Thank you for fighting the good fight, @ktkenshinx. The sheer volume of "the sky is falling" posts in this thread make my head hurt. It's tedious to continue pointing it out, but anything beyond mild concern about the future is a vast overreaction to a small sample size. For the love of all that is holy, stop the crusading for bans based on hurt feelings.
Wait to see how the meta adjusts. Last month we had gathered the torches for KCI, last week it was Humans, and now it's Vengevine. Stop looking for decks to crucify because you're unhappy. Yes, I mean you random thread poster. Stop veering from one poorly formed ban argument to another. The fact that decks are cycling IS A FEATURE OF A HEALTHY META. You're welcome to dislike whatever is Tier 1 at any given moment, but the solution 9 out 10 times IS NOT A BANNING.
As you probably know, I think you are 100% wrong here. Wizards has made several bannings because of a deck/card being unfun to play with in several formats(for example Marvel in Standard, and -I know you disagree here- Top and Second Sunrise in modern).
A deck being super unfun to play against, is a reason to ban it, and some of those "logistical issues" reads that "the deck is unfun, so we disguise this argument into the logistic issues criteria here" to me.
This does not mean that KCI does not face logistical issues-it does. But it's also super resilient to hate, can kill on t3 rarely (but it did on the finals of GP Las Vegas for example), and it's unfun to play against.
It fits all of the criteria to ban it. And Emma presents it fairly well in her article, if you ask me.
This isnt Standard so I dont really care about Standard ban criteria. No Modern card has been banned solely for being unfun. They were banned for violating criteria that Wizards uses as indicators of truly unfun decks, not subjectively unfun decks.
As for Top and Sunrise, these cards are only unfun in that they push rounds to time or make extra turns go long. Again, that's a criterion. Unfun is operationalized in that regard, it's not just that something is subjectively unfun. How does Handy's article prove that KCI has this logistical effect on tournaments such that a card needs banning? She literally uses one example and doesn't even use that example well.
I tried to point this out to @gkourou prior, but he seems convinced by Emma's two anecdotes (and one doesn't even seem particularly egregious). Someone, Emma or otherwise, would need to show that KCI is causing this issue with some kind of regularity. I don't believe WoTC has shared where the line is drawn with previous bans (e.g. once a 15 round tournament) but one person saying "hey this took us deep into turns once" isn't meaningful on its own.
Side note -- taken by itself, I don't think a deck taking a 5 minute turn when attempting to "go off" is grounds for further action. Over the course of several turns, many players will drag out their decisions on non-combo decks to the point they're eating a similar amount of clock. A bit preferential to say that's fine but using your time in a single turn isn't. If you're worried about time equity, the only solution is a chess/MTGO-style clock.
Let's take it easy on the "proved" when she provides two anecdotal cases. That's a reason to investigate further, not blindly accept that it deserves a ban because she has two examples.
That goes for any statement "proven" on scant anecdotes, not just this one.
I just want to note again for the record, I'm not 'complaining' and I'm not asking for a ban. I'm trying to look ahead, at a possible scenario, and suggesting something which could mitigate risk.
The exact opposite of 'ban mania' and complaining.
I appreciate that you're framing the suggestion of more flexible tribal hate as a future-looking pressure valve, not a desperate current need. I'm not entirely convinced it would be easy to walk that thin line between "playable" and "deck killer", but I'm not convinced it's impossible either. There's definitely a challenge to properly costing a new Curse of Death's Hold.
At two mana it's almost an "I win" card on the play versus some tribal (at least Elves and Goblins, off the top of my head). At three mana it might be too slow. Although, in either case I'm not sure it'd even find sideboard play unless we reach a weird point in time where tribal decks are dominant. Might be safe on that grounds (in Modern at least) on that basis alone.
Certainly a risk. Damping Sphere and Alpine Moon have yet to crush any deck into oblivion though.
