My mistake for extrapolating that people who thought Ponza was "horrible" (not poorly positioned, not difficult to play against, "horrible") also thought the pilots shared some amount of that clearly heated descriptor. I apologise for putting words in your mouths.
I think it's amusing that one major complaint against Ponza is the number of non-games, when Tron is also accused of the same thing (1+1+1=Karn), yet seems to be held to a much higher acceptance by some.
My mistake for extrapolating that people who thought Ponza was "horrible" (not poorly positioned, not difficult to play against, "horrible") also thought the pilots shared some amount of that clearly heated descriptor. I apologise for putting words in your mouths.
I think it's amusing that one major complaint against Ponza is the number of non-games, when Tron is also accused of the same thing (1+1+1=Karn), yet seems to be held to a much higher acceptance by some.
I wasn’t trying to be pedantic; it’s just probably more constructive to focus on how games play out rather than trying to read too far into people’s motives. That said, there’s nothing wrong per se with inferring motive or intent, but doing so is not material to the discussion of whether the play patterns generated by a deck like Ponza are healthy for the long-term popularity of the format.
Definitely have to agree with you that there’s a fair amount of hypocrisy going around, and Tron absolutely does lead to a high frequency of non-games as well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GB Golgari Midrange GB YouTube Channel, with deck techs, gameplay, analysis, spoiler reviews, and more!
Is the format healthier when games in which both players make meaningful decisions predominate over games in which only one or neither player makes meaningful decisions? Yes!
This is only part of the picture because the format is also healthier when there are more viable decks to play. Caw Blade mirror metagame are full of meaningful decisions by both parties, but boy do such metagame suck. They also almost always lead to banning. For instance, Legacy was widely regarded as such a format for years, but has had two of its major fair pillars (Top, DRS) banned since early 2017 because those pillars created stagnant, solved metagames. Yes, those metagames had lots of meaningful decisions within matches. But they weren't healthy in Wizards' eyes.
I agree that meaningful decisions matter alongside diversity. But Modern clearly rewards meaningful decisions. This is why Modern has a consistent contingent of top players whose Modern MWPs are the same as top players in other formats. If decisions didn't matter, the game's best decision makers (I.e. its top players) wouldn't consistently do so well.
Some people just want to criticize Modern no matter what the format does. We get Tier 1 Jeskai. We get Ux decks in the T8 of back to back GP. We get interactive decks of different breeds in the T8 of consecutive GP for the last 6 months. We get Mardu winning a GP. We get MTGO PTQ/MOCS/Challenge events full of viable, interactive decks. We have Wizards on record calling Modern healthy twice in the past 8 months. Despite all this, there are still players who recycle the same, tired narratives about Modern flaws: "decisions don't matter," "matchup lottery," "fair decks suck," etc. They look for any possible cloud in the sunshine and they only talk about that cloud. Some of these players will never be happy until Twin is unbanned and/or they have no matchups worse than 45/55. Others will never be happy until their worst matchup, likely Tron, is hit with a ban. Others just want the Modern equivalent of Temur Energy or Grixis Delver, never mind that Wizards hates such decks. These kinds of opinions are out of touch with Modern's current reality and Wizards' historic management.
Others will never be happy until their worst matchup, likely Tron, is hit with a ban.
Would you please specify those decks whose worst matchup is Tron?
Sorry, I should specify "perceived" worst matchup, as we often lack reliable, statistical information about true matchup %. Given that, the biggest example would be Jeskai. Others would be Mardu, BGx, and UR control species, but Jeskai is by far the biggest example we've seen in this thread recently.
Is the format healthier when games in which both players make meaningful decisions predominate over games in which only one or neither player makes meaningful decisions? Yes!
This is only part of the picture because the format is also healthier when there are more viable decks to play. Caw Blade mirror metagame are full of meaningful decisions by both parties, but boy do such metagame suck. They also almost always lead to banning. For instance, Legacy was widely regarded as such a format for years, but has had two of its major fair pillars (Top, DRS) banned since early 2017 because those pillars created stagnant, solved metagames. Yes, those metagames had lots of meaningful decisions within matches. But they weren't healthy in Wizards' eyes.
I agree that meaningful decisions matter alongside diversity. But Modern clearly rewards meaningful decisions. This is why Modern has a consistent contingent of top players whose Modern MWPs are the same as top players in other formats. If decisions didn't matter, the game's best decision makers (I.e. its top players) wouldn't consistently do so well.
