2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Temporary 4/24/17 banlist discussion thread
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    I'm alarmed, but not particularly surprised, that most of the conversation focuses on so much rehashed speculation and not new information. In addition to the B&R update content, Forsythe published a few relevant Tweets in the past few days. Modern-related gems include:

    https://twitter.com/mtgaaron/status/856588517887008769
    "The pre-PT B&R announcement was instituted mostly for Modern Pro Tours, where we expected changes there to outweigh impact of new sets."

    https://twitter.com/mtgaaron/status/856590909349089281
    "The catalyst for B&R changes to ANY format is player feedback (then we go to data, design theory, & testing). So thank you for all feedback!"

    https://twitter.com/mtgaaron/status/856594683849433090
    "Gitaxian Probe isn't just a 0-mana draw. It creates an information imbalance that crushes certain strategies. Wraith/Bauble aren't that."

    https://twitter.com/mtgaaron/status/856599877496692736
    "There is no symbolism here. The impact of banning cards, especially repeatedly, is real and costly."

    https://twitter.com/mtgaaron/status/856705049203884032
    (in reference to the new B&R frequency) "We're reassessing that as well."

    So much to discuss here! And so much better to speculate about actual statements from the R&D man himself, rather than speculate on the same old tired speculations we've been speculating on for years. I believe some users mentioned these quotes, but the conversation would really be elevated if more people stayed in dialogue with interesting statements like these and the actual content of the B&R update.


    People probably are harder on R&D, here, than they should be.

    That being said, I still believe they have no real clue on what they are doing. Missing something as obvious as the Cat combo really shows me that they mostly just take shots in the dark, and hope they didnt miss anything.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary 4/24/17 banlist discussion thread
    Quote from Sabertooth »
    ok, so you should babn all the rituals, and all the mana dorks, cause they can power up blood moon and chalice faster than normal. Look at rg ponza. Turn 1 utopia sprawl, turn 2 blood moon, or, on the same deck, you can change the utopia with birds of paradise, or arbor elf

    Or in storm, turn 2 ritual into blood moon

    This kind of thinking is just so empty of real analysis...


    Can you respond to Mana dorks, sprawl, and other ramp spells? The easy answer is, yes. You cannot respond to SSG in any meaningful way.

    This kind of response is just so empty of critical thinking.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary 4/24/17 banlist discussion thread
    Quote from Kovo »
    Yea, thats fair. SSG in particular, though, is a problem. I know Ad Nauseum needs it to win, but chalice on 1 turn 1 is essentially a pre-turn 4 kill more 99% of the decks in the format. I play Blood Moon and even I think Blood Moon cast ahead of its intended curve is a little too oppressive. SSG allows for these degenerate plays. So, although there is no oppressive deck right now running SSG, I wonder if it needs to leave simply from the stand point that it allows for too many non-games with prison decks, as well as tron, and skred.

    I dont think Im gung-ho about banning it, but it must be at least on a watch list. Fast mana is always a problem. Tron lands have a similar effect. WOTC never intended for turn-4 Ulamogs (especially ones that stick past the end step).


    I think that is both the strongest, and incidentally the weakest argument for SSG banning, which isn't a knock on you at all. I 100% agree that cheating out chalice and blood moon pre-turn 3 is far and away the most degenerate thing SSG does. My problem/question is at what clip are A.) people playing cheat out chalice/BM decks, B.) of the people playing those decks, what percentage of their starting hands enable them to cheat out and early chalice/BM, and C.) are they then winning the games in which they are cheating out early hosers or just slowing their demise, as the rest of their deck is by and large weaker?

    I definitely don't know those numbers, but from a look at top 8's, gp coverage and the like, it certainly doesn't look to be oppressive or statistically significant percentages. Then again, we don't get full data sets or GP attendance decks from WOTC, but if cheating out BM/Chalice was both that easy and that much of a hoser, I believe a significantly larger amount of people would be playing those decks. All that said, I still agree that SSG should continue to be watched (saying as an ad naus. player), but as of right now, the cost of banning it outweighs the reward.


