Oops, you posted while I was making significant edits. I'll put this here.
So I went ahead and tried to extrapolate how many "not sure" decks would run TC in the old dailies if given the opportunity. I took a look at how many Familiars, Trons, Boros and Burn lists ran TC among the new results. 1/3 familiars used TC. 2/4 Trons used TC. 1/3 Boros used TC. 1/5 Burn used TC. So, I took out the the "not sure" decks that use Blue from the equation of the old dailies (like affinity), and then added 3 (roughly the number of "not sure" decks that would use TC). when tallied up, 14/36 decks would potentially use Treasure Cruise in the old dailies. That's about 39%. It can be deduced now that Treasure Cruise increased the number of decks that want to use it by 10 percentage points in prevalence in the format.
Personally, I don't find this to be incredibly game-breaking. These decks make up a large part of the format, but let's not forget there is still 51% that isn't using Treasure Cruise, and that most of the ones that are using it were already very present in the format. TC has made them appear slightly more often, as well as make other decks splash for them (Burn, Boros).
Again, take these numbers with a grain of salt. This is a minuscule population sample that I've taken. I'm not going to do any more number crunching like this as it is a bit time consuming, but maybe we could all gather some data together and uncover a more accurate result?
How is this experiment weird? I took the closest thing to the current metagame, but pre-khans, in order to attempt at seeing the impact it had. There are other variables, as I mentioned, that are difficult to calculate. If we can safely assume that Treasure Cruise was the variable with the highest impact (I'm sure most people here would agree), we can begin to paint a "before and after" picture that looks something like the truth.
As for your research, don't you find it at all troubling that 51% of the decks are running Treasure Cruise? That to me speaks volumes of an unhealthy format, especially one with as large of a cardpool as Pauper has access to. The blue decks that don't use TC are mostly Esper Familiar combo (their lists are pretty tight as is) and Affinity decks that haven't adopted it (which are probably wrong not to have it in some quantity but that's neither here nor there). Pretty much everything else blue is running it.
Actually, not really, because the number Blue decks present in tournaments that want to use Treasure Cruise would be roughly the same anyways (I expect it would be a difference within 5 percentage points, by looking at the numbers I've already obtained). The exact number is near impossible to calculate, as I explained, because we have no way of knowing if Esper, Elves, or Affinity players would have used TC or not (it can be done, but would be somewhat tedious and highly inaccurate).
I'm not sure what you're talking about here exactly? Unless you're referring to decks that didn't cash (data we don't have available)? Otherwise you can just check those Familiar/Affinity/Elf/whatever decks on a deck-by-deck basis.
But anyways Treasure cruise forcing non-blue midrange out of the format is the biggest concern here and you seem to have little to say in that regard? It seems like you're just ignoring this problem other than saying you're okay with it on a personal level. The decks forced out of the format (Boros and MBC)don't grind games nearly as much as decks like UB or UR control do though - decks which Treasure Cruise actually benefits. You're okay with those decks sticking around but are happy that less grindy decks like Boros (which you've claimed to never have even played against) and MBC are dying off because of TC? Again, all removing these decks from the format does is revert us back to a state similar to before the Cloudpost banning where midrange couldn't function in the format. That was obviously considered an unhealthy metagame since CLoudpost did get banned, so why should Treasure Cruise not deserve the same fate?
I'm not sure what you're talking about here exactly? Unless you're referring to decks that didn't cash (data we don't have available)? Otherwise you can just check those Familiar/Affinity/Elf/whatever decks on a deck-by-deck basis.
Oh, I was talking about the pre-Treasure Cruise "maybe" decks, where we can only estimate how many of them would actually use treasure cruise. Have you seen the post right before yours? I've made the estimate, and I find it rather interesting.
But anyways Treasure cruise forcing non-blue midrange out of the format is the biggest concern here and you seem to have little to say in that regard? It seems like you're just ignoring this problem other than saying you're okay with it on a personal level. The decks forced out of the format (Boros and MBC)don't grind games nearly as much as decks like UB or UR control do though - decks which Treasure Cruise actually benefits. You're okay with those decks sticking around but are happy that less grindy decks like Boros (which you've claimed to never have even played against) and MBC are dying off because of TC? Again, all removing these decks from the format does is revert us back to a state similar to before the Cloudpost banning where midrange couldn't function in the format. That was obviously considered an unhealthy metagame since CLoudpost did get banned, so why should Treasure Cruise not deserve the same fate?
Actually, I was under the impression that it was stopping grinding decks from playing, which I thought was a good thing. Boros Kitty is renowned for being rather grindy. I think the definitions of "mid-range" and "grindy" should be looked at, because this may be the cause of both our confusion. I'm convinced MBC will survive (it stills places tons of top-tier finishes). Not so much for Boros Kitty (I've only been playing online since Christmas time, so I haven't crossed this deck yet). Is Affinity not a mid-range deck that places well? Cards will push decks out of formats, this is normal. I don't think TC is doing it at an abominable rate, either. Take a look at the past weekends results, and you'll still see a Boros deck and plenty of MBC.
In fact, a thought crossed my mind: Could Treasure Cruise be making the format even more diversified? This thought occurred to me when I saw the 4-0 Turbo Fog list (which also posted a couple 3-1 finishes before). What if Treasure Cruise was actually allowing decks that didn't use to be competitive to compete with the very best in the format? How many non-tier 1 decks are actually placing well now, thanks to Treasure Cruise? Would that not mean the format is more diverse than it ever was? That would be an interesting thing to look at, and very measurable. I'm not talking about diversity in colour distribution or in card distribution, but rather in the number of different archetypes that we see now as opposed to before. I'll have to take a look at that and get back to you.
When I talked about grinding for advantage, I just meant that there are very few cards that trade 2-for-1 at a reasonable mana cost, and fewer still that trade 3-for-1, so the bulk of the format is made of 1-for-1 trades and 2-for-1 gains trying to one-up each other, with pure aggro (Stompy) and pure combo (Izzet Blitz) being represented but not overpowering.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, you think the losers' bracket is your ally, but you merely adopted the scrub tier. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn’t 4-0 an FNM until I was already a man; by then, it was nothing to me but an extra pack to sell for store credit!
I'm not sure what you're talking about here exactly? Unless you're referring to decks that didn't cash (data we don't have available)? Otherwise you can just check those Familiar/Affinity/Elf/whatever decks on a deck-by-deck basis.
Oh, I was talking about the pre-Treasure Cruise "maybe" decks, where we can only estimate how many of them would actually use treasure cruise. Have you seen the post right before yours? I've made the estimate, and I find it rather interesting.
But anyways Treasure cruise forcing non-blue midrange out of the format is the biggest concern here and you seem to have little to say in that regard? It seems like you're just ignoring this problem other than saying you're okay with it on a personal level. The decks forced out of the format (Boros and MBC)don't grind games nearly as much as decks like UB or UR control do though - decks which Treasure Cruise actually benefits. You're okay with those decks sticking around but are happy that less grindy decks like Boros (which you've claimed to never have even played against) and MBC are dying off because of TC? Again, all removing these decks from the format does is revert us back to a state similar to before the Cloudpost banning where midrange couldn't function in the format. That was obviously considered an unhealthy metagame since CLoudpost did get banned, so why should Treasure Cruise not deserve the same fate?
Actually, I was under the impression that it was stopping grinding decks from playing, which I thought was a good thing. Boros Kitty is renowned for being rather grindy. I think the definitions of "mid-range" and "grindy" should be looked at, because this may be the cause of both our confusion. I'm convinced MBC will survive (it stills places tons of top-tier finishes). Not so much for Boros Kitty (I've only been playing online since Christmas time, so I haven't crossed this deck yet). Is Affinity not a mid-range deck that places well? Cards will push decks out of formats, this is normal. I don't think TC is doing it at an abominable rate, either. Take a look at the past weekends results, and you'll still see a Boros deck and plenty of MBC.
In fact, a thought crossed my mind: Could Treasure Cruise be making the format even more diversified? This thought occurred to me when I saw the 4-0 Turbo Fog list (which also posted a couple 3-1 finishes before). What if Treasure Cruise was actually allowing decks that didn't use to be competitive to compete with the very best in the format? How many non-tier 1 decks are actually placing well now, thanks to Treasure Cruise? Would that not mean the format is more diverse than it ever was? That would be an interesting thing to look at, and very measurable. I'm not talking about diversity in colour distribution or in card distribution, but rather in the number of different archetypes that we see now as opposed to before. I'll have to take a look at that and get back to you.
It's stopping non-blue midrange grinding decks from playing. It's not stopping the hardcore control decks that grind even harder (UB and UR control being the main decks in this category). If you take issue with grinding then why aren't you concerned about those decks? Affinity leans between aggro/midrange with some combo elements too. It's kind of all-over the place but if I had to lump it into one category I'd put it in the aggro camp. MBC still gets results because it's a popular deck rather than because it can compete against Treasure Cruise. That being said its results are significantly down from pre-Treasure Cruise events. One or two decks being forced out of the format might not be a problem, but when a general archtype as a whole becomes unviable (midrange) then it IS a problem.
The part I bolded is ludicrous. The format is less diverse. I've already mentioned multiple times that Treasure Cruise is forcing midrange out of the format similarly to how Cloudpost decks did that. The format actually was fairly diverse pre-Treasure Cruise. MBC was over represented but other than that there were a lot of viable decks.
Most of the decks that TC helps were already competitive. Delver has been tier 1 forever. Cyclops/Fiend decks were competitive before (more tier 2 but they still put up results). Tron decks existed and has success before. Pretty much every popular TC deck I can think of was around and competitive before TC existed. This is a case of the rich getting richer, not of Treasure Cruise thrusting unknown decks into the spotlight. You admit yourself that you only just started playing Pauper so you don't really know any format other than the current one but I assure you it's not diverse right now.
In what world is that a reasonable deduction? Your figures say that the proportion of decks running Treasure Cruise is about the same as the total number of blue decks prior to Treasure Cruise's release. The only way for the numbers to be "eerily similar" would be if literally every deck with blue in it actually wanted a Treasure Cruise. But your own figures show that this is not currently the case. So unless you believe that the introduction of Treasure Cruise somehow created new blue archetypes that specifically don't want Treasure Cruise (and I'm not entirely convinced that you don't believe exactly this), clearly the number of Treasure Cruise ready decks has increased.
In the world where you've completely misunderstood the argument (this one).
All elbowing aside, I explained why I used the number of Blue decks instead of the number of Treasure Cruise decks, but I suppose for your sake I'll repeat myself: in order to make a proper comparison, you need to observe similar data in both samples. Because one sample did not have access to Treasure Cruise, it is difficult to tell exactly how many they would run, because that is a deck-building choice, not an obligation. While speculating how many "maybe decks" would run Treasure Cruise is possible, it would be rather inaccurate, so I left it out. So the 53% and 62% are not showing how many more Treasure Cruise decks there are (as I mentioned previously), they are showing the percentage of decks using Blue as a colour in both sample weekends. I then added that not all Blue decks run Treasure Cruise, and said that that number dropped to 51%. I did not compare the 51% and the 53%, as that clearly would have been wrong. Be careful what you assume that I think. Ask questions instead. I'm very certain the number of decks that normally would use TC has increased, but not by a margin that makes it oppressive for the format.