Some people just want to criticize Modern no matter what the format does. We get Tier 1 Jeskai. We get Ux decks in the T8 of back to back GP. We get interactive decks of different breeds in the T8 of consecutive GP for the last 6 months. We get Mardu winning a GP. We get MTGO PTQ/MOCS/Challenge events full of viable, interactive decks. We have Wizards on record calling Modern healthy twice in the past 8 months. Despite all this, there are still players who recycle the same, tired narratives about Modern flaws: "decisions don't matter," "matchup lottery," "fair decks suck," etc. They look for any possible cloud in the sunshine and they only talk about that cloud. Some of these players will never be happy until Twin is unbanned and/or they have no matchups worse than 45/55. Others will never be happy until their worst matchup, likely Tron, is hit with a ban. Others just want the Modern equivalent of Temur Energy or Grixis Delver, never mind that Wizards hates such decks. These kinds of opinions are out of touch with Modern's current reality and Wizards' historic management.
Great post. I agree that the existence of a variety of viable decks and archetypes is also a pillar of a healthy metagame, and I agree with your assessment of Wizards’ approach to curating the format. I’m also with you in thinking that Modern is in a pretty great place, all things considered—this with a wary eye kept trained on Stirrings decks in general and KCI in particular, granted.
The demon that I’m trying to banish from these sorts of discussions is the demon that whispers, “who are we to judge?”. Imagine someone putting forth the argument that any preference for the existence of deck diversity in the meta is purely subjective, and that there is nothing objectively unhealthier about a meta full of mirror matches rather than a meta with significant variety.
This argument would be patently ridiculous, of course, yet some people are happy to apply a similar abdication of common sense to discussions regarding meaningful decisions in gameplay, interaction, and mutual enjoyability.
There is an Aristotelian mean to be found wherein the expected Modern match experience is one in which each player executes his strategy to some degree, makes meaningful decisions, and has fun. This experience still affords for the existence and relevance of linear strategies, without question.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GB Golgari Midrange GB YouTube Channel, with deck techs, gameplay, analysis, spoiler reviews, and more!
Others will never be happy until their worst matchup, likely Tron, is hit with a ban.
Would you please specify those decks whose worst matchup is Tron?
Literal worse? I do not know, since modern has dozens of decks. But generally accepted midrange and control builds, mardu, BGx, UWx, struggle against tron. Two color versions aren't quite as bad now that they can run field of ruin and spreading seas for straight UW control. But going back to my previous post, many players I see both online and in person believe that they are somehow playing magic better just by selecting an interactive deck. Tron attacks on an axis that punishes those styles of play. Realistically that leaves three options:
1. Accept a bad matchup and continue to play
2. Play a different deck
3. Adjust the deck to improve that matchup at the expense of another
4. Complain that tron ruins the game
People that select any of the first three options don't really talk. They responded through action. The last category are the ones we hear from the most. Like I referenced in my local meta, a lot of the PPTQ grinders play control and midrange to convince themselves that they can make choices in any game that will lead to a win. When they win, they can say it is skill. When they lose, they can blame it all on luck. Tron annihilates that narrative by saying "my deck is specifically designed to beat you the majority of the time."
FOR THE RECORD, MY NEXT SENTENCE IS ABOUT MY LOCAL HARDCORE PLAYERS ONLY. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON IN ANYONE'S HEAD HERE.
Those control and midrange players think they have a right to a 50/50 matchup, or at least the illusion of such, for the sake of their own egos. That attitude permeates the "nerf tron" calls.
I agree with both posts. Surely, linear decks are important for any non rotating format, as those are some decks that trying to solve one puzzle in order to win. Those decisions matter, and we want them in Modern.
There would be a problem and indeed there was one back in the Dredge/Infect/DSZoo era, and it was fixed.
Interactive magic is the backbone of magic though. And we are at a point that we have a Tier 1 consisting of several interactive archetypes. If you want to play fair, disruptive magic you can play Mardu Pyromancer, Jeskai Control, UW Control, several other UR tempo decks, Traverse Shadow, GDS, etc.
Does it get any better? Yes, it does get. With a SFM unban and with a Stirrings kept a close eye into, or banned, we would be slightly better, but we are at an acceptable point anyhow.
Last but not least: To all those disgruntled control players. Now is your time. Jeskai is the real deal. Teferi and Search for Azcanta are the real deal. To anyone who has a problem or disagrees with this, you are wrong. Data prove you wrong.
Co-signing this entire post. Well said, and I couldn’t agree more.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GB Golgari Midrange GB YouTube Channel, with deck techs, gameplay, analysis, spoiler reviews, and more!
[quote from="Tasighoul »" url="/forums/the-game/modern/795613-the-state-of-modern-thread-b-r-02-07-2018?comment=309"]
FOR THE RECORD, MY NEXT SENTENCE IS ABOUT MY LOCAL HARDCORE PLAYERS ONLY. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON IN ANYONE'S HEAD HERE.
Those control and midrange players think they have a right to a 50/50 matchup, or at least the illusion of such, for the sake of their own egos. That attitude permeates the "nerf tron" calls.
I think its because of the perception (not reality) that we had this before. Before Tron recieved multiple buffs, when BGx and URx (Twin) were top dogs, there was a state of 'balance' in the minds of many of these players. That illusion of balance.
Same thing happened when BBE and Jace got people thinking BGx and URx were top again. It didnt hold of course, but people I talked and played with had this general sense of 'finally, Magic how I want it!'.
Land Land Land Karn, ruins that perception/illusion.
[quote from="Tasighoul »" url="/forums/the-game/modern/795613-the-state-of-modern-thread-b-r-02-07-2018?comment=309"]
FOR THE RECORD, MY NEXT SENTENCE IS ABOUT MY LOCAL HARDCORE PLAYERS ONLY. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON IN ANYONE'S HEAD HERE.
Those control and midrange players think they have a right to a 50/50 matchup, or at least the illusion of such, for the sake of their own egos. That attitude permeates the "nerf tron" calls.
I think its because of the perception (not reality) that we had this before. Before Tron recieved multiple buffs, when BGx and URx (Twin) were top dogs, there was a state of 'balance' in the minds of many of these players. That illusion of balance.
Same thing happened when BBE and Jace got people thinking BGx and URx were top again. It didnt hold of course, but people I talked and played with had this general sense of 'finally, Magic how I want it!'.
Land Land Land Karn, ruins that perception/illusion.
</blockquote>
Turn 3 Karn is generally an illusion anyway. On the draw t3 karn happens about 23% of the time and on the play about 16% of the time. People like to make it seem like Tron gets a t3 win every time which is just not true.
[quote from="Tasighoul »" url="/forums/the-game/modern/795613-the-state-of-modern-thread-b-r-02-07-2018?comment=309"]
FOR THE RECORD, MY NEXT SENTENCE IS ABOUT MY LOCAL HARDCORE PLAYERS ONLY. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON IN ANYONE'S HEAD HERE.
Those control and midrange players think they have a right to a 50/50 matchup, or at least the illusion of such, for the sake of their own egos. That attitude permeates the "nerf tron" calls.
I think its because of the perception (not reality) that we had this before. Before Tron recieved multiple buffs, when BGx and URx (Twin) were top dogs, there was a state of 'balance' in the minds of many of these players. That illusion of balance.
Same thing happened when BBE and Jace got people thinking BGx and URx were top again. It didnt hold of course, but people I talked and played with had this general sense of 'finally, Magic how I want it!'.
Land Land Land Karn, ruins that perception/illusion.
</blockquote>
Turn 3 Karn is generally an illusion anyway. On the draw t3 karn happens about 23% of the time and on the play about 16% of the time. People like to make it seem like Tron gets a t3 win every time which is just not true.
</blockquote>
Oh only a near 1 in 4 chance...I feel so much better...
(Note: I specifically said perception, I don't care about the reality of Tron, I face it every other day at least, it's got a special place in hell for me.)
Well sure you are not suppose to be able to win on Turn 3 in Modern. What are the odds of Turn 3 or Turn 4 Karn?
I've yet to see the turn 3 karn that dealt 20 damage to a player. If we are going to go by boardstates that essentially give the win on turn 3 then we have burn, zoo (any aggro deck really), storm etc.
Turn 4 Karn is a lot more likely of course. IIRC it's around 45% goldfishing.
Some people just want to criticize Modern no matter what the format does. We get Tier 1 Jeskai. We get Ux decks in the T8 of back to back GP. We get interactive decks of different breeds in the T8 of consecutive GP for the last 6 months. We get Mardu winning a GP. We get MTGO PTQ/MOCS/Challenge events full of viable, interactive decks. We have Wizards on record calling Modern healthy twice in the past 8 months. Despite all this, there are still players who recycle the same, tired narratives about Modern flaws: "decisions don't matter," "matchup lottery," "fair decks suck," etc. They look for any possible cloud in the sunshine and they only talk about that cloud. Some of these players will never be happy until Twin is unbanned and/or they have no matchups worse than 45/55.
