I was wrong about GDS that one time (the one mana tutor). About storm, I was calling for a ban because they would 90% of the time combo on turn3 if you didn't kill their t2 electromancer, which at the time was in the watch list, I'm sure of that. But you also don't remember all the bans I was right about, which were many.
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. Quoting Chapin (who currently doesn't even play at a high competitive level) as a significant influence on wotc ban decisions?
I'm glad you have acknowledged that you have made many misjudgments and that your ban mongering cried are to be taken with a grain of salt. I'm sure if you throw 100 darts at a bullseye, some will hit. But I'd rather put my money on the thrower with the correct methodology.
I'm not advocating for hogaakvine to be banned or not, I'm simply saying polarised views at this stage are unfounded.
I mean, the bridge ban is so obvious to me, I can't understand why it isn't super obvious for the rest of you lol.
Seeing we have 2 big paper touirnaments before the 8th, I'll be enthusiastically waiting for those results.
You have a notorious history of hyping ban talk and have made it quite abundantly clear that you are out to sensationalise at every given opportunity. Until the metashare and win ratio of hogaakvine decks at the upcoming gp and mc4 are revealed, there is very little concrete data that wotc will go off to warrant a ban. Saying how something is an 'obvious ban' based off mtgo challenge data after the first week of a new set release is myopic at best and delusional at worst.
Modern has shown time and time again that it is a resilient format despite the clamouring cries of self gratuitous hucksters. Let the meta game adjust and gp/mc data speak for itself.
Just in from the Q and A by wotc play design team:
There are many factors to consider when it comes to banning cards, such as:
Power level: Does the deck have a high win percentage? Is the card/deck significantly more powerful than anything else in the surrounding format?
Does it have a high metagame share?
Sometimes the power level of a deck is reasonable, but the deck still is played more than anything else. This was true of energy decks during Kaladesh Standard where we found the win percentage at a reasonable level, but it was played much more than anything else.
Is the deck fun to play against?
Are there enough answers to it? This was true of the last Modern banning of Krark-Clan Ironworks. This card met many of the other criteria as well, but it was also very unfun to play against and hard to interact with.
What is the community feedback?
Do players actively dislike the card/deck? Are players no longer playing the format?
I'm personally not okay with the last two points. KCI had plenty of answers to it for interaction but understanding the timings and sequencing was difficult. That should not translate to whether opponents have fun because everyone's version of fun is individualised. I personally don't enjoy too much fair magic and love to see crazy interactions go off. The last point worries me simply because wotc may cater to ban mania cries, which they fortunately haven't in the face of gds, phoenix, humans, tron, etc. So perhaps multiple check boxes have to be met, most importantly the points on meta share and win rate conversions. Overall I think I'm happy with wotc current ban stances.
On another note, I much rather if these discussion threads focus on correlating wotc justifications with known data and seeing if said stances were indeed justified. There is meaningful discussion to be had in that area so that we may better analyse future trends.
It's quite tedious wading through so much crap to find meaningful insight on mtgs that isn't about people's pet interests. Reddit is a good source with the upvote systems but terrible for long term retention of information.
Let's try and be a better community driven by evidence based discussions, worthy of such a high caliber game as mtg.
Total combined phoenix at 14% day 2 with an amazing conversion to top 8. Spotlight stolen.
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. Quoting Chapin (who currently doesn't even play at a high competitive level) as a significant influence on wotc ban decisions?
I'm glad you have acknowledged that you have made many misjudgments and that your ban mongering cried are to be taken with a grain of salt. I'm sure if you throw 100 darts at a bullseye, some will hit. But I'd rather put my money on the thrower with the correct methodology.
I'm not advocating for hogaakvine to be banned or not, I'm simply saying polarised views at this stage are unfounded.
You have a notorious history of hyping ban talk and have made it quite abundantly clear that you are out to sensationalise at every given opportunity. Until the metashare and win ratio of hogaakvine decks at the upcoming gp and mc4 are revealed, there is very little concrete data that wotc will go off to warrant a ban. Saying how something is an 'obvious ban' based off mtgo challenge data after the first week of a new set release is myopic at best and delusional at worst.
Modern has shown time and time again that it is a resilient format despite the clamouring cries of self gratuitous hucksters. Let the meta game adjust and gp/mc data speak for itself.
There are many factors to consider when it comes to banning cards, such as:
Power level: Does the deck have a high win percentage? Is the card/deck significantly more powerful than anything else in the surrounding format?
Does it have a high metagame share?
Sometimes the power level of a deck is reasonable, but the deck still is played more than anything else. This was true of energy decks during Kaladesh Standard where we found the win percentage at a reasonable level, but it was played much more than anything else.
Is the deck fun to play against?
Are there enough answers to it? This was true of the last Modern banning of Krark-Clan Ironworks. This card met many of the other criteria as well, but it was also very unfun to play against and hard to interact with.
What is the community feedback?
Do players actively dislike the card/deck? Are players no longer playing the format?
I'm personally not okay with the last two points. KCI had plenty of answers to it for interaction but understanding the timings and sequencing was difficult. That should not translate to whether opponents have fun because everyone's version of fun is individualised. I personally don't enjoy too much fair magic and love to see crazy interactions go off. The last point worries me simply because wotc may cater to ban mania cries, which they fortunately haven't in the face of gds, phoenix, humans, tron, etc. So perhaps multiple check boxes have to be met, most importantly the points on meta share and win rate conversions. Overall I think I'm happy with wotc current ban stances.
On another note, I much rather if these discussion threads focus on correlating wotc justifications with known data and seeing if said stances were indeed justified. There is meaningful discussion to be had in that area so that we may better analyse future trends.
It's quite tedious wading through so much crap to find meaningful insight on mtgs that isn't about people's pet interests. Reddit is a good source with the upvote systems but terrible for long term retention of information.
Let's try and be a better community driven by evidence based discussions, worthy of such a high caliber game as mtg.
Edit: source - https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/play-design/play-design-qa-2019-06-14