because they participate more often, and if so, made any attempt to account for this increased chance?
If someone says man that matchup is tough from my experience and you say prove it, how are you being productive in the argument at all.
I am simply asking that they show how they arrived at that conclusion. I'm not saying it's true, nor am I saying it's not true. I'm simply asking for them to fulfill their burden of proof.
All your doing is refuting everyone unless they have data? Anecdotal means zilch in this world does it? Because I disagree. And when enough pros and players have said it. It cannot be ignored. That in of itself, Is a form of data.
How many percent of players find tron unfun and polarizing. Investigate, then if its true act on it.
So yes to answer your question there is currently no data to prove such a claim. However that does not mean it doesn't have the potential to be true.
The person who made the original claim claimed that there was evidence to prove their claim. All I'm asking for is that evidence that they claimed existed.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
Kind of sounds like minimax.
My response
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
Jund in the beginning was missing Abrupt Decay, as you mention, but was immediately one of the top contenders in Modern. The metagame consisted of Zoo, Tron, Twin, Affinity tied with Pod, and Storm tied with Jund for the top spots, in that order. There are articles about the deck, but since none of them offer any actual evidence, I'll forego those.
That timeframe between the beginning of Modern and the printing of DRS and Decay was all of about a year. That first year we had what we could call a "wild west" of broken decks, where in the matter of two months (September 2011 to December 2011) we saw eight cards banned to try to reign in the format.
Jund in the following year was gifted with both Abrupt Decay and Deathrite Shaman, as you mention. It could be argued that Deathrite Shaman was more important than Decay, as it was immediately played as a 3-4 of, rather than the 2-3 Decay that was adopted. It could also be said that maybe the Shaman was to blame for Jund's dominance at the time, rather than Bloodbraid Elf. Either way, Jund was a force to be reckoned with. Deathrite Shaman was banned the following February.
The year after that, WotC appeared to recognize how format warping Jund seemed to be:
Thus, they banned Bloodbraid Elf early that year. We can speculate why they chose Bloodbraid over Deathrite Shaman, but I don't know that we can say for sure why they chose the one over the other that January.
In 2014 we see Jund start to normalize in numbers. It was still a top contender, even without Bloodbraid and DRS. Seeing as how dominant Jund had been the past two years, I could definitely see why they'd be apprehensive about re-releasing BBE into the mix.
2015 and 2016 both have Jund continuing to be one of the top tier decks of the format, again suggesting that maybe then was not the time to give Jund BBE.
Finally, in 2017, we see Jund's numbers start to drop. Thus, maybe now is a safe time to unban Bloodbraid. The best numbers I have to offer to support that argument is from the metagame numbers from MTGTop8. I don't know if there is any other data or evidence publicly available for us to make that call with confidence.
So I'm not saying that you're wrong. On the contrary, I think you're absolutely accurate in your statement about how dominant Jund was during the course of Modern history. However, with Jund as dominant as it was without Bloodbraid Elf, I think we can give WotC credit for not offering an already-dominant deck another demonstrably proven powerful card before other decks found a way to combat it.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
I wouldn't necessarily agree that it's laughable that BBE's been banned for 4 years. Many of the core cards that are used in current decks were only printed in the last four years, and during that time we could just as easily say that BBE would have been overpowered, since we have no actual evidence to base each argument on. I'm not saying BBE would have been too good, but likewise, to say that it's rediculous that it hasn't been removed from the banlist in the past four years seems to imply that it wouldn't have been too good. The truth is that we don't have the data to show for either one, if we ignore that Jund with BBE was one of the best decks at the origin of the Modern format.
I would disagree with the statement that "the worst action is to do nothing". While it sounds very wise, it's not accurate. I can provide some examples in which the best action is to do nothing if at all possible, if you would like. Besides, this would imply that WotC truly has done nothing, which is very far from the truth. They've put out how many staple cards that were adopted into the Modern format? And banned and unbanned how many cards? Simply because they've appeared to do nothing with the state of whether BBE was banned or not does not mean that they've truly done nothing at all.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
I could agree with you on some points here, but another view of the history since your post in 2014 and now is that they do question themselves and figure things out. Splinter Twin was banned just over a year later, and Sword of the Meek was unbanned shortly after that. Thus, it seems that they ended up looking at the evidence and agreeing with your assessment. I wouldn't blame them for worrying about Sword of the Meek and not worrying about Splinter Twin, especially considering that "pros" wrote articles about how "catastrophic" Sword being unbanned would be on decks like Jund.
I could be very wrong, but through hindsight, I'm starting to see a pattern in which it seems that WotC was originally using the same "metrics" of what was too good and what was okay (conjecture, appeal to authority, and the bandwagon fallacy) as the general Magic community, and that they changed that method some time just before the Twin ban to be more evidence-based. Again, this might just be an illusion.