Genuine question: What is wrong about the idea that the metagame should contain as much 45/55 - 55/44 matchups as possible?
It has seriously baffled me over the years that on one side people pride themselves with how competitive and serious this format is - this thread and the rules of this thread being no exception/a good example - and yet at the same time seem to be ok with the concept of lopsided non-games that invalidate any skill or decision meaningfulness during play, which is the exact opposite of what serious competition in its core sense is about.
Now I do understand that it is impossible to have both the open design space an no lopsided matchups at all so unless you want to play chess, there will always be bias in either direction.
But.
There is a conceptual difference between decks that have their matchups normally distributed and as such few lopsided matchups as an unavoidable byproduct and decks that have the exact opposite: Inverted normally distributed matchups, still balanced overall but with the far share of matchups in the extreme zones, with lopsided matchups as their design goal (removing the player skill aspect in favor of meta analysis/prediction and matchup lottery).
I cannot wrap my head around how anyone can claim to have a competitive mindset and at the same time think that having the latter form of decks as a significant meta share is somehow a good thing.
Those decks are totally fine in theory. In practice, however, they don't exist without banning lots of other cards or creating decks that are just the best in the format. Better to have organically bad matchups then try to curate a perfect 45/55 - 55/45 matchup spectrum that historically just results in a format with little diversity and a best deck.
Some people just want to criticize Modern no matter what the format does. We get Tier 1 Jeskai. We get Ux decks in the T8 of back to back GP. We get interactive decks of different breeds in the T8 of consecutive GP for the last 6 months. We get Mardu winning a GP. We get MTGO PTQ/MOCS/Challenge events full of viable, interactive decks. We have Wizards on record calling Modern healthy twice in the past 8 months. Despite all this, there are still players who recycle the same, tired narratives about Modern flaws: "decisions don't matter," "matchup lottery," "fair decks suck," etc. They look for any possible cloud in the sunshine and they only talk about that cloud. Some of these players will never be happy until Twin is unbanned and/or they have no matchups worse than 45/55.
Genuine question: What is wrong about the idea that the metagame should contain as much 45/55 - 55/44 matchups as possible?
It has seriously baffled me over the years that on one side people pride themselves with how competitive and serious this format is - this thread and the rules of this thread being no exception/a good example - and yet at the same time seem to be ok with the concept of lopsided non-games that invalidate any skill or decision meaningfulness during play, which is the exact opposite of what serious competition in its core sense is about.
Now I do understand that it is impossible to have both the open design space an no lopsided matchups at all so unless you want to play chess, there will always be bias in either direction.
But.
There is a conceptual difference between decks that have their matchups normally distributed and as such few lopsided matchups as an unavoidable byproduct and decks that have the exact opposite: Inverted normally distributed matchups, still balanced overall but with the far share of matchups in the extreme zones, with lopsided matchups as their design goal (removing the player skill aspect in favor of meta analysis/prediction and matchup lottery).
I cannot wrap my head around how anyone can claim to have a competitive mindset and at the same time think that having the latter form of decks as a significant meta share is somehow a good thing.
Deck selection and deck building are skills. That would be my first response. Every rogue brewer tries to win by observing the meta and attempting to attack it at the perfect angle in a way that is so unexpected that a random deck can spike. It isn't my preferred option, but I do think it takes away from people's hard work to say metagaming/predicting is without skill. It is just a different type of skill.
Second, I'd like an example of a deck with such an inverted distribution. I don't know tron's matchups well enough, but I assume that is the deck to which you are referring. The reason it is okay is that I believe every archetype needs a boogeyman - a deck or two that rolls you over, in a format with a wide variety of options. Let's say jund midrange and jeskai control really were fair decks with no matchup far out of reach, instead of having a couple of really difficult matchups as there are now. In that scenario, even if there are a dozen "viable" decks, most people would gravitate towards jund and jeskai. Obviously, some people would like that for the sake of "interactive" games. But you know what? I never get a creature blown up and think "oh wow I'm so glad they could interact with my creatures!" For every person who hates losing to tron, there is someone who hates losing to discard into goyf into lilly.
In that last case, it is just a matter of preferences. Specifically, it is a matter of separating "this is what I like to do and want to do" vs "this is how the game should be played or something is wrong."
GK: Yes, there are more 'even' match ups, but less decks to worry about. They dont plan for a meta of Tron/KCI, and then end up dodging all of those at a tournament and lose to UB Mill.
i think that pros prefer std not because of skill, but because of fewer decks viable in the format
If you know that you gonna play against 3 decks, maybe you can get an edge because of testig and new side technology
In modern, you can tune your deck to beat mardu, jeskai, tron, humans and storm, and in the first 2 rounds you are paired against monored and you go home empty
I totally agree with this notion, but this next question asks to be begged:
Since Standard has (or had large periods of time), a lot more 45/55 - 55/45 than Modern, is it a better format overall than Modern? Or is it more skill based?
I know most, or all of us, play Modern, because we love having more powerful options in our disposal, but, yet, this question comes as a logical sequence.
So, if someone likes those two formats the same, will he prefer Standard over Modern?
Is it this why Pros prefer Standard over Modern? Because in those 45/55 - 55/45, the more skillful player succeeds more than the least skillfull one?
I never finished that analysis so I don't have a huge sample. But when I looked at a selection of about 10 top players at the Pro level (Reid Duke, Manfield, Turtenwald, etc.), their Standard MWP was basically the same as their Modern MWP: about 63% give or take. This is for GP/PT events in 2017-2018. Standard is higher for some and lower for others. For instance, Duke has a 70% Modern MWP and only a 54% Standard MWP. Manfield is 63% in both. Turtenwald is 66% for Standard and 62% for Modern. Salvatto is 59% Standard, 68% Modern. It's a bit all over the place. But they all average out to around the 63% range for top players. EDIT: Gerry T is another interesting one at 55% Standard, 73% Modern.
When the best players in the world at the PT/GP level (not even talking about SCG numbers, which show the same story for Modern vs. Legacy) have the same MWP across Standard/Modern, I'm inclined to believe the formats are equally skillful. Maybe pro skill manifests in different ways in the formats, but the end result is that the best players still do the best.
i think that pros prefer std not because of skill, but because of fewer decks viable in the format
If you know that you gonna play against 3 decks, maybe you can get an edge because of testig and new side technology
In modern, you can tune your deck to beat mardu, jeskai, tron, humans and storm, and in the first 2 rounds you are paired against monored and you go home empty
I think that's more a by-product of what pros like about Standard over Modern. I think what pros really want is predictability and the ability to leverage their skill. Standard gives that because of the small card pool and "fewer decks viable in the format," as you mention. Legacy also provides that, though, because of the blue cards in that format - Daze, Force, Brainstorm, and Ponder, mostly. I'd through Wasteland in there too as a safety valve against busted lands.
I think pros would prefer both Standard and Legacy over Modern. Legacy obviously has a much larger card pool and many unknown quantities but if you have safety valves and the ability to see many cards it feels better. Modern has neither a small card pool nor those safety valves or filter cards.
All that said, I remember ktken ran some numbers of pro win percentages in Modern compared to the same players in Legacy and they were very close, so I may just be wrong lol.
I totally agree with this notion, but this next question asks to be begged:
Since Standard has (or had large periods of time), a lot more 45/55 - 55/45 than Modern, is it a better format overall than Modern? Or is it more skill based?
I know most, or all of us, play Modern, because we love having more powerful options in our disposal, but, yet, this question comes as a logical sequence.
So, if someone likes those two formats the same, will he prefer Standard over Modern?
Is it this why Pros prefer Standard over Modern? Because in those 45/55 - 55/45, the more skillful player succeeds more than the least skillfull one?
I never finished that analysis so I don't have a huge sample. But when I looked at a selection of about 10 top players at the Pro level (Reid Duke, Manfield, Turtenwald, etc.), their Standard MWP was basically the same as their Modern MWP: about 63% give or take. This is for GP/PT events in 2017-2018. Standard is higher for some and lower for others. For instance, Duke has a 70% Modern MWP and only a 54% Standard MWP. Manfield is 63% in both. Turtenwald is 66% for Standard and 62% for Modern. Salvatto is 59% Standard, 68% Modern. It's a bit all over the place. But they all average out to around the 63% range for top players. EDIT: Gerry T is another interesting one at 55% Standard, 73% Modern.
When the best players in the world at the PT/GP level (not even talking about SCG numbers, which show the same story for Modern vs. Legacy) have the same MWP across Standard/Modern, I'm inclined to believe the formats are equally skillful. Maybe pro skill manifests in different ways in the formats, but the end result is that the best players still do the best.