It doesn't really matter what I assume you think, what matters is you're drawing a conclusion that is not supported by the data you present. So it's great to learn that you understand how the data are to be read, but that just raises the question, how on earth do you think these numbers support what you're saying? Since the only comparison we can really make is between the percentage of blue decks in the format, they've clearly increased fairly significantly.
There are 17% more blue decks in the format, you've confused percentages with percentage points. It's also weird that you emphasise how they don't all play Treasure Cruise, it's almost like (as I speculated earlier) you believe the "new" decks are primarily or entirely those that do not want Treasure Cruise. While it's possible that these numbers are just due to random chance, if we're to draw any conclusion at all from them it can only be that Treasure Cruise has had a significant impact on the format and caused archetypes that benefit from it to increase in representation dramatically. To imply that the increase is due to decks not running Treasure Cruise is just bizarre.
Thank you for the correction, I did mean percentile points in increased presence of Blue decks. What "new" decks are you talking about? There have been no new significant recorded archetypes present on the tournament scene that I'm aware of that would fit these criteria (although there's a sweet UG Turbo Fog list that went 4-0 this weekend!! uses TC). The point I'm trying to make is that while the number of decks using Blue has increased 9 percentage points, the number of decks that ran Treasure Cruise is 11 percentage points lower than that. This was to highlight that not all Blue decks are using Treasure Cruise. This, to me, means that the percentage of decks that maybe would have run Treasure Cruise in the older sample would be similar to the ones that do now (My wild assumption would be a 5 percentage point difference).
The new decks are the decks that contribute to the increased percentage of blue-inclusive decks in the data. They are not new archetypes, they are existing archetypes experiencing greater success. That's very important. For some unfathomable reason you are under the impression that all blue decks would have increased in representation equally. As I said before, if we are to draw any conclusion from these numbers it has to be that Treasure Cruise is responsible, and to then conclude that a significant number of these archetypes that experienced increased success in Treasure Cruise's wake have nothing to do with Treasure Cruise is just ridiculous!
EDIT: I just realized I made a mistake in my calculations. One Delver deck had an extra Treasure Cruise in its sideboard, so I accidentally counted it as two decks. That 51% is actually reduced to 49%.
EDIT: So I went ahead and tried to extrapolate how many "not sure" decks would run TC in the old dailies if given the opportunity. I took a look at how many Familiars, Trons, Boros and Burn lists ran TC among the new results. 1/3 familiars used TC. 2/4 Trons used TC. 1/3 Boros used TC. 1/5 Burn used TC. So, I took out the the "not sure" decks that use Blue from the equation of the old dailies (like affinity), and then added 3 (roughly the number of "not sure" decks that would use TC). when tallied up, 14/36 decks would potentially use Treasure Cruise in the old dailies. That's about 39%. It can be deduced, now that Treasure Cruise increased the number of decks that want to use it by 10 percentage points in prevalence in the format.
Using your numbers, prior to the release of Treasure Cruise 14% of all decks in the format were blue decks that for the sake of argument we'll estimate would not play Treasure Cruise. After Treasure Cruise was released, 13% of decks ran blue but not Treasure Cruise. These numbers are basically identical (especially when we take into account the difficulties in estimating the first figure). Yet the total number of blue decks increased significantly. So all of this increase is associated with Treasure Cruise. Tell me again how it didn't warp the format?
Alex Ullman, whom seem to be known as an advisor to WotC for the pauper banlist (that's at least what I read somewhere on reddit or facebook), thinks that TC is fine for now. He thought that Cloud of Faerie was the card deserving the banhammer.
My own rules when building a Commander deck:
1) Underrated general that I can build around but the deck must work without him/her too.
2) Every card must be legal in both banlists.
3) No infinite combo that could win (and ruin) instantly a multiplayer game.
4) Synergy at all costs; stay on theme, avoid goodstuff.
I've advocated a Cloud of Faeries ban in the past (a little before the Cloudpost/Fissure bannings happened) and wouldn't be completely opposed to it, but I'm not sure that it's the right direction to take at this point in time. It would take out (or at least cripple) Familiar Storm as we currently know it, but is removing another deck from the format what we want to do? Killing Familiar Storm off won't bring back MBC or other midrange attrition decks that are forced out by Treasure Cruise. The other upside of a Cloud of Faeries ban of course is that it will weaken a perennial tier 1 deck in Delver which is one of the better homes for TC in pauper. The question is if Delver can adapt to losing Cloud of Faeries? Spellstutter Sprite certainly becomes much worse, and it's a lot more difficult for Delver to both apply pressure and hold up counter protection without the "free" Faerie. If Delver has trouble adapting then that might be enough to make a TC ban unnecessary at this point in time. But even if Delver can't adapt there are still decks like Cyclops that shouldn't have draw power like TC still existing in the format which I think leaves some cause for concern.
I think a key point here is that not only will taking TC out of the format allow decks like MBC to return, but it also won't completely kill an existing archtype if it leaves the format. Decks like Delver, Cyclops, Tron, Affinity, etc - these were all competitive decks before TC was printed so it stands to reason they will still be when it leaves.
Tron was super-marginal pre-cruise, and Cyclops was pretty marginal as well, certainly nothing like the T1-ish deck it is now. (Cyclops does get a shiny new toy from FRF that could help it be more competitive). And really by "decks like MBC" we mean "MBC".
Tron was super-marginal pre-cruise, and Cyclops was pretty marginal as well, certainly nothing like the T1-ish deck it is now. (Cyclops does get a shiny new toy from FRF that could help it be more competitive). And really by "decks like MBC" we mean "MBC".
For sure, neither was really tier 1 but they were still capable of (and did) put up results before Treasure Cruise.
And I'm advocating on behalf of Boros too :p, but yes it's mostly MBC that's gone missing with the other decks being more marginal. I just think the argument Alex is making for banning CoF is flawed. He says the loss of MBC in the format due to TC is letting Esper Familiar assert its dominance as the best deck. Well if you let MBC back into the format then it stands to reason Familiar should see its success level drop, and the best way to do this is to return the meta to the pre-TC state. That being said I'm sure CoF will probably end up banned someday anyways and I won't shed a tear for it. I just think now is not the time. Banning TC should lead to a more diverse format while I don't see much argument that banning CoF will do the same.
You admit yourself that you only just started playing Pauper so you don't really know any format other than the current one but I assure you it's not diverse right now.
I've been playing Paper Pauper since 2012 and have also been keeping close tabs on the online metagame, since we use the online banlist. Please, don't poison the well. Let's keep things civil.
Come on now, this is just getting absurd. By any logical "diversity" metric you could come up with, the format is less diverse. Fewer deck types, fewer colors played, fewer archetypes, fewer individual cards among all decks, and worst of all...fewer players.
I can only repeat the one fact that matters: Treasure cruise appears in 1 out of every 2 pauper decks. This is a massive indicator of poor deck diversity. It is more prevalent in this format than it was in Vintage, Modern or Legacy, where it was banned across the board. Read their explanation: it clearly shows that deck diversity is important to their decision.
The part I bolded is ludicrous. The format is less diverse. I've already mentioned multiple times that Treasure Cruise is forcing midrange out of the format similarly to how Cloudpost decks did that. The format actually was fairly diverse pre-Treasure Cruise. MBC was over represented but other than that there were a lot of viable decks.
Have you bothered to check these facts yourself, before announcing that they're ridiculous? Because I just did.
For the sake of a fairer comparison, I've used the exact same number of sampled decks for the before and after picture by using an extra weekend of dailies in the pre-khans sample.
Pre-Khans archetypes:
Delver
MBC
Burn
Tron
Eye-Candy
Izzet Control
Boros
Stompy
Hexproof
White Weenies
Affinity
Tortured Existence
Familiars
Dimir Contol
Goblins
MUC
Elf
Token
Acid Trip
Total count: 19
Post-Khans archetypes:
Delver
MBC
Burn
Tron
Eye-Candy
Izzet Control
Boros
Stompy
Hexproof
White Weenies
Affinity
Tortured Existence
Familiars
Dimir Contol
Goblins
MUC
Turbo Fog
Total count: 17
Looks like my hunch was wrong. There are actually a very similar number of archetypes present. If we were to remove some of the low-tier decks that only show up once, like Elves, Acid Trip and Turbo Fog, the numbers would be even closer. So, from an archetypal-diversity point of view, pre-Khans and post-Khans are practically identical.
The main difference here is the exodus from MBC towards UR Control. While MBC was the most popular archetype before Khans (even more represented than Delver is right now), the main shift has gone towards a high increase in Izzet Control lists. Another important thing to note is the shift away from White decks, as has been noted. While Weenies was relatively well represented before Khans, it is only showing up here and there now (though has not disappeared). It seem aggro strategies have shifted towards Stompy and Hexproof decks. Most archetypes have barely shifted in their success, like Tron, Burn, Affinity, Familiars, Tortured Existence, and Boros Kitty.
What conclusion can be drawn from this? Treasure Cruise has been good for certain archetypes by making them Tier 1 (Izzet Control). Treasure Cruise has not affected archetypal diversity in a very meaningful way. The only major shifts are the decline in MBC (still well represented, but not dominating) and White decks, in favour of a larger portion of Izzet decks.
But anyways Treasure cruise forcing non-blue midrange out of the format is the biggest concern here and you seem to have little to say in that regard? It seems like you're just ignoring this problem other than saying you're okay with it on a personal level. The decks forced out of the format (Boros and MBC)don't grind games nearly as much as decks like UB or UR control do though - decks which Treasure Cruise actually benefits. You're okay with those decks sticking around but are happy that less grindy decks like Boros (which you've claimed to never have even played against) and MBC are dying off because of TC? Again, all removing these decks from the format does is revert us back to a state similar to before the Cloudpost banning where midrange couldn't function in the format. That was obviously considered an unhealthy metagame since CLoudpost did get banned, so why should Treasure Cruise not deserve the same fate?
[quote from="Dromar the Banisher »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/magic-online-general/pauper/581506-treasure-cruise?comment=61"]It's not stopping non-blue midrange grinding decks from playing. It's not stopping the hardcore control decks that grind even harder (UB and UR control being the main decks in this category). If you take issue with grinding then why aren't you concerned about those decks?
I'm no longer concerned because Blue decks don't need to grind as hard because they can use Treasure Cruise instead.
Most of the decks that TC helps were already competitive. Delver has been tier 1 forever. Cyclops/Fiend decks were competitive before (more tier 2 but they still put up results). Tron decks existed and has success before. Pretty much every popular TC deck I can think of was around and competitive before TC existed. This is a case of the rich getting richer, not of Treasure Cruise thrusting unknown decks into the spotlight. You admit yourself that you only just started playing Pauper so you don't really know any format other than the current one but I assure you it's not diverse right now.
Izzet Control has been thrust into the spotlight, from what I can tell. I also think we'll be seeing Turbo Fog a bit more often (again, in the short time I've been playing online, I've had 3 mirror matches and several more where I get creamed because I played an aggro deck, as well as randomly viewing matches where people are playing the deck). It's not high-tier, but I could compare it to TE and MUC in popularity. There are probably others I'm not thinking of that have improved in playability to the point that they've become competitive.
