MTG Salvation

I'm pretty sure asking the question "are you targeting me, or targeting yourself" for Esper Charm is 'angle shooting', and highly questionable itself if not against the rules. There is almost no case where a player would target themselves with esper charm unless they misunderstand the draw affect to be targeting as well - one might reasonably infer as much from the question.

If a player did that and then called a judge, that player should be given a misconduct warning imo. Angle shooting is not cool.

The new organization is great and I like having both the direct measure as the primary sort metric, and then the weighted measure as the secondary sort metric. This gives the direct frequency of occurrence at the top of events first, and then the option of seeing it weighted by placement as well. Between both you get more information than just the first, so the second is welcome imo.

Great project, thanks for the work.

If data says the top tier is just two decks, then the top tier is just two decks. No need to apologize or manipulate anything with a tier 1.5. The top tier isn't a "tier 0" situation because the top tier decks don't make up a large enough part of the meta. I would just have your tier 1.5 labeled as tier 2 since that seems to be what the data says.

To bring it back a bit more positive, I would like to note that WotC has mentioned the importance of iterating models to improve upon them (ex: patches in video games). This necessarily means making mistakes in order to gather data on the outcome of a specific policy/framework. Each time they make a change, in part due to their willingness to revert negative changes, they are finding ways to improve the game. The improvements require experimentation with negative outcomes in order to discover the changes with positive outcomes.

We're blundering from change to change looking for the best way for MTG to function. Seems kinda blundering when you're in it, but overall the game-play certainly doesn't seem (to me) to be getting worse. If anything, the game-play is as strong or stronger than it has ever been.

Quote from idSurge »

Thats why, I would think, the Draft portion is there. Does anyone care? I dont know, I dont, but I assume people like to Draft who would watch it?

Good point. We can only hope that the draft portion of the event will be enough promotion to keep the ban-hounds at bay.

Quote from Skitzafreak »

I'm just gonna throw this out there. The Modern PT is a great way to shake up the format in ways the don't effect the community at large. For example: "For the Modern PT, Stoneforge Mystic will be legal to use in deck creation." or they could ban something for the tournament instead.

I believe said tournament-only ban or unban would shake up the format enough to get people to want to watch without making a portion of the playerbase cry about something being banned or unbanned. And if after the PT they decide the change is a good one, then they make it official.

Remember that the goal of a 'shake-up ban' is to allow more room for standard cards to enter the format. Therefore, "shake-up unbans" are incoherent as they do not open space for standard-level cards, but rather tend to increase the bar for a card to enter the format.

A 'shake-up unban' should have the opposite effect to a 'shake-up ban', and therefore be undesirable to WotC.

Quote from BlueTronFTW »

The problem with SFM is not that the card itself is broken. The problem is that it is only really good against other fair decks. Its inclusion would easily lead to a reduced diversity of fair decks, and the meta would descend to "SFM fair decks vs unfair decks vs "fair" decks."

Sure, Affinity, Storm and Dredge seem more degenerate than SFM decks, and I don't disagree. The problem is SFM pushes out more fair interactive decks than linear ones. FFS, did you all buy fifty copies and are pushing for a spike? What is the fascination with this one card being reintroduced into a format with a ton of diversity?

Likely players who have the card and want to play it? No need to assume ill motives on this one. Lots of cards are better against fair decks than unfair ones, but that is no reason to have a card on the banned list.

What is your fascination with keeping it banned? Why do you care so much if a group of players that like a card on the banlist are advocating for its return? Isn't it reasonable for the people who have the card rotting in their binder to advocate for its return when opponents regularly pack even more powerful cards? I mean I'm just sitting over here with my SFM in my binder, and you're casting Death's Shadow, Karn Liberated and reanimating multiple Prized Amalgams before I can even get a batterskull into play! Not to mention that against the top decks you'll run into Thoughtseize, Kolaghan's Command, Fatal Push, Lightning bolt, etc.

Once you put some thought into how it's real lines of play interact with other decks (or you know, test the card) it's hard to see it as worthy of a ban. Wanting SFM unbanned is simply consistent with my other views - such as no cards presently need to be banned.

Quote from Billiondegree »

Modern pro tour means more shake-up bans.

Bye Bye death's shadow. Bye Bye Eldrazi Temple. Maybe even Mox Opal will go

Yep, no PT is worth ruining the format like that. Everyone should consider going to twitter to pressure WotC into not making moves like that. Defend modern from the wolves!

Well that really makes unbans less likely. Part of the reason to modern to be discontinued from the pro tour was that newer cards have a hard time seeing wide play in the format (and so get little camera time during the promotional event). Any unbans would exasperate this, and it seems certain that his issue was discussed at length before the move was made.

I love watching coverage, but hate how modern is treated when a PT format. Double edged sword we have here.

Super predictable after all the bans in the spring - I think in May I had already posted that I anticipated MTGO data to disappear entirely. Cutting it in half isn't quite the same, but I was on the right track. Note that WotC repeatedly stated that decks were not winning as much as their popularity would indicate during the ban-heavy spring. Yet the decks continued to become more and more popular despite their win rate being overestimated.

WotC must realize that League data is very low value for predicting Tournament results since they are different event structures. Since League data is very visible, it gives the erroneous impression to the playerbase that the frequency of finishes they post there has a correlation with win rate. It creates a cycle of increased play ----> increased success ----> increased play that isn't really directly tied to the deck's ability to win tournaments. With the change limiting how many times the same cards can appear each day in lists, it sends a clear signal that the data should not be used as a primary source for analysis of the meta - a state of affairs which has always been true of leagues.

Note that the League / Tournament difference I'm referring to is that Leagues are not paired like a Tournament where players are paired against identical records. Instead, leagues are paired 'as available'.

The most important data for the metagame has always been, and will continue to be GP/Open/Classic data. Nothing about that has changed.

Oh no, it'll stop diversifying a 2 of in most jund decks? It's 4 drops is diversified because none them are great, just needed.

No one's diversifying goyfs or Bob's, or other major creatures in most decks.

Junds diversification comes from its removals of choice and the numbers, along with its sideboard. You have to look at jund less as a 60 card deck and more like a 75, much more so than just about any deck in the format.

Keeping bbe banned because a 2 of in one deck will be less diverse is asanine, the deck is bad now and needs a boost. If bbe still makes the deck bad, that's that and there's nothing more that should be done with jund except hope it gets good again from new sets. It also means one less deck on the banned list and proving it wasn't a threat to the formats health.

You're a frustrating poster, you want more things banned and less things unbanned, all of your opinions set the format back, in my opinion

I don't know if I'd do an emergency ban unless we have another Eldrazi Winter, but they could easily re-ban BBE if in some fantasy scenario Jund topped every tournament with 6 of the 8 copies in multiple tournaments, while Tron players screamed in horror, or Scapeshift players tore their Valakut lands in anger, or as Grixis players look in disgust that they had to spend 5 mana to cast Snapcaster into K-Command---all while the format falls into utter chaos as a 3/2 hasty for 4 mana ravages the format.

WOTC unbanned Troll, they gave it a fair shot; we even laughed and called it a joke when it happened--they printed Amalgam, Neonate, and Reunion a few months later, and they banned it. They gave it a chance, now we all know.

I'd rather know if BBE and SFM are too powerful or not, if it is, arguments are laid down to rest, afterall, no one will be clamoring for a Troll unban anytime soon.

Quote from BlueTronFTW »

On the unban matter:

I am not vehemently opposed to any of the main unbans being discussed. I do think it is a bit silly to look at a healthy diverse meta and say "hey everything's been going great being left alone to self-regulate, so let's mess with it!" My fear is that any unban would simply reduce the diversity of fair decks to "either play BBE Jund or do something crazier." And we do have a number of fair deck options in the format with Death Shadow Jund (no delve creatures remember), Abzan midrange, UW Control, and hatebears, plus lower tier options like Jund midrange and Jeskai control. I don't think it is possible for every guild/shard color combo to be equally viable at the same time, and hence I constantly ask why people seem to think certain ones are entitled to exist as tier 1 options at any given point. I double down when the same midrange or fair deck proponents call for bans on any deck that would be a bad matchup, as if that deck not only has a right to exist competitively but also without any bad deck matchups.

I would argue that because we have a healthy and diverse meta, it is the best time to unban cards. It's in this type of metagame where you want to experiment with unbanning cards. Does it break the metagame? Whoops. Ban it again and the metagame should return to the state it was at before. Doesn't break the metagame? Cool. Modern now has a new tool to work with and maybe a few new decks spring up.

That's how I see it anyway

Quote from Skitzafreak »

Quote from Drekavac »

Hate to burst everyone's bubble here but getting both SFM and BBE in the same announcement is all but impossible.

On the other hand there is a worse scenario, one in which you get exactly what you want and it doesn't matter anyway (Thopter Foundry comes to mind).

I wouldn't call that a worse case scenario. I am perfectly fine with cards coming off the banned list and it not breaking Modern in half.

Exactly. If cards can come off the banned list and it not matter, that is far from a worse scenario. Even something like the grave troll case which definitely DID have a negative impact on modern showed wizards willing to unban dangerous cards and evaluate/act on them based on the results.

With the meta this healthy and self-regulating, now is the time to try reintroducing cards, not during a problem meta as a shot in the dark band-aid attempt. At least we know that if they were to unban SFM/BBE and they wreck havoc, they could quickly revert to a healthy meta with a re-ban (which they've already shown a willingness to do w/ GGT). And even though the financial side of things really shouldn't play a large factor in banlist management, the fallout from re-banning SFM or BBE would be significantly less than something like Jace.

Quote from Drekavac »

Hate to burst everyone's bubble here but getting both SFM and BBE in the same announcement is all but impossible.

On the other hand there is a worse scenario, one in which you get exactly what you want and it doesn't matter anyway (Thopter Foundry comes to mind).

I wouldn't call that a worse case scenario. I am perfectly fine with cards coming off the banned list and it not breaking Modern in half.

Quote from wpgstevo »

I also find it strange that the tension between Stoneforge Mystic and DnT's build-around Leonin Arbiter is being ignored. There is a non-trivial chance SFM isn't good enough to see play in DnT because of the Leonin arbiter issue, and modern nexus revealed that the only thing it did for abzan was improve the burn matchup at a slight cost to almost every other matchup. UW control then is the most likely place for the card, which sounds like a positive thing to me. I'm biased for sure, but does UW control featuring SFM sound like it's going to need to be banned?

As I said in the announcement poll and have said now since I tested it about 6 months ago: there is a non-trivial chance that Stoneforge Mystic isn't good enough to see wide play. By that, I mean that SFM is most likely to find a home in a tier 2-3 deck at best. It just doesn't do enough without Umezawa's Jitte to be a real house.

My feeling is that it's a really strong card that would see play in Modern, but you never really know about unbans though until the community at large has their way with it. The wisdom of the crowd will prove it out one way or another. I don't think any individual can solve such a complex puzzle in their head or even through testing.

SFM vs Arbiter in the main deck of D&T would be a meta call IMHO. Arbiter can be nice, but it's a Grizzly Bears in a lot of situations. Arbiter could still be available in the side, swap for SFM in its best value matchups, or vice versa. I have a lot of the pieces for D&T but haven't finished it. I'd definitely finish a SFM version if it was unbanned, already have my playset ready to go...

DnT would not be the home for Stoneforge, by the by. Not in its current form, at least.

The deck is literally built around using Leonin Arbiter to turn Ghost Quarter into Strip Mine, and as it turns out, Leonin Arbiter is a symmetrical effect. A 2 drop that searches up Batterskull and puts it into play next turn is a lot better than a 4 drop that searches up Batterskull and can put it into play next turn.

That's not to say that the deck couldn't adjust - it could run Aven Mindcensor instead of Leonin Arbiter, for example. But assuming that Stoneforge Mystic would be a slam-dunk in Death and Taxes does kind of ignore the fact that the deck is almost entirely built around making it hard for both players to search their libraries.

A friendly paypal bet on our honour? I doubt anyone's getting banned for that.

Quote from The Ceaseless Hunger »

Quote from ktkenshinx »

Quote from The Ceaseless Hunger »

Quote from ktkenshinx »

You will be giving people what they want if you put work into a good tiering system; I don't really understand your aversion to it.

I have such an aversion to tiers that I spent a lot of my free time creating a big spreadsheet full of them...

There's no need to be sarcastic. I was just replying to your direct quote in which you said you didn't care much about creating a tiering system.

I'll make you a deal - stop reinterpreting what I say, and I'll stop being sarcastic. My words can stand on their own. And I already have a tiering system, in fact a very good one IMHO.

Just for reference, what is your current tiering system and how are tiers determined? I'm really not trying to be rude here and I don't want you to feel so defensive whenever I comment on that system. As someone who did this for years, implemented it on this site as a mod, did all the Nexus updates, and still cares about Modern tiering, I am contributing to help ensure the community gets the best possible product.

EDIT: To be clear, I know the tier % cutoffs from the sheet. I'm wondering what system resulted in their selection or calculation. For instance, why 4% and not 4.25% or 3.75%? How does that % change from month to month and what factors change it?