Personally, when it comes to bans and unbans, I defer to WotC. I don't have the evidence or data to confidently state that my opinion is informed and correct. I doubt more than a single-digit amount in these entire forums and reddit do have the sort of evidence to make a valid claim. If they do, they're certainly not sharing it. Again, it's only conjecture from armchair developers. Even "pros" whose livelihood (assumedly) relies on the health of the game don't provide evidence for their claims. That amazes me. WotC, however, has evidence. Whether they use it or not is not something we have any way of knowing, but we do know they have it. So we can't even make a valid claim that WotC does or does not use that evidence, only conjecture on whether they do (as I point out above, my perception of how they've managed banlists might just be an illusion).
I can, however, say that they have been doing the right things recently with the banlists, or so the health of the metagame seems to show. Sure, there's plenty of complainers on the internet, but we will have those complainers no matter what happens. The best metric isn't the whining of a bunch of people who can't find the motivation to support their arguments with evidence, but with the evidence of viewership, participation, and variety of decks in the format.
So, sure, they didn't unban some cards that we think are fair when we wanted them to. But again, I prefer the company be cautious rather than be as impulsive and self-important as someone like Hoogland when it comes to a game this large. If it's truly fair, then I'd be inclined to think that it will be unbanned. We could point out where some of us might have publicly stated that some card is busted and needs banned, or some other card is fair and needs to be unbanned, and then few months to a year later that happens. Of course, we'd have to be careful that we're not falling to confirmation bias, because we could be forgetting the other claims that we made that were way off mark.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
The issue here is the expectation that WotC should have foreseen that it was safe to unban Bloodbraid while simultaneously doing their previous changes. They have to be very careful about banning and unbanning too many cards at once, as they need to slowly adjust the gates. They are already working with a very complicated situation, and doing too many changes too quick can lead to simply being further criticized for not being careful. If it's safe to unban BBE, I wouldn't doubt that it'll be unbanned in the near future. But that's their job, not mine, and they have way more data on the situation that I do. Just as there was information that they had that we didn't concerning the banning of Gitaxian Probe (the impending printing of Baral), maybe there's some information that they have that we don't here as well? We are, at best, armchair developers. For them, it's their livelihood. I'm inclined to think that they are somewhat more competent than we think we are.
So that "logical inconsistency" may simply be a temporary state, for the sake of caution. It's not killing us to not be able to play Bloodbraid - it's simply a talking point for whiners like Hoogland to write articles about with zero data or testing.
I agree that it's difficult to categorize decks, but a few pages back I pointed out that there exists methods for doing just that - it just requires work. I've been working on it (although I'm self-taught, so it's taking quite a while). It's a portion of game theory called expectimax. Understanding it also helps us understand that we've been using the term "interaction" completely wrong, preferring to define it based on a self-centered basis - "Does the deck interact with my deck in a way that I prefer?" If we consider this question for a bit, we can see how silly it is. When was the last time we built a deck for the purpose of interacting with the gamestate in a way that the opponent would prefer? The whole point of how a competitive deck is built is to minimize the opponent's ability to interact, and maximizing our own.
@Lohse20:
Well, xxhellfirexx3, welcome back I suppose You've used this fallacy before.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
Simply because Tom Ross says something doesn't mean it's true. So far we have Tom Ross saying what he prefers to do vs. actual verifiable evidence.
As far as xxhellfirexx3 goes, it seems to me that they can't construct and keep to a coherent argument without appealing to one or more fallacies of reason. I have yet to see a decent argument, supported by actual evidence, that contributes to any conversation. When they made the claim that Sheridan ignores posts from others that contains data that's been presented before, and then was called out for that being false, they posted a two year old article of an outdated metagame rather than the link to someone posting previous data.
As for how I view this "matchup lottery" debate, I feel that anyone making this claim needs to do two things:
1. Support this claim with evidence that others can verify. A claim made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
2. Consider the alternative. There seem to currently be quite a few viable options available in the modern metagame. If we don't like this diversity, and the correlating "matchup lottery" (should it actually exist, despite evidence to the contrary), then what is the alternative? That we all are forced to play one of a handful of decks that we may or may not enjoy?
I'd be inclined to think that the goalposts would then move when people continue to lose. No longer would people fall to the "matchup lottery" excuse, but to the RNGesus of drawing the right cards at the right time, and being outdrawn rather than outplayed, or losing to the dice roll of being on the play rather than the draw, or losing to unfortunate luck with mulligans.
It seems to me that the truth is that people in general look for external excuses for losing while claiming internal reasons for their wins.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
An article full of opinions about specific decks and claims with zero supporting evidence or data to back it up.
A generic rundown of what did good and when, with claims as to why - Again with little evidence to show why. In this one, we are even presented with three golden nuggets of truth:
"We can see that change in the Modern metagame happen because of one of three main reasons.
1. Cards are banned or unbanned.
2. New cards are printed that impact the format.
3. The metagame adapts to beat the most popular decks.
...you don't say...
An interview with a Magic card.