It doesn't really matter what I assume you think, what matters is you're drawing a conclusion that is not supported by the data you present. So it's great to learn that you understand how the data are to be read, but that just raises the question, how on earth do you think these numbers support what you're saying? Since the only comparison we can really make is between the percentage of blue decks in the format, they've clearly increased fairly significantly.
The new decks are the decks that contribute to the increased percentage of blue-inclusive decks in the data. They are not new archetypes, they are existing archetypes experiencing greater success. That's very important. For some unfathomable reason you are under the impression that all blue decks would have increased in representation equally. As I said before, if we are to draw any conclusion from these numbers it has to be that Treasure Cruise is responsible, and to then conclude that a significant number of these archetypes that experienced increased success in Treasure Cruise's wake have nothing to do with Treasure Cruise is just ridiculous!
[...]the total number of blue decks increased significantly. So all of this increase is associated with Treasure Cruise. Tell me again how it didn't warp the format?
I did note there was an increase. I'm not denying this. But how alarming the increase is is up for debate. No numbers can fix this. If you think 10 percentage points is large, you're definitely allowed to think so. This is where the argument is at, because we've established a basis of agreement using numbers (for once). This is so much more productive than what was happening before. I think these numbers are fine. You don't. So now, why do you find them alarming? If I can base my frame of mind by comparing the current state of the format with how prevalent MBC was before Treasure Cruise, I'd say that instead of MBC being massively more represented than any other deck, we have decks sharing the spotlight and actually competing for the role of dominance. This is good, no?
Using your numbers, prior to the release of Treasure Cruise 14% of all decks in the format were blue decks that for the sake of argument we'll estimate would not play Treasure Cruise. After Treasure Cruise was released, 13% of decks ran blue but not Treasure Cruise. These numbers are basically identical (especially when we take into account the difficulties in estimating the first figure).
Those numbers are only identical because I made them so by applying the change of one onto the other. The similarity is artificial.
It doesn't really matter what I assume you think, what matters is you're drawing a conclusion that is not supported by the data you present. So it's great to learn that you understand how the data are to be read, but that just raises the question, how on earth do you think these numbers support what you're saying? Since the only comparison we can really make is between the percentage of blue decks in the format, they've clearly increased fairly significantly.
The new decks are the decks that contribute to the increased percentage of blue-inclusive decks in the data. They are not new archetypes, they are existing archetypes experiencing greater success. That's very important. For some unfathomable reason you are under the impression that all blue decks would have increased in representation equally. As I said before, if we are to draw any conclusion from these numbers it has to be that Treasure Cruise is responsible, and to then conclude that a significant number of these archetypes that experienced increased success in Treasure Cruise's wake have nothing to do with Treasure Cruise is just ridiculous!
[...]the total number of blue decks increased significantly. So all of this increase is associated with Treasure Cruise. Tell me again how it didn't warp the format?
I did note there was an increase. I'm not denying this. But how alarming the increase is is up for debate. No numbers can fix this. If you think 10 percentage points is large, you're definitely allowed to think so. This is where the argument is at, because we've established a basis of agreement using numbers (for once). This is so much more productive than what was happening before. I think these numbers are fine. You don't. So now, why do you find them alarming? If I can base my frame of mind by comparing the current state of the format with how prevalent MBC was before Treasure Cruise, I'd say that instead of MBC being massively more represented than any other deck, we have decks sharing the spotlight and actually competing for the role of dominance. This is good, no?
Percentage points are not a good means of comparison. Their significance varies greatly depending on where you start. Here, we start at some 39% of the meta, that by your reckoning would benefit from treasure cruise. This share increased by more than 25% in the wake of Treasure Cruise. If you don't think that's a problem, I guess you're entitled to that opinion but I just don't understand why you would appeal to the numbers like this when your ultimate point is 'and these numbers don't actually matter'.
For some unfathomable reason you are under the impression that all blue decks would have increased in representation equally.
Again, be careful what you assume that I think. If you don't understand, ask questions instead. It's much more productive.
Ok, here is a question. Do you think these numbers show anything other than an increased domination of already somewhat dominant blue decks fuelled solely by Treasure Cruise? If not, why do you not consider that to be a problem?
Using your numbers, prior to the release of Treasure Cruise 14% of all decks in the format were blue decks that for the sake of argument we'll estimate would not play Treasure Cruise. After Treasure Cruise was released, 13% of decks ran blue but not Treasure Cruise. These numbers are basically identical (especially when we take into account the difficulties in estimating the first figure).
Those numbers are only identical because I made them so by applying the change of one onto the other. The similarity is artificial.
What change are you talking about? You counted up which archetypes in the current meta use Treasure Cruise and in what proportion. You applied this figure to the archetypes present in the old meta. This is of course not perfect but it seems good enough to me. You certainly didn't arbitrary claim that the number of non-Treasure Cruise decks in the old meta would be equal to the number in the current meta, you came to this by examining independent figures. It's certainly possible you made some false assumptions or errors in reasoning but you didn't "make" these numbers identical; you derived them from the assumptions and reasoning that was perfectly acceptable to you last post.
Percentage points are not a good means of comparison. Their significance varies greatly depending on where you start. Here, we start at some 39% of the meta, that by your reckoning would benefit from treasure cruise. This share increased by more than 25% in the wake of Treasure Cruise. If you don't think that's a problem, I guess you're entitled to that opinion but I just don't understand why you would appeal to the numbers like this when your ultimate point is 'and these numbers don't actually matter'.
That depends on what you're looking at. If I want to see the difference in representation in regards to the entire metagame, you look at percentage points. If you want to observe by how much it increased from a certain period, you use percentages. They observe different things.
These numbers do matter. I did not say they didn't. What I said is that we use them as a common basis of agreement, therefore can move on to another phase of the argument. How you feel about data can't be calculated, it needs to be discussed and argued (politely and respectfully).
[...] Do you think these numbers show anything other than an increased domination of already somewhat dominant blue decks fuelled solely by Treasure Cruise? If not, why do you not consider that to be a problem?
I think these show a shift in the metagame, caused by a new set being released (this is pretty normal). We saw this when Theros came out and Gray Merchant of Asphodel was released into Pauper. MBC's representation was higher than any individual Blue deck's is at this present day. Delver has becomes slightly more popular, but the real difference came from Izzet Control, who appears to have made the jump to Tier 1. Put simply, we witnessed the fall of one deck and the rise of another (and everything that implies).
Come to think of it, MBC's loss of popularity is probably a big reason why White Weenies is not as successful. The White deck was so good against them.
What change are you talking about? You counted up which archetypes in the current meta use Treasure Cruise and in what proportion. You applied this figure to the archetypes present in the old meta. This is of course not perfect but it seems good enough to me. You certainly didn't arbitrary claim that the number of non-Treasure Cruise decks in the old meta would be equal to the number in the current meta, you came to this by examining independent figures. It's certainly possible you made some false assumptions or errors in reasoning but you didn't "make" these numbers identical; you derived them from the assumptions and reasoning that was perfectly acceptable to you last post.
I made an average of every "maybe deck" that DID run Treasure Cruise, and then applied their ratios to the older lists that didn't have access to TC at the time. This was to have a rough idea when comparing the two states of Pauper. I'm glad you think it's a solid enough comparison. I'm not 100% sold either, but I don't see a better way. All I'm saying with "make" is that I applied the ratio of the new onto the old, so it should be of no surprise that the numbers are almost identical.
You admit yourself that you only just started playing Pauper so you don't really know any format other than the current one but I assure you it's not diverse right now.
I've been playing Paper Pauper since 2012 and have also been keeping close tabs on the online metagame, since we use the online banlist. Please, don't poison the well. Let's keep things civil.
Who's not being civil? I don't see anyone making personal attacks in this topic (aside from that one guy that got warned by the moderators). The fact that you haven't played online pauper until just recently means that you're lacking in firsthand experience of what previous states of the format were like. This isn't a personal attack on you, it just shows that your knowledge in this regard is lacking and I think somewhat explains why you don't think Treasure Cruise is a much of a problem as those of us that have played the online format beyond just recently do.
You didn't mention having played Paper Pauper though I think it's questionable how applicable that is to this discussion. I won't say that past experience playing paper pauper doesn't apply at all, however, due to different legalities with regards to some cards (Hymn to Tourach and Sinkhole for instance), as well as no real source of Paper Pauper event results to look into (so we can't easily compare how similar paper and online metas are), and the fact that Paper Pauper only exists in local metagames (meaning more room for in-breeding within the metagames) it's hard to say just how much it's actually applicable to the online metagame.
When saying the format is less diverse I wasn't really referring to the sheer number of archtypes existing which isn't too useful of an exercise since there will always be fringe/rogue decks. I was referring to how so much of the format is comprised of Treasure Cruise decks. Yes, there are different archtypes represented among the TC decks but having over half of the decks in the format all playing the same card doesn't strike me as a good thing. MBC decreasing in popularity with Delver/Izzet picking up isn't a bad thing on its own, but taking into account the effects on the format because of this change (grindy midrange strategies forced out, slower fringe aggro decks like WW becoming even more of non-entities, Familiar Storm having no real challenger as top deck) it becomes concerning.
Who's not being civil? I don't see anyone making personal attacks in this topic (aside from that one guy that got warned by the moderators). The fact that you haven't played online pauper until just recently means that you're lacking in firsthand experience of what previous states of the format were like. This isn't a personal attack on you, it just shows that your knowledge in this regard is lacking and I think somewhat explains why you don't think Treasure Cruise is a much of a problem as those of us that have played the online format beyond just recently do.
You didn't mention having played Paper Pauper though I think it's questionable how applicable that is to this discussion. I won't say that past experience playing paper pauper doesn't apply at all, however, due to different legalities with regards to some cards (Hymn to Tourach and Sinkhole for instance), as well as no real source of Paper Pauper event results to look into (so we can't easily compare how similar paper and online metas are), and the fact that Paper Pauper only exists in local metagames (meaning more room for in-breeding within the metagames) it's hard to say just how much it's actually applicable to the online metagame.
Poisoning the well is an ancient Greek rhetorical device that consists of damaging someone's credibility with unrelated information. Using the fact that I'm new to the online experience of Pauper as an argument has nothing to do with what I'm bringing to the conversation. I'm trying to be as factual as possible. Can we talk about measurable facts, instead of how long I've been playing online, or how different/similar Paper is to online? Let's get back to Treasure Cruise.
When saying the format is less diverse I wasn't really referring to the sheer number of archtypes existing which isn't too useful of an exercise since there will always be fringe/rogue decks.
Well, that's what I thought too. I did mention that even if you take out the more fringe archetypes, there is a solid core (Tier 1-2) that is still present.
I was referring to how so much of the format is comprised of Treasure Cruise decks. Yes, there are different archtypes represented among the TC decks but having over half of the decks in the format all playing the same card doesn't strike me as a good thing. MBC decreasing in popularity with Delver/Izzet picking up isn't a bad thing on its own, but taking into account the effects on the format because of this change (grindy midrange strategies forced out, slower fringe aggro decks like WW becoming even more of non-entities, Familiar Storm having no real challenger as top deck) it becomes concerning.
Now I feel like we're finally getting somewhere. Speaking objectively, this is the best paragraph I've read in this thread to date.