    Yea, I hear you. That's why I cant commit to really calling for a ban. But Tron, which is Tier 1, does have colorless variants that run chalice MB, and some variants also run SSG to get the chalice rolling early on.

    But yea, that is not strong enough to get a ban. I just dislike the damn Ape. And this comes from a guy who plays Mandrills and Ape Creator. Frown
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary 4/24/17 banlist discussion thread
    Yea, thats fair. SSG in particular, though, is a problem. I know Ad Nauseum needs it to win, but chalice on 1 turn 1 is essentially a pre-turn 4 kill more 99% of the decks in the format. I play Blood Moon and even I think Blood Moon cast ahead of its intended curve is a little too oppressive. SSG allows for these degenerate plays. So, although there is no oppressive deck right now running SSG, I wonder if it needs to leave simply from the stand point that it allows for too many non-games with prison decks, as well as tron, and skred.

    I dont think Im gung-ho about banning it, but it must be at least on a watch list. Fast mana is always a problem. Tron lands have a similar effect. WOTC never intended for turn-4 Ulamogs (especially ones that stick past the end step).
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary 4/24/17 banlist discussion thread
    Lets talk about real problems: SSG and EB.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary 4/24/17 banlist discussion thread
    Quote from Jayman21 »
    Quote from Kovo »
    Also, they dont see your money for the most part if you play Modern.


    Someone who actually understands that just having a sucessful business means that they just have money to toss around. Making a testing team for modern would be exspensive and they can still mess up like how they missed Felidar Guardian in standard. Modern does not sell new product well.


    Yes, which is why I also mentioned how much it would cost to make a team like that. It would make some players happier, but no net benefit to the company, financially. CFOs wont accept that.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary 4/24/17 banlist discussion thread
    Also, they dont see your money for the most part if you play Modern.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary 4/24/17 banlist discussion thread
    Hiring a team of 4-8 people would cost about half a million dollars a year counting taxes, perks, etc...
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary 4/24/17 banlist discussion thread
    "colour imbalance, archtype imbalance" | You take the "imbalances" here and conclude the format is unhealthy. I guess until we define what healthy actually means, we are both wrong and right.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary 4/24/17 banlist discussion thread
    Quote from xxhellfirexx3 »
    Quote from Kovo »
    Quote from xxhellfirexx3 »
    Quote from Trazaeth »
    Yep time to hang it up. Been fun.
    exactly what I said a couple Months ago. It was obvious then. But now it's super obvious they don't care about blue and white. They could have easily taken action and Probably been fine. But they are too busy with standard. Modern is going the way of the dodo bird, it may take 10 years but mark my words it will be the next legacy. These eternal formats just aren't a big priority. And that's not something I want to invest several grand into.


    Can I have your cards?

    But seriously, I dont understand how people can act so entitled. The format is fine. Its working. People are having fun. I understand people like you are grumpy, but dont make it seem like you're quitting because the format sucks.
    actually the format isn't fine in a couple ways colour balance, archtype balance. wizards is not doing anything about it because standard is the priority (they literally just said this) . But continue to look at the game with rose tinted glasses. I've been SELLING my cards, as if I'd give them away....

    There's nothing entitled about wanting a better balanced game. If anything your the one who is coming off as entitled and arrogant. Then again coming from you it doesn't suprise me.


    Im arrogant for saying the format is just fine, and we should just enjoy it for what it is? Ok! Smile

    Color balance. Again, nothing in the rules or promises says colors must be balanced in any format. MMORPGs cant even balance different player classes, and they can hotfix their games anytime they want. You think a card game that designs years ahead, can find balance in all colors in all formats?

    Please.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary 4/24/17 banlist discussion thread
    Quote from Varyag »


    Why are you replying to messages you don't read? Subpar is not the same as unplayable. Admittedly, combo and control are not on an equal footing - combo being decidedly better positioned.


    I read everything. You say subpar, but you basically mean unplayable. Because for many here, if its subpar, or not Tier 1, it is unplayable. I enjoy reading intent more than what you put on the screen.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary 4/24/17 banlist discussion thread
    Quote from Varyag »
    Quote from Kovo »
    Quote from jwf239 »
    Quote from Kovo »
    There are objective ways to determine if Modern is healthy. The fact that your archetype is not 10%+ of the meta does not make it objectively *****ty.


    What are the objective measures you are using? And is the causality you are attributing to those measures valid? Crime raises in the summer but that doesn't mean heat makes people commit crimes. There are a lot of things going on and I would be cautious to say the format is in a good spot because of some x and y. Even if those are true and valid, is that reason to not demand better?


    The format has healthy attendance numbers overall, does not have an overly oppressive deck present (though DS is on the watch list), and most tier 1-2 have a good amount of decks present. Tier 3 is also pretty plentiful.

    The fact that deck X is not playable, means nothing overall. If Burn, a mainstay of Modern, becomes unplayable tomorrow, it does not mean Modern is now unhealthy.


    This is not deck X being unplayable, this is 2/3 ways of playing the game that are, all things considered, subpar.


    So Combo AND Control are not playable in Modern? Really? lol. Ok.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary 4/24/17 banlist discussion thread
    Quote from wpgstevo »
    Quote from Kovo »
    There is no rule that says all archetypes need to be represented equally for the format to be healthy. In fact, history shows the opposite is usually better so long as one particular deck does not become too oppressive.
    I find this claim interesting and am interested in hearing more on the topic. What historical evidence do you draw on to come to the conclusion that "the opposite [of the idea that "all archetypes need to be represented equally for the format to be healthy"] is usually better so long as one particular deck does not become too oppressive"?


    Easy, everyone here agrees that at some point in time, the format seemed healthy to them. Aggro has almost consistently been 45%+ of the meta since 2011. So we never had true 50/50/50 balance. Yet people seem to be complaining now (mostly Twin players), about how the format is so unhealthy, toxic, and unbalanced.

    Control has almost always been sub 26% of the meta, save for one year (and Twin did not contribute to that anomaly).

    Interestingly, Control ticked-up 5% in 2016.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary 4/24/17 banlist discussion thread
    Quote from jwf239 »
    Quote from Kovo »
    There are objective ways to determine if Modern is healthy. The fact that your archetype is not 10%+ of the meta does not make it objectively *****ty.


    What are the objective measures you are using? And is the causality you are attributing to those measures valid? Crime raises in the summer but that doesn't mean heat makes people commit crimes. There are a lot of things going on and I would be cautious to say the format is in a good spot because of some x and y. Even if those are true and valid, is that reason to not demand better?


    The format has healthy attendance numbers overall, does not have an overly oppressive deck present (though DS is on the watch list), and most tier 1-2 have a good amount of decks present. Tier 3 is also pretty plentiful.

    The fact that deck X is not playable, means nothing overall. If Burn, a mainstay of Modern, becomes unplayable tomorrow, it does not mean Modern is now unhealthy.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary 4/24/17 banlist discussion thread
    Quote from Varyag »
    Quote from Kovo »
    There are objective ways to determine if Modern is healthy. The fact that your archetype is not 10%+ of the meta does not make it objectively *****ty.


    But there is an archetype that's 10% of the current meta (2 DS decks combined), and more broadly aggro-midrange is overwhelmingly dominant in meta. Where you stand on those two entirely depends on what you perceive as healthy.

    MTGTop 8 - http://mtgtop8.com/format?f=MO
    Aggro - 57%
    Control - 19%
    Combo - 23%

    There is not even a semblance of balance in this.


    Why does it have to be 33% across the board? Who says that is balanced? Card availability is what determines a lot of these numbers. If the mechanic or card does not exist to boost the amount of Control decks (for example), then control will be hard to get up to 33%.

    There is no rule that says all archetypes need to be represented equally for the format to be healthy. In fact, history shows the opposite is usually better so long as one particular deck does not become too oppressive.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.