MTG Salvation

I think it's a "fair" point that standard's Marvel + eldrazi was not intended. Instead, it was an unintentional consequence of another mistake: making standard rotations much faster than the playerbase was prepared for or desired. One might point to the cascade of mistakes originating even earlier when they decided that pushed threats were a good direction to go while they simultaneously made answers weaker, but they might not be directly related.

I think their present design philosophy has proven catastrophic, but it would seem that others disagree.

Quote from ashtonkutcher »

Quote from wpgstevo »

I'm unclear on why it's considered a "weird obsession" to advocate for the gameplay that one finds enjoyable.

Saying that "Weissman [is] a deck that isn't successful in ANY non-rotating format" in the same sentence as you acknowledge that miracles was too strong, is obviously contradictory. Miracles is certainly the most successful iteration/evolution of the deck archtype, so claiming the deck type doesn't exist in non-rotating formats is something I find confusing/incorrect (unless you're just saying that it doesn't exist since it's been banned).

Notably, I don't think I've ever claimed that the format is presently (or at all since eldrazi winter) unhealthy. What I'm advocating for is that black not be the only colour to receive pushed interactive cards. That is especially the case given it also receives many of the best creatures/planeswalkers. I guess that's unreasonable?

It's one thing to advocate for a style of gameplay being given a boost. It's another entirely to say it "should" be top-tier, or that cards like Cavern of Souls "should" not have been printed (wraithpk). It just signals a disconnect from reality IMO which is why I find it so strange.

Did I ever say that you specifically claimed the format was unhealthy? Or that it was unreasonable to ask for black to receive less-powerful cards? I'm all for constructive discussion, but please don't put words in my mouth.

Oh I get it, you quoting my post was not intended to direct your post at me. Sorry, I generally assume that when my post is the only one quoted, that the questions are directed my way. Next time I'll know that you are not directing your statements or questions at the person you are quoting. My mistake.

edit: Very conveniently, you have ignored the obvious contradiction in claiming the general non-viability of Weissman deck archtypes while simultaneously stating Miracles was too strong.

I'm unclear on why it's considered a "weird obsession" to advocate for the gameplay that one finds enjoyable.

Saying that "Weissman [is] a deck that isn't successful in ANY non-rotating format" in the same sentence as you acknowledge that miracles was too strong is obviously contradictory. Miracles is certainly the most successful iteration/evolution of the deck archtype, so claiming the deck type doesn't exist in non-rotating formats is something I find confusing/incorrect (unless you're just saying that it doesn't exist since it's been banned).

Notably, I don't think I've ever claimed that the format is presently (or at all since eldrazi winter) unhealthy. What I'm advocating for is that black not be the only colour to receive pushed interactive cards. That is especially the case given it also receives many of the best creatures/planeswalkers. I guess that's unreasonable?

I don't understand what the colour white does if black gets the best hand disruption and board removal. White gets... life gain?

I thought white had the best removal since black gets hand disruption. I guess black just gets everything - including the best beaters.

Black has turned into the colour of hand disruption, graveyard interaction, beaters and removal. It's not wonder it is the best supported colour in the format - it gets the most broad design space. Seems like black gets everything white has, but better, plus the kitchen sink. The only thing white has going for it is artifact/enchantment hate - a fairly small upside to say the least.

Very disappointing read.

@gkourouleas: Did you think of Modern when designing the last sets? Do you intend to design any cards that might impact it in a good way (like Fatal Push)?

As Modern has become a more popular format, we have been putting more work into making sure our sets have some cards that could show up in Modern. Fatal Push is an example where we knew revolt was much stronger in Modern than Standard and wanted to make a very strong removal spell for Modern that wasn't white or "colorless" like Dismember.

I don't get it, they have stated they are aware that white/blue are underplayed, but then specifically give the already best colour in the format a new powerful removal spell. Certainly at least gives me the impression that he is unaware of which colours are strong in the format...

@EverUncertain: Why didn't we get Miscalculation in #MTGAKH?

Miscalculation is a bit stronger of a counterspell than we want in Standard. With Censor currently seeing a lot of play, I think that means it is in a more correct spot for power level. I do think we have the ability to make some stronger counters for Standard than we have in the recent past, but going all the way to Miscalculation is more than is likely needed.

Wow, incredibly disappointing. I guess this should be taken as proof positive that they intend to never print a counterspell strong enough to see play in modern. What a joke. If he thinks that Fatal Push is a reasonable card, yet can't find a way to make an equally powerful counterspell (or even just Miscalculation), then that guy needs to be fired so someone else can take over.

I don't really see how you can read

Quote from xxhellfirexx3 »

but why not try and find out? why not unban jace? and give us counterspell? and also a better cantrip? theres no way in knowing until you try.

In any other way. I did not see bizzycola advocate that these suggestion are without merit, did I just miss that? Like I said above, even if he is simply holding bizzycola to account for WotC inaction, that is hardly more productive than suggesting Bizzycola should personally take action.

/shrug.

If you were insulted, it was only because the impression given by your posts here is not a positive one. I didn't mean to insult you, but instead convey the fact that you seem to be demanding action from posters here. We have no action to offer, only opinions. Some people do not see the situation the same as you do, and they have tried to explain this difference in perspectives.

Asking Bizzycola why he doesn't give Jace a chance is not productive as he has no control over it. Holding him to account for WotC not doing so is equally unproductive.

Again, if you are looking for action on any of these issues, you've come to the wrong place. This is a place of opinions, not action. If you want Jace unbanned, no one here can help you with that.

Don't mistake that fact for my endorsement of the lack of fair unbannings. I personally have advocated (and would still support) for aggressive unbannings of fair cards like SFM, BBE, Jace and Preordain. I wouldn't even argue against twin coming back. My personal support for these ideas is not going to make them happen, as is evidenced by my continued failed attempts to will it into existence.

Quote from xxhellfirexx3 »

but why not try and find out? why not unban jace? and give us counterspell? and also a better cantrip? theres no way in knowing until you try. and if somehow a combo deck gets tier 0 because of preordain or ponder than nerf it. and if jace ends up being a little too strong( I doubt it) than give jund bbe.

Is bizzycola a WotC employee with influence over the banlist or printings? You seem to be ascribing to him undue responsibility here - you asked a question with an answer:"why cant reactive be as good as proactive?"

Watching the discussion is like listening to a child ask their parents why they can't just take everything they want from a store, and then get angry with the parent when the underlying concepts are explained. Bizzycola isn't responsible for the current state of the modern cardpool, even if he is able to explain the answer to your question.

If you use MTGO data, you are lowering the value of the data you are using, not increasing the value.

Asking for a specific deck or archtype to have a set representation demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the format. This is not a top-down format: the design/development does not curate the format in a way that allows them to directly control which decks are viable in the format. The only exception to this is when they remove/nerf a deck with a ban.

WotC simply does not design modern top-down, which is what would be required to fulfill your desire to see a metagame with archtype regulation.

Modern is a bottom-up format: competition is what determines the decks in the format based on the card pool. Asking for an archtype to be X% or greater is unrealistic and ignorant of the format's fundamental bottom-up evolution.

People just keep relying on MTGO published results as if they are representative or even meaningful.

I can't stress enough how unimportant and irrelevant the results from a non-swiss pairing event are. Is this fact broadly understood? A 5-0 deck could play all opponents with losing records on the way to their 5-0 based on who is available at a given moment. This makes the events data of null value. If the event isn't swiss, the final standings are essentially meaningless.

You guys understand what I mean, right?

This is even brushing aside that the results from published events hold an unknown level of difference in representation with the total events held. The data from MTGO is basically useless (and likely intentionally so).

The last SCG modern classic was fairly balanced, with the new vizier combo featuring prominently as one would expect from a deck with a new combo to just jam into existing shells.

I'm not sure I'd call that an example of a metagame characterized by linear aggro and ramp.

I'd like to, for the millionth time, point out that relying on MTGO results is highly problematic since the events are not swiss pairings (very important) and have only selected results published. MTGO results data need to be taken with a serious grain of salt due to these limitations.

I'd weigh the SCG classic results as more significant than the month of MTGO results, for instance. We'd be wise to reserve judgement until after this weekend's GPs (and SCG open) to have a solid understanding of where the meta really is at.

I'd encourage anyone who is not satisfied with the current 2-drop suite to try out goyf again. The meta is much different than when this deck first came around. Many more decks are running graveyard based synergys. Even small goyfs are really not a bad thing when they are replacing weaker creatures like selfless spirit #2-3, scooze #3 and qasali #2-3. Renegade rallier really makes playing out the first goyf to eat whatever removal a real plan. Very solid turn 2 play when your dork gets bolted.

Blue's Cavern of Souls challenges are a bit overstated. Many blue decks run a combination of Spreading Seas / Ghost Quarter if cavern is really going to be a problem. In fact, many blue decks are incentivized to run non-basic land hate irrespective of Cavern's presence simply because UrzaTron-based decks can be otherwise difficult to handle.

Blue can and does play answers, and the card having some play (eg: holding a cavern in hand to get that one spell off) is a feature, not a bug. I would disagree that cavern of souls is a bad design. Rather, any issues arising from its presence speak to the general weakness of non-basic land hate.

Yeah those tks are just 4/4s for 4 and walking ballista is a more efficient endless one. Chalice and all is dust are just fillers, while endbringer fills the "5/5 for 6 mana" slot. Looks just like storm indeed!

Quote from h0lydiva »

Abzan is not tier 1 or close. And Eldrazi Tron is about as interactive as Infect, literally.

Not close? I guess it depends on where you draw the line, because even mtggoldfish has it at 3.31% right now. To me that's close no matter where you draw the line, and depending on how one sources data, could be considered tier 1.

I'm glad you agree that there is a gradient of interactivity among decks, and that Etron is "about" as interactive as Infect: notably more interactive than the most uninteractive decks in the format like Ad Nauseam, Storm, Elves, burn and affinity (to keep the list short). We wouldn't want some crazy misunderstanding like claiming that Etron/Infect is not interactive at all.
edit:

But as always, these numbers don't say much. Dredge is down, Bus49 told me he was bored and stopped playing it. He gets unbored, plays it for some weeks and in a month we are saying Dredge is back with a vengeance!!

Paraphrasing Holydiva: "Here's some data to support my position, but I agree the data source is bad and useless."