We've observed secondary effects of changes in top-tier performances. Grinding strategies are either adopting other modes of function (like Izzet and Dimir Control), or are suffering (which are those? TE? not all that much). Your beloved Boros is just as successful as it ever was, if you compare the two sample Dailies I picked (3 top finishes in each sample population). The biggest loser is MBC, and it's still very competitive and well represented. WW is a candidate that went from "slightly playable" to "barely playable". It's still kicking, but adjustments will need to be made in order to cope with the change (if it's possible).
I'm very interested by what this will mean for Familiar Combo. Will it really have a time of unprecedented success? If this is the case, then we might be looking at an eventual Cloud of Faeries ban (I wish people looked at Ghostly Flicker instead, personally). If Cloud of Faeries gets banned, then Delver takes a rather big hit. That also means that Izzet Control won't have its natural prey anymore and lose success, and so on. I'm not sure how good Familiars is against Izzet Control, but I assume it doesn't do very well.
Familiars (combo) vs Izzet Control(control) vs Aggro lists... Sounds like a rock-paper-scissors scenario. I'm looking forward to seeing how this will actually progress!
Percentage points are not a good means of comparison. Their significance varies greatly depending on where you start. Here, we start at some 39% of the meta, that by your reckoning would benefit from treasure cruise. This share increased by more than 25% in the wake of Treasure Cruise. If you don't think that's a problem, I guess you're entitled to that opinion but I just don't understand why you would appeal to the numbers like this when your ultimate point is 'and these numbers don't actually matter'.
That depends on what you're looking at. If I want to see the difference in representation in regards to the entire metagame, you look at percentage points. If you want to observe by how much it increased from a certain period, you use percentages. They observe different things.
It's not even all that useful in examining the difference in representation, because the significance of that difference changes based on how large the representation was to begin with. If a new archetype appears in the metagame with a 10% share, you could say that it's "increased by 10 percentage points" but that's clearly different from an already dominant archetype capturing the same proportion of the overall metagame.
These numbers do matter. I did not say they didn't. What I said is that we use them as a common basis of agreement, therefore can move on to another phase of the argument. How you feel about data can't be calculated, it needs to be discussed and argued (politely and respectfully).
I guess what I'm confused about is that you're presenting only data that shows the magnitude of Treasure Cruise's impact and then trying to argue that this impact isn't a concern, rather than comparing it with data like the impact of Gray Merchant on MBC or something that demonstrates the supposed increased variety in the meta you claim now exists. You're appealing to data that, on the face of it, argues against you. That's not to say you can't interpret it differently but it's very confusing that this is the way you choose to go about it. For my part, your own data has convinced me of Treasure Cruise's impact on the format and you've not presented any data to sway me to your interpretation.
[...] Do you think these numbers show anything other than an increased domination of already somewhat dominant blue decks fuelled solely by Treasure Cruise? If not, why do you not consider that to be a problem?
I think these show a shift in the metagame, caused by a new set being released (this is pretty normal). We saw this when Theros came out and Gray Merchant of Asphodel was released into Pauper. MBC's representation was higher than any individual Blue deck's is at this present day. Delver has becomes slightly more popular, but the real difference came from Izzet Control, who appears to have made the jump to Tier 1. Put simply, we witnessed the fall of one deck and the rise of another (and everything that implies).
Come to think of it, MBC's loss of popularity is probably a big reason why White Weenies is not as successful. The White deck was so good against them.
The same kinds of arguments could be made for Modern, Legacy and Vintage. Whether a metagame impact is ban-worthy is always a matter of degree, and I think if consistent criteria are to be applied to Pauper as to these other formats then Treasure Cruise is certainly ban-worthy. It's always going to be debatable whether anything is ban-worthy, but similar to the data, the precedent elsewhere gives us a common basis from which we can argue further.
What change are you talking about? You counted up which archetypes in the current meta use Treasure Cruise and in what proportion. You applied this figure to the archetypes present in the old meta. This is of course not perfect but it seems good enough to me. You certainly didn't arbitrary claim that the number of non-Treasure Cruise decks in the old meta would be equal to the number in the current meta, you came to this by examining independent figures. It's certainly possible you made some false assumptions or errors in reasoning but you didn't "make" these numbers identical; you derived them from the assumptions and reasoning that was perfectly acceptable to you last post.
I made an average of every "maybe deck" that DID run Treasure Cruise, and then applied their ratios to the older lists that didn't have access to TC at the time. This was to have a rough idea when comparing the two states of Pauper. I'm glad you think it's a solid enough comparison. I'm not 100% sold either, but I don't see a better way. All I'm saying with "make" is that I applied the ratio of the new onto the old, so it should be of no surprise that the numbers are almost identical.
It should be a surprise if you don't think Treasure Cruise was solely responsible for the change. This is perhaps an example of the misleading effects of using percentage points. As a percent of the entire meta, blue decks that don't run Treasure Cruise have remained roughly constant. As a percentage of all blue decks, they've decreased significantly. So since your analysis was based on ratios of blue decks, it absolutely should be a surprise that this ratio has changed.
It's not even all that useful in examining the difference in representation, because the significance of that difference changes based on how large the representation was to begin with. If a new archetype appears in the metagame with a 10% share, you could say that it's "increased by 10 percentage points" but that's clearly different from an already dominant archetype capturing the same proportion of the overall metagame.
If a single deck suddenly jumped from 0 to 10, that would certainly be incredible. Here, we're talking about several archetypes increasing from an already existing rate of prevalence to a moderately higher one (with some new archetypes added as well). There is no one "dominant" archetype that went up 10 percentage points all by itself.
I guess what I'm confused about is that you're presenting only data that shows the magnitude of Treasure Cruise's impact and then trying to argue that this impact isn't a concern, rather than comparing it with data like the impact of Gray Merchant on MBC or something that demonstrates the supposed increased variety in the meta you claim now exists. You're appealing to data that, on the face of it, argues against you. That's not to say you can't interpret it differently but it's very confusing that this is the way you choose to go about it. For my part, your own data has convinced me of Treasure Cruise's impact on the format and you've not presented any data to sway me to your interpretation.
It's a matter of perspective. I've shown that Treasure Cruise has had an impact on the game. I've also shown why these impacts were felt the way they were, and are not limited to Treasure Cruise (there are side-effects of Tier movements that are now blatantly evident). The meta is just as varied as it always was on multiple levels. So, is this 10 percentage point rise of multiple archetypes really that monstrous? In light of all this information, I don't think it is. We're feeling a shift in Tier power, because a few decks became better and preyed on others naturally, which in turn has had other consequential effects.
In any case, I'm happy that information I've brought to this thread has been so useful to several people. It's not about who's right or wrong. It's about getting to the closest thing we can to the truth. We're so much better off now than we were two pages ago. I hope you agree!
The same kinds of arguments could be made for Modern, Legacy and Vintage. Whether a metagame impact is ban-worthy is always a matter of degree, and I think if consistent criteria are to be applied to Pauper as to these other formats then Treasure Cruise is certainly ban-worthy. It's always going to be debatable whether anything is ban-worthy, but similar to the data, the precedent elsewhere gives us a common basis from which we can argue further.
I'm not certain I'm understanding this correctly. All formats are very unique in their composition. The arguments for banning a card in one format are not transmissible to another. It's not a matter of consistency in application, it's a matter of getting the best reading on each format. Pauper shouldn't blindly follow in its sister formats' footsteps. They are all unique, and deserve separate analysis and attention. There may be a lot of disagreements with whatever Wizards' decisions are, but they are the creators of the game. I will respect whatever decision they make, and I'm going to love it.
It should be a surprise if you don't think Treasure Cruise was solely responsible for the change. This is perhaps an example of the misleading effects of using percentage points. As a percent of the entire meta, blue decks that don't run Treasure Cruise have remained roughly constant. As a percentage of all blue decks, they've decreased significantly. So since your analysis was based on ratios of blue decks, it absolutely should be a surprise that this ratio has changed.
Surprise! Treasure Cruise is not solely responsible. We cannot work with absolutes, because there are too many variables. The answer is multifactorial, which is why we're having this discussion in the first place. Blue decks that don't run TC have decreased a small amount, because some of them are now using the card. They are part of the 10 percentage points. The fact that Izzet Control is now a top dog explains this discrepancy in decks that don't use TC and those that do. I'm absolutely staggered by the surge of this deck, to be honest. It has more than tripled in prevalence.
I've also shown why these impacts were felt the way they were, and are not limited to Treasure Cruise (there are side-effects of Tier movements that are now blatantly evident).
That's what I'm talking about. You've not shown this. You've only presented data pertaining to Treasure Cruise, and the more we examine that evidence the stronger the connection to Treasure Cruise is. The best you can say is that you haven't definitively proven that there were no other factors, but that certainly doesn't mean you've shown that were were.
The same kinds of arguments could be made for Modern, Legacy and Vintage. Whether a metagame impact is ban-worthy is always a matter of degree, and I think if consistent criteria are to be applied to Pauper as to these other formats then Treasure Cruise is certainly ban-worthy. It's always going to be debatable whether anything is ban-worthy, but similar to the data, the precedent elsewhere gives us a common basis from which we can argue further.
I'm not certain I'm understanding this correctly. All formats are very unique in their composition. The arguments for banning a card in one format are not transmissible to another. It's not a matter of consistency in application, it's a matter of getting the best reading on each format. Pauper shouldn't blindly follow in its sister formats' footsteps. They are all unique, and deserve separate analysis and attention. There may be a lot of disagreements with whatever Wizards' decisions are, but they are the creators of the game. I will respect whatever decision they make, and I'm going to love it.
The arguments for banning/restricting Treasure Cruise in those formats were all pretty similar and they apply to Pauper as well. Basically what I'm saying is, yes, you can peg your thresholds for what's ban-worthy as high as you like because at the end of the day they're subjective but in my opinion if the same people who decided to ban Cruise in Modern and Legacy were examining Pauper at the same time, they'd decide to ban it here and for the same reasons.
It should be a surprise if you don't think Treasure Cruise was solely responsible for the change. This is perhaps an example of the misleading effects of using percentage points. As a percent of the entire meta, blue decks that don't run Treasure Cruise have remained roughly constant. As a percentage of all blue decks, they've decreased significantly. So since your analysis was based on ratios of blue decks, it absolutely should be a surprise that this ratio has changed.
Surprise! Treasure Cruise is not solely responsible. We cannot work with absolutes, because there are too many variables. The answer is multifactorial, which is why we're having this discussion in the first place. Blue decks that don't run TC have decreased a small amount, because some of them are now using the card. They are part of the 10 percentage points. The fact that Izzet Control is now a top dog explains this discrepancy in decks that don't use TC and those that do. I'm absolutely staggered by the surge of this deck, to be honest. It has more than tripled in prevalence.
So by my count, Izzet Control is about 12% of the current meta. I haven't checked the old meta but if you're right and it's tripled in prevalence that would mean the majority of the 10 percentage point increase in blue decks is Izzet Control. So your claim that this increase represents a variety of archetypes is wrong. If these numbers are correct, then the increase is dominated by Izzet Control, an increase almost as much as my hypothetical example you called "incredible". You've also, once again, not presented any evidence that Treasure Cruise is not responsible, you just keep asserting this whilst presenting further evidence that Treasure Cruise is, in fact, responsible. I mean, there are always complicated factors but you haven't given any reason to believe anything other than Treasure Cruise is remotely significant.