A rundown of the most expensive basic lands.
Information about changes to said website's Season One tour.
A set of videos of a pro player playing a deck that did well at a PTQ the month before.
What looks to be a near copy/pasta of another website's article.
A quick video showing a preview card and a bit about another media source.
...That's some free ones, let's get to the articles that are supposed to be so good, you have to pay for them. Of course, if I'm honest, I have to admit that I refuse to pay for them, so maybe there's some decent information to be had and it's just hidden. However:
An autobiography
A list of top twelve cards for a cube
An article about a format that won't exist in sanctioned form
A rundown of a couple of decktypes with no data to support suggested gameplans
An article about a decktype, but with no data to show how each suggested tweak to it will actually play out
Two pro players playing a mirror match for troll purposes, where at least one misplays
So that's one media source. Let's try the other big one...
A rundown on some card choices for a tweak on a known deck that did well in one tournament
I think the title states this one well enough...
A freaking unicorn!
An explanation on how a pauper deck works
Seriously, I have better things to do than try to find articles that are actually informative to the point where I feel I've actually learned something that I couldn't have just figured out by looking at the decklist. Frank Karsten's article is probably the only one that actually has some supporting data, and even then it's about a format that I just don't care about. So, while better, it's a gem that I wasn't actually looking for. Credit goes for maybe helping out someone else, though.
Could you imagine, however, if every article had that level of actual information? Not just, "Look at this deck that did well at an event! This is how it works, in case you couldn't figure it out" and other such "information". Maybe I'm just being mean, or my expectations are just too high, but that's where they are, for better or for worse. If that's the level of "informational media" we can expect, can we really expect a good amount of Magic players to have a deeper insight into the game, or at least deep enough to hold an intelligent conversation about something like the current state of Modern?
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
I'm afraid it may be slightly off topic, but I think you hit the nail on the head when you note that a good deal of ban talk, matchup analysis, "matchup lottery" claims, etc., seems influenced by articles on CFB, SCG, and their ilk, by people who are presumably authorities on the subject but provide zero data or evidence to back up their claims. More than anything, I feel that conversations about the state of Modern and suggested changes are largely knee-jerk reactions by people whose motives, judging by their methods of providing zero data, is to excuse away their lack of success that they somehow feel entitled to. It's a self-appointed feeling of superiority, which seems to say more about the character of the person than they may care to admit.
Thus, while the state of Modern is probably (but I could be wrong) extremely healthy, the state of the character of many who play it may be demonstrated best by the entitlement that those players feel: For not being awarded the wins they feel entitled to, or that people respect and agree with entitled opinions with no work done or shown to support those opinions, etc. I am often disappointed with the amount of cognitive bias that I see from many players (even some pros!), who will justify their victories by their tight play and correct deck choice, but will excuse their losses by whatever external source they can point a finger at, and vice versa when they view the wins and losses of others.
I do very much wish that there were an alternative to CFB, CSG, etc., that provided hard numbers and thorough research. The only reason I go to those sites any more is for a minigame I've created for myself (counting the daily number of "!"'s on SCG's homepage and keeping track of high scores). I do recognize that such an alternative would require dedicated authors who are actually skilled in writing, but also motivated to do the work I mention. I do a ton of work for my deck, keeping track of all sorts of statistics and whatnot, but that's only for my deck, and it takes up a huge amount of time and effort. I imagine for someone to try to keep track of all statistics it would be an absurd amount of work. But, with a few volunteer contributors who don't care to be authors, maybe it would be possible.
Either way, I feel that the state of Modern is fine, but the state of Magic the Gathering informative media is abysmal.
EDIT: 44 !'s today. High score was 69.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
How would you go about adjusting for participation? I tried to imagine a way to do it, but wouldn't we have to have some data on the the average participation rates of the average player(s) (after defining what an average player is) as well as below average players (and after defining who should fall into this category)? Do we have a way to obtain that data?
EDIT: I would like to be clear, I'm not trying to say that there is or is not a matchup lottery. I do have a bias in the subject that I have to admit: I am inclined to think that "professional" players are more inclined to do well simply due to increased opportunity to participate (privilege). My justification for this is from observing the nature of the average article put out by pros - They seem more like clickbait than anything to me, and I have rarely, if ever, actually seen data to support any claims made. Of course, maybe they're just better at playing the game than they are at writing truly informative articles.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
At what point did I admit to the matchups being terrible? I have my own opinions, but I am not going to state them without some evidence. Thus, I have said nothing about that matchup.
I am simply asking that they show how they arrived at that conclusion. I'm not saying it's true, nor am I saying it's not true. I'm simply asking for them to fulfill their burden of proof.
Simply because " enough pros" said something is true, or, that enough players have said it, does not make it true.
The person who made the original claim claimed that there was evidence to prove their claim. All I'm asking for is that evidence that they claimed existed.
EDIT: Are you avoiding a suspension?
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan