Modern is a bad format for professional compeition, but it's a really good format for getting people into seats at regular levels of competition. Seems to be the best distinction I've seen so far.
119/192 are linear, aggro or combo? So 62% of the field that you are calling a "goldfish format" fits into your very wide definition of goldfishing decks? I really don't understand how you can continue the hyperbolic 'sky is falling' rhetoric when your own statistics demonstrate that the perceived issue isn't an overwhelming part of the field.
Even if we accept the numbers you give with respect to goldfish decks, there is still about 40% of the field that is not goldfishing. This "goldfish format" rhetoric is tired and annoying. Sure, there are plenty of linear aggro decks. No doubt, the highly publicized perception that "goldfish" decks are the only viable decks has some effect on what the field is playing. Even with that narrative being pushed, about 40% of the field is playing something interactive - despite all the cries that you can't play interaction.
What a bunch of whiners. The format is fine, even if we could use a few more good answers in the format.
If over half the format is linear there's a huge problem. At 60% I don't even think there's a point to playing as more games will be decided by how well you draw your hate vs. how well you're playing. I'm not sure why that'd be considered fine when it comes to a game where the goal and growth of it has been based on interaction. What numbers does it have to be before something is wrong on that level? 70? 80? There's a reason pros rejoiced when Modern was removed as a PT format and I'm sure they're doubly happy considering what the format has moved to. Even "modern specialists" like Shaun Mclaren and Jacob Wilson have blasted the format for how poor it is compared to others.
Let's assume that we have perfect balance between Aggro, Combo, Control, and Midrange - you're looking at 50% balance between Linear and Non-linear. Well, this sort of even split will literally never happen, so what we're left with is something that is relatively close in a 60/40 split. This is truly not that bad.
Mclaren and Wilson dislike the format because you can't have ridiculously stellar EV here and they are clearly motivated in their opinions by the fact that they are pro players who literally make their livings based on how well they play magic. SHOCKING that players who want to make money from playing have criticisms for a format that they can't perfectly metagame and predict.
On Merfolk (and other linear decks) - you guys all really misunderstand how much interaction is involved in the combat step if you think it's easy for linear decks to avoid their opponents. Have you ever played the Big Zoo mirror? It's incredibly complex and HIGHLY interactive, just not in the limited 'Do I have a counterspell for the next spell' sense.
On Vintage - Yes, I watch the super league every week - here are the season 5 decklists and it's WAY varied - http://magic.wizards.com/en/MTGO/articles/archive/magic-online/vintage-super-league-season-5-decklists#FroehlichA - running things like Wasteland/Stripmine are an element of mana denial in the format that I wouldn't really consider 'prison'. But hey, this isn't the vintage discussion forum, I was only addressing how silly it is to in any way compare modern to vintage, and I think we can both agree with that.
It's not silly at all to rate the major constructed formats on level of interactivity and how swingy they are. Vintage, the format with the restricted list and truly busted cards is still more interactive and less swingy than most Modern matches now, and that's crazy. I'm not sure if you've ever played it or watched more than a match or two though, so it'd be silly to try to evaluate the format.
As for Modern having stellar EV in your words, well, yeah, that's the problem, it being less skill based and more luck dependent is a bad format, at least to people that typically play Magic and try to get better at it. Then again, not being good at it and seeing what happens could just be a person's goal.
As for your rating of what's interactive and not, nowhere would I say Big Zoo is not interactive, it's very much in the realm of Jund and Bant Eldrazi as pretty interactive whereas Merfolk would probably be less so.
119/192 are linear, aggro or combo? So 62% of the field that you are calling a "goldfish format" fits into your very wide definition of goldfishing decks? I really don't understand how you can continue the hyperbolic 'sky is falling' rhetoric when your own statistics demonstrate that the perceived issue isn't an overwhelming part of the field.
Even if we accept the numbers you give with respect to goldfish decks, there is still about 40% of the field that is not goldfishing. This "goldfish format" rhetoric is tired and annoying. Sure, there are plenty of linear aggro decks. No doubt, the highly publicized perception that "goldfish" decks are the only viable decks has some effect on what the field is playing. Even with that narrative being pushed, about 40% of the field is playing something interactive - despite all the cries that you can't play interaction.
What a bunch of whiners. The format is fine, even if we could use a few more good answers in the format.
If over half the format is linear there's a huge problem. At 60% I don't even think there's a point to playing as more games will be decided by how well you draw your hate vs. how well you're playing. I'm not sure why that'd be considered fine when it comes to a game where the goal and growth of it has been based on interaction. What numbers does it have to be before something is wrong on that level? 70? 80? There's a reason pros rejoiced when Modern was removed as a PT format and I'm sure they're doubly happy considering what the format has moved to. Even "modern specialists" like Shaun Mclaren and Jacob Wilson have blasted the format for how poor it is compared to others.
If people enjoy the excitement of seeing if they can kill fast or draw their hate then Modern's perfect. If you want a place where you can brew more solitaire decks then Modern's totally fine. But I'm not sure how you can pretend that 60% isn't too much of the format. For Bant Company's high numbers in standard no one's complained that it's too random, if anything, doing well requires much more skill and testing than before.
@gkouru: I'm not sure if you're just not reading or just not counting, but whatever you're writing seems like nonsense either way.
well i can understand it, i sure as hell don't want to wait for years to see better modern answers intoduced via standard and probably standard players don't want to play in a format with oppresive midrange/control answers so another format's needs are taken care off
but for reasons unknown to me wotc has stated that they do not want to introduce new modern cards by any other mean... can we change their minds? i don't know but imo it's pretty simple, we could just have the next Modern Masters release contain new modern legal answers at uncommon rarity and have the set as a whole be printed a bit more than MM15, after all to my knowledge demand was higher than supply for this product
otherwise kaladesh sounds promising since creatures proved too good for this standard perhaps they could print unusually good answers as well to balance standard while providing for modern at the same time
Because they don't make money on Modern, they make it on Standard. That's where they should concentrate sales and development instead of on a format that isn't going to generate near the revenue they need.
I really think that Modern's at a point where it's just unplayable if you want any semblance of interactivity beyond IoK and TS. It's become closer to a goldfishing format than even vintage is right now.
Then how do you explain the interactive Grixis Delver WITHOUT FORCE OF WILL winning a whole Grand Prix?
One whole deck winning! That doesn't change the overall meta percentages or outlook. Looking at the top 64's from all three GPs 119/192 decks were aggro, combo, or some type of linear deck. That's an insane percentage of the field that basically wants to ignore the opponent. Even the Jeskai Control decks are mostly 4 mana suspend Emrakul now.
well i can understand it, i sure as hell don't want to wait for years to see better modern answers intoduced via standard and probably standard players don't want to play in a format with oppresive midrange/control answers so another format's needs are taken care off
but for reasons unknown to me wotc has stated that they do not want to introduce new modern cards by any other mean... can we change their minds? i don't know but imo it's pretty simple, we could just have the next Modern Masters release contain new modern legal answers at uncommon rarity and have the set as a whole be printed a bit more than MM15, after all to my knowledge demand was higher than supply for this product
otherwise kaladesh sounds promising since creatures proved too good for this standard perhaps they could print unusually good answers as well to balance standard while providing for modern at the same time
Because they don't make money on Modern, they make it on Standard. That's where they should concentrate sales and development instead of on a format that isn't going to generate near the revenue they need.
I really think that Modern's at a point where it's just unplayable if you want any semblance of interactivity beyond IoK and TS. It's become closer to a goldfishing format than even vintage is right now.
Synopsis: Shaun has a problem with basically every strategy in Tier 1 and Tier 2 and suggests banning 24+ cards. Bolt is one of them. So is Thougthseize.
If you have a premium account, I encourage you to give feedback on this nonsensical argument. There are legitimate problems and fixes for Modern, and Shaun just misses all of them in an article that comes off as high grade fluff/clickbait. I wish pros and authors would talk seriously about real fixes and not just grind personal axes to their audiences, hiding behind the disguise of a "thought experiment."
I don't agree with everything Shaun said, but he's absolutely right that the format has a lot of issues and there aren't a lot of ways to solve them anymore. Look at all that's changed in Modern since its first PT in Philly and where we are now. It's the same systemic problems. Maybe the original Modern in the Community Cup was really the best version of the format.
He's not saying anything original in saying the format has issues. Almost everyone says that; it's the hottest thing to say about Modern and has been that way for years. I don't think players, let alone Wizards, cares that some pro author thinks the format has issues. Propose a real solution! There are a LOT of potentially effective and actionable options to explore, test, and debate. Banning 24+ cards is not one of those options.
I think that's his conclusion though, there are no more patches or fixes left are there? The cardpool is so heavily slanted toward a certain style of play it's going to be incredibly difficult to ever "fix it." What on the BR list is really going to change things now?
Synopsis: Shaun has a problem with basically every strategy in Tier 1 and Tier 2 and suggests banning 24+ cards. Bolt is one of them. So is Thougthseize.
If you have a premium account, I encourage you to give feedback on this nonsensical argument. There are legitimate problems and fixes for Modern, and Shaun just misses all of them in an article that comes off as high grade fluff/clickbait. I wish pros and authors would talk seriously about real fixes and not just grind personal axes to their audiences, hiding behind the disguise of a "thought experiment."
I don't agree with everything Shaun said, but he's absolutely right that the format has a lot of issues and there aren't a lot of ways to solve them anymore. Look at all that's changed in Modern since its first PT in Philly and where we are now. It's the same systemic problems. Maybe the original Modern in the Community Cup was really the best version of the format.
Worldbuilding: Dovin's profile mentions gremlins. Could we see Gremlins replace Goblins for this block?
Interesting fact: All of magic's Gremlins so far have been phyerxian. Is that a clue?
I hope not, especially after dealing with the Eldrazi I think they want some room to make something new. This plane is gorgeous, I'm going to want everything in foil.
I thought the story was fine, but holy cow is this plane magnificent. The pics on the plane page are breathtakingly awesome. A really nice departure from the more ragged, harsh worlds of the last few years.
Worldbuilding: It appears that we have elves and vedalken, and that all nonhuman races are somewhat mutated by the aether. It also sounded, at least to me, that the consulate isn't all that tyrannical or strict, at least at first glance. What could that mean?
I'm really excited now...
They seem to be a mix of Azorius and Izzet as a ruling entity. Excited for these new types of Elves.
I mean it's fine if you want to make a theme deck, but you should be explicit about it when people try to give feedback.
What does this mean?
You clearly care about the flavor of the deck as opposed to the power of it. Your statements about Leovold are much more about flavor than optimization.
Modern is a bad format for professional compeition, but it's a really good format for getting people into seats at regular levels of competition. Seems to be the best distinction I've seen so far.
It's not silly at all to rate the major constructed formats on level of interactivity and how swingy they are. Vintage, the format with the restricted list and truly busted cards is still more interactive and less swingy than most Modern matches now, and that's crazy. I'm not sure if you've ever played it or watched more than a match or two though, so it'd be silly to try to evaluate the format.
As for Modern having stellar EV in your words, well, yeah, that's the problem, it being less skill based and more luck dependent is a bad format, at least to people that typically play Magic and try to get better at it. Then again, not being good at it and seeing what happens could just be a person's goal.
As for your rating of what's interactive and not, nowhere would I say Big Zoo is not interactive, it's very much in the realm of Jund and Bant Eldrazi as pretty interactive whereas Merfolk would probably be less so.
If over half the format is linear there's a huge problem. At 60% I don't even think there's a point to playing as more games will be decided by how well you draw your hate vs. how well you're playing. I'm not sure why that'd be considered fine when it comes to a game where the goal and growth of it has been based on interaction. What numbers does it have to be before something is wrong on that level? 70? 80? There's a reason pros rejoiced when Modern was removed as a PT format and I'm sure they're doubly happy considering what the format has moved to. Even "modern specialists" like Shaun Mclaren and Jacob Wilson have blasted the format for how poor it is compared to others.
If people enjoy the excitement of seeing if they can kill fast or draw their hate then Modern's perfect. If you want a place where you can brew more solitaire decks then Modern's totally fine. But I'm not sure how you can pretend that 60% isn't too much of the format. For Bant Company's high numbers in standard no one's complained that it's too random, if anything, doing well requires much more skill and testing than before.
@gkouru: I'm not sure if you're just not reading or just not counting, but whatever you're writing seems like nonsense either way.
One whole deck winning! That doesn't change the overall meta percentages or outlook. Looking at the top 64's from all three GPs 119/192 decks were aggro, combo, or some type of linear deck. That's an insane percentage of the field that basically wants to ignore the opponent. Even the Jeskai Control decks are mostly 4 mana suspend Emrakul now.
Because they don't make money on Modern, they make it on Standard. That's where they should concentrate sales and development instead of on a format that isn't going to generate near the revenue they need.
I really think that Modern's at a point where it's just unplayable if you want any semblance of interactivity beyond IoK and TS. It's become closer to a goldfishing format than even vintage is right now.
I think that's his conclusion though, there are no more patches or fixes left are there? The cardpool is so heavily slanted toward a certain style of play it's going to be incredibly difficult to ever "fix it." What on the BR list is really going to change things now?
I don't agree with everything Shaun said, but he's absolutely right that the format has a lot of issues and there aren't a lot of ways to solve them anymore. Look at all that's changed in Modern since its first PT in Philly and where we are now. It's the same systemic problems. Maybe the original Modern in the Community Cup was really the best version of the format.
I hope not, especially after dealing with the Eldrazi I think they want some room to make something new. This plane is gorgeous, I'm going to want everything in foil.
They seem to be a mix of Azorius and Izzet as a ruling entity. Excited for these new types of Elves.
You clearly care about the flavor of the deck as opposed to the power of it. Your statements about Leovold are much more about flavor than optimization.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/the-rumor-mill/new-card-discussion/715932-emrakul-the-promised-end
It's an unusually unique effect.