Quote from necrogenesis
Please note that there is a big difference between "Control" and "Permission" decks. (From reading your posts, I know you already know this distinction, but I'm going to state it anyway for others reading.) Permission is one subtype of Control deck, but it isn't the only subtype.
Decks playing control elements are healthy for a format in general. However, there are some specific subtypes of Control that have proven to be very UNhealthy for the game: Hard Permission (Draw-Go style), Land Destruction, and fast Prison decks. Even though these types of decks all have their fans, they make a format unfun for too many other people. And Wizards has (wisely) chosen to limit their power.
For this, you just have to step outside of your own perspective for a minute. Counterspells are one of the most widely hated mechanics in all of Magic. Even if you personally enjoy playing with or against them, many more people find them very, very unfun. In contrast, creature-based strategies are much more acceptable to play against for the general Magic playing population. This isn't just my opinion. There have been a number of articles and comments from WotC themselves stating this over the years.
For as much as people accuse WotC of ruining or biasing the format, what they are actually doing is listening to the majority of their customers and trying to make the format as good as possible for as many people as they can.
By the way, based on the Worlds results you're citing, Zoo does NOT have a favorable matchup against every deck or even every important deck. In particular, it fared poorly against Teachings (45%), Gifts (41%), Death Cloud (40%), Burn (38%), Jund (29%), and Melira (27%). (source)
The critical difference between Zoo and the style of Control you're talking about is how they interact with an opponent. All of the Control subtypes I mentioned above are actively trying to stop the opponent from being able to play Magic by denying them spells, lands, or some other resource. That is why those Control decks are considered so unfun by so many people.
On the other hand, Zoo doesn't prevent you from doing much. It has some burn and creature removal, but for the most part its win strategy is not to stop the other person from playing Magic. That's one reason why WotC views it as the quintessential fair deck.
But even then, you have to keep in mind that WotC doesn't just let Aggro run completely rampant. In particular, the artifact lands are banned to slow down Affinity. I'm sure there would be more Aggro bans if necessary. However, historically speaking, Aggro has rarely been a real problem in any environment. The decks that make people quit playing Magic in large amounts are generally Combo and Control variations, with Affinity being the only exception I can think of off the top of my head. Thus the bannings.
Quote from Mortal CoilSome cards that have absolutely no chance of being reprinted since Wizards really likes nerfing the decks I enjoy playing, but I'd love to see anyway:
Quote from DrWormI said I was not going to bring this thread to the level of several other threads on the first page of this forum, and I meant it. If you want to have a discussion with me on this topic bring it up in one of them or start a new thread.
All I will say is that respect needs to be given to all types of play, otherwise you are essentially taking the game away from some players.
Quote from necrogenesis
Most of the other threads are degenerate by now, which is why I haven't been posting in them.
The format needs to support a variety of deck types. Yes.
The format needs to support ALL deck types. No. Besides, that's impossible.
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
Quote from dscherliWhy not the commander cards? Scavenging ooze and some others would be great.
Quote from DrWormYea, I would like to see all of the original cards from Commander be legalized. I realize that the cards were not designed with competitive magic in mind, but I can't imagine they woulf be all that dangerous. Flusterstorm may really annoy storm players, but I can't imagine very many would see play.
Quote from slipknot72102not impossible. Every year of extended before they messed it up, legacy, and some standard formats have had control, combo, aggro, and tempo decks.
Honestly it is what the format should be.
Quote from Surging ChaosYou don't support a variety of archetypes by introducing Counterspell into the format. Let's get that straight.
Quote from CrazyMike366I always thought Nimble Mongoose was fun. He's hard to kill with spells but dies easily in combat unless you've piled cards into your graveyard. Between Fetchlands, tempo generating spells, and graveyard stuffers the Mongoose might be able to hit threshold by turn 4 or 5 with reasonable reliability.
It could be fun to play in a RUG Tempo type of deck or be used as a metagame 1-drop in Zoo varieties if the format leans too heavily towards creature kill.
Who knows, threshold might make a guest appearance in Innistrad block - it fits the flavor of 'graveyard matters' at least.
Quote from Transmuter8. Mother of Runes
Quote from DirtyJoséI just think that Zoo isn't as dominant as many people seem to think it is. And it may end up getting worse if it eats some ban hammer before the end of the year. Control still has ground to fight for and still has the tools to win. What I mean by not wanting Hard Permission style decks is that I don't want to see Modern spiral into a literal Legacy-lite type environment.
Quote from pizzap »
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Quote from hawk1674"Why are you tapping your lands the wrong way?"
He was explaining that you ALWAYS tap your lands to the left to show they have been used. He even taught his kids - Always to the left.
Quote from King Punyour friend should engrave "always to the left" on his epiTAPh
seriously, is your friend part of the gestapo?
Quote from Transmuter1. Pernicious Deed
might not be too powerful but would totally change the format
2. Goblin Piledriver
would be ok
3. Accumulated Knowledge
ehh they would unban vision first
4. Gerrard's Verdict
would not change much/anything
5. Mox Diamond
6. Nimble Mongoose
would not change much/anything
7. Wall of Blossoms
already have wall of omens
8. Mother of Runes
would be heavily played and might be too good but not too bad for the format
Quote from CrazyMike366Let's explore this line of thought.
We've already established you feel Cancel is unplayable, yet Counterspell would be a staple of the format.
Would you play Counterspell if it had a Thoughtseize-like loss of life clause tacked on, maybe at 3 life?
yes, this has been a wish of many control players for years, counter target spell and lose 2 life is fine, 3 is too much.
If Counterspell had a Path to Exile-like mana-advantage clause tacked on?
no, counterspell is for the most part an even trade with your opponent in mana cost and card cost. you can pull out the mana advantages with it but it mainly is even and sometimes it is used for 1cc stuff. tbh it is not overpowered, it is a standard that should be set. wizards decided to change their policy on counters when the power creep of cards was a lot lower than now.
If Counterspell had an IoK-like converted mana cost of 3 or less clause tacked on?
if it was 1U and was not the only worthwhile counterspell then yes. but not UU and the only one.
If Counterspell cantripped for the opponent or forced you to discard/exiile another blue card from your hand as an additional cost, putting you down a card on net card advantage instead of trading 1 for 1?
no, if it cantripped for both of us then i would play it.
Would you play Force Spike if it were legal, or is that too conditional like Mana Leak?
would playtest it, also mana leak is playable.
Would you play a Mana Leak variant that costs UU to counter it unless the opponent pays 4, or is that still too conditional like Mana Leak?
if the printed a cs that was 1U unless they pay 2 and had a potential additional cost of 1 to make it a hard counter I would play that.
EDIT: In closing, which of those variants would you play above the staple-esque Mana Leak or a metagame card like Negate or Remove Soul or a more expensive variant like Cryptic Command?
Quote from PeinAnswered inside the quote.
Quote from PeinPrice of progress belongs to a format with duals and wastelands.