[quote from="Bogardan Mage »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/magic-online-general/pauper/581506-treasure-cruise?comment=83"]
If we start double-guessing and reading into data like this, we really will get lost in it. We have no way of knowing how they came to be successful, but they still did. I thought you'd be happy to know! They take up the same (humble) portion of the metagame as they always did, according to this admittedly small sample. Almost 5% is really not shabby. From what I can tell, MBC is the only "grinding" deck that has taken a hit. So, is the hypothesis of grinding decks being targeted really accurate? Maybe MBC is a target for other reasons (I'm just thinking out loud, here).
If we're taking the data at face value the reason I see Boros wouldn't be hurt like MBC is because it has a bit more potential to win fast with its burn spells and Kuldotha Rebirth if opponents are durdling around with Treasure Cruises stuck in hand. Which might make some sense since the decks have bonesplitter too (something that was pretty bad in the deck previously).
I completely agree with this. I've been thinking for a while now that Ghostly Flicker is actually the problem. Banning that card would get rid of only one of Familiar's engines, without splashing hate on other decks (whether Delver deserves some ban-hate is another topic). What do you think of that?
It's possible to get rid of Flicker, the concerns then being if they can find another recursion engine to let them loop or not. I know they can do it with just a Snap still if they have enough Familiars and Bouncelands but it's a bit more difficult. If there's something that works it might just be better to get rid of the mana engine in CoF.
There is plenty of merit in comparing this meta with the Cloudpost one, but at the same time, there are tons of really marking differences that you've noted. Treasure Cruise is a card with more general applications, making it capable of fitting into almost any deck. It doesn't create strategies all by itself, like Cloudpost did with Temporal Fissure (which, if memory serves, was the main gripe for banning the whole thing, right?). Their functions are very different, which is why they're difficult to compare. I see it a lot like people include Legacy staples into their decks (if you're playing White, chances are Swords to Plowshares is in your 75, for example). It's not a core part of the strategy, but it certainly helps in a variety of decks (as opposed to only 1 or 2). This explains why we see it often. It's much more flexible, so it gets played more.
So the issue here, if we are to compare it to Cloudpost-era Pauper, is whether a single card making a bulk of decks better (to the point that we see this card everywhere), is just as bad as a card making a handful take up a large portion of the game. Is this summary more or less accurate?
Thanks for taking the time to write this. It is was very clear and objective. We can see multiple facets to the argument.
I thought of that too and it's a reasonable view. But considering it became a staple in other formats and still got the ban hammer there's certainly a point with these cards that WotC says "no more" and takes action. Is 50% of the decks using TC breaking that threshold? Again it probably depends on format, that number may be given more room in Legacy or Vintage than in a format like Modern or Pauper so it's hard to say.
If we're taking the data at face value the reason I see Boros wouldn't be hurt like MBC is because it has a bit more potential to win fast with its burn spells and Kuldotha Rebirth if opponents are durdling around with Treasure Cruises stuck in hand. Which might make some sense since the decks have bonesplitter too (something that was pretty bad in the deck previously).
Now that's a very interesting detail. I would not have noticed this type of adaptation. So, in a meta that basically has never been slower, decks like Boros Kitty are adapting by adding pressure elements? Fascinating!
It's possible to get rid of Flicker, the concerns then being if they can find another recursion engine to let them loop or not. I know they can do it with just a Snap still if they have enough Familiars and Bouncelands but it's a bit more difficult. If there's something that works it might just be better to get rid of the mana engine in CoF.
I see. Would the banning of Ghostly Flicker make the deck weaker to the point that it wouldn't be nearly as good, though? I'm a bit partial to a format having all different types of strategies available to it (aggro, combo, control, etc.), so I think it would be a bit of a loss to see the deck disappear completely.
I thought of that too and it's a reasonable view. But considering it became a staple in other formats and still got the ban hammer there's certainly a point with these cards that WotC says "no more" and takes action. Is 50% of the decks using TC breaking that threshold? Again it probably depends on format, that number may be given more room in Legacy or Vintage than in a format like Modern or Pauper so it's hard to say.
And yes that's a good summary.
Oh! I really wasn't expecting you to focus on that part of my paragraph, to be honest! Yes, I think formats should be allowed to have staples, but I think the function of treasure cruise in decks is a more important factor to consider when looking at its prevalence in comparison with cards like Cloudpost.
I'm happy with where we're at now. We have common grounds of approval on information, and have also essentially coined a phrase with which we agree can represent a starting point for discussion. From what I understand, you are not worried about the diversity of the format from an archetypal point of view, nor from a archetypal dominance shift point of view. Your concern lies mostly with the fact that Treasure Cruise is the most played card in the format, regardless of what deck it is played in, or at what rate they succeed. Please correct me if necessary. I'm trying to simplify it as much as possible. Then we can start to accumulate factors that we've covered previously and discuss them with a more focused goal.
Let's be clear here: If 80% of the increase can be associated with one archetype and 20% is associated with the other eight, that's not a diverse field. I don't doubt that there are 9 archetypes represented but unless they're equally distributed or close to it then that's not what I would consider diverse. From the sounds of it Izzet Control represents the lion's share of these decks and there are 8 also-rans. That said, I'm not 100% confident on my counting here so I invite more thorough analysis of the breakdown.
It's not that dramatic. Out of the new results, Izzet Control takes up roughly 24% of the Blue decks. If you count only the decks that use Treasure Cruise, it takes up about 30%. Delver decks take up a larger portion of this number, but they are not the ones that have suddenly become more popular (their numbers stayed fairly stable). Treasure Cruise doesn't seem to have affected Delver's prevalence in the format significantly. It's simply there, using it, but being as successful as it always was. How would one go about calculating a share of the increase?
One would calculate the increase just as you are doing here: by examining the relative predominance of different archetypes before and after and comparing those. If Delver has remained relatively constant and blue decks that don't run Treasure Cruise have remained relatively constant and Izzet Control has significantly increased in representation, then presumably the increase in blue decks is largely attributable to Izzet Control, unless there's another archetype that's experienced an even larger increase.
I feel like this is a red herring. Blue decks become stronger because of Treasure Cruise. Decks weak to those decks become weaker. Decks that prey upon the second category become weaker in the absence of their prey. But removing Treasure Cruise still undoes all this. Since we're talking about banning, I think it's fair to take into account secondary impacts. It's not like people just happened to start playing blue decks 20% more often, right when a really strong card was released. The change in tiers is directly tied to Treasure Cruise, and banning would undo it.
This is not completely true. Some Blue decks got better because of TC. Some decks that were weak to them became stronger, other did the exact opposite, because of tertiary tier movements (now basically unrelated to Treasure Cruise). I also think that banning Treasure Cruise would not necessarily undo everything. The format has changed. Even if Treasure Cruise is banned, I believe Izzet Control will remain more heavily played then it was. MBC would make a small comeback, but would never be the super-dominant deck that it was (1/5 decks was MBC, can you believe that?). The tier structure has changed, and it would take another dramatic change to skew it into another form quickly (like the printing of a new set). Reverting back now would change things, but it won't be exactly like it was. We're back to the point of baseless speculation now, though.
If you think there is another cause here then please elaborate, but if you're just saying 'People just randomly decided to start playing this archetype at a frankly unprecedented rate but this had nothing at all to do with the extremely powerful card that happens to fit very well into this archetype that was released right around the time that the archetype started to become popular' then you'll forgive my scepticism.
I see. Would the banning of Ghostly Flicker make the deck weaker to the point that it wouldn't be nearly as good, though? I'm a bit partial to a format having all different types of strategies available to it (aggro, combo, control, etc.), so I think it would be a bit of a loss to see the deck disappear completely.
I'm not sure to be perfectly honest. I haven't played with the deck myself, I've only ever played against it so I don't want to speculate too much. What I will say is Ghostly Flicker is a pretty unique card in Pauper. There's other cards available that blink one creature (Momentary Blink, Cloudshift, etc) but as far as I'm aware, none that let you blink two creatures like Ghostly Flicker. This is obviously important as the key to the combo is repeatedly playing Ghostly Flicker on a Mnemonic Wall and Cloud of Faeries to generate infinite mana and infinite mills with Sage's Row Denizen. You can't generate infinite mana if you're using something like Cloudshift for example, because you don't get it back after if you use it on CoF. It's possible banning Ghostly Flicker is a better solution if the goal is simply to limit the success of Esper Familiars and not cause splash damage to other decks (like banning CoF would to Delver). But then the question is if the deck is still even playable if Flicker is removed? I'm leaning towards that it wouldn't be, at least not in its current form but there are possibly ways it could adapt.