This seems like a contradiction between your words and your data though. By all means, I repsect your analysis and I don't mean that as an accusation, but you earlier stated that "40-60's or worse are a necessary evil in Modern, because if not, we have bans."
This means that you, as the rest of us, would like more 45-55 / 55-45 's, so that the game is more skillfull.
Thus, Standard, as a format with more 45-55's/55-45's than Modern, is a more skill based format.
Why pros prefer Standard though? Because it produces less(or none at all) non-games. For example, if LSV sits across a Skred player, who goes Gemstone Caverns on turn 0, then play land, then Simian Spirit Guide and Blood Moon on turn 1, then game is probably over.
Even Turn 2 Blood Moon can be devastating.
There are a million plays like that in Modern, Ensnaring Bridge type of cards and other, mainly 8th/9th edition cards. I don't want to give more examples, as I am sure everyone has a lot of those. Whether it's a Lantern player, or something else producing those plays.
Now, I don't mind those plays. But pros do. Because those kind of plays give the chance to the worse player who just know their deck good, to win a platinum pro player.
That's a big assumption that the player who has the line on a turn 1 blood moon is somehow less skilled than his/her opponent who does not have it. Your post also seems to suggest that decks which have the possibility of hitting hands that produce "non-games" require less skill to operate than decks which don't have those hands; that doesn't sit right with me.
its true that the deck choice doesnt necessarily have any bearing on the skill of the pilot, but the reality of it is that some decks are just easier to play. different decks or archetypes will have qualities that draw on different skill sets, but even among those there will always be decks that rate lower. a deck looking to spike their opponent out of the game with powerful hate cards just isnt asking much of the player when it shows up in their hand, and much of the 'skill' comes into play when the deck fumbles or encounters resistance.
what i think people have trouble coming to terms with is that the skill required (including the floor and ceiling) to play whatever deck doesnt determine how good that deck actually is at any given point. and it shouldnt if people want or expect any level of diversity at the competitive level of play.
there is also rampant overestimation/underestimation of how difficult certain decks are to pilot, usually when individuals assess the decks they play versus what decks other people play. for instance draw-go control players like to believe they are playing 4D underwater chess while overlooking that playing primarily at instant speed makes decisions easier, not harder.
i think if kt's data shows anything its that matchups in modern, across most of the board, are closer than people make them out to be given the available card pool and selection of 'good' cards. good players win quite a bit more than bad players. if you dont think this is the case then you are doing yourself an injustice by not properly looking for ways to better your play.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Last but not least: To all those disgruntled control players. Now is your time. Jeskai is the real deal. Teferi and Search for Azcanta are the real deal. To anyone who has a problem or disagrees with this, you are wrong. Data prove you wrong.
So I've been away from modern for a few months and wanted to ask the vocal control players here just how good teferi is? (Ideally without hyperbole)
I think it's amusing that one major complaint against Ponza is the number of non-games, when Tron is also accused of the same thing (1+1+1=Karn), yet seems to be held to a much higher acceptance by some.
I wasn’t trying to be pedantic; it’s just probably more constructive to focus on how games play out rather than trying to read too far into people’s motives. That said, there’s nothing wrong per se with inferring motive or intent, but doing so is not material to the discussion of whether the play patterns generated by a deck like Ponza are healthy for the long-term popularity of the format.
Definitely have to agree with you that there’s a fair amount of hypocrisy going around, and Tron absolutely does lead to a high frequency of non-games as well.
YouTube Channel, with deck techs, gameplay, analysis, spoiler reviews, and more!
This is only part of the picture because the format is also healthier when there are more viable decks to play. Caw Blade mirror metagame are full of meaningful decisions by both parties, but boy do such metagame suck. They also almost always lead to banning. For instance, Legacy was widely regarded as such a format for years, but has had two of its major fair pillars (Top, DRS) banned since early 2017 because those pillars created stagnant, solved metagames. Yes, those metagames had lots of meaningful decisions within matches. But they weren't healthy in Wizards' eyes.
I agree that meaningful decisions matter alongside diversity. But Modern clearly rewards meaningful decisions. This is why Modern has a consistent contingent of top players whose Modern MWPs are the same as top players in other formats. If decisions didn't matter, the game's best decision makers (I.e. its top players) wouldn't consistently do so well.
Some people just want to criticize Modern no matter what the format does. We get Tier 1 Jeskai. We get Ux decks in the T8 of back to back GP. We get interactive decks of different breeds in the T8 of consecutive GP for the last 6 months. We get Mardu winning a GP. We get MTGO PTQ/MOCS/Challenge events full of viable, interactive decks. We have Wizards on record calling Modern healthy twice in the past 8 months. Despite all this, there are still players who recycle the same, tired narratives about Modern flaws: "decisions don't matter," "matchup lottery," "fair decks suck," etc. They look for any possible cloud in the sunshine and they only talk about that cloud. Some of these players will never be happy until Twin is unbanned and/or they have no matchups worse than 45/55. Others will never be happy until their worst matchup, likely Tron, is hit with a ban. Others just want the Modern equivalent of Temur Energy or Grixis Delver, never mind that Wizards hates such decks. These kinds of opinions are out of touch with Modern's current reality and Wizards' historic management.
Is it Twin level? Nope. Does it need to be? Nope.
The format is healthy certainly. I've not seen an argument against it. I would like to see a deck or two that run over Tron and KCI, but I can wait.
Spirits
Sorry, I should specify "perceived" worst matchup, as we often lack reliable, statistical information about true matchup %. Given that, the biggest example would be Jeskai. Others would be Mardu, BGx, and UR control species, but Jeskai is by far the biggest example we've seen in this thread recently.
Great post. I agree that the existence of a variety of viable decks and archetypes is also a pillar of a healthy metagame, and I agree with your assessment of Wizards’ approach to curating the format. I’m also with you in thinking that Modern is in a pretty great place, all things considered—this with a wary eye kept trained on Stirrings decks in general and KCI in particular, granted.
The demon that I’m trying to banish from these sorts of discussions is the demon that whispers, “who are we to judge?”. Imagine someone putting forth the argument that any preference for the existence of deck diversity in the meta is purely subjective, and that there is nothing objectively unhealthier about a meta full of mirror matches rather than a meta with significant variety.
This argument would be patently ridiculous, of course, yet some people are happy to apply a similar abdication of common sense to discussions regarding meaningful decisions in gameplay, interaction, and mutual enjoyability.
There is an Aristotelian mean to be found wherein the expected Modern match experience is one in which each player executes his strategy to some degree, makes meaningful decisions, and has fun. This experience still affords for the existence and relevance of linear strategies, without question.
YouTube Channel, with deck techs, gameplay, analysis, spoiler reviews, and more!
Literal worse? I do not know, since modern has dozens of decks. But generally accepted midrange and control builds, mardu, BGx, UWx, struggle against tron. Two color versions aren't quite as bad now that they can run field of ruin and spreading seas for straight UW control. But going back to my previous post, many players I see both online and in person believe that they are somehow playing magic better just by selecting an interactive deck. Tron attacks on an axis that punishes those styles of play. Realistically that leaves three options:
1. Accept a bad matchup and continue to play
2. Play a different deck
3. Adjust the deck to improve that matchup at the expense of another
4. Complain that tron ruins the game
People that select any of the first three options don't really talk. They responded through action. The last category are the ones we hear from the most. Like I referenced in my local meta, a lot of the PPTQ grinders play control and midrange to convince themselves that they can make choices in any game that will lead to a win. When they win, they can say it is skill. When they lose, they can blame it all on luck. Tron annihilates that narrative by saying "my deck is specifically designed to beat you the majority of the time."
FOR THE RECORD, MY NEXT SENTENCE IS ABOUT MY LOCAL HARDCORE PLAYERS ONLY. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON IN ANYONE'S HEAD HERE.
Those control and midrange players think they have a right to a 50/50 matchup, or at least the illusion of such, for the sake of their own egos. That attitude permeates the "nerf tron" calls.
Co-signing this entire post. Well said, and I couldn’t agree more.
YouTube Channel, with deck techs, gameplay, analysis, spoiler reviews, and more!
I think its because of the perception (not reality) that we had this before. Before Tron recieved multiple buffs, when BGx and URx (Twin) were top dogs, there was a state of 'balance' in the minds of many of these players. That illusion of balance.
Same thing happened when BBE and Jace got people thinking BGx and URx were top again. It didnt hold of course, but people I talked and played with had this general sense of 'finally, Magic how I want it!'.
Land Land Land Karn, ruins that perception/illusion.
Spirits
Turn 3 Karn is generally an illusion anyway. On the draw t3 karn happens about 23% of the time and on the play about 16% of the time. People like to make it seem like Tron gets a t3 win every time which is just not true.
Oh only a near 1 in 4 chance...I feel so much better...
(Note: I specifically said perception, I don't care about the reality of Tron, I face it every other day at least, it's got a special place in hell for me.)
Spirits
I've yet to see the turn 3 karn that dealt 20 damage to a player. If we are going to go by boardstates that essentially give the win on turn 3 then we have burn, zoo (any aggro deck really), storm etc.
Turn 4 Karn is a lot more likely of course. IIRC it's around 45% goldfishing.
Those decks are totally fine in theory. In practice, however, they don't exist without banning lots of other cards or creating decks that are just the best in the format. Better to have organically bad matchups then try to curate a perfect 45/55 - 55/45 matchup spectrum that historically just results in a format with little diversity and a best deck.
Deck selection and deck building are skills. That would be my first response. Every rogue brewer tries to win by observing the meta and attempting to attack it at the perfect angle in a way that is so unexpected that a random deck can spike. It isn't my preferred option, but I do think it takes away from people's hard work to say metagaming/predicting is without skill. It is just a different type of skill.
Second, I'd like an example of a deck with such an inverted distribution. I don't know tron's matchups well enough, but I assume that is the deck to which you are referring. The reason it is okay is that I believe every archetype needs a boogeyman - a deck or two that rolls you over, in a format with a wide variety of options. Let's say jund midrange and jeskai control really were fair decks with no matchup far out of reach, instead of having a couple of really difficult matchups as there are now. In that scenario, even if there are a dozen "viable" decks, most people would gravitate towards jund and jeskai. Obviously, some people would like that for the sake of "interactive" games. But you know what? I never get a creature blown up and think "oh wow I'm so glad they could interact with my creatures!" For every person who hates losing to tron, there is someone who hates losing to discard into goyf into lilly.
In that last case, it is just a matter of preferences. Specifically, it is a matter of separating "this is what I like to do and want to do" vs "this is how the game should be played or something is wrong."
Spirits
If you know that you gonna play against 3 decks, maybe you can get an edge because of testig and new side technology
In modern, you can tune your deck to beat mardu, jeskai, tron, humans and storm, and in the first 2 rounds you are paired against monored and you go home empty
I never finished that analysis so I don't have a huge sample. But when I looked at a selection of about 10 top players at the Pro level (Reid Duke, Manfield, Turtenwald, etc.), their Standard MWP was basically the same as their Modern MWP: about 63% give or take. This is for GP/PT events in 2017-2018. Standard is higher for some and lower for others. For instance, Duke has a 70% Modern MWP and only a 54% Standard MWP. Manfield is 63% in both. Turtenwald is 66% for Standard and 62% for Modern. Salvatto is 59% Standard, 68% Modern. It's a bit all over the place. But they all average out to around the 63% range for top players. EDIT: Gerry T is another interesting one at 55% Standard, 73% Modern.
When the best players in the world at the PT/GP level (not even talking about SCG numbers, which show the same story for Modern vs. Legacy) have the same MWP across Standard/Modern, I'm inclined to believe the formats are equally skillful. Maybe pro skill manifests in different ways in the formats, but the end result is that the best players still do the best.
I think pros would prefer both Standard and Legacy over Modern. Legacy obviously has a much larger card pool and many unknown quantities but if you have safety valves and the ability to see many cards it feels better. Modern has neither a small card pool nor those safety valves or filter cards.
All that said, I remember ktken ran some numbers of pro win percentages in Modern compared to the same players in Legacy and they were very close, so I may just be wrong lol.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
That's a big assumption that the player who has the line on a turn 1 blood moon is somehow less skilled than his/her opponent who does not have it. Your post also seems to suggest that decks which have the possibility of hitting hands that produce "non-games" require less skill to operate than decks which don't have those hands; that doesn't sit right with me.
what i think people have trouble coming to terms with is that the skill required (including the floor and ceiling) to play whatever deck doesnt determine how good that deck actually is at any given point. and it shouldnt if people want or expect any level of diversity at the competitive level of play.
there is also rampant overestimation/underestimation of how difficult certain decks are to pilot, usually when individuals assess the decks they play versus what decks other people play. for instance draw-go control players like to believe they are playing 4D underwater chess while overlooking that playing primarily at instant speed makes decisions easier, not harder.
i think if kt's data shows anything its that matchups in modern, across most of the board, are closer than people make them out to be given the available card pool and selection of 'good' cards. good players win quite a bit more than bad players. if you dont think this is the case then you are doing yourself an injustice by not properly looking for ways to better your play.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)So I've been away from modern for a few months and wanted to ask the vocal control players here just how good teferi is? (Ideally without hyperbole)
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT