But a true 50/50+ deck does not just stay a 10% share secret for long. That is, unless it's not a truly 50/50+ deck.
I'm not so sure about that. Wizards implied there's a deck in standard right now that's under 2% of the metagame with better matchups than Ramunap Red, but they weren't going to take action against an unknown deck. If memory serves, Bloom Titan went under the radar for a long time as well and these days the playerbase has even less information to identify a deck like that, than we did back then.
You are definitely right that it is harder to identify 50/50+ today than it was years ago. I guess this is a positive-ish consequence of Wizards' data embargo? But these decks are frequently still discovered. Even Bloom was, although that wasn't so much banned for being 50/50+ as for violating the T4 rule. The thing is, Wizards needs to balance MWP distribution against sample size. If you have a deck that is <2% of the metagame, you don't really know if its 50/50+ matchup spectrum will withstand greater pressure once it is a larger metagame share. So it's possible it doesn't stay 50/50+ for long.
That said, none of this undercuts the fact that Wizards doesn't want these decks around, is very suspicious of these decks, and tends to take action against them. I suspect that most people in this thread might be persuaded to not want a "true" 50/50+ deck and would instead be happy with a deck whose top-tier matchups were no worse than 40/60. Something like GDS. That's a reasonable and realistic ask. But asking for a deck where a high-skill player can create exclusively 50/50+ matchups across the board? Not reasonable, not realistic, not happening.
According to the data given to us in the announcement, Ramunap Red held an average of 60-70% against literally the entire field of decks except for Temur Energy. That's very different from 50/50 and probably shouldn't be used as an example of 50/50. I would love nothing more than to see similar data for 2015. If for no other reason than peace of mind. Because Ramunap Red's numbers do look particularly alarming as it was presented.
Because if yes, that does not mean that there absolutely is a deck with a metagame share above 2% that wins more.
Only that they measured decks with share >2%, because under 2%, the data the N sample is too low to matter or mean something at all.
Taken in context, I took it to mean there's decks out there that win more with smaller shares, but that they're not worried about low percent decks. I'm aware there's another potential interpretation of that, that's not what I got out of it though.
I guess this is a positive-ish consequence of Wizards' data embargo?
I wouldn't go as far as calling it a positive consequence. Without the data embargo, cards could more easily rise and present themselves as viable answers, which in turn would lead to less need for bannings. It would also more accurately identify when and which cards rightfully need bans.
According to the data given to us in the announcement, Ramunap Red held an average of 60-70% against literally the entire field of decks except for Temur Energy. That's very different from 50/50 and probably shouldn't be used as an example of 50/50. I would love nothing more than to see similar data for 2015. If for no other reason than peace of mind. Because Ramunap Red's numbers do look particularly alarming as it was presented.
As far as I remember, I don't think any particular Modern ban update cited a deck's win percentage in exact terms. I suspect this is because old B&R changes were pretty opaque and Wizards got a lot of ***** for it so they changed their ways. Most Modern bans cite decks being too high of a metagame share and the T4 rule, with a few exceptions in there like "battle of sideboards" and logistics.
No one is saying that any particular ban announcement happened due to any given deck being 50/50+ in matchups. We are saying that it is not a reasonable or realistic request to ask for such a deck in Modern, because Wizards does not like these decks. Sure, it is possible that all those diversity violators were this very kind of deck! We don't know because Wizards was so opaque with its announcements and rationale.
I wouldn't go as far as calling it a positive consequence. Without the data embargo, cards could more easily rise and present themselves as viable answers, which in turn would lead to less need for bannings. It would also more accurately identify when and which cards rightfully need bans.
I agree it's not really positive, hence the "positive-ish" and the question mark. That policy sucks and the last year of Standard shows that hiding data did not save their beloved money-making format.
That said, I also believe Modern secretly has a few best decks and if you aren't playing one of those 2-3 decks you are playing something that is probably worse than a competing option. I'd even expand that to say that there may be 4-5 best decks in Modern if pressed. But even if we expand it to those 4-5 decks, there are still 25+ decks other people are playing that they think are as good as those 4-5 and probably aren't. I don't have decent data to back this up, so I'm just leaving it here as an intuition based on my experience watching and playing the format these past 6-8 months.
Thread locked. There is a new thread made (found here) to go along with the B&R announcement today. ALL of the current rules will stay in place until after the Pro Tour, when they are being considered for change.
You are definitely right that it is harder to identify 50/50+ today than it was years ago. I guess this is a positive-ish consequence of Wizards' data embargo? But these decks are frequently still discovered. Even Bloom was, although that wasn't so much banned for being 50/50+ as for violating the T4 rule. The thing is, Wizards needs to balance MWP distribution against sample size. If you have a deck that is <2% of the metagame, you don't really know if its 50/50+ matchup spectrum will withstand greater pressure once it is a larger metagame share. So it's possible it doesn't stay 50/50+ for long.
That said, none of this undercuts the fact that Wizards doesn't want these decks around, is very suspicious of these decks, and tends to take action against them. I suspect that most people in this thread might be persuaded to not want a "true" 50/50+ deck and would instead be happy with a deck whose top-tier matchups were no worse than 40/60. Something like GDS. That's a reasonable and realistic ask. But asking for a deck where a high-skill player can create exclusively 50/50+ matchups across the board? Not reasonable, not realistic, not happening.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Taken in context, I took it to mean there's decks out there that win more with smaller shares, but that they're not worried about low percent decks. I'm aware there's another potential interpretation of that, that's not what I got out of it though.
I wouldn't go as far as calling it a positive consequence. Without the data embargo, cards could more easily rise and present themselves as viable answers, which in turn would lead to less need for bannings. It would also more accurately identify when and which cards rightfully need bans.
As far as I remember, I don't think any particular Modern ban update cited a deck's win percentage in exact terms. I suspect this is because old B&R changes were pretty opaque and Wizards got a lot of ***** for it so they changed their ways. Most Modern bans cite decks being too high of a metagame share and the T4 rule, with a few exceptions in there like "battle of sideboards" and logistics.
No one is saying that any particular ban announcement happened due to any given deck being 50/50+ in matchups. We are saying that it is not a reasonable or realistic request to ask for such a deck in Modern, because Wizards does not like these decks. Sure, it is possible that all those diversity violators were this very kind of deck! We don't know because Wizards was so opaque with its announcements and rationale.
I agree it's not really positive, hence the "positive-ish" and the question mark. That policy sucks and the last year of Standard shows that hiding data did not save their beloved money-making format.
That said, I also believe Modern secretly has a few best decks and if you aren't playing one of those 2-3 decks you are playing something that is probably worse than a competing option. I'd even expand that to say that there may be 4-5 best decks in Modern if pressed. But even if we expand it to those 4-5 decks, there are still 25+ decks other people are playing that they think are as good as those 4-5 and probably aren't. I don't have decent data to back this up, so I'm just leaving it here as an intuition based on my experience watching and playing the format these past 6-8 months.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffMTGO/MTGA: Tyclone
My Primers ~ GWx Vizier Company ~ Knightfall ~ RG Eldrazi ~ Green's Sun's Zenith
More Brews ~ Modern Four Horsemen ~ Gitrog Dredge