I agree with you I would hate to see the deck killed entirely, but at the same time its success rate has been markedly higher than other decks in the format. If you look at the data Tom the Scud posted in another topic, of the DEs he observed Esper Familiar cashed in nearly half of the events it entered. The next closest decks couldn't even crack the 40% mark (barring a few archetypes that had extremely small sample sizes). Like I said I'm not overly familiar (pun intended) with the working of the deck so I'm not certain either way here. Both CoF and Ghostly Flicker fairly are unique elements to the engine so perhaps removing either one would have a similar effect on the deck.
Oh! I really wasn't expecting you to focus on that part of my paragraph, to be honest! Yes, I think formats should be allowed to have staples, but I think the function of treasure cruise in decks is a more important factor to consider when looking at its prevalence in comparison with cards like Cloudpost.
I'm happy with where we're at now. We have common grounds of approval on information, and have also essentially coined a phrase with which we agree can represent a starting point for discussion. From what I understand, you are not worried about the diversity of the format from an archetypal point of view, nor from a archetypal dominance shift point of view. Your concern lies mostly with the fact that Treasure Cruise is the most played card in the format, regardless of what deck it is played in, or at what rate they succeed. Please correct me if necessary. I'm trying to simplify it as much as possible. Then we can start to accumulate factors that we've covered previously and discuss them with a more focused goal.
Yes, I said as much in reply to you counting archetypes and in my big post before this one that was one of the biggest concerns I had.
One would calculate the increase just as you are doing here: by examining the relative predominance of different archetypes before and after and comparing those. If Delver has remained relatively constant and blue decks that don't run Treasure Cruise have remained relatively constant and Izzet Control has significantly increased in representation, then presumably the increase in blue decks is largely attributable to Izzet Control, unless there's another archetype that's experienced an even larger increase.
It seems as though Izzet Control is the largest chunk, and by a large margin, then. The next deck that seems to have benefited from all this change is Stompy, who has also tripled in prevalence. Every other deck has seen little to no change, aside from a few like White Weenie, Fiend, and Hexproof, which all seem much less successful than they were. The biggest loser is MBC, but it fell from much higher, so stopped to something more reasonable. If we look at it from an archetypal distribution point of view, a lot of blue decks don't seem to have changed all that much. This a very interesting thing to note. Is Izzet Control the flavour of the month?
If you think there is another cause here then please elaborate, but if you're just saying 'People just randomly decided to start playing this archetype at a frankly unprecedented rate but this had nothing at all to do with the extremely powerful card that happens to fit very well into this archetype that was released right around the time that the archetype started to become popular' then you'll forgive my scepticism.
Please, don't assume you know what I think. If you think it's not clear, ask. Putting words in my mouth is not going to get anything productive done (also, there are only so many ways I can rephrase this).
A tertiary tier movement is when one deck displaces another, which in turn causes another to change in prevalence (whether positive or negative). White decks disappearing is a tertiary movement. Stompy becoming popular again is a tertiary movement (although slightly more debatable). A lot of this happens when a big deck like MBC falls in popularity and there's a new Tier 1 deck in town. This is how new metagames are born.
I'm not sure to be perfectly honest. I haven't played with the deck myself, I've only ever played against it so I don't want to speculate too much. What I will say is Ghostly Flicker is a pretty unique card in Pauper. There's other cards available that blink one creature (Momentary Blink, Cloudshift, etc) but as far as I'm aware, none that let you blink two creatures like Ghostly Flicker. This is obviously important as the key to the combo is repeatedly playing Ghostly Flicker on a Mnemonic Wall and Cloud of Faeries to generate infinite mana and infinite mills with Sage's Row Denizen. You can't generate infinite mana if you're using something like Cloudshift for example, because you don't get it back after if you use it on CoF. It's possible banning Ghostly Flicker is a better solution if the goal is simply to limit the success of Esper Familiars and not cause splash damage to other decks (like banning CoF would to Delver). But then the question is if the deck is still even playable if Flicker is removed? I'm leaning towards that it wouldn't be, at least not in its current form but there are possibly ways it could adapt.
I agree with you I would hate to see the deck killed entirely, but at the same time its success rate has been markedly higher than other decks in the format. If you look at the data Tom the Scud posted in another topic, of the DEs he observed Esper Familiar cashed in nearly half of the events it entered. The next closest decks couldn't even crack the 40% mark (barring a few archetypes that had extremely small sample sizes). Like I said I'm not overly familiar (pun intended) with the working of the deck so I'm not certain either way here. Both CoF and Ghostly Flicker fairly are unique elements to the engine so perhaps removing either one would have a similar effect on the deck.
It seems to hold a perfect position in the metagame right now: a very strong deck that isn't common enough to attract hate, yet does so well it cashes more than any other. How long can a deck stay that way? As soon as people discover how successful it is, more will play it, and some will start to be more prepared. This may be the beginning of a big change, depending on how well familiar and the rest of the game can adapt to this shooting star.
Yes, I said as much in reply to you counting archetypes and in my big post before this one that was one of the biggest concerns I had.
Excellent.
Here's a small summary of things we can observe through our discussion:
Maindeck Graveyard hate is practically non-existent. It only comes in the form of Bojuka Bog in MBC decks in competitive play.
Treasure Cruise has had a presence in Tron, Esper Familiars, Burn and Boros Kitty, but is not firmly adhered to in any of these archetypes.
MBC is the deck that has suffered the most in terms of prevalence in the format.
White Weenies and similar White strategies like Tokens have also suffered, though fell from "slightly played" to "rarely played".
Aside from MBC and White decks, Izzet Fiend, Hexproof, Goblins and Dimir Control decks have also notably dropped in numbers.
Izzet Control is the deck that has benefited the most in terms of prevalence in the format (going from 5% to approximately 15% of the format)
Stompy is the second deck that has benefited the most in terms of prevalence in the format.
Before Khans, approximately 53% of the successful decks in dailies used the colour Blue.
After Khans, 62% of successful decks in dailies use the colour Blue.
Treasure Cruise is present in 49% of all successful decks in Daily Events.
When compared with pre-Khans Pauper, the estimated number of decks that want to use Treasure Cruise has risen 10 percentage points, from 39% to 49%.
Treasure Cruise has not affected the archetypal diversity of Pauper in a meaningful way. A similar number of successful archetypes is still seen both pre and post-Khans.
Izzet Control takes up roughly 26% of the Blue decks in the metagame, and 30% of decks that play Treasure Cruise.
When comparing the Khans metagame with the Cloudpost metagame (an era ending with a ban because of an abused card), here are some key points:
Cloudpost made a small number of decks very strong, while Treasure Cruise improves the quality of a large number of decks.
Cloudpost is more difficult to use in a variety of decks, while Treasure Cruise is more flexible.
Cloudpost favours specific strategies, while Treasure Cruise bolsters strategies, without creating archetypes based around it.
In a nutshell for Cloudpost vs. Treasure Cruise: is a single card making a bulk of decks better (to the point that we see this card everywhere), just as bad as a card making a handful take up a large portion of the game?
In a bigger nutshell: is Treasure Cruise present to a degree that is unhealthy? Concern of some users is not related to archetypal diversity nor the current archetypal dominance, but rather the prevalence of the individual card itself.
With all this information, and with the question re-diluted, what can be said?
Please, don't assume you know what I think. If you think it's not clear, ask. Putting words in my mouth is not going to get anything productive done (also, there are only so many ways I can rephrase this).
This is how I ask. It is one of those two options. There is no third. Adding extra steps does not undo causality. So either you are actually saying one of the two things I "put in your mouth" (please note that I did say "if" you think that, I didn't claim you definitely said that) or you are saying something totally nonsensical.
A tertiary tier movement is when one deck displaces another, which in turn causes another to change in prevalence (whether positive or negative). White decks disappearing is a tertiary movement. Stompy becoming popular again is a tertiary movement (although slightly more debatable). A lot of this happens when a big deck like MBC falls in popularity and there's a new Tier 1 deck in town. This is how new metagames are born.
Like this. I'm not putting these words in your mouth. You are implying that "tertiary movements" (by definition, at least as I read it, effects that can be linked to Treasure Cruise by a tripartite chain or possibly a longer one) are not, in fact, causally related to the event to which by definition they are, in fact, causally related. You can have however long a chain of causes as you like and it won't decouple the end from the beginning. The meta without Treasure Cruise is going to be different from the meta with Treasure Cruise and this is an example of how it is different. The only way you can refute this is by presenting an alternate cause. Adding additional steps does not accomplish this!
Causality becomes negligible after a certain number of steps, in my opinion. Consider the fact that Esper Familiars and Stompy are now well placed in the format. They're there not because they run Treasure Cruise, that much is certain. They're there likely because the metagame shifted in their favour, which was caused by Tiered decks moving around because one deck beats another, which causes another to have a different position, and so on. It's an infinitely complex network where Treasure Cruise is only a ripple in a lake.
