Can't believe not a single person played Tron. Would have been great in that field.
Some did. I edged out a Tron player in the win-and-in Round 9 (we were both x-1) and saw a bunch around the room. Top 16 is not necessarily representative of the whole event; there were 398 players in the Classic.
yeah looking at that top 16 i would say that only the grixis control deck stands out as the type of jace deck that people are worried about. jace showing up as a value piece in other archetypes is pretty whatever.
looks to be roughly 13 or 14 distinct deck types out of the top 16. which is just an absolutely fantastic ratio.
zero jund showing up is surprising. regional metagame and small sample size, but i think its note worthy.
im digging that 4 color pyromancer list. cant decide what to play? play everything
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Not gonna lie. I kind of with Jace became OP and format warping so we could have a Punishing Fire and Cloudpost unbans as the saviors of Modern, which would be a more likely ocurrence than they having to ban Jace again.
Ahh that feeling of power and easiness that came with a punishing fire, a Grove of the Burnwillows and tons of mana at your disposal...
FYI I have updated the SCG MWP by format comparison to see if the matchup lottery analysis still holds. This includes the new SCG Legacy Open and another SCG Modern Open. With all said and done, the MWP ceiling is still identical for both formats. This comparison looks at "good" players in their respective format (+1 standard deviation over average MWP) and "great" players (+2 stdevs). As we see below, there is no difference between their performance in respective formats.
Good Legacy players in Legacy: 57.3% MWP Good Modern players in Modern: 58.5% MWP Great Legacy players in Legacy: 67.8% MWP Great Modern players in Modern: 67.6% MWP
Interestingly, there IS a difference between the average MWP in Modern vs. Legacy for players with 3+ events in both Modern/Legacy and 4+ events in both Modern/Legacy.
3+ events average Legacy MWP: 39.5% 3+ events average Modern MWP: 43.2% 4+ events average Legacy MWP: 44.6% 4+ events average Modern MWP: 49.2%
This means that players who have 3+ Modern events AND 3+ Legacy events (same for 4+ events) under their belts have a 4% better MWP in Modern than in Legacy. This is interesting but also does not support the matchup lottery theory; because their performance is better in Modern than in Legacy, variance clearly is not bringing it down. This might mean that Modern mastery is more important than in Legacy, it might mean Modern is easier than Legacy once you put in lots of events, etc. I don't know what it means! But I do know what it doesn't mean, and it doesn't mean matchup lottery is at play. At least, not insofar as it adversely affects the MWP of regulars and strong players.
Again, based on this analysis, the "Modern matchup lottery" effect is either a) not real at all, b) identical in Modern and Legacy, and/or c) does not have a negative impact on the top players' MWP. Naturally, all data limitations apply due to SCG being the event of choice, 15 round events being the size of choice, N being 8,000 instead of the 100,000 many people prefer, etc.
Modern is a format nearly completely determined by play skill. I bet there are very few players here who have ever seen a "good player" have a rough day at FNM, a PPTQ, or a Grand Prix. And likewise, I doubt most people here have seen a "newer player," for lack of a nicer word, do anything but poorly at these same tournaments. The good players nearly always win and bad players nearly always lose. There...Modern is perfect.
*Besides, it's super easy to see why a format with Serum Visions as the best cantrip is more skill intensive than a format where nearly 50% of the field play Brainstorm. There is literally 0 skill in playing Brainstorm.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Modern is a format nearly completely determined by play skill. I bet there are very few players here who have ever seen a "good player" have a rough day at FNM, a PPTQ, or a Grand Prix. And likewise, I doubt most people here have seen a "newer player," for lack of a nicer word, do anything but poorly at these same tournaments. The good players nearly always win and bad players nearly always lose. There...Modern is perfect.
*Besides, it's super easy to see why a format with Serum Visions as the best cantrip is more skill intensive than a format where nearly 50% of the field play Brainstorm. There is literally 0 skill in playing Brainstorm.
This sort of sarcastic reply doesn't really further the conversation. Sadly, it's also not a very surprising response either: I often see someone post a major analysis of data only to see it refuted with some sarcastic/dismissive/pithy jab. This is why more people probably don't post their work or do it in the first place. Making matters worse, your parody isn't even close to what I am saying, or what anyone else I know is saying in this thread. Here are some things neither I nor others are arguing:
1. "Modern is COMPELETELY DETERMINED by play skill." Obviously not. No Magic format is. But the play skill in Modern is at least as determinant in Modern as in Legacy. That is why the best Modern players have the same Modern MWP as the best Legacy players do in Legacy.
2. "Good players never have a rough day at various events." I think I've explicitly said the opposite: everyone has a bad day but over multiple events, you will see the good/great players emerge to the top. And as we see here, those good/great players have the same MWP ceiling in their respective formats.
3. "Newer players do poorly at these same tournaments." Again, no idea where this is coming from. Of course newer players do well at Modern events. Guess what? They do well in Legacy events too. In fact, the average MWP for a player with one Legacy event and one Modern event is identical in the dataset.
4. "Modern is perfect." It is not perfect and there are legitimate criticisms to make. "Matchup lottery" is not one of them; that effect is a) not real, b) the same in Legacy/Modern, or c) is overcome by good players.
5. "[insert comparison between skill-testing Legacy card and worse Modern card here]." Again, these kinds of sarcastic, dramatic reframes don't get us anywhere. I can't find a single post in this thread that seriously argues anything like that claim. I'm not sure what your intent is with this comment, but like most of your remarks here, I don't think this really advances the conversation in any way.
I bolded my argument before and I'll do it again: As this analysis shows, there is strong evidence to believe that the so-called Modern matchup lottery effect is either a) not real at all, b) identical in Modern and Legacy, and/or c) something that good players overcome such that it has no adverse effect on MWP.
as for the players who do well at both formats, yeah there is a lot to consider.
i think its appropriate to say that 'skill' in magic can be broken down into many different facets. mechanics and fundamentals, flexibility in archetypes, deciphering hidden information -- stuff like that. if thats the case then id posit that for the players good at both formats they excel at one of these particular facets that translates better between legacy and modern.
not sure what thatd be though
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
How about the fact that Brainstorm in itself creates a lot more decisions than a format with a much more shallow card pool than Legacy could ever create?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
How about the fact that Brainstorm in itself creates a lot more decisions than a format with a much more shallow card pool than Legacy could ever create?
Sure, but whats the point? The point is not 'is Modern more skill demanding than Legacy' the point is 'Modern shares about the same percentage of wins, between similarly skilled players'.
That point was left out. I haven't played Legacy all that much since Sensei's Divining Top was banned, but I felt that the better players, at least locally, seemed to do much better in the format. As for Modern, at least locally (because I can't talk about anything else until I visit the GP Phoenix in 11 days), seems to have someone different every time do well. Maybe the players are on a very similar play skill level? If this is so, it is really sad to me because most of these players were players that I used to beat in the past with nearly any deck I chose.
Honestly, I think it's at the point where I have to just start learning some basic skills, like attacking, blocking, racing my opponent, drawing better, getting better matchups, etc. Every time I see these posts by ktkenshinx, I feel like it's a constant reminder that I have just gotten terrible at the game. (compared to consistently 3-1ing to 4-0ing FNM or top 8ing Comp REL Modern events; sorry, 2-2 is not acceptable to me, I don't care what my draws were)
*Maybe my perception is incorrect. I heard that Reid Duke did super well at the recent Modern MOCS. He seems to be the exception to my belief that great overprepared players still occasionally do poorly at Modern.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
How about the fact that Brainstorm in itself creates a lot more decisions than a format with a much more shallow card pool than Legacy could ever create?
Again, I don't know what this is an argument against. No one is even talking about Brainstorm. I'm certainly not talking about Brainstorm, and I can't find a Brainstorm-based argument for dozens of pages. I am specifically discussing the effect of the alleged matchup lottery on Modern MWP. People claim various things about this effect. They say it exists, they say it costs good players matchups, they say it benefits worse players, they say it diminishes their ability to do well in events, etc. The previous analysis is a very strong argument against it. In fact, I don't think I have ever seen a strong, data-based argument FOR it in the first place. I see lots of unhappy anecdotes from upset players, but no hard numbers or even an attempt to try and bring together hard numbers. Looking at the hard numbers we do have, however, there is an unequivocal picture of top Legacy players succeeding as much in Legacy as top Modern players do in Modern.
If matchup lottery was a real problem, this would not be the case. We would see lower Modern MWPs overall, lower Modern MWPs relative to Legacy MWPs, no consistent contingent of top players, etc. We do not see that. We see identical MWPs between the formats. We also see the same distribution, which means that it's not just flat out easier to win in Modern; there is a comparable contingent in both formats. I'm not saying the formats take the same kind of skill. I'm simply saying that all current data we have strongly suggests there is no matchup lottery effect like many Modern critics would have us believe.
If matchup lottery was a real problem, this would not be the case. We would see lower Modern MWPs overall, lower Modern MWPs relative to Legacy MWPs, no consistent contingent of top players, etc. We do not see that. We see identical MWPs between the formats. We also see the same distribution, which means that it's not just flat out easier to win in Modern; there is a comparable contingent in both formats. I'm not saying the formats take the same kind of skill. I'm simply saying that all current data we have strongly suggests there is no matchup lottery effect like many Modern critics would have us believe.
I have to bring up a counter-point to this whole philosophy - most people cannot afford to do this data, with Wizards legally attacking most methods of Data gathering specifically with MTGO.
With the limited data we do have (which is truly limited, even though they are high profile paper events), we have a problem where we can only selectively approach the quality, and not quantity. We could have thousands, upon thousands more games on MTGO which could give us a larger than life picture. Yet if you took a small sample, look at Gabriel Nassif and his performance on his stream - he barely gets trophies per how much time he dedicates to the program. He obviously isn't an out of shape player, but also perhaps not in his prime either, yet looking at his results, he has done best with Hollow One.
We can't use this argument anymore saying "where is the data?" Because we can't actually collect it, and detail it to the degree we require for this discussion and legally show it to other people.
What I wonder FCG is the impact of commitment could have in your observation. I doubt anyone is going to say that Modern has more choices in a game potentially, than Legacy can have potentially.
I don't know, Legacy seems huge to me, and I'm sure if you have a dedicated crowd, then those players would have a depth of knowledge they could leverage to secure wins.
That's harder to do in a Modern, otherwise you wouldn't have Jace unbanned to try and provide a tool to provide those edges.
I don't play legacy at all, never cast brainstorm in my life. When I cast Jace the first time, I had no idea what to do, plus him? Brainstorm? Bounce?
Now that I've played him many many times I am starting to win games on his back, that honestly I would have lost with any other card.
Could it not be that those worse legacy players are newer, or don't have the same depth of experience as say people who would show up to a large event to give an idea of averages?
Regardless, it hardly matters.
This is, truthfully, a format where playing the good deck you are dedicated to, is rewarding if you put in the time.
I used to be the one doing the turn 1 Blood Moon. But the Sensei's Divining Top ban effectively neutered my already subpar and probably Tier 2 3 at best deck. However, I did very well with it, especially when I had Top on turn 1 or 2.
I think by playing the same deck and putting in the time, you will hit the better part of the lottery wheel because there will be days that you do well. But there will also be days when you play against nearly unwinnable matchups (ktkenshinx said it himself that no deck should have nearly 50% matchups or else it will be banned in Modern) and when you draw poorly vs. these unwinnable matchups, it leaves you with a tough taste in your mouth. You were never in the game, similar to when I ran Treasure Cruise Burn vs. Soul Sisters.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Honestly, I think it's at the point where I have to just start learning some basic skills, like attacking, blocking, racing my opponent, drawing better, getting better matchups, etc. Every time I see these posts by ktkenshinx, I feel like it's a constant reminder that I have just gotten terrible at the game. (compared to consistently 3-1ing to 4-0ing FNM or top 8ing Comp REL Modern events; sorry, 2-2 is not acceptable to me, I don't care what my draws were)
One significant difference between your local events and those in the dataset is the number of rounds. We would need to do a lot more analysis to know if results from 15 round tournaments with literally hundreds of people hold up in 4 rounders with merely dozens. My gut says they probably don't and have different dynamics. This would be a reason that your local performances are all over the place and don't match those at larger events. I have no data about this currently, but it's an interesting project idea for someone with access to that local data.
I know where I would start with this: Hareruya posts DAILY results for their small 5-20 person events and they have done so for years. There is a significant amount of data there to mine for anyone that has the time and knowledge.
I have to bring up a counter-point to this whole philosophy - most people cannot afford to do this data, with Wizards legally attacking most methods of Data gathering specifically with MTGO.
With the limited data we do have (which is truly limited, even though they are high profile paper events), we have a problem where we can only selectively approach the quality, and not quantity. We could have thousands, upon thousands more games on MTGO which could give us a larger than life picture. Yet if you took a small sample, look at Gabriel Nassif and his performance on his stream - he barely gets trophies per how much time he dedicates to the program. He obviously isn't an out of shape player, but also perhaps not in his prime either, yet looking at his results, he has done best with Hollow One.
We can't use this argument anymore saying "where is the data?" Because we can't actually collect it, and detail it to the degree we require for this discussion and legally show it to other people.
On the one hand, I agree we have limited data to work with and that restricts our ability to conduct meaningful analysis. On the other hand, some people are either a) lazy or b) just don't know where to look for data/what to do with it. There is still plenty of data out there for us to look at. This includes local datasets like the previously mentioned Hareruya results pages, Twitch streams and saved videos, your own personal tournament scenes, tracking players between different events such as GP/Opens, and personal MTGO results. The data is out there. People just don't have time to look for it, don't want to look for it, don't know where to look for it, and/or don't know what to do with it when they find it. That's not necessarily bad (unless one is lazy and just wants to believe an easier narrative because they are too lazy to challenge it). Most people have legitimate reasons for not being able to find the data or analyze it. But there's still a lot of it there.
How about the fact that Brainstorm in itself creates a lot more decisions than a format with a much more shallow card pool than Legacy could ever create?
Sure, but whats the point? The point is not 'is Modern more skill demanding than Legacy' the point is 'Modern shares about the same percentage of wins, between similarly skilled players'.
Why obfuscate the point at all?
i agree. this is what should be taken away from the analysis. getting into some pissing contest about what format is more skill intensive doesnt amount to anything.
if you want to assert that good players cant consistently do well in modern, or that putting in work towards your deck or the format pays no dividends. well good luck proving that based on...well reality.
one thing i wanted to note about the boogieman term 'matchup lottery' is that it shouldnt be confused with bad matchups existing. of course they exist, it is not however something exclusive nor endemic to the modern format. decks are built to employ a specific strategy. certain strategies fundamentally counteract one another. it is the whole basis for meta gaming - the game above the game.
the moment you sit down at the table to play, unless you are playing a mirror match, one of you gains some amount of advantage based on factors entirely independent of skill before you draw a single card. whether that ends up affecting the outcome of the match is another story. the point being, with all other things being equal, accruing this advantage multiple times in a tournament puts you in a better position to succeed than someone who doesnt. skilled players minimize losses by finding small edges in efficiency or value, and know how to capitalize when they start from a position of strength.
right now im remembering a legacy match on SCG with joe losset playing pre-ban miracles getting absolutely shalacked by 12-post. guess he lost the matchup lottery!!!...such rubbish
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
On the flipside of the coin, cards like Brainstom and Ponder can act like a "saving grace" against bad plays because of how good they are at getting the cards you need.
Every time someone says Brainstorm is a skill testing card I want to rub a Mesa Pegasus on their face.
FoodChain: Since this is the modern thread, I won't expand too much but if you want to play Painter still, there's a bunch of really cool shells that have come since the ban on Top.
Back to Modern
- Is anyone else seeing a lot of the RG Eldrazi deck lately? I'll admit that there's a lot of local players here that like to jump on the new cool deck to see what's what but I played that 4 rounds out of 5 last night, which makes 9 of the last 15.
well if your field is full of spikes i could see some people jumping on board after RG eldrazi did well at the recent GP. add bloodbraid to the mix, and i can understand people wanting to test drive it. though the amount you are describing though seems pretty excessive. its not as if RG eldrazi is exceptionally good, its sorta just the flavor of the month for eldrazi shells.
curving BBE cascading into obligator into reality smasher seems pretty disgusting.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Most eldrazi shells are good against midrange, and with the unbans midrange is seeing more play. Makes perfect sense to me, whether its RG, Bant, or that BW shell that won a GP last year.
what is RG eldrazi even soft to? spell based combo? breach decks?
I've been playing the deck a bunch. Hollow One is a pretty miserable matchup because they clog the ground up making your attacks unprofitable and just kill you with recurring flamewake phoenixes. We can't beat Ponza at all. Midrange like Jund or Mardu Pyromancer is an incredibly good matchup, but control decks that can leverage path to exile can be very difficult to beat since we generally leverage resolving one big threat per turn and path cleanly answers everything in our deck. I recently had a game against Jeskai where I cast TKS into Smasher into Smasher into Endbringer into Endbringer and still lost because my opponent just exiled everything with path and snap path. If your interaction is fatal push and bolts and abrupt decays you're going to get crushed. If your interaction is path to exile I think your chances go way up. If you're playing Jeskai Queller with the ability to answer stuff and close the game out quickly I think you're actually quite favoured over Eldrazi. Affinity is also slightly unfavoured.
How about the fact that Brainstorm in itself creates a lot more decisions than a format with a much more shallow card pool than Legacy could ever create?
Someone I know who plays Legacy and Vintage says that he thinks Brainstorm actually makes decisions matter less in the format, because people can so easily dig into whatever they need to get out of a situation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was referring to the MTGO championship.
looks to be roughly 13 or 14 distinct deck types out of the top 16. which is just an absolutely fantastic ratio.
zero jund showing up is surprising. regional metagame and small sample size, but i think its note worthy.
im digging that 4 color pyromancer list. cant decide what to play? play everything
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)You're insane.
Good Legacy players in Legacy: 57.3% MWP
Good Modern players in Modern: 58.5% MWP
Great Legacy players in Legacy: 67.8% MWP
Great Modern players in Modern: 67.6% MWP
Interestingly, there IS a difference between the average MWP in Modern vs. Legacy for players with 3+ events in both Modern/Legacy and 4+ events in both Modern/Legacy.
3+ events average Legacy MWP: 39.5%
3+ events average Modern MWP: 43.2%
4+ events average Legacy MWP: 44.6%
4+ events average Modern MWP: 49.2%
This means that players who have 3+ Modern events AND 3+ Legacy events (same for 4+ events) under their belts have a 4% better MWP in Modern than in Legacy. This is interesting but also does not support the matchup lottery theory; because their performance is better in Modern than in Legacy, variance clearly is not bringing it down. This might mean that Modern mastery is more important than in Legacy, it might mean Modern is easier than Legacy once you put in lots of events, etc. I don't know what it means! But I do know what it doesn't mean, and it doesn't mean matchup lottery is at play. At least, not insofar as it adversely affects the MWP of regulars and strong players.
Again, based on this analysis, the "Modern matchup lottery" effect is either a) not real at all, b) identical in Modern and Legacy, and/or c) does not have a negative impact on the top players' MWP. Naturally, all data limitations apply due to SCG being the event of choice, 15 round events being the size of choice, N being 8,000 instead of the 100,000 many people prefer, etc.
*Besides, it's super easy to see why a format with Serum Visions as the best cantrip is more skill intensive than a format where nearly 50% of the field play Brainstorm. There is literally 0 skill in playing Brainstorm.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)This sort of sarcastic reply doesn't really further the conversation. Sadly, it's also not a very surprising response either: I often see someone post a major analysis of data only to see it refuted with some sarcastic/dismissive/pithy jab. This is why more people probably don't post their work or do it in the first place. Making matters worse, your parody isn't even close to what I am saying, or what anyone else I know is saying in this thread. Here are some things neither I nor others are arguing:
1. "Modern is COMPELETELY DETERMINED by play skill." Obviously not. No Magic format is. But the play skill in Modern is at least as determinant in Modern as in Legacy. That is why the best Modern players have the same Modern MWP as the best Legacy players do in Legacy.
2. "Good players never have a rough day at various events." I think I've explicitly said the opposite: everyone has a bad day but over multiple events, you will see the good/great players emerge to the top. And as we see here, those good/great players have the same MWP ceiling in their respective formats.
3. "Newer players do poorly at these same tournaments." Again, no idea where this is coming from. Of course newer players do well at Modern events. Guess what? They do well in Legacy events too. In fact, the average MWP for a player with one Legacy event and one Modern event is identical in the dataset.
4. "Modern is perfect." It is not perfect and there are legitimate criticisms to make. "Matchup lottery" is not one of them; that effect is a) not real, b) the same in Legacy/Modern, or c) is overcome by good players.
5. "[insert comparison between skill-testing Legacy card and worse Modern card here]." Again, these kinds of sarcastic, dramatic reframes don't get us anywhere. I can't find a single post in this thread that seriously argues anything like that claim. I'm not sure what your intent is with this comment, but like most of your remarks here, I don't think this really advances the conversation in any way.
I bolded my argument before and I'll do it again: As this analysis shows, there is strong evidence to believe that the so-called Modern matchup lottery effect is either a) not real at all, b) identical in Modern and Legacy, and/or c) something that good players overcome such that it has no adverse effect on MWP.
as for the players who do well at both formats, yeah there is a lot to consider.
i think its appropriate to say that 'skill' in magic can be broken down into many different facets. mechanics and fundamentals, flexibility in archetypes, deciphering hidden information -- stuff like that. if thats the case then id posit that for the players good at both formats they excel at one of these particular facets that translates better between legacy and modern.
not sure what thatd be though
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Sure, but whats the point? The point is not 'is Modern more skill demanding than Legacy' the point is 'Modern shares about the same percentage of wins, between similarly skilled players'.
Why obfuscate the point at all?
Spirits
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Honestly, I think it's at the point where I have to just start learning some basic skills, like attacking, blocking, racing my opponent, drawing better, getting better matchups, etc. Every time I see these posts by ktkenshinx, I feel like it's a constant reminder that I have just gotten terrible at the game. (compared to consistently 3-1ing to 4-0ing FNM or top 8ing Comp REL Modern events; sorry, 2-2 is not acceptable to me, I don't care what my draws were)
*Maybe my perception is incorrect. I heard that Reid Duke did super well at the recent Modern MOCS. He seems to be the exception to my belief that great overprepared players still occasionally do poorly at Modern.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Again, I don't know what this is an argument against. No one is even talking about Brainstorm. I'm certainly not talking about Brainstorm, and I can't find a Brainstorm-based argument for dozens of pages. I am specifically discussing the effect of the alleged matchup lottery on Modern MWP. People claim various things about this effect. They say it exists, they say it costs good players matchups, they say it benefits worse players, they say it diminishes their ability to do well in events, etc. The previous analysis is a very strong argument against it. In fact, I don't think I have ever seen a strong, data-based argument FOR it in the first place. I see lots of unhappy anecdotes from upset players, but no hard numbers or even an attempt to try and bring together hard numbers. Looking at the hard numbers we do have, however, there is an unequivocal picture of top Legacy players succeeding as much in Legacy as top Modern players do in Modern.
If matchup lottery was a real problem, this would not be the case. We would see lower Modern MWPs overall, lower Modern MWPs relative to Legacy MWPs, no consistent contingent of top players, etc. We do not see that. We see identical MWPs between the formats. We also see the same distribution, which means that it's not just flat out easier to win in Modern; there is a comparable contingent in both formats. I'm not saying the formats take the same kind of skill. I'm simply saying that all current data we have strongly suggests there is no matchup lottery effect like many Modern critics would have us believe.
The data just includes the standings at Round 15 of the events.
I have to bring up a counter-point to this whole philosophy - most people cannot afford to do this data, with Wizards legally attacking most methods of Data gathering specifically with MTGO.
With the limited data we do have (which is truly limited, even though they are high profile paper events), we have a problem where we can only selectively approach the quality, and not quantity. We could have thousands, upon thousands more games on MTGO which could give us a larger than life picture. Yet if you took a small sample, look at Gabriel Nassif and his performance on his stream - he barely gets trophies per how much time he dedicates to the program. He obviously isn't an out of shape player, but also perhaps not in his prime either, yet looking at his results, he has done best with Hollow One.
We can't use this argument anymore saying "where is the data?" Because we can't actually collect it, and detail it to the degree we require for this discussion and legally show it to other people.
I don't know, Legacy seems huge to me, and I'm sure if you have a dedicated crowd, then those players would have a depth of knowledge they could leverage to secure wins.
That's harder to do in a Modern, otherwise you wouldn't have Jace unbanned to try and provide a tool to provide those edges.
I don't play legacy at all, never cast brainstorm in my life. When I cast Jace the first time, I had no idea what to do, plus him? Brainstorm? Bounce?
Now that I've played him many many times I am starting to win games on his back, that honestly I would have lost with any other card.
Could it not be that those worse legacy players are newer, or don't have the same depth of experience as say people who would show up to a large event to give an idea of averages?
Regardless, it hardly matters.
This is, truthfully, a format where playing the good deck you are dedicated to, is rewarding if you put in the time.
Or you may get locked out by a turn 1 Moon.
Spirits
I used to be the one doing the turn 1 Blood Moon. But the Sensei's Divining Top ban effectively neutered my already subpar and probably Tier
23 at best deck. However, I did very well with it, especially when I had Top on turn 1 or 2.I think by playing the same deck and putting in the time, you will hit the better part of the lottery wheel because there will be days that you do well. But there will also be days when you play against nearly unwinnable matchups (ktkenshinx said it himself that no deck should have nearly 50% matchups or else it will be banned in Modern) and when you draw poorly vs. these unwinnable matchups, it leaves you with a tough taste in your mouth. You were never in the game, similar to when I ran Treasure Cruise Burn vs. Soul Sisters.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)One significant difference between your local events and those in the dataset is the number of rounds. We would need to do a lot more analysis to know if results from 15 round tournaments with literally hundreds of people hold up in 4 rounders with merely dozens. My gut says they probably don't and have different dynamics. This would be a reason that your local performances are all over the place and don't match those at larger events. I have no data about this currently, but it's an interesting project idea for someone with access to that local data.
I know where I would start with this: Hareruya posts DAILY results for their small 5-20 person events and they have done so for years. There is a significant amount of data there to mine for anyone that has the time and knowledge.
On the one hand, I agree we have limited data to work with and that restricts our ability to conduct meaningful analysis. On the other hand, some people are either a) lazy or b) just don't know where to look for data/what to do with it. There is still plenty of data out there for us to look at. This includes local datasets like the previously mentioned Hareruya results pages, Twitch streams and saved videos, your own personal tournament scenes, tracking players between different events such as GP/Opens, and personal MTGO results. The data is out there. People just don't have time to look for it, don't want to look for it, don't know where to look for it, and/or don't know what to do with it when they find it. That's not necessarily bad (unless one is lazy and just wants to believe an easier narrative because they are too lazy to challenge it). Most people have legitimate reasons for not being able to find the data or analyze it. But there's still a lot of it there.
i agree. this is what should be taken away from the analysis. getting into some pissing contest about what format is more skill intensive doesnt amount to anything.
if you want to assert that good players cant consistently do well in modern, or that putting in work towards your deck or the format pays no dividends. well good luck proving that based on...well reality.
one thing i wanted to note about the boogieman term 'matchup lottery' is that it shouldnt be confused with bad matchups existing. of course they exist, it is not however something exclusive nor endemic to the modern format. decks are built to employ a specific strategy. certain strategies fundamentally counteract one another. it is the whole basis for meta gaming - the game above the game.
the moment you sit down at the table to play, unless you are playing a mirror match, one of you gains some amount of advantage based on factors entirely independent of skill before you draw a single card. whether that ends up affecting the outcome of the match is another story. the point being, with all other things being equal, accruing this advantage multiple times in a tournament puts you in a better position to succeed than someone who doesnt. skilled players minimize losses by finding small edges in efficiency or value, and know how to capitalize when they start from a position of strength.
right now im remembering a legacy match on SCG with joe losset playing pre-ban miracles getting absolutely shalacked by 12-post. guess he lost the matchup lottery!!!...such rubbish
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
FoodChain: Since this is the modern thread, I won't expand too much but if you want to play Painter still, there's a bunch of really cool shells that have come since the ban on Top.
Back to Modern
- Is anyone else seeing a lot of the RG Eldrazi deck lately? I'll admit that there's a lot of local players here that like to jump on the new cool deck to see what's what but I played that 4 rounds out of 5 last night, which makes 9 of the last 15.
Modern: Storm
Legacy: ANT
Spirits
curving BBE cascading into obligator into reality smasher seems pretty disgusting.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)what is RG eldrazi even soft to? spell based combo? breach decks?
god i hate eldrazi decks. with their stupid ancient stirrings and reality smashers. *shakesfist*
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)I've been playing the deck a bunch. Hollow One is a pretty miserable matchup because they clog the ground up making your attacks unprofitable and just kill you with recurring flamewake phoenixes. We can't beat Ponza at all. Midrange like Jund or Mardu Pyromancer is an incredibly good matchup, but control decks that can leverage path to exile can be very difficult to beat since we generally leverage resolving one big threat per turn and path cleanly answers everything in our deck. I recently had a game against Jeskai where I cast TKS into Smasher into Smasher into Endbringer into Endbringer and still lost because my opponent just exiled everything with path and snap path. If your interaction is fatal push and bolts and abrupt decays you're going to get crushed. If your interaction is path to exile I think your chances go way up. If you're playing Jeskai Queller with the ability to answer stuff and close the game out quickly I think you're actually quite favoured over Eldrazi. Affinity is also slightly unfavoured.
In my experience.