True, although they're more situational cards used for fighting decks already used to answering hate (Tron, Storm, KCI). Not sure if that should come into consideration or not. Another minor difference -- they're "reversible" hate. If an opponent answers the card, your opponent is essentially unharmed. With something like Engineered Plague you're likely to have killed a few creatures; potential for card advantage there, unlike with Sphere or Moon.
A lot of things to consider, although I suppose the lesson from recent hate cards is that (absent a critical mass) they're more likely to shift match-ups a few percentage points than warp the entire meta.
I just want to note again for the record, I'm not 'complaining' and I'm not asking for a ban. I'm trying to look ahead, at a possible scenario, and suggesting something which could mitigate risk.
The exact opposite of 'ban mania' and complaining.
I appreciate that you're framing the suggestion of more flexible tribal hate as a future-looking pressure valve, not a desperate current need. I'm not entirely convinced it would be easy to walk that thin line between "playable" and "deck killer", but I'm not convinced it's impossible either. There's definitely a challenge to properly costing a new Curse of Death's Hold.
At two mana it's almost an "I win" card on the play versus some tribal (at least Elves and Goblins, off the top of my head). At three mana it might be too slow. Although, in either case I'm not sure it'd even find sideboard play unless we reach a weird point in time where tribal decks are dominant. Might be safe on that grounds (in Modern at least) on that basis alone.
Maybe flavor of the week is more accurate. The deck was in a serious lull in the early-mid portion of this month before Bugler was printed and caught on. I had a streak of 21 leagues without seeing the deck once. Just Modern doing its cyclical thing, nothing to see here.
I saw Humans a little more often, but their shares in competitive leagues had fallen off a cliff for several weeks, probably in response to the heavy Ux Control and Mardu presence. Those decks have in turn retreated a bit online and looks like they were also underrepresented at the SCG Open. Surprise! Humans then does well. That's exactly what you'd expect out of a very tempo-y deck (or aggro control, if you prefer).
Far too many Chicken Littles as of late -- the meta is absolutely fluctuating as shares of archetypes shift. That's exactly what we should want for a healthy format. Humans is not an unconquerable beast; if it starts to become dominant, there will likely be a corresponding rise in its natural predators.
Considering buying into either UG or GB Infect as my second deck. Anyone that streams the deck at a high level? Looking to get a feel for match-ups and play patterns.
I still love the play patterns of the deck but I'd say the meta has definitely shifted, leaving Scaled Affinity in a worse position. I'm up to 244 matches on MTGO and down to a 62% overall win rate. Not bad by any means, but for those following along that's a drop from 68.5% in about half the matches. Which means my record has been significantly worse than both those numbers over the last sample size.
Good matchups (>62%): Hollow One, Humans, Elves, Grixis DS, Titanshift, Burn (a lot of pilot error though), Mardu (barely)
Okay matchups (~50%): KCI, Jeskai (barely), Tron (worse depending on version)
Bad matchups (<50%): UW Control, UR Control
By the numbers, that looks like we have a great deck (and we do!). But Hollow One and Humans are way, way down in the meta and Ux Control is growing. The surprise element has also diminished, as a lot of opponents initially underestimated the explosiveness of the deck and missed the right times to interact. With more awareness, I'm seeing more respect; that makes it harder to win out of nowhere with a sandbagged Ravager.
I still plan to mix in Scaled Affinity, but I'm also looking for a secondary anti-meta deck in the meantime. It would be great to turn the tables on Control the same way we had been on Hollow One & Humans.
Ux seems to be picking up steam on MTGO -- mostly UW with UR and Jeskai sprinkled in. What decks in the current meta are giving UW Control pilots the hardest time? Trying to decide whether it's a "can't beat them, join them" moment or I want to head 180 degrees the other direction.
As an outsider poking around buying an alternative deck (to my beloved Scaled Affinity), how does dredge fare against Ux Control, Bx Midrange, KCI and Tron? The meta I'm encountering on MTGO seems to be a combination of those decks plus a few creature decks like Bridge Below, Hollow One, and Spirits.
A couple notes since I've continued to grind this deck:
Animation Module is solid in the grindy match-ups. I've swapped in 1 MB for my 2nd Leap to avoid drawing multiples since they're good against the same opponents.
Generally, going B isn't worth it because it means sacrificing your value colorless lands (Inkmoth, Citadel, etc.) which are critical to quick wins. You could potentially cut the 2x Blinkmoth and then swap in 8 dual G/B lands for G sources, but that only gets you to 10 B sources. Opal helps; still inconsistency though. One reason to like Oona's Blackguard -- it seems good against grindy decks.
For those playing on MTGO, there are A LOT of grindy decks in the meta as of the last three days. UR, UW, Jeskai, Mardu...bah. Those matches aren't awful, but they're not the creature decks I'd been destroying. 6/26 matches against great MUs, 10/26 against not so great, 2 mirror matches, and more in the uncertain or in between category.
Not sure if that means it's time to buy new Karn/Nissa for the MB as a hedge against the grind? Or maybe time to jam something like (ugh) Scapeshift for a few days until aggro returns.
Re: 4% difference
I added more Modern events to the sample and the difference is now 2%. I'm sure if I add more it will close even further. No matter how one spins it, those MWP are identical.
A little passive aggressive for a valid critique of your original analysis, no? Regardless, if increasing the n for both samples means the delta shrinks that increases the likelihood that they're not substantially different. Your statistical work yet again is appreciated.
I finished a little more aggregation for the top 10 players in the world, comparing their 2017-2018 performance in Standard and Modern. I thought this would be more productive than talking hypothetically about whether or not Modern is more high variance and/or lower skill than Standard. The net Standard MWP for this group of players is 63%. The net Modern MWP for this group of players is 67%. There is no significant difference in those samples and I believe most of the 4% points difference is in the relatively greater number of Standard events relative to Modern events. By all accounts, their MWP in both formats is identical.
Great work on this, especially considering no one else wants to run the numbers (myself included). I understand using confidence bounds to make sure we're only considering statistically relevant results, but it seems a bit off to assume that a 4% difference means they're essentially the same. Being a pedant, your results would show we can't say with confidence that the formats have different MWP%; that doesn't mean we can confidently say they're the same.
Put another way, how large would the difference in MWP have to be to confidently say they're significantly different? Because I have a feeling, given the sample size, that could be a number approaching a 10% difference between formats or more. Which is an astronomical value given the floor for pros in a format is essentially a 50% MWP.
TLDR: Pedantic question -- if we can't comfortably say a 4% difference in MWP is relevant using the available data, that could mean we're working from too small a sample size to reach significantly granular conclusions?
Definitely agree that the mainboard is very tight as is. There are maybe 3-4 slots I'd consider swapping around -- the 4th Opal, the 3rd Throne/2nd Leap, the 2nd Blinkmoth, maybe the 2nd Sparring Construct. You definitely don't want to cut a green source from the manabase, but maybe a 3rd Welding Jar for Blinkmoth helps enable Opal early more regularly so you don't miss the land? I'd say that and Animation Module/Nissa/Karn in the sideboard are changes I'm considering.
Wait to see how the meta adjusts. Last month we had gathered the torches for KCI, last week it was Humans, and now it's Vengevine. Stop looking for decks to crucify because you're unhappy. Yes, I mean you random thread poster. Stop veering from one poorly formed ban argument to another. The fact that decks are cycling IS A FEATURE OF A HEALTHY META. You're welcome to dislike whatever is Tier 1 at any given moment, but the solution 9 out 10 times IS NOT A BANNING.
I tried to point this out to @gkourou prior, but he seems convinced by Emma's two anecdotes (and one doesn't even seem particularly egregious). Someone, Emma or otherwise, would need to show that KCI is causing this issue with some kind of regularity. I don't believe WoTC has shared where the line is drawn with previous bans (e.g. once a 15 round tournament) but one person saying "hey this took us deep into turns once" isn't meaningful on its own.
Side note -- taken by itself, I don't think a deck taking a 5 minute turn when attempting to "go off" is grounds for further action. Over the course of several turns, many players will drag out their decisions on non-combo decks to the point they're eating a similar amount of clock. A bit preferential to say that's fine but using your time in a single turn isn't. If you're worried about time equity, the only solution is a chess/MTGO-style clock.
That goes for any statement "proven" on scant anecdotes, not just this one.
True, although they're more situational cards used for fighting decks already used to answering hate (Tron, Storm, KCI). Not sure if that should come into consideration or not. Another minor difference -- they're "reversible" hate. If an opponent answers the card, your opponent is essentially unharmed. With something like Engineered Plague you're likely to have killed a few creatures; potential for card advantage there, unlike with Sphere or Moon.
A lot of things to consider, although I suppose the lesson from recent hate cards is that (absent a critical mass) they're more likely to shift match-ups a few percentage points than warp the entire meta.
I appreciate that you're framing the suggestion of more flexible tribal hate as a future-looking pressure valve, not a desperate current need. I'm not entirely convinced it would be easy to walk that thin line between "playable" and "deck killer", but I'm not convinced it's impossible either. There's definitely a challenge to properly costing a new Curse of Death's Hold.
At two mana it's almost an "I win" card on the play versus some tribal (at least Elves and Goblins, off the top of my head). At three mana it might be too slow. Although, in either case I'm not sure it'd even find sideboard play unless we reach a weird point in time where tribal decks are dominant. Might be safe on that grounds (in Modern at least) on that basis alone.
I saw Humans a little more often, but their shares in competitive leagues had fallen off a cliff for several weeks, probably in response to the heavy Ux Control and Mardu presence. Those decks have in turn retreated a bit online and looks like they were also underrepresented at the SCG Open. Surprise! Humans then does well. That's exactly what you'd expect out of a very tempo-y deck (or aggro control, if you prefer).
Far too many Chicken Littles as of late -- the meta is absolutely fluctuating as shares of archetypes shift. That's exactly what we should want for a healthy format. Humans is not an unconquerable beast; if it starts to become dominant, there will likely be a corresponding rise in its natural predators.
Burn vs Humans
G Tron vs Jund
Good matchups (>62%): Hollow One, Humans, Elves, Grixis DS, Titanshift, Burn (a lot of pilot error though), Mardu (barely)
Okay matchups (~50%): KCI, Jeskai (barely), Tron (worse depending on version)
Bad matchups (<50%): UW Control, UR Control
By the numbers, that looks like we have a great deck (and we do!). But Hollow One and Humans are way, way down in the meta and Ux Control is growing. The surprise element has also diminished, as a lot of opponents initially underestimated the explosiveness of the deck and missed the right times to interact. With more awareness, I'm seeing more respect; that makes it harder to win out of nowhere with a sandbagged Ravager.
I still plan to mix in Scaled Affinity, but I'm also looking for a secondary anti-meta deck in the meantime. It would be great to turn the tables on Control the same way we had been on Hollow One & Humans.
A little passive aggressive for a valid critique of your original analysis, no? Regardless, if increasing the n for both samples means the delta shrinks that increases the likelihood that they're not substantially different. Your statistical work yet again is appreciated.
Great work on this, especially considering no one else wants to run the numbers (myself included). I understand using confidence bounds to make sure we're only considering statistically relevant results, but it seems a bit off to assume that a 4% difference means they're essentially the same. Being a pedant, your results would show we can't say with confidence that the formats have different MWP%; that doesn't mean we can confidently say they're the same.
Put another way, how large would the difference in MWP have to be to confidently say they're significantly different? Because I have a feeling, given the sample size, that could be a number approaching a 10% difference between formats or more. Which is an astronomical value given the floor for pros in a format is essentially a 50% MWP.
TLDR: Pedantic question -- if we can't comfortably say a 4% difference in MWP is relevant using the available data, that could mean we're working from too small a sample size to reach significantly granular conclusions?
For those who don't want to do the math from my post a couple above (but mostly just to share because it's really cool to see my list posted), it's about 4 down here: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/competitive-modern-constructed-league-2018-07-10. Should make its way to MTGgoldfish later in the day.