[...] You are implying that "tertiary movements" (by definition, at least as I read it, effects that can be linked to Treasure Cruise by a tripartite chain or possibly a longer one) are not, in fact, causally related to the event to which by definition they are, in fact, causally related.[...]
Gracious me! It would've been so easy to turn this into a question instead.
Causality becomes negligible after a certain number of steps, in my opinion. Consider the fact that Esper Familiars and Stompy are now well placed in the format. They're there not because they run Treasure Cruise, that much is certain. They're there likely because the metagame shifted in their favour, which was caused by Tiered decks moving around because one deck beats another, which causes another to have a different position, and so on. It's an infinitely complex network where Treasure Cruise is only a ripple in a lake.
No, that's not how causality works. Either there is a cause that is not Treasure Cruise or removing Treasure Cruise removes the entire chain of causality. Just because the steps are complicated doesn't mean that removing Treasure Cruise will not undo them. Do you have an actual response to this or don't you?
[...] You are implying that "tertiary movements" (by definition, at least as I read it, effects that can be linked to Treasure Cruise by a tripartite chain or possibly a longer one) are not, in fact, causally related to the event to which by definition they are, in fact, causally related.[...]
Gracious me! It would've been so easy to turn this into a question instead.
I'm sorry you find my style of argument rude. I've made an effort to soften it somewhat but I'm not going to drastically alter my phrasing to conform with the precise form that you dictate. If you weren't so busy searching my posts for breaches of etiquette maybe you could actually answer the questions that I am asking rather than complaining that they are not phrased as you wish questions to be phrased. This is how I ask questions!
No, that's not how causality works. Either there is a cause that is not Treasure Cruise or removing Treasure Cruise removes the entire chain of causality. Just because the steps are complicated doesn't mean that removing Treasure Cruise will not undo them. Do you have an actual response to this or don't you?
I did not define causality. Furthermore, it is simply impossible for the metagame to go back to the way it was, even with a banning of Treasure Cruise (which is seeming less and less likely now). I think most people would agree with that. It has evolved beyond something that can be reverted to a previous state. Even if Treasure Cruise had never existed, the metagame would have changed from 4 months ago (I'm starting to stretch this a bit far, though). Do you think the metagame would be identical to the way it was before Khand of Tarkir was released?
I'm sorry you find my style of argument rude. I've made an effort to soften it somewhat but I'm not going to drastically alter my phrasing to conform with the precise form that you dictate. If you weren't so busy searching my posts for breaches of etiquette maybe you could actually answer the questions that I am asking rather than complaining that they are not phrased as you wish questions to be phrased. This is how I ask questions!
You're not asking questions. Questions involve question marks (first of all). I believe your phrases are statements. Statements are not a problem. The issue is that your assumptions about what I'm saying are not portraying my statements correctly. This wouldn't happen if they were formulated as questions instead.
No, that's not how causality works. Either there is a cause that is not Treasure Cruise or removing Treasure Cruise removes the entire chain of causality. Just because the steps are complicated doesn't mean that removing Treasure Cruise will not undo them. Do you have an actual response to this or don't you?
I did not define causality. Furthermore, it is simply impossible for the metagame to go back to the way it was, even with a banning of Treasure Cruise (which is seeming less and less likely now). I think most people would agree with that. It has evolved beyond something that can be reverted to a previous state. Even if Treasure Cruise had never existed, the metagame would have changed from 4 months ago (I'm starting to stretch this a bit far, though). Do you think the metagame would be identical to the way it was before Khand of Tarkir was released?
We cannot know precisely how the metagame would have evolved in Treasure Cruise's absence, but I think to suggest that archetypes that benefit strongly from Treasure Cruise would have experienced exactly the same increase in dominance is hopelessly naive (please note, nothing in this preceding sentence should be construed as putting words in your mouth. If you, personally, did not make such a suggestion I can't very well be talking about you. Incidentally, did you make such a suggestion[QUESTION MARK FOLLOWS]?) If you cannot point to any other cause the only conclusion that we can draw is that Treasure Cruise is primarily if not solely responsible for the observed changes. I think it entirely plausible that a Pauper environment without Treasure Cruise would resemble in many ways the Pauper environment before Treasure Cruise was printed.
I'm sorry you find my style of argument rude. I've made an effort to soften it somewhat but I'm not going to drastically alter my phrasing to conform with the precise form that you dictate. If you weren't so busy searching my posts for breaches of etiquette maybe you could actually answer the questions that I am asking rather than complaining that they are not phrased as you wish questions to be phrased. This is how I ask questions!
You're not asking questions. Questions involve question marks (first of all). I believe your phrases are statements. Statements are not a problem. The issue is that your assumptions about what I'm saying are not portraying my statements correctly. This wouldn't happen if they were formulated as questions instead.
As a rhetorical device, I suggest potential summations of or logical inferences from my opponents arguments, to ensure that I properly understand them. If I do not understand you, I expect you to point this out and (hopefully) correct my understanding. It is not necessary to lecture me about etiquette. I feel the question "is this a correct summation of your argument?" is implied. Evidently you prefer such a question to be explicitly written out. I can't promise I will conform to your preferred phrasing in the future but can you please do me the courtesy of explaining what you actually think rather than simply chastising me for getting it wrong?
It seems to hold a perfect position in the metagame right now: a very strong deck that isn't common enough to attract hate, yet does so well it cashes more than any other. How long can a deck stay that way? As soon as people discover how successful it is, more will play it, and some will start to be more prepared. This may be the beginning of a big change, depending on how well familiar and the rest of the game can adapt to this shooting star.
The thing is, it's not exactly an easy deck to just pick up and play so perhaps people won't be so quick to flock to it. I mean it's probably not as tough to play well as Grapeshot Storm was for example, but it still has quite a bit more going on then a random creature deck or even a control list like UR or MBC. If we see an increase in popularity maybe MBC comes back a bit as a response? Even so it's hard to see MBC coming back too strong as long as TC remains legal.
Izzet Control is the deck that has benefited the most in terms of prevalence in the format (going from 5% to approximately 15% of the format)
I'm confused by this. You're saying Izzet Control is 15% of the format but it looks like it's only 10% to me (going by mtgo-stats.com)? Are you lumping in the Cyclops combo decks there too or are you using a different source for your estimation? (or did they just update the page/change the % since you posted that?)
In a nutshell for Cloudpost vs. Treasure Cruise: is a single card making a bulk of decks better (to the point that we see this card everywhere), just as bad as a card making a handful take up a large portion of the game?
In a bigger nutshell: is Treasure Cruise present to a degree that is unhealthy? Concern of some users is not related to archetypal diversity nor the current archetypal dominance, but rather the prevalence of the individual card itself.
With all this information, and with the question re-diluted, what can be said?
Yes or No, and Why.
Well I've already said my piece with regards to this and feel like I'd just be retreading old ground to answer this again. Really it's entirely subjective at this point. We've examined the (available) data and have been lead to the conclusions you listed. Treasure Cruise is being played by half the format and as a result over half of the format is comprised of blue decks. A variety of blue decks to be sure, but many nonetheless. Personally I do find the numbers troubling and would not be unhappy to see Treasure Cruise gone from the format. It would be interesting to see others chime in though.
I've been following the arguments with some interest, but had nothing further to add. Ultimately my own view has not changed, which is that the card is worthy of a ban. My reasoning for this is simple: one card appears in approximately 50% of decks. In an eternal format with access to 5 colors and thousands of cards from across the years, this is not a desirable situation for the health of the format. To me, the definition of deck diversity is that decks are not playing the same card. Ponder and preordain were banned in modern for this reason. Attempts at explaining why it may or may not be a good thing to have one card at this level of prevalence are moot. Even if the card is fair, reasonable, balanced and enables bad/marginal decks to compete, the fact remains that it's current level of saturation in decklists of all kinds shows that it is too powerful. Deck building is a fundamental part of the game. Having 'mandatory' inclusions takes away from a deckbuilder's choices.
Why should we compare pauper with modern, legacy or vintage? Because, despite their differences, they are all still governed by a single company, with a policy about banning, and if this policy was being applied consistently, then the treasure cruise ban in pauper was the most expected outcome.
The people who make the banning decisions have access to even more data than we do. From their perspective, banning treasure cruise in pauper must be under consideration. My heart sinks though, because if it was going to be banned, it probably would have already been announced on 20th jan in the general Magic Online Announcements which appeared on the MTGO group blog that day.
It is my sincere hope that the ban eventually comes. After the banning of cloudpost, the format became very vibrant and interesting. A huge range of decks became viable, and pauper was a popular format for brewers. At the moment, that is simply not the case. Unhealthy environments cause us to lose players, and we don't have that many to begin with! It is vital that treasure cruise is recognised as a threat to the health of pauper, and is banned as soon as possible.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't Ponder and Preordain banned because they made combo decks too consistent? At least that was the reasoning I believe WotC gave at the time.
Fully agree on your comment about "mandatory" deck inclusions. Like look at Vintage, pretty much every deck has to run Ancestral, Time Walk, Lotus, Moxen, etc. Most decks that don't simply can't compete. I don't really consider deckbuilding limitations like this to be healthy for a format. Yes, I'm aware the P9 in Vintage are an extreme example and we're not at that point in Pauper with TC but there clearly is some limitation happening where the majority of blue decks do need to run the card. I agree that the post-Cloudpost format was a good format. Lots of fringe decks started making appearances again and there was more reward to playing a rogue deck.
Much like you, I've been following the discussion with interest but nothing to add besides what I've already said. I agree a lot with what Obermeir has said so far: as an eternal format, it will always skew heavily towards Blue, and it will have staple cards. If it skews towards Blue, then the expected outcome is that the Blue staples will be more prevalent in the scene. Since you are OK with comparing Pauper to Modern and Legacy, just take a look at Brainstorm in Legacy. It's a card that has been on the verge of banning for quite a while for being an autoinclude in every deck that just runs blue, and takes up a whopping 78.77 % of the metagame. Why isn't it banned, then, if Wizards has said policy of banning cards with such a huge impact on the metagame? The answer is simple: because despite being an autoinclude and taking up almost a 30% more than Cruise in it's own metagame, the card is not inherently broken.
Also, Ponder and Preordain were banned for the fact that they speed up combo by letting them dig and search for the pieces they need.
What always gets me is, if letting blue players draw cards is such a problem, why not print hate for it? Instead of banning all the draw cards, print more effects like Spirit of the Labyrinth.
They do this with other strong mechanics. Look how burn would run away with the metagame if there weren't guys like Kor Firewalker. Look how dredge and graveyard combo would take over if it weren't for cards like Relic of Progenitus. Look how artifacts would be dominant if it weren't for hate like Hurkyl's Recall.
What if they printed blue card draw hate, and made it so any color could run it?
_________
Garbage Scow 3
Artifact Enchantment - Aura
Garbage Scow cannot be countered, and cannot be the target of spells or abilities.
Enchant island.
Enchanted land's controller cannot draw more than one card per turn.
_________
There. And it's still reasonably balanced: The island itself can be bounced, or the artifact can be removed with an artifact sweeper. It can even be played around by "put that card into your hand" effects.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This signature holds priority until end of comment.
Since uncounterability is something unprecedented in Pauper, rather than having something universal like that, give all colors some form of hate against card draw:
_________
Watchtower Captain1W
Creature - Human Soldier
Flash.
Whenever an opponent draws a card beyond the first each turn, put a White 1/1 Soldier token onto the battlefield.
2/1
_________
Vedalken Spy1U
Creature - Vedalken Rogue
Vedalken Spy can't be blocked.
Whenever an opponent draws a card beyond the first each turn, you may draw a card.
1/2
_________
Rake the mindB
Instant
As an additional cost to cast Rake the mind, pay 1 life.
Target player discards a card at random for each card he or she drew this turn.
_________
Brainspark2R
Instant
Brainspark deals damage to target creature or player equal to the number of cards in his or her hand.
If that player or that creature's controller drew more than one card this turn, Brainspark costs 2 less to cast.
_________
Mage-Eater Spider1G
Creature - Spider
Reach, Hexproof.
Whevener an opponent draws a card beyond the first each turn, put a +1/+1 counter on Mage-Eater Spider.
We cannot know precisely how the metagame would have evolved in Treasure Cruise's absence, but I think to suggest that archetypes that benefit strongly from Treasure Cruise would have experienced exactly the same increase in dominance is hopelessly naive (please note, nothing in this preceding sentence should be construed as putting words in your mouth. If you, personally, did not make such a suggestion I can't very well be talking about you. Incidentally, did you make such a suggestion[QUESTION MARK FOLLOWS]?) If you cannot point to any other cause the only conclusion that we can draw is that Treasure Cruise is primarily if not solely responsible for the observed changes. I think it entirely plausible that a Pauper environment without Treasure Cruise would resemble in many ways the Pauper environment before Treasure Cruise was printed.
Good thing you clarified that with your parentheses, or one could easily have been confused. We are not working with sure values. Saying the metagame would be completely restored, or that it would be completely different, or that it would be exactly the same, is wrong. The truth is somewhere between these realities. I think your last phrase is probably the most well-written one you've shown to date. You're completely allowed to think that way. But we have no way of knowing, so that our opinions differ on this hypothetical situation is not really that important.
As a rhetorical device, I suggest potential summations of or logical inferences from my opponents arguments, to ensure that I properly understand them. If I do not understand you, I expect you to point this out and (hopefully) correct my understanding. It is not necessary to lecture me about etiquette. I feel the question "is this a correct summation of your argument?" is implied. Evidently you prefer such a question to be explicitly written out. I can't promise I will conform to your preferred phrasing in the future but can you please do me the courtesy of explaining what you actually think rather than simply chastising me for getting it wrong?
The way you phrase your "arguments" by attempting to summarize a thought you didn't understand is time consuming for yourself, because you took the time to write a response to something that you've understood inaccurately. Before making false conclusions and spending time responding to them, it's better to clarify with the person to make sure you actually grasp what they're trying to say. This moves a discussion forward in a smoother way. You'll save yourself a lot of time by just asking the right questions.
I'm confused by this. You're saying Izzet Control is 15% of the format but it looks like it's only 10% to me (going by mtgo-stats.com)? Are you lumping in the Cyclops combo decks there too or are you using a different source for your estimation? (or did they just update the page/change the % since you posted that?)
It's quite possible that my calculations are off. I took a rather small sample size, and the ones portrayed on the site probably looked at more data. I really was looking only at UR Control. Maybe putting my numbers up like that isn't such a good idea, as they aren't wide enough to be considered actual stats (they just give a general idea of directions decks are going in).
Well I've already said my piece with regards to this and feel like I'd just be retreading old ground to answer this again. Really it's entirely subjective at this point. We've examined the (available) data and have been lead to the conclusions you listed. Treasure Cruise is being played by half the format and as a result over half of the format is comprised of blue decks. A variety of blue decks to be sure, but many nonetheless. Personally I do find the numbers troubling and would not be unhappy to see Treasure Cruise gone from the format. It would be interesting to see others chime in though.
I was hoping more people would chime in as well after my post. Thanks everyone!
MadManQuail,
I don't really like the argument of "if a card is too common, it should be banned". I feel like more criteria should be used to analyse whether it's actually unhealthy for the format or not. There are tons of things to look at, and we've probably only scratched the surface in this thread. The fact that it shows up in so many decks is the concern that seems to drive most people against Treasure Cruise. That fact can't be disputed. But what else can be said against it? If we start looking at other criteria, I feel we begin to see a different picture. There are Pros and Cons in this debate, and we shouldn't just shrug some aside, in my opinion.
*sigh*, if only there were actually cards that could punish people for drawing cards...
Much like you, I've been following the discussion with interest but nothing to add besides what I've already said. I agree a lot with what Obermeir has said so far: as an eternal format, it will always skew heavily towards Blue, and it will have staple cards. If it skews towards Blue, then the expected outcome is that the Blue staples will be more prevalent in the scene. Since you are OK with comparing Pauper to Modern and Legacy, just take a look at Brainstorm in Legacy. It's a card that has been on the verge of banning for quite a while for being an autoinclude in every deck that just runs blue, and takes up a whopping 78.77 % of the metagame. Why isn't it banned, then, if Wizards has said policy of banning cards with such a huge impact on the metagame? The answer is simple: because despite being an autoinclude and taking up almost a 30% more than Cruise in it's own metagame, the card is not inherently broken.
I'd argue Brainstorm probably should be banned in Legacy as the card is quite powerful in a format with fetchlands. It's restricted in Vintage which is a different format but certainly indicates it could be banned in Legacy too. This is just my own speculation but I think the reason they don't ban it isn't because it's a fair card, but because they are afraid of the backlash if they do. Many Legacy players think of Brainstorm as the quintessential card of the format and have very sentimental feelings towards it. But anyways that's getting a bit off topic.
On topic, I mentioned earlier that the allowable % is probably higher in more degenerate formats like Legacy or Vintage than it is in Pauper or Modern. Saying Brainstorm at 78% is acceptable doesn't mean Treasure Cruise at 50% in Pauper is automatically acceptable too. The bar could very well be much lower for Pauper. How prominent does a card need to be to be considered a problem in Pauper is the key question in this regard.
What always gets me is, if letting blue players draw cards is such a problem, why not print hate for it? Instead of banning all the draw cards, print more effects like Spirit of the Labyrinth.
They do this with other strong mechanics. Look how burn would run away with the metagame if there weren't guys like Kor Firewalker. Look how dredge and graveyard combo would take over if it weren't for cards like Relic of Progenitus. Look how artifacts would be dominant if it weren't for hate like Hurkyl's Recall.
What if they printed blue card draw hate, and made it so any color could run it?
_________
Garbage Scow 3
Artifact Enchantment - Aura
Garbage Scow cannot be countered, and cannot be the target of spells or abilities.
Enchant island.
Enchanted land's controller cannot draw more than one card per turn.
_________
There. And it's still reasonably balanced: The island itself can be bounced, or the artifact can be removed with an artifact sweeper. It can even be played around by "put that card into your hand" effects.
The problem with this, is a card like that is probably considered way too complex for WotC to ever print at common with its modern day design. Like Zephyr Scarlet said "uncounterability" isn't really something they do at common.
It's quite possible that my calculations are off. I took a rather small sample size, and the ones portrayed on the site probably looked at more data. I really was looking only at UR Control. Maybe putting my numbers up like that isn't such a good idea, as they aren't wide enough to be considered actual stats (they just give a general idea of directions decks are going in).
Ok fair enough, I just wasn't sure how you got to the number but it isn't a big deal.
We cannot know precisely how the metagame would have evolved in Treasure Cruise's absence, but I think to suggest that archetypes that benefit strongly from Treasure Cruise would have experienced exactly the same increase in dominance is hopelessly naive (please note, nothing in this preceding sentence should be construed as putting words in your mouth. If you, personally, did not make such a suggestion I can't very well be talking about you. Incidentally, did you make such a suggestion[QUESTION MARK FOLLOWS]?) If you cannot point to any other cause the only conclusion that we can draw is that Treasure Cruise is primarily if not solely responsible for the observed changes. I think it entirely plausible that a Pauper environment without Treasure Cruise would resemble in many ways the Pauper environment before Treasure Cruise was printed.
Good thing you clarified that with your parentheses, or one could easily have been confused. We are not working with sure values. Saying the metagame would be completely restored, or that it would be completely different, or that it would be exactly the same, is wrong. The truth is somewhere between these realities. I think your last phrase is probably the most well-written one you've shown to date. You're completely allowed to think that way. But we have no way of knowing, so that our opinions differ on this hypothetical situation is not really that important.
The fact that we can't know anything for sure doesn't mean we can't know anything at all. Treasure Cruise had a clear impact. Banning it would undo that impact. That doesn't mean the metagame would be precisely the same as before, because as we say that's not predictable. But just because the edges are fuzzy doesn't mean the core is.
As a rhetorical device, I suggest potential summations of or logical inferences from my opponents arguments, to ensure that I properly understand them. If I do not understand you, I expect you to point this out and (hopefully) correct my understanding. It is not necessary to lecture me about etiquette. I feel the question "is this a correct summation of your argument?" is implied. Evidently you prefer such a question to be explicitly written out. I can't promise I will conform to your preferred phrasing in the future but can you please do me the courtesy of explaining what you actually think rather than simply chastising me for getting it wrong?
The way you phrase your "arguments" by attempting to summarize a thought you didn't understand is time consuming for yourself, because you took the time to write a response to something that you've understood inaccurately. Before making false conclusions and spending time responding to them, it's better to clarify with the person to make sure you actually grasp what they're trying to say. This moves a discussion forward in a smoother way. You'll save yourself a lot of time by just asking the right questions.
When I use my preferred phrasing, you chastise me for not asking questions in your dictated format and then refuse to answer them (even when you admit the transformation to question is trivial, c.f. "Gracious me! It would've been so easy to turn this into a question instead."). When I use your preferred phrasing, you congratulate me on following your arbitrary instructions and then refuse to answer them (see previous paragraph). The way I see it both ways are wasting my time and therefore I see no reason not to use the method that is more natural to me.
The fact that we can't know anything for sure doesn't mean we can't know anything at all. Treasure Cruise had a clear impact. Banning it would undo that impact. That doesn't mean the metagame would be precisely the same as before, because as we say that's not predictable. But just because the edges are fuzzy doesn't mean the core is.
I think the core of our disagreement is if the format would revert back to something like it was before. I disagree with that. I believe the format has changed in a way that it would be somewhere in the middle. No matter what kind of impact Treasure Cruise had on the format, I don't think removing it would alter the changes the format has gone through, regardless of the level of impact the card had.
When I use my preferred phrasing, you chastise me for not asking questions in your dictated format and then refuse to answer them (even when you admit the transformation to question is trivial, c.f. "Gracious me! It would've been so easy to turn this into a question instead."). When I use your preferred phrasing, you congratulate me on following your arbitrary instructions and then refuse to answer them (see previous paragraph). The way I see it both ways are wasting my time and therefore I see no reason not to use the method that is more natural to me.
I congratulated you on making a statement that was not based on reasoning derived from false understanding. You built an opinion based on your own thoughts, which brought something tangible to the conversation. It's a great start!
but is our conversation really that useful? I hope you've been keeping up with the rest of what is being said here, because I feel like a lot interesting things are being said by other users.
I think pauper is not that popular enough of a format for wizards to really care about its banned list. Maybe they want less people to play it, so they will not try and improve it anymore.
The fact that we can't know anything for sure doesn't mean we can't know anything at all. Treasure Cruise had a clear impact. Banning it would undo that impact. That doesn't mean the metagame would be precisely the same as before, because as we say that's not predictable. But just because the edges are fuzzy doesn't mean the core is.
I think the core of our disagreement is if the format would revert back to something like it was before. I disagree with that. I believe the format has changed in a way that it would be somewhere in the middle. No matter what kind of impact Treasure Cruise had on the format, I don't think removing it would alter the changes the format has gone through, regardless of the level of impact the card had.
Well I agree that that is where we disagree. I can't see anything that would maintain the changes to the metagame in the absence of Treasure Cruise. And every time I ask you what that might be you instead find some fault in my phrasing or orthography and for some reason decide that that means you don't need to answer the question. So this is a clear, unambiguous question that obeys all your arbitrary rules and you have no excuse for dodging: What mechanism do you think will ensure the effect you claim QUESTION MARK?
I think that, considering the state of the metagame, UR Control is well placed. Delver decks are very popular, and this deck preys on that. It also will tend to prey on other slow Blue decks, of which there are many. It also stands a better chance against Stompy than other aggro lists like Hexproof, which have been in decline. If MBC were to make a comeback (it probably would, with the banning of TC), it will be able to prey on the two current big decks, but will suffer from the presence of Stompy, which can in turn increase in popularity. I think the metagame will stabilize with UR Control still with very solid representation, with the only trade-off being with a slightly higher MBC and Stompy count. I don't think low-tier decks like White Weenies and Goblins would make a huge return, because they don't interact well with the Blue decks that have made their presence so strong.
I think that, considering the state of the metagame, UR Control is well placed. Delver decks are very popular, and this deck preys on that. It also will tend to prey on other slow Blue decks, of which there are many. It also stands a better chance against Stompy than other aggro lists like Hexproof, which have been in decline. If MBC were to make a comeback (it probably would, with the banning of TC), it will be able to prey on the two current big decks, but will suffer from the presence of Stompy, which can in turn increase in popularity. I think the metagame will stabilize with UR Control still with very solid representation, with the only trade-off being with a slightly higher MBC and Stompy count. I don't think low-tier decks like White Weenies and Goblins would make a huge return, because they don't interact well with the Blue decks that have made their presence so strong.
But inherent in this is the assumption that the strength of blue decks is independent of Treasure Cruise. So how do you think blue decks could remain as strong as they are in its absence (obviously they were strong before, but equally obviously they strengthened in the wake of Treasure Cruise)? Why do you think people who moved towards blue decks like UR Control because of Treasure Cruise will continuing playing those archetypes after losing Treasure Cruise?
Why do you think the starting point should be the current meta? Clearly a Treasure Cruise-free meta is substantially different from the current format and should therefore start from a different place. That's why I think we should look at the pre-Treasure Cruise meta, not because I believe banning Treasure Cruise will completely and instantly revert the entire format to the meta of six months ago, but because that meta is the clearest example of a Treasure Cruise-free Pauper meta that is measurable. What reason do you have for assuming that people's deck choices and win percentages will be closer to the current meta than to this earlier meta whose card pool is arguably more similar?
The functioning of Blue decks does not depend on Treasure Cruise, so it being removed doesn't necessarily stop them from being playable. I think the fact that people invested their time into buyin/building/learning/playing these decks makes it so that one doesn't simply jump ship at the drop of a hat. I think a lot of people who started playing Blue decks will continue to do so because they're still playable and because they invested time and money into them.
I believe the starting point should be the current meta because it is the current meta, as opposed to what was a few months ago (I hope that was clear... :/). I don't think that from one day to the other, a huge number of people will just jump back three months. Many of them will try new things, or stick with their guns and see where that leads. We may even see even more people playing Delver and Stompy, since they seem to be go-to decks after a banning. Only people with large collections can really jump from one deck to another without much concern. This certainly isn't the case for everyone. There are comfort and economic factors as well as playability factors and metagame knowledge factors to consider after a banning. I think the general consensus post-ban is that proactive decks are a bit better in blind metas. We can't really know what post-ban TC would look like, so I can only imagine some people will go back to generally powerful strategies like Stompy and Delver, while slower decks that haven't been doing as well (like MBC) may take longer to regain popularity. All the while, UR Control being already very present stays a popular choice just by the fact that people are comfortable playing it and don't (or can't afford) to change. All this is just rambling speculation, and I really have nothing to back this up.
The functioning of Blue decks does not depend on Treasure Cruise, so it being removed doesn't necessarily stop them from being playable. I think the fact that people invested their time into buyin/building/learning/playing these decks makes it so that one doesn't simply jump ship at the drop of a hat. I think a lot of people who started playing Blue decks will continue to do so because they're still playable and because they invested time and money into them.
I believe the starting point should be the current meta because it is the current meta, as opposed to what was a few months ago (I hope that was clear... :/). I don't think that from one day to the other, a huge number of people will just jump back three months. Many of them will try new things, or stick with their guns and see where that leads. We may even see even more people playing Delver and Stompy, since they seem to be go-to decks after a banning. Only people with large collections can really jump from one deck to another without much concern. This certainly isn't the case for everyone. There are comfort and economic factors as well as playability factors and metagame knowledge factors to consider after a banning. I think the general consensus post-ban is that proactive decks are a bit better in blind metas. We can't really know what post-ban TC would look like, so I can only imagine some people will go back to generally powerful strategies like Stompy and Delver, while slower decks that haven't been doing as well (like MBC) may take longer to regain popularity. All the while, UR Control being already very present stays a popular choice just by the fact that people are comfortable playing it and don't (or can't afford) to change. All this is just rambling speculation, and I really have nothing to back this up.
It seems like you're looking at it from a human behaviour point of view whereas I'm looking at it more from a numbers point of view. What we're looking at are the winners of daily events. So although we talk about "increase" or "changes" in archetypes, it needn't be (and in fact is almost certainly not) the same people choosing different decks and then posting similar results. Of course, there can be some of that, but the way I see it there are strong archetypes in a given meta and this will be reflected in the results. Even if every player was 100% committed to their favoured archetype to the exclusion of all others and irrespective of any changes to the card pool, this would still be true because the stubborn players playing a deck that is no longer strong would lose more often to the stubborn players playing a deck that is now much stronger. So that's where I'm coming from, I don't think it's a matter of trying to guess in a vacuum what decks people will want to play. People will play a bunch of different decks, and some of them will do better than others. That is something we can measure, and I expect it will look a lot like the pre-Khans environment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If we're taking the data at face value the reason I see Boros wouldn't be hurt like MBC is because it has a bit more potential to win fast with its burn spells and Kuldotha Rebirth if opponents are durdling around with Treasure Cruises stuck in hand. Which might make some sense since the decks have bonesplitter too (something that was pretty bad in the deck previously).
It's possible to get rid of Flicker, the concerns then being if they can find another recursion engine to let them loop or not. I know they can do it with just a Snap still if they have enough Familiars and Bouncelands but it's a bit more difficult. If there's something that works it might just be better to get rid of the mana engine in CoF.
I thought of that too and it's a reasonable view. But considering it became a staple in other formats and still got the ban hammer there's certainly a point with these cards that WotC says "no more" and takes action. Is 50% of the decks using TC breaking that threshold? Again it probably depends on format, that number may be given more room in Legacy or Vintage than in a format like Modern or Pauper so it's hard to say.
And yes that's a good summary.
Now that's a very interesting detail. I would not have noticed this type of adaptation. So, in a meta that basically has never been slower, decks like Boros Kitty are adapting by adding pressure elements? Fascinating!
I see. Would the banning of Ghostly Flicker make the deck weaker to the point that it wouldn't be nearly as good, though? I'm a bit partial to a format having all different types of strategies available to it (aggro, combo, control, etc.), so I think it would be a bit of a loss to see the deck disappear completely.
Oh! I really wasn't expecting you to focus on that part of my paragraph, to be honest! Yes, I think formats should be allowed to have staples, but I think the function of treasure cruise in decks is a more important factor to consider when looking at its prevalence in comparison with cards like Cloudpost.
I'm happy with where we're at now. We have common grounds of approval on information, and have also essentially coined a phrase with which we agree can represent a starting point for discussion. From what I understand, you are not worried about the diversity of the format from an archetypal point of view, nor from a archetypal dominance shift point of view. Your concern lies mostly with the fact that Treasure Cruise is the most played card in the format, regardless of what deck it is played in, or at what rate they succeed. Please correct me if necessary. I'm trying to simplify it as much as possible. Then we can start to accumulate factors that we've covered previously and discuss them with a more focused goal.
UGTurboFogGU
BRSacrificial AggroBR
16The Paper Pauper Battle Bag16
EDH
BRRakdos, Lord of PingersBR
GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
UB Ramses OverdarkUB
Sig by Ace5301 of Ace of Spades Studio
One would calculate the increase just as you are doing here: by examining the relative predominance of different archetypes before and after and comparing those. If Delver has remained relatively constant and blue decks that don't run Treasure Cruise have remained relatively constant and Izzet Control has significantly increased in representation, then presumably the increase in blue decks is largely attributable to Izzet Control, unless there's another archetype that's experienced an even larger increase.
If you think there is another cause here then please elaborate, but if you're just saying 'People just randomly decided to start playing this archetype at a frankly unprecedented rate but this had nothing at all to do with the extremely powerful card that happens to fit very well into this archetype that was released right around the time that the archetype started to become popular' then you'll forgive my scepticism.
I'm not sure to be perfectly honest. I haven't played with the deck myself, I've only ever played against it so I don't want to speculate too much. What I will say is Ghostly Flicker is a pretty unique card in Pauper. There's other cards available that blink one creature (Momentary Blink, Cloudshift, etc) but as far as I'm aware, none that let you blink two creatures like Ghostly Flicker. This is obviously important as the key to the combo is repeatedly playing Ghostly Flicker on a Mnemonic Wall and Cloud of Faeries to generate infinite mana and infinite mills with Sage's Row Denizen. You can't generate infinite mana if you're using something like Cloudshift for example, because you don't get it back after if you use it on CoF. It's possible banning Ghostly Flicker is a better solution if the goal is simply to limit the success of Esper Familiars and not cause splash damage to other decks (like banning CoF would to Delver). But then the question is if the deck is still even playable if Flicker is removed? I'm leaning towards that it wouldn't be, at least not in its current form but there are possibly ways it could adapt.
I agree with you I would hate to see the deck killed entirely, but at the same time its success rate has been markedly higher than other decks in the format. If you look at the data Tom the Scud posted in another topic, of the DEs he observed Esper Familiar cashed in nearly half of the events it entered. The next closest decks couldn't even crack the 40% mark (barring a few archetypes that had extremely small sample sizes). Like I said I'm not overly familiar (pun intended) with the working of the deck so I'm not certain either way here. Both CoF and Ghostly Flicker fairly are unique elements to the engine so perhaps removing either one would have a similar effect on the deck.
Yes, I said as much in reply to you counting archetypes and in my big post before this one that was one of the biggest concerns I had.
It seems as though Izzet Control is the largest chunk, and by a large margin, then. The next deck that seems to have benefited from all this change is Stompy, who has also tripled in prevalence. Every other deck has seen little to no change, aside from a few like White Weenie, Fiend, and Hexproof, which all seem much less successful than they were. The biggest loser is MBC, but it fell from much higher, so stopped to something more reasonable. If we look at it from an archetypal distribution point of view, a lot of blue decks don't seem to have changed all that much. This a very interesting thing to note. Is Izzet Control the flavour of the month?
Please, don't assume you know what I think. If you think it's not clear, ask. Putting words in my mouth is not going to get anything productive done (also, there are only so many ways I can rephrase this).
A tertiary tier movement is when one deck displaces another, which in turn causes another to change in prevalence (whether positive or negative). White decks disappearing is a tertiary movement. Stompy becoming popular again is a tertiary movement (although slightly more debatable). A lot of this happens when a big deck like MBC falls in popularity and there's a new Tier 1 deck in town. This is how new metagames are born.
It seems to hold a perfect position in the metagame right now: a very strong deck that isn't common enough to attract hate, yet does so well it cashes more than any other. How long can a deck stay that way? As soon as people discover how successful it is, more will play it, and some will start to be more prepared. This may be the beginning of a big change, depending on how well familiar and the rest of the game can adapt to this shooting star.
Excellent.
Here's a small summary of things we can observe through our discussion:
In a nutshell for Cloudpost vs. Treasure Cruise: is a single card making a bulk of decks better (to the point that we see this card everywhere), just as bad as a card making a handful take up a large portion of the game?
In a bigger nutshell: is Treasure Cruise present to a degree that is unhealthy? Concern of some users is not related to archetypal diversity nor the current archetypal dominance, but rather the prevalence of the individual card itself.
With all this information, and with the question re-diluted, what can be said?
Yes or No, and Why.
UGTurboFogGU
BRSacrificial AggroBR
16The Paper Pauper Battle Bag16
EDH
BRRakdos, Lord of PingersBR
GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
UB Ramses OverdarkUB
Sig by Ace5301 of Ace of Spades Studio
This is how I ask. It is one of those two options. There is no third. Adding extra steps does not undo causality. So either you are actually saying one of the two things I "put in your mouth" (please note that I did say "if" you think that, I didn't claim you definitely said that) or you are saying something totally nonsensical.
Like this. I'm not putting these words in your mouth. You are implying that "tertiary movements" (by definition, at least as I read it, effects that can be linked to Treasure Cruise by a tripartite chain or possibly a longer one) are not, in fact, causally related to the event to which by definition they are, in fact, causally related. You can have however long a chain of causes as you like and it won't decouple the end from the beginning. The meta without Treasure Cruise is going to be different from the meta with Treasure Cruise and this is an example of how it is different. The only way you can refute this is by presenting an alternate cause. Adding additional steps does not accomplish this!
Gracious me! It would've been so easy to turn this into a question instead.
UGTurboFogGU
BRSacrificial AggroBR
16The Paper Pauper Battle Bag16
EDH
BRRakdos, Lord of PingersBR
GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
UB Ramses OverdarkUB
Sig by Ace5301 of Ace of Spades Studio
No, that's not how causality works. Either there is a cause that is not Treasure Cruise or removing Treasure Cruise removes the entire chain of causality. Just because the steps are complicated doesn't mean that removing Treasure Cruise will not undo them. Do you have an actual response to this or don't you?
I'm sorry you find my style of argument rude. I've made an effort to soften it somewhat but I'm not going to drastically alter my phrasing to conform with the precise form that you dictate. If you weren't so busy searching my posts for breaches of etiquette maybe you could actually answer the questions that I am asking rather than complaining that they are not phrased as you wish questions to be phrased. This is how I ask questions!
I did not define causality. Furthermore, it is simply impossible for the metagame to go back to the way it was, even with a banning of Treasure Cruise (which is seeming less and less likely now). I think most people would agree with that. It has evolved beyond something that can be reverted to a previous state. Even if Treasure Cruise had never existed, the metagame would have changed from 4 months ago (I'm starting to stretch this a bit far, though). Do you think the metagame would be identical to the way it was before Khand of Tarkir was released?
You're not asking questions. Questions involve question marks (first of all). I believe your phrases are statements. Statements are not a problem. The issue is that your assumptions about what I'm saying are not portraying my statements correctly. This wouldn't happen if they were formulated as questions instead.
UGTurboFogGU
BRSacrificial AggroBR
16The Paper Pauper Battle Bag16
EDH
BRRakdos, Lord of PingersBR
GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
UB Ramses OverdarkUB
Sig by Ace5301 of Ace of Spades Studio
We cannot know precisely how the metagame would have evolved in Treasure Cruise's absence, but I think to suggest that archetypes that benefit strongly from Treasure Cruise would have experienced exactly the same increase in dominance is hopelessly naive (please note, nothing in this preceding sentence should be construed as putting words in your mouth. If you, personally, did not make such a suggestion I can't very well be talking about you. Incidentally, did you make such a suggestion[QUESTION MARK FOLLOWS]?) If you cannot point to any other cause the only conclusion that we can draw is that Treasure Cruise is primarily if not solely responsible for the observed changes. I think it entirely plausible that a Pauper environment without Treasure Cruise would resemble in many ways the Pauper environment before Treasure Cruise was printed.
As a rhetorical device, I suggest potential summations of or logical inferences from my opponents arguments, to ensure that I properly understand them. If I do not understand you, I expect you to point this out and (hopefully) correct my understanding. It is not necessary to lecture me about etiquette. I feel the question "is this a correct summation of your argument?" is implied. Evidently you prefer such a question to be explicitly written out. I can't promise I will conform to your preferred phrasing in the future but can you please do me the courtesy of explaining what you actually think rather than simply chastising me for getting it wrong?
The thing is, it's not exactly an easy deck to just pick up and play so perhaps people won't be so quick to flock to it. I mean it's probably not as tough to play well as Grapeshot Storm was for example, but it still has quite a bit more going on then a random creature deck or even a control list like UR or MBC. If we see an increase in popularity maybe MBC comes back a bit as a response? Even so it's hard to see MBC coming back too strong as long as TC remains legal.
I'm confused by this. You're saying Izzet Control is 15% of the format but it looks like it's only 10% to me (going by mtgo-stats.com)? Are you lumping in the Cyclops combo decks there too or are you using a different source for your estimation? (or did they just update the page/change the % since you posted that?)
That's the grand question here.
Well I've already said my piece with regards to this and feel like I'd just be retreading old ground to answer this again. Really it's entirely subjective at this point. We've examined the (available) data and have been lead to the conclusions you listed. Treasure Cruise is being played by half the format and as a result over half of the format is comprised of blue decks. A variety of blue decks to be sure, but many nonetheless. Personally I do find the numbers troubling and would not be unhappy to see Treasure Cruise gone from the format. It would be interesting to see others chime in though.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't Ponder and Preordain banned because they made combo decks too consistent? At least that was the reasoning I believe WotC gave at the time.
Fully agree on your comment about "mandatory" deck inclusions. Like look at Vintage, pretty much every deck has to run Ancestral, Time Walk, Lotus, Moxen, etc. Most decks that don't simply can't compete. I don't really consider deckbuilding limitations like this to be healthy for a format. Yes, I'm aware the P9 in Vintage are an extreme example and we're not at that point in Pauper with TC but there clearly is some limitation happening where the majority of blue decks do need to run the card. I agree that the post-Cloudpost format was a good format. Lots of fringe decks started making appearances again and there was more reward to playing a rogue deck.
Also, Ponder and Preordain were banned for the fact that they speed up combo by letting them dig and search for the pieces they need.
Thanks to DNC from Heroes of the Plane Studios for the sig
Check my Pauper Cube!
They do this with other strong mechanics. Look how burn would run away with the metagame if there weren't guys like Kor Firewalker. Look how dredge and graveyard combo would take over if it weren't for cards like Relic of Progenitus. Look how artifacts would be dominant if it weren't for hate like Hurkyl's Recall.
What if they printed blue card draw hate, and made it so any color could run it?
_________
Garbage Scow 3
Artifact Enchantment - Aura
Garbage Scow cannot be countered, and cannot be the target of spells or abilities.
Enchant island.
Enchanted land's controller cannot draw more than one card per turn.
_________
There. And it's still reasonably balanced: The island itself can be bounced, or the artifact can be removed with an artifact sweeper. It can even be played around by "put that card into your hand" effects.
_________
Watchtower Captain 1W
Creature - Human Soldier
Flash.
Whenever an opponent draws a card beyond the first each turn, put a White 1/1 Soldier token onto the battlefield.
2/1
_________
Vedalken Spy 1U
Creature - Vedalken Rogue
Vedalken Spy can't be blocked.
Whenever an opponent draws a card beyond the first each turn, you may draw a card.
1/2
_________
Rake the mind B
Instant
As an additional cost to cast Rake the mind, pay 1 life.
Target player discards a card at random for each card he or she drew this turn.
_________
Brainspark 2R
Instant
Brainspark deals damage to target creature or player equal to the number of cards in his or her hand.
If that player or that creature's controller drew more than one card this turn, Brainspark costs 2 less to cast.
_________
Mage-Eater Spider 1G
Creature - Spider
Reach, Hexproof.
Whevener an opponent draws a card beyond the first each turn, put a +1/+1 counter on Mage-Eater Spider.
1/2
Thanks to DNC from Heroes of the Plane Studios for the sig
Check my Pauper Cube!
Good thing you clarified that with your parentheses, or one could easily have been confused. We are not working with sure values. Saying the metagame would be completely restored, or that it would be completely different, or that it would be exactly the same, is wrong. The truth is somewhere between these realities. I think your last phrase is probably the most well-written one you've shown to date. You're completely allowed to think that way. But we have no way of knowing, so that our opinions differ on this hypothetical situation is not really that important.
The way you phrase your "arguments" by attempting to summarize a thought you didn't understand is time consuming for yourself, because you took the time to write a response to something that you've understood inaccurately. Before making false conclusions and spending time responding to them, it's better to clarify with the person to make sure you actually grasp what they're trying to say. This moves a discussion forward in a smoother way. You'll save yourself a lot of time by just asking the right questions.
It's quite possible that my calculations are off. I took a rather small sample size, and the ones portrayed on the site probably looked at more data. I really was looking only at UR Control. Maybe putting my numbers up like that isn't such a good idea, as they aren't wide enough to be considered actual stats (they just give a general idea of directions decks are going in).
I was hoping more people would chime in as well after my post. Thanks everyone!
MadManQuail,
I don't really like the argument of "if a card is too common, it should be banned". I feel like more criteria should be used to analyse whether it's actually unhealthy for the format or not. There are tons of things to look at, and we've probably only scratched the surface in this thread. The fact that it shows up in so many decks is the concern that seems to drive most people against Treasure Cruise. That fact can't be disputed. But what else can be said against it? If we start looking at other criteria, I feel we begin to see a different picture. There are Pros and Cons in this debate, and we shouldn't just shrug some aside, in my opinion.
*sigh*, if only there were actually cards that could punish people for drawing cards...
UGTurboFogGU
BRSacrificial AggroBR
16The Paper Pauper Battle Bag16
EDH
BRRakdos, Lord of PingersBR
GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
UB Ramses OverdarkUB
Sig by Ace5301 of Ace of Spades Studio
I'd argue Brainstorm probably should be banned in Legacy as the card is quite powerful in a format with fetchlands. It's restricted in Vintage which is a different format but certainly indicates it could be banned in Legacy too. This is just my own speculation but I think the reason they don't ban it isn't because it's a fair card, but because they are afraid of the backlash if they do. Many Legacy players think of Brainstorm as the quintessential card of the format and have very sentimental feelings towards it. But anyways that's getting a bit off topic.
On topic, I mentioned earlier that the allowable % is probably higher in more degenerate formats like Legacy or Vintage than it is in Pauper or Modern. Saying Brainstorm at 78% is acceptable doesn't mean Treasure Cruise at 50% in Pauper is automatically acceptable too. The bar could very well be much lower for Pauper. How prominent does a card need to be to be considered a problem in Pauper is the key question in this regard.
The problem with this, is a card like that is probably considered way too complex for WotC to ever print at common with its modern day design. Like Zephyr Scarlet said "uncounterability" isn't really something they do at common.
Ok fair enough, I just wasn't sure how you got to the number but it isn't a big deal.
The fact that we can't know anything for sure doesn't mean we can't know anything at all. Treasure Cruise had a clear impact. Banning it would undo that impact. That doesn't mean the metagame would be precisely the same as before, because as we say that's not predictable. But just because the edges are fuzzy doesn't mean the core is.
When I use my preferred phrasing, you chastise me for not asking questions in your dictated format and then refuse to answer them (even when you admit the transformation to question is trivial, c.f. "Gracious me! It would've been so easy to turn this into a question instead."). When I use your preferred phrasing, you congratulate me on following your arbitrary instructions and then refuse to answer them (see previous paragraph). The way I see it both ways are wasting my time and therefore I see no reason not to use the method that is more natural to me.
I think the core of our disagreement is if the format would revert back to something like it was before. I disagree with that. I believe the format has changed in a way that it would be somewhere in the middle. No matter what kind of impact Treasure Cruise had on the format, I don't think removing it would alter the changes the format has gone through, regardless of the level of impact the card had.
I congratulated you on making a statement that was not based on reasoning derived from false understanding. You built an opinion based on your own thoughts, which brought something tangible to the conversation. It's a great start!
but is our conversation really that useful? I hope you've been keeping up with the rest of what is being said here, because I feel like a lot interesting things are being said by other users.
UGTurboFogGU
BRSacrificial AggroBR
16The Paper Pauper Battle Bag16
EDH
BRRakdos, Lord of PingersBR
GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
UB Ramses OverdarkUB
Sig by Ace5301 of Ace of Spades Studio
Well I agree that that is where we disagree. I can't see anything that would maintain the changes to the metagame in the absence of Treasure Cruise. And every time I ask you what that might be you instead find some fault in my phrasing or orthography and for some reason decide that that means you don't need to answer the question. So this is a clear, unambiguous question that obeys all your arbitrary rules and you have no excuse for dodging: What mechanism do you think will ensure the effect you claim QUESTION MARK?
I think that, considering the state of the metagame, UR Control is well placed. Delver decks are very popular, and this deck preys on that. It also will tend to prey on other slow Blue decks, of which there are many. It also stands a better chance against Stompy than other aggro lists like Hexproof, which have been in decline. If MBC were to make a comeback (it probably would, with the banning of TC), it will be able to prey on the two current big decks, but will suffer from the presence of Stompy, which can in turn increase in popularity. I think the metagame will stabilize with UR Control still with very solid representation, with the only trade-off being with a slightly higher MBC and Stompy count. I don't think low-tier decks like White Weenies and Goblins would make a huge return, because they don't interact well with the Blue decks that have made their presence so strong.
UGTurboFogGU
BRSacrificial AggroBR
16The Paper Pauper Battle Bag16
EDH
BRRakdos, Lord of PingersBR
GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
UB Ramses OverdarkUB
Sig by Ace5301 of Ace of Spades Studio
But inherent in this is the assumption that the strength of blue decks is independent of Treasure Cruise. So how do you think blue decks could remain as strong as they are in its absence (obviously they were strong before, but equally obviously they strengthened in the wake of Treasure Cruise)? Why do you think people who moved towards blue decks like UR Control because of Treasure Cruise will continuing playing those archetypes after losing Treasure Cruise?
Why do you think the starting point should be the current meta? Clearly a Treasure Cruise-free meta is substantially different from the current format and should therefore start from a different place. That's why I think we should look at the pre-Treasure Cruise meta, not because I believe banning Treasure Cruise will completely and instantly revert the entire format to the meta of six months ago, but because that meta is the clearest example of a Treasure Cruise-free Pauper meta that is measurable. What reason do you have for assuming that people's deck choices and win percentages will be closer to the current meta than to this earlier meta whose card pool is arguably more similar?
I believe the starting point should be the current meta because it is the current meta, as opposed to what was a few months ago (I hope that was clear... :/). I don't think that from one day to the other, a huge number of people will just jump back three months. Many of them will try new things, or stick with their guns and see where that leads. We may even see even more people playing Delver and Stompy, since they seem to be go-to decks after a banning. Only people with large collections can really jump from one deck to another without much concern. This certainly isn't the case for everyone. There are comfort and economic factors as well as playability factors and metagame knowledge factors to consider after a banning. I think the general consensus post-ban is that proactive decks are a bit better in blind metas. We can't really know what post-ban TC would look like, so I can only imagine some people will go back to generally powerful strategies like Stompy and Delver, while slower decks that haven't been doing as well (like MBC) may take longer to regain popularity. All the while, UR Control being already very present stays a popular choice just by the fact that people are comfortable playing it and don't (or can't afford) to change. All this is just rambling speculation, and I really have nothing to back this up.
UGTurboFogGU
BRSacrificial AggroBR
16The Paper Pauper Battle Bag16
EDH
BRRakdos, Lord of PingersBR
GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
UB Ramses OverdarkUB
Sig by Ace5301 of Ace of Spades Studio
It seems like you're looking at it from a human behaviour point of view whereas I'm looking at it more from a numbers point of view. What we're looking at are the winners of daily events. So although we talk about "increase" or "changes" in archetypes, it needn't be (and in fact is almost certainly not) the same people choosing different decks and then posting similar results. Of course, there can be some of that, but the way I see it there are strong archetypes in a given meta and this will be reflected in the results. Even if every player was 100% committed to their favoured archetype to the exclusion of all others and irrespective of any changes to the card pool, this would still be true because the stubborn players playing a deck that is no longer strong would lose more often to the stubborn players playing a deck that is now much stronger. So that's where I'm coming from, I don't think it's a matter of trying to guess in a vacuum what decks people will want to play. People will play a bunch of different decks, and some of them will do better than others. That is something we can measure, and I expect it will look a lot like the pre-Khans environment.