My own rules when building a Commander deck:
1) Underrated general that I can build around but the deck must work without him/her too.
2) Every card must be legal in both banlists.
3) No infinite combo that could win (and ruin) instantly a multiplayer game.
4) Synergy at all costs; stay on theme, avoid goodstuff.
That's what I'm talking about. You've not shown this. You've only presented data pertaining to Treasure Cruise, and the more we examine that evidence the stronger the connection to Treasure Cruise is. The best you can say is that you haven't definitively proven that there were no other factors, but that certainly doesn't mean you've shown that were were.
You'll find two paragraphs in my spoiler box on the previous page that treat other factors, concerning both archetypal diversity and prevalence. I noted that TC had not changed the diversity of the format significantly, when it comes to the diversity of decks present in top finishes. The quantities have changed, and, as I explained, this is due to Treasure Cruise entering the format, as well the disruption of the "ecosystem" of what decks beat what (MBC beats familiars, White Weenie beats MBC, as a classic example of aggro vs control vs combo). The format is still on its way to finding an equilibrium. As I've said many times now, I have a hunch that the rise in blue decks is a fad, and will die down somewhat after a few months. People want to play what's new, because it's fun an interesting. Once the honeymoon is over, people will return to what they know. I have no way to prove this, but I say wait and see.
So by my count, Izzet Control is about 12% of the current meta. I haven't checked the old meta but if you're right and it's tripled in prevalence that would mean the majority of the 10 percentage point increase in blue decks is Izzet Control. So your claim that this increase represents a variety of archetypes is wrong. If these numbers are correct, then the increase is dominated by Izzet Control, an increase almost as much as my hypothetical example you called "incredible". You've also, once again, not presented any evidence that Treasure Cruise is not responsible, you just keep asserting this whilst presenting further evidence that Treasure Cruise is, in fact, responsible. I mean, there are always complicated factors but you haven't given any reason to believe anything other than Treasure Cruise is remotely significant.
I calculate about 15%, but that's not overly dramatic. I say tripled because it showed up 3.3 times more in last weeks' dailies than it did in the two weeks in September. Whether it's a majority of the 10 percentage points, I don't know. It's definitely a good portion. I am not wrong when I say it involves a variety of archetypes. I believe there are 9 distinct archetypes that make up the 10 percent (obviously, some hold a very small percentage, like the one Boros Kitty build that splashed Blue. They are not likely to repeatedly show up). "Incredible" is going from 0 to 10%. Izzet Control did no such thing. Treasure Cruise is responsible... in part. Again, there can be no absolutes here, there is no point looking. Secondary effects of format Tiers changing is probably the biggest cause of this change. It's like a domino effect, where the presence or lack of presence of one deck causes another to flourish or flounder, which in turn affects the results of the next.
That's what I'm talking about. You've not shown this. You've only presented data pertaining to Treasure Cruise, and the more we examine that evidence the stronger the connection to Treasure Cruise is. The best you can say is that you haven't definitively proven that there were no other factors, but that certainly doesn't mean you've shown that were were.
You'll find two paragraphs in my spoiler box on the previous page that treat other factors, concerning both archetypal diversity and prevalence. I noted that TC had not changed the diversity of the format significantly, when it comes to the diversity of decks present in top finishes. The quantities have changed, and, as I explained, this is due to Treasure Cruise entering the format, as well the disruption of the "ecosystem" of what decks beat what (MBC beats familiars, White Weenie beats MBC, as a classic example of aggro vs control vs combo).
It's not sufficient simply to note that the archetypes are still present. If you refuse to ban any card unless its presence completely abolishes one or more archetypes you will have a very short banned list indeed. Now maybe you consider that to be a laudable goal and it's certainly a valid position, but if that is the position you hold then you must be clear on it. If you're trying to demonstrate that Treasure Cruise should not be banned because it has not made it physically impossible to place in a Daily with MBC or White Weenie or whatever, I think you first need to convince us that that is the relevant consideration. Most people would place the bar a fair bit lower than that.
So by my count, Izzet Control is about 12% of the current meta. I haven't checked the old meta but if you're right and it's tripled in prevalence that would mean the majority of the 10 percentage point increase in blue decks is Izzet Control. So your claim that this increase represents a variety of archetypes is wrong. If these numbers are correct, then the increase is dominated by Izzet Control, an increase almost as much as my hypothetical example you called "incredible". You've also, once again, not presented any evidence that Treasure Cruise is not responsible, you just keep asserting this whilst presenting further evidence that Treasure Cruise is, in fact, responsible. I mean, there are always complicated factors but you haven't given any reason to believe anything other than Treasure Cruise is remotely significant.
I calculate about 15%, but that's not overly dramatic. I say tripled because it showed up 3.3 times more in last weeks' dailies than it did in the two weeks in September. Whether it's a majority of the 10 percentage points, I don't know. It's definitely a good portion. I am not wrong when I say it involves a variety of archetypes. I believe there are 9 distinct archetypes that make up the 10 percent (obviously, some hold a very small percentage, like the one Boros Kitty build that splashed Blue. They are not likely to repeatedly show up).
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.
"Incredible" is going from 0 to 10%. Izzet Control did no such thing.
According to you it went from about 5% to 15%. That's not the same but it's still pretty incredible. I guess if nothing else it illustrates the problems with counting percentage points
Treasure Cruise is responsible... in part. Again, there can be no absolutes here, there is no point looking. Secondary effects of format Tiers changing is probably the biggest cause of this change. It's like a domino effect, where the presence or lack of presence of one deck causes another to flourish or flounder, which in turn affects the results of the next.
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.
Who's not being civil? I don't see anyone making personal attacks in this topic (aside from that one guy that got warned by the moderators). The fact that you haven't played online pauper until just recently means that you're lacking in firsthand experience of what previous states of the format were like. This isn't a personal attack on you, it just shows that your knowledge in this regard is lacking and I think somewhat explains why you don't think Treasure Cruise is a much of a problem as those of us that have played the online format beyond just recently do.
You didn't mention having played Paper Pauper though I think it's questionable how applicable that is to this discussion. I won't say that past experience playing paper pauper doesn't apply at all, however, due to different legalities with regards to some cards (Hymn to Tourach and Sinkhole for instance), as well as no real source of Paper Pauper event results to look into (so we can't easily compare how similar paper and online metas are), and the fact that Paper Pauper only exists in local metagames (meaning more room for in-breeding within the metagames) it's hard to say just how much it's actually applicable to the online metagame.
Poisoning the well is an ancient Greek rhetorical device that consists of damaging someone's credibility with unrelated information. Using the fact that I'm new to the online experience of Pauper as an argument has nothing to do with what I'm bringing to the conversation. I'm trying to be as factual as possible. Can we talk about measurable facts, instead of how long I've been playing online, or how different/similar Paper is to online? Let's get back to Treasure Cruise.
When saying the format is less diverse I wasn't really referring to the sheer number of archtypes existing which isn't too useful of an exercise since there will always be fringe/rogue decks.
Well, that's what I thought too. I did mention that even if you take out the more fringe archetypes, there is a solid core (Tier 1-2) that is still present.
I was referring to how so much of the format is comprised of Treasure Cruise decks. Yes, there are different archtypes represented among the TC decks but having over half of the decks in the format all playing the same card doesn't strike me as a good thing. MBC decreasing in popularity with Delver/Izzet picking up isn't a bad thing on its own, but taking into account the effects on the format because of this change (grindy midrange strategies forced out, slower fringe aggro decks like WW becoming even more of non-entities, Familiar Storm having no real challenger as top deck) it becomes concerning.
Now I feel like we're finally getting somewhere. Speaking objectively, this is the best paragraph I've read in this thread to date.
We've observed secondary effects of changes in top-tier performances. Grinding strategies are either adopting other modes of function (like Izzet and Dimir Control), or are suffering (which are those? TE? not all that much). Your beloved Boros is just as successful as it ever was, if you compare the two sample Dailies I picked (3 top finishes in each sample population). The biggest loser is MBC, and it's still very competitive and well represented. WW is a candidate that went from "slightly playable" to "barely playable". It's still kicking, but adjustments will need to be made in order to cope with the change (if it's possible).
I'm very interested by what this will mean for Familiar Combo. Will it really have a time of unprecedented success? If this is the case, then we might be looking at an eventual Cloud of Faeries ban (I wish people looked at Ghostly Flicker instead, personally). If Cloud of Faeries gets banned, then Delver takes a rather big hit. That also means that Izzet Control won't have its natural prey anymore and lose success, and so on. I'm not sure how good Familiars is against Izzet Control, but I assume it doesn't do very well.
Familiars (combo) vs Izzet Control(control) vs Aggro lists... Sounds like a rock-paper-scissors scenario. I'm looking forward to seeing how this will actually progress!
I was trying to use your experience with Pauper to gauge why you feel the current metagame is diverse. That's the main reason to bring it up, but you're right it's not that important so I'll move on.
Boros doing "equally as well" doesn't mean a whole lot to me when its such a negligible % of the meta game. For all we know these lists that posted results dodged Treasure Cruise decks completely, or they're simply very dedicated pilots willing to play their deck regardless of the metagame. The sample size is too shallow to make reasonable conclusions based on the data alone. I've played enough of the deck myself to know that it doesn't have the power to grind out decks like Delver or Cyclops once they have access to Treasure Cruise. It's simply not equipped to play that type of game because of its similarities to MBC in how it plays to gain small edges. In any case I mentioned Boros more as a non-MBC example of decks being hurt by Treasure Cruise, but MBC should be the main deck we're focusing on in this regard since it's clearly the one most affected.
Like I said I wouldn't be opposed to a CoF banning, however the problem I see is that it may not have the desired effect of increasing diversity. If we just want the Familiar deck out of the format then that might be the way to go, but all we're doing is killing one deck, hurting another (Delver) and I don't know that we're gaining a lot back.
Quote from Obermeir »
I'm not certain I'm understanding this correctly. All formats are very unique in their composition. The arguments for banning a card in one format are not transmissible to another. It's not a matter of consistency in application, it's a matter of getting the best reading on each format. Pauper shouldn't blindly follow in its sister formats' footsteps. They are all unique, and deserve separate analysis and attention. There may be a lot of disagreements with whatever Wizards' decisions are, but they are the creators of the game. I will respect whatever decision they make, and I'm going to love it.
This is a fair point, which is why I've been bringing up previous bannings in Pauper - specifically the Cloudpost banning in 2013. I think a useful thought experiment is to compare the meta pre-Cloudpost bans to the meta now:
1) In the pre-Cloudpost bans meta MBC (and similar strategies) was largely forced out of the format due to not being able to compete with control decks running the mana engine. In the current meta MBC is being forced out of the format by TC decks due to its difficulty in grinding out opponents with it. Similar results, albeit not entirely the same circumstances.
2) Expanding on 1), the Cloudpost metagame devolved into a format of Post decks and decks that could beat Post decks (the main ones of those being Delver, Stompy, and Affinity). The current format seems to be trending towards Treasure Cruise decks and decks that can win fast enough that they don't care about Treasure Cruise (Stompy, Affinity, perhaps Hexproof).
3) Cloudpost restricted deck building for control decks in the format. Any control deck trying to play without the Cloudpost package was simply not viable in the format. I argue that Treasure Cruise is restricting deck building for blue decks in the current format. Save a few exceptions most of them are forced to run TC to keep up with the other blue decks in the format. The most notable exception here is Familiar Combo which doesn't use it.
4) There is likely more diversity among different Treasure Cruise decks than there were among Cloudpost decks. The main Cloudpost decks were Izzet Post, Mono-Blue Fissure Post, and then in a distant third Simic Post (which played sort of like a turbofog deck but had Fangren Marauder and Kaervek's Torch to clean things up). These decks had their differences (Izzet played more of a control game, Fissure Post relied on its combo, Simic focused more on stalling until it could ramp up its fireball effect) but overall they were constructed in some similar ways. The main TC decks are Delver, Cyclops, UR control and then a few others with more negligible representation (Tron, a few Affinity lists, decks splashing for it). Even just looking at the main three we have an aggro-control deck, a combo deck, and a control deck. So a nice bit more diversity than we saw between Cloudpost decks. This might be the biggest thing in TC's favor - the decks using it at least have some level of diversity among themselves and you don't really try to fight them in similar ways like you would with Cloudpost decks.
5) Treasure Cruise however is much more prevalent in the format than Cloudpost was (as far as I remember anyways). I'm too lazy to look up specifics but I doubt Cloudpost was played in more than 30% of the decks and even that number is probably high. Treasure Cruise currently appears in roughly half of the decks in the format. Now, part of this is because it's a much easier card to jam into a deck than Cloudpost. You didn't just go jamming Cloudposts into Delver decks since they didn't do anything for that deck. But drawing cards? Well, everyone likes to draw cards. At the same time I find so many of the decks using the card to be alarming.
6) The prevalence of Cloudpost caused decks to run more land destruction in their sideboards than they otherwise would have. Stompy players ran Thermokarst, Goblins often had Raze, MBC used Rancid Earth/Choking Sands to try and fight their tough opponent. If you look at sideboards in a non-Cloudpost environment you see a lot of that land destruction is gone. If this were to happen now we would see decks adopting graveyard hate (Relic of Progenitus, Crypt Incursion, etc). We haven't seen a lot of this so far, a few decks are playing more Relics in their board but save for one exception it hasn't become adopted widespread yet. The one exception being MBC which has been forced into running 3-4 Bojuka Bogs maindeck as a way of fighting TC. This comes at a cost for MBC though as it cannot run Barren Moor any longer (or it can't run as many) meaning it becomes more susceptible to flooding out than previously.
Sorry I wrote a lot there, but I think using the CLoudpost banning as a basis of comparison is important here because it's a precedent we can refer to either in favor of, or against bannings. Any other thoughts or comparisons to add that I may have overlooked?
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?
According to you it went from about 5% to 15%. That's not the same but it's still pretty incredible. I guess if nothing else it illustrates the problems with counting percentage points
Exactly right. It went from about 5% to 15%. I find that significantly less impressive than going from 0% (completely unplayed) to 10% (a significant chunk). The advantage of counting percentage points is that we can observe different degrees of significance depending on where the increase took place.
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.
Boros doing "equally as well" doesn't mean a whole lot to me when its such a negligible % of the meta game. For all we know these lists that posted results dodged Treasure Cruise decks completely, or they're simply very dedicated pilots willing to play their deck regardless of the metagame. The sample size is too shallow to make reasonable conclusions based on the data alone. I've played enough of the deck myself to know that it doesn't have the power to grind out decks like Delver or Cyclops once they have access to Treasure Cruise. It's simply not equipped to play that type of game because of its similarities to MBC in how it plays to gain small edges. In any case I mentioned Boros more as a non-MBC example of decks being hurt by Treasure Cruise, but MBC should be the main deck we're focusing on in this regard since it's clearly the one most affected.
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).
Like I said I wouldn't be opposed to a CoF banning, however the problem I see is that it may not have the desired effect of increasing diversity. If we just want the Familiar deck out of the format then that might be the way to go, but all we're doing is killing one deck, hurting another (Delver) and I don't know that we're gaining a lot back.
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?
This is a fair point, which is why I've been bringing up previous bannings in Pauper - specifically the Cloudpost banning in 2013. I think a useful thought experiment is to compare the meta pre-Cloudpost bans to the meta now:
1) In the pre-Cloudpost bans meta MBC (and similar strategies) was largely forced out of the format due to not being able to compete with control decks running the mana engine. In the current meta MBC is being forced out of the format by TC decks due to its difficulty in grinding out opponents with it. Similar results, albeit not entirely the same circumstances.
2) Expanding on 1), the Cloudpost metagame devolved into a format of Post decks and decks that could beat Post decks (the main ones of those being Delver, Stompy, and Affinity). The current format seems to be trending towards Treasure Cruise decks and decks that can win fast enough that they don't care about Treasure Cruise (Stompy, Affinity, perhaps Hexproof).
3) Cloudpost restricted deck building for control decks in the format. Any control deck trying to play without the Cloudpost package was simply not viable in the format. I argue that Treasure Cruise is restricting deck building for blue decks in the current format. Save a few exceptions most of them are forced to run TC to keep up with the other blue decks in the format. The most notable exception here is Familiar Combo which doesn't use it.
4) There is likely more diversity among different Treasure Cruise decks than there were among Cloudpost decks. The main Cloudpost decks were Izzet Post, Mono-Blue Fissure Post, and then in a distant third Simic Post (which played sort of like a turbofog deck but had Fangren Marauder and Kaervek's Torch to clean things up). These decks had their differences (Izzet played more of a control game, Fissure Post relied on its combo, Simic focused more on stalling until it could ramp up its fireball effect) but overall they were constructed in some similar ways. The main TC decks are Delver, Cyclops, UR control and then a few others with more negligible representation (Tron, a few Affinity lists, decks splashing for it). Even just looking at the main three we have an aggro-control deck, a combo deck, and a control deck. So a nice bit more diversity than we saw between Cloudpost decks. This might be the biggest thing in TC's favor - the decks using it at least have some level of diversity among themselves and you don't really try to fight them in similar ways like you would with Cloudpost decks.
5) Treasure Cruise however is much more prevalent in the format than Cloudpost was (as far as I remember anyways). I'm too lazy to look up specifics but I doubt Cloudpost was played in more than 30% of the decks and even that number is probably high. Treasure Cruise currently appears in roughly half of the decks in the format. Now, part of this is because it's a much easier card to jam into a deck than Cloudpost. You didn't just go jamming Cloudposts into Delver decks since they didn't do anything for that deck. But drawing cards? Well, everyone likes to draw cards. At the same time I find so many of the decks using the card to be alarming.
6) The prevalence of Cloudpost caused decks to run more land destruction in their sideboards than they otherwise would have. Stompy players ran Thermokarst, Goblins often had Raze, MBC used Rancid Earth/Choking Sands to try and fight their tough opponent. If you look at sideboards in a non-Cloudpost environment you see a lot of that land destruction is gone. If this were to happen now we would see decks adopting graveyard hate (Relic of Progenitus, Crypt Incursion, etc). We haven't seen a lot of this so far, a few decks are playing more Relics in their board but save for one exception it hasn't become adopted widespread yet. The one exception being MBC which has been forced into running 3-4 Bojuka Bogs maindeck as a way of fighting TC. This comes at a cost for MBC though as it cannot run Barren Moor any longer (or it can't run as many) meaning it becomes more susceptible to flooding out than previously.
Sorry I wrote a lot there, but I think using the CLoudpost banning as a basis of comparison is important here because it's a precedent we can refer to either in favor of, or against bannings. Any other thoughts or comparisons to add that I may have overlooked?
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.
So I went ahead and tried to extrapolate how many "not sure" decks would run TC in the old dailies if given the opportunity. I took a look at how many Familiars, Trons, Boros and Burn lists ran TC among the new results. 1/3 familiars used TC. 2/4 Trons used TC. 1/3 Boros used TC. 1/5 Burn used TC. So, I took out the the "not sure" decks that use Blue from the equation of the old dailies (like affinity), and then added 3 (roughly the number of "not sure" decks that would use TC). when tallied up, 14/36 decks would potentially use Treasure Cruise in the old dailies. That's about 39%. It can be deduced now that Treasure Cruise increased the number of decks that want to use it by 10 percentage points in prevalence in the format.
Personally, I don't find this to be incredibly game-breaking. These decks make up a large part of the format, but let's not forget there is still 51% that isn't using Treasure Cruise, and that most of the ones that are using it were already very present in the format. TC has made them appear slightly more often, as well as make other decks splash for them (Burn, Boros).
Again, take these numbers with a grain of salt. This is a minuscule population sample that I've taken. I'm not going to do any more number crunching like this as it is a bit time consuming, but maybe we could all gather some data together and uncover a more accurate result?
How is this experiment weird? I took the closest thing to the current metagame, but pre-khans, in order to attempt at seeing the impact it had. There are other variables, as I mentioned, that are difficult to calculate. If we can safely assume that Treasure Cruise was the variable with the highest impact (I'm sure most people here would agree), we can begin to paint a "before and after" picture that looks something like the truth.
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'm not sure what you're talking about here exactly? Unless you're referring to decks that didn't cash (data we don't have available)? Otherwise you can just check those Familiar/Affinity/Elf/whatever decks on a deck-by-deck basis.
But anyways Treasure cruise forcing non-blue midrange out of the format is the biggest concern here and you seem to have little to say in that regard? It seems like you're just ignoring this problem other than saying you're okay with it on a personal level. The decks forced out of the format (Boros and MBC)don't grind games nearly as much as decks like UB or UR control do though - decks which Treasure Cruise actually benefits. You're okay with those decks sticking around but are happy that less grindy decks like Boros (which you've claimed to never have even played against) and MBC are dying off because of TC? Again, all removing these decks from the format does is revert us back to a state similar to before the Cloudpost banning where midrange couldn't function in the format. That was obviously considered an unhealthy metagame since CLoudpost did get banned, so why should Treasure Cruise not deserve the same fate?
Oh, I was talking about the pre-Treasure Cruise "maybe" decks, where we can only estimate how many of them would actually use treasure cruise. Have you seen the post right before yours? I've made the estimate, and I find it rather interesting.
Actually, I was under the impression that it was stopping grinding decks from playing, which I thought was a good thing. Boros Kitty is renowned for being rather grindy. I think the definitions of "mid-range" and "grindy" should be looked at, because this may be the cause of both our confusion. I'm convinced MBC will survive (it stills places tons of top-tier finishes). Not so much for Boros Kitty (I've only been playing online since Christmas time, so I haven't crossed this deck yet). Is Affinity not a mid-range deck that places well? Cards will push decks out of formats, this is normal. I don't think TC is doing it at an abominable rate, either. Take a look at the past weekends results, and you'll still see a Boros deck and plenty of MBC.
In fact, a thought crossed my mind: Could Treasure Cruise be making the format even more diversified? This thought occurred to me when I saw the 4-0 Turbo Fog list (which also posted a couple 3-1 finishes before). What if Treasure Cruise was actually allowing decks that didn't use to be competitive to compete with the very best in the format? How many non-tier 1 decks are actually placing well now, thanks to Treasure Cruise? Would that not mean the format is more diverse than it ever was? That would be an interesting thing to look at, and very measurable. I'm not talking about diversity in colour distribution or in card distribution, but rather in the number of different archetypes that we see now as opposed to before. I'll have to take a look at that and get back to you.
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's stopping non-blue midrange grinding decks from playing. It's not stopping the hardcore control decks that grind even harder (UB and UR control being the main decks in this category). If you take issue with grinding then why aren't you concerned about those decks? Affinity leans between aggro/midrange with some combo elements too. It's kind of all-over the place but if I had to lump it into one category I'd put it in the aggro camp. MBC still gets results because it's a popular deck rather than because it can compete against Treasure Cruise. That being said its results are significantly down from pre-Treasure Cruise events. One or two decks being forced out of the format might not be a problem, but when a general archtype as a whole becomes unviable (midrange) then it IS a problem.
The part I bolded is ludicrous. The format is less diverse. I've already mentioned multiple times that Treasure Cruise is forcing midrange out of the format similarly to how Cloudpost decks did that. The format actually was fairly diverse pre-Treasure Cruise. MBC was over represented but other than that there were a lot of viable decks.
Most of the decks that TC helps were already competitive. Delver has been tier 1 forever. Cyclops/Fiend decks were competitive before (more tier 2 but they still put up results). Tron decks existed and has success before. Pretty much every popular TC deck I can think of was around and competitive before TC existed. This is a case of the rich getting richer, not of Treasure Cruise thrusting unknown decks into the spotlight. You admit yourself that you only just started playing Pauper so you don't really know any format other than the current one but I assure you it's not diverse right now.
It doesn't really matter what I assume you think, what matters is you're drawing a conclusion that is not supported by the data you present. So it's great to learn that you understand how the data are to be read, but that just raises the question, how on earth do you think these numbers support what you're saying? Since the only comparison we can really make is between the percentage of blue decks in the format, they've clearly increased fairly significantly.
The new decks are the decks that contribute to the increased percentage of blue-inclusive decks in the data. They are not new archetypes, they are existing archetypes experiencing greater success. That's very important. For some unfathomable reason you are under the impression that all blue decks would have increased in representation equally. As I said before, if we are to draw any conclusion from these numbers it has to be that Treasure Cruise is responsible, and to then conclude that a significant number of these archetypes that experienced increased success in Treasure Cruise's wake have nothing to do with Treasure Cruise is just ridiculous!
Using your numbers, prior to the release of Treasure Cruise 14% of all decks in the format were blue decks that for the sake of argument we'll estimate would not play Treasure Cruise. After Treasure Cruise was released, 13% of decks ran blue but not Treasure Cruise. These numbers are basically identical (especially when we take into account the difficulties in estimating the first figure). Yet the total number of blue decks increased significantly. So all of this increase is associated with Treasure Cruise. Tell me again how it didn't warp the format?
Some of his thoughts, just for the sake of completeness:
http://puremtgo.com/articles/treasure-cruises-impact-pauper
http://www.reddit.com/r/Pauper/comments/2sy5yr/we_can_still_go_cruising_in_pauper/cnv6q5d
Rules Advisor
Pauper decks: Weenie Tokens — Zombies
My own rules when building a Commander deck:
1) Underrated general that I can build around but the deck must work without him/her too.
2) Every card must be legal in both banlists.
3) No infinite combo that could win (and ruin) instantly a multiplayer game.
4) Synergy at all costs; stay on theme, avoid goodstuff.
I think a key point here is that not only will taking TC out of the format allow decks like MBC to return, but it also won't completely kill an existing archtype if it leaves the format. Decks like Delver, Cyclops, Tron, Affinity, etc - these were all competitive decks before TC was printed so it stands to reason they will still be when it leaves.
For sure, neither was really tier 1 but they were still capable of (and did) put up results before Treasure Cruise.
And I'm advocating on behalf of Boros too :p, but yes it's mostly MBC that's gone missing with the other decks being more marginal. I just think the argument Alex is making for banning CoF is flawed. He says the loss of MBC in the format due to TC is letting Esper Familiar assert its dominance as the best deck. Well if you let MBC back into the format then it stands to reason Familiar should see its success level drop, and the best way to do this is to return the meta to the pre-TC state. That being said I'm sure CoF will probably end up banned someday anyways and I won't shed a tear for it. I just think now is not the time. Banning TC should lead to a more diverse format while I don't see much argument that banning CoF will do the same.
I've been playing Paper Pauper since 2012 and have also been keeping close tabs on the online metagame, since we use the online banlist. Please, don't poison the well. Let's keep things civil.
Have you bothered to check these facts yourself, before announcing that they're ridiculous? Because I just did.
For the sake of a fairer comparison, I've used the exact same number of sampled decks for the before and after picture by using an extra weekend of dailies in the pre-khans sample.
09/07/2014
09/06/2014
09/05/2014
09/13/2014
09/14/2014
09/12/2014
01/18/2015
01/17/2015
01/16/2015
Pre-Khans archetypes:
Delver
MBC
Burn
Tron
Eye-Candy
Izzet Control
Boros
Stompy
Hexproof
White Weenies
Affinity
Tortured Existence
Familiars
Dimir Contol
Goblins
MUC
Elf
Token
Acid Trip
Total count: 19
Post-Khans archetypes:
Delver
MBC
Burn
Tron
Eye-Candy
Izzet Control
Boros
Stompy
Hexproof
White Weenies
Affinity
Tortured Existence
Familiars
Dimir Contol
Goblins
MUC
Turbo Fog
Total count: 17
Looks like my hunch was wrong. There are actually a very similar number of archetypes present. If we were to remove some of the low-tier decks that only show up once, like Elves, Acid Trip and Turbo Fog, the numbers would be even closer. So, from an archetypal-diversity point of view, pre-Khans and post-Khans are practically identical.
The main difference here is the exodus from MBC towards UR Control. While MBC was the most popular archetype before Khans (even more represented than Delver is right now), the main shift has gone towards a high increase in Izzet Control lists. Another important thing to note is the shift away from White decks, as has been noted. While Weenies was relatively well represented before Khans, it is only showing up here and there now (though has not disappeared). It seem aggro strategies have shifted towards Stompy and Hexproof decks. Most archetypes have barely shifted in their success, like Tron, Burn, Affinity, Familiars, Tortured Existence, and Boros Kitty.
What conclusion can be drawn from this? Treasure Cruise has been good for certain archetypes by making them Tier 1 (Izzet Control). Treasure Cruise has not affected archetypal diversity in a very meaningful way. The only major shifts are the decline in MBC (still well represented, but not dominating) and White decks, in favour of a larger portion of Izzet decks.
I'm no longer concerned because Blue decks don't need to grind as hard because they can use Treasure Cruise instead.
Izzet Control has been thrust into the spotlight, from what I can tell. I also think we'll be seeing Turbo Fog a bit more often (again, in the short time I've been playing online, I've had 3 mirror matches and several more where I get creamed because I played an aggro deck, as well as randomly viewing matches where people are playing the deck). It's not high-tier, but I could compare it to TE and MUC in popularity. There are probably others I'm not thinking of that have improved in playability to the point that they've become competitive.
I did note there was an increase. I'm not denying this. But how alarming the increase is is up for debate. No numbers can fix this. If you think 10 percentage points is large, you're definitely allowed to think so. This is where the argument is at, because we've established a basis of agreement using numbers (for once). This is so much more productive than what was happening before. I think these numbers are fine. You don't. So now, why do you find them alarming? If I can base my frame of mind by comparing the current state of the format with how prevalent MBC was before Treasure Cruise, I'd say that instead of MBC being massively more represented than any other deck, we have decks sharing the spotlight and actually competing for the role of dominance. This is good, no?
Again, be careful what you assume that I think. If you don't understand, ask questions instead. It's much more productive.
Those numbers are only identical because I made them so by applying the change of one onto the other. The similarity is artificial.
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
Percentage points are not a good means of comparison. Their significance varies greatly depending on where you start. Here, we start at some 39% of the meta, that by your reckoning would benefit from treasure cruise. This share increased by more than 25% in the wake of Treasure Cruise. If you don't think that's a problem, I guess you're entitled to that opinion but I just don't understand why you would appeal to the numbers like this when your ultimate point is 'and these numbers don't actually matter'.
Ok, here is a question. Do you think these numbers show anything other than an increased domination of already somewhat dominant blue decks fuelled solely by Treasure Cruise? If not, why do you not consider that to be a problem?
What change are you talking about? You counted up which archetypes in the current meta use Treasure Cruise and in what proportion. You applied this figure to the archetypes present in the old meta. This is of course not perfect but it seems good enough to me. You certainly didn't arbitrary claim that the number of non-Treasure Cruise decks in the old meta would be equal to the number in the current meta, you came to this by examining independent figures. It's certainly possible you made some false assumptions or errors in reasoning but you didn't "make" these numbers identical; you derived them from the assumptions and reasoning that was perfectly acceptable to you last post.
That depends on what you're looking at. If I want to see the difference in representation in regards to the entire metagame, you look at percentage points. If you want to observe by how much it increased from a certain period, you use percentages. They observe different things.
These numbers do matter. I did not say they didn't. What I said is that we use them as a common basis of agreement, therefore can move on to another phase of the argument. How you feel about data can't be calculated, it needs to be discussed and argued (politely and respectfully).
I think these show a shift in the metagame, caused by a new set being released (this is pretty normal). We saw this when Theros came out and Gray Merchant of Asphodel was released into Pauper. MBC's representation was higher than any individual Blue deck's is at this present day. Delver has becomes slightly more popular, but the real difference came from Izzet Control, who appears to have made the jump to Tier 1. Put simply, we witnessed the fall of one deck and the rise of another (and everything that implies).
Come to think of it, MBC's loss of popularity is probably a big reason why White Weenies is not as successful. The White deck was so good against them.
I made an average of every "maybe deck" that DID run Treasure Cruise, and then applied their ratios to the older lists that didn't have access to TC at the time. This was to have a rough idea when comparing the two states of Pauper. I'm glad you think it's a solid enough comparison. I'm not 100% sold either, but I don't see a better way. All I'm saying with "make" is that I applied the ratio of the new onto the old, so it should be of no surprise that the numbers are almost identical.
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
Who's not being civil? I don't see anyone making personal attacks in this topic (aside from that one guy that got warned by the moderators). The fact that you haven't played online pauper until just recently means that you're lacking in firsthand experience of what previous states of the format were like. This isn't a personal attack on you, it just shows that your knowledge in this regard is lacking and I think somewhat explains why you don't think Treasure Cruise is a much of a problem as those of us that have played the online format beyond just recently do.
You didn't mention having played Paper Pauper though I think it's questionable how applicable that is to this discussion. I won't say that past experience playing paper pauper doesn't apply at all, however, due to different legalities with regards to some cards (Hymn to Tourach and Sinkhole for instance), as well as no real source of Paper Pauper event results to look into (so we can't easily compare how similar paper and online metas are), and the fact that Paper Pauper only exists in local metagames (meaning more room for in-breeding within the metagames) it's hard to say just how much it's actually applicable to the online metagame.
When saying the format is less diverse I wasn't really referring to the sheer number of archtypes existing which isn't too useful of an exercise since there will always be fringe/rogue decks. I was referring to how so much of the format is comprised of Treasure Cruise decks. Yes, there are different archtypes represented among the TC decks but having over half of the decks in the format all playing the same card doesn't strike me as a good thing. MBC decreasing in popularity with Delver/Izzet picking up isn't a bad thing on its own, but taking into account the effects on the format because of this change (grindy midrange strategies forced out, slower fringe aggro decks like WW becoming even more of non-entities, Familiar Storm having no real challenger as top deck) it becomes concerning.
Poisoning the well is an ancient Greek rhetorical device that consists of damaging someone's credibility with unrelated information. Using the fact that I'm new to the online experience of Pauper as an argument has nothing to do with what I'm bringing to the conversation. I'm trying to be as factual as possible. Can we talk about measurable facts, instead of how long I've been playing online, or how different/similar Paper is to online? Let's get back to Treasure Cruise.
Well, that's what I thought too. I did mention that even if you take out the more fringe archetypes, there is a solid core (Tier 1-2) that is still present.
Now I feel like we're finally getting somewhere. Speaking objectively, this is the best paragraph I've read in this thread to date.
We've observed secondary effects of changes in top-tier performances. Grinding strategies are either adopting other modes of function (like Izzet and Dimir Control), or are suffering (which are those? TE? not all that much). Your beloved Boros is just as successful as it ever was, if you compare the two sample Dailies I picked (3 top finishes in each sample population). The biggest loser is MBC, and it's still very competitive and well represented. WW is a candidate that went from "slightly playable" to "barely playable". It's still kicking, but adjustments will need to be made in order to cope with the change (if it's possible).
I'm very interested by what this will mean for Familiar Combo. Will it really have a time of unprecedented success? If this is the case, then we might be looking at an eventual Cloud of Faeries ban (I wish people looked at Ghostly Flicker instead, personally). If Cloud of Faeries gets banned, then Delver takes a rather big hit. That also means that Izzet Control won't have its natural prey anymore and lose success, and so on. I'm not sure how good Familiars is against Izzet Control, but I assume it doesn't do very well.
Familiars (combo) vs Izzet Control(control) vs Aggro lists... Sounds like a rock-paper-scissors scenario. I'm looking forward to seeing how this will actually progress!
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's not even all that useful in examining the difference in representation, because the significance of that difference changes based on how large the representation was to begin with. If a new archetype appears in the metagame with a 10% share, you could say that it's "increased by 10 percentage points" but that's clearly different from an already dominant archetype capturing the same proportion of the overall metagame.
I guess what I'm confused about is that you're presenting only data that shows the magnitude of Treasure Cruise's impact and then trying to argue that this impact isn't a concern, rather than comparing it with data like the impact of Gray Merchant on MBC or something that demonstrates the supposed increased variety in the meta you claim now exists. You're appealing to data that, on the face of it, argues against you. That's not to say you can't interpret it differently but it's very confusing that this is the way you choose to go about it. For my part, your own data has convinced me of Treasure Cruise's impact on the format and you've not presented any data to sway me to your interpretation.
The same kinds of arguments could be made for Modern, Legacy and Vintage. Whether a metagame impact is ban-worthy is always a matter of degree, and I think if consistent criteria are to be applied to Pauper as to these other formats then Treasure Cruise is certainly ban-worthy. It's always going to be debatable whether anything is ban-worthy, but similar to the data, the precedent elsewhere gives us a common basis from which we can argue further.
It should be a surprise if you don't think Treasure Cruise was solely responsible for the change. This is perhaps an example of the misleading effects of using percentage points. As a percent of the entire meta, blue decks that don't run Treasure Cruise have remained roughly constant. As a percentage of all blue decks, they've decreased significantly. So since your analysis was based on ratios of blue decks, it absolutely should be a surprise that this ratio has changed.
If a single deck suddenly jumped from 0 to 10, that would certainly be incredible. Here, we're talking about several archetypes increasing from an already existing rate of prevalence to a moderately higher one (with some new archetypes added as well). There is no one "dominant" archetype that went up 10 percentage points all by itself.
It's a matter of perspective. I've shown that Treasure Cruise has had an impact on the game. I've also shown why these impacts were felt the way they were, and are not limited to Treasure Cruise (there are side-effects of Tier movements that are now blatantly evident). The meta is just as varied as it always was on multiple levels. So, is this 10 percentage point rise of multiple archetypes really that monstrous? In light of all this information, I don't think it is. We're feeling a shift in Tier power, because a few decks became better and preyed on others naturally, which in turn has had other consequential effects.
In any case, I'm happy that information I've brought to this thread has been so useful to several people. It's not about who's right or wrong. It's about getting to the closest thing we can to the truth. We're so much better off now than we were two pages ago. I hope you agree!
I'm not certain I'm understanding this correctly. All formats are very unique in their composition. The arguments for banning a card in one format are not transmissible to another. It's not a matter of consistency in application, it's a matter of getting the best reading on each format. Pauper shouldn't blindly follow in its sister formats' footsteps. They are all unique, and deserve separate analysis and attention. There may be a lot of disagreements with whatever Wizards' decisions are, but they are the creators of the game. I will respect whatever decision they make, and I'm going to love it.
Surprise! Treasure Cruise is not solely responsible. We cannot work with absolutes, because there are too many variables. The answer is multifactorial, which is why we're having this discussion in the first place. Blue decks that don't run TC have decreased a small amount, because some of them are now using the card. They are part of the 10 percentage points. The fact that Izzet Control is now a top dog explains this discrepancy in decks that don't use TC and those that do. I'm absolutely staggered by the surge of this deck, to be honest. It has more than tripled in prevalence.
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
That's what I'm talking about. You've not shown this. You've only presented data pertaining to Treasure Cruise, and the more we examine that evidence the stronger the connection to Treasure Cruise is. The best you can say is that you haven't definitively proven that there were no other factors, but that certainly doesn't mean you've shown that were were.
The arguments for banning/restricting Treasure Cruise in those formats were all pretty similar and they apply to Pauper as well. Basically what I'm saying is, yes, you can peg your thresholds for what's ban-worthy as high as you like because at the end of the day they're subjective but in my opinion if the same people who decided to ban Cruise in Modern and Legacy were examining Pauper at the same time, they'd decide to ban it here and for the same reasons.
So by my count, Izzet Control is about 12% of the current meta. I haven't checked the old meta but if you're right and it's tripled in prevalence that would mean the majority of the 10 percentage point increase in blue decks is Izzet Control. So your claim that this increase represents a variety of archetypes is wrong. If these numbers are correct, then the increase is dominated by Izzet Control, an increase almost as much as my hypothetical example you called "incredible". You've also, once again, not presented any evidence that Treasure Cruise is not responsible, you just keep asserting this whilst presenting further evidence that Treasure Cruise is, in fact, responsible. I mean, there are always complicated factors but you haven't given any reason to believe anything other than Treasure Cruise is remotely significant.
Rules Advisor
Pauper decks: Weenie Tokens — Zombies
My own rules when building a Commander deck:
1) Underrated general that I can build around but the deck must work without him/her too.
2) Every card must be legal in both banlists.
3) No infinite combo that could win (and ruin) instantly a multiplayer game.
4) Synergy at all costs; stay on theme, avoid goodstuff.
You'll find two paragraphs in my spoiler box on the previous page that treat other factors, concerning both archetypal diversity and prevalence. I noted that TC had not changed the diversity of the format significantly, when it comes to the diversity of decks present in top finishes. The quantities have changed, and, as I explained, this is due to Treasure Cruise entering the format, as well the disruption of the "ecosystem" of what decks beat what (MBC beats familiars, White Weenie beats MBC, as a classic example of aggro vs control vs combo). The format is still on its way to finding an equilibrium. As I've said many times now, I have a hunch that the rise in blue decks is a fad, and will die down somewhat after a few months. People want to play what's new, because it's fun an interesting. Once the honeymoon is over, people will return to what they know. I have no way to prove this, but I say wait and see.
I calculate about 15%, but that's not overly dramatic. I say tripled because it showed up 3.3 times more in last weeks' dailies than it did in the two weeks in September. Whether it's a majority of the 10 percentage points, I don't know. It's definitely a good portion. I am not wrong when I say it involves a variety of archetypes. I believe there are 9 distinct archetypes that make up the 10 percent (obviously, some hold a very small percentage, like the one Boros Kitty build that splashed Blue. They are not likely to repeatedly show up). "Incredible" is going from 0 to 10%. Izzet Control did no such thing. Treasure Cruise is responsible... in part. Again, there can be no absolutes here, there is no point looking. Secondary effects of format Tiers changing is probably the biggest cause of this change. It's like a domino effect, where the presence or lack of presence of one deck causes another to flourish or flounder, which in turn affects the results of the next.
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's not sufficient simply to note that the archetypes are still present. If you refuse to ban any card unless its presence completely abolishes one or more archetypes you will have a very short banned list indeed. Now maybe you consider that to be a laudable goal and it's certainly a valid position, but if that is the position you hold then you must be clear on it. If you're trying to demonstrate that Treasure Cruise should not be banned because it has not made it physically impossible to place in a Daily with MBC or White Weenie or whatever, I think you first need to convince us that that is the relevant consideration. Most people would place the bar a fair bit lower than that.
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.
According to you it went from about 5% to 15%. That's not the same but it's still pretty incredible. I guess if nothing else it illustrates the problems with counting percentage points
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.
I was trying to use your experience with Pauper to gauge why you feel the current metagame is diverse. That's the main reason to bring it up, but you're right it's not that important so I'll move on.
Boros doing "equally as well" doesn't mean a whole lot to me when its such a negligible % of the meta game. For all we know these lists that posted results dodged Treasure Cruise decks completely, or they're simply very dedicated pilots willing to play their deck regardless of the metagame. The sample size is too shallow to make reasonable conclusions based on the data alone. I've played enough of the deck myself to know that it doesn't have the power to grind out decks like Delver or Cyclops once they have access to Treasure Cruise. It's simply not equipped to play that type of game because of its similarities to MBC in how it plays to gain small edges. In any case I mentioned Boros more as a non-MBC example of decks being hurt by Treasure Cruise, but MBC should be the main deck we're focusing on in this regard since it's clearly the one most affected.
Like I said I wouldn't be opposed to a CoF banning, however the problem I see is that it may not have the desired effect of increasing diversity. If we just want the Familiar deck out of the format then that might be the way to go, but all we're doing is killing one deck, hurting another (Delver) and I don't know that we're gaining a lot back.
This is a fair point, which is why I've been bringing up previous bannings in Pauper - specifically the Cloudpost banning in 2013. I think a useful thought experiment is to compare the meta pre-Cloudpost bans to the meta now:
1) In the pre-Cloudpost bans meta MBC (and similar strategies) was largely forced out of the format due to not being able to compete with control decks running the mana engine. In the current meta MBC is being forced out of the format by TC decks due to its difficulty in grinding out opponents with it. Similar results, albeit not entirely the same circumstances.
2) Expanding on 1), the Cloudpost metagame devolved into a format of Post decks and decks that could beat Post decks (the main ones of those being Delver, Stompy, and Affinity). The current format seems to be trending towards Treasure Cruise decks and decks that can win fast enough that they don't care about Treasure Cruise (Stompy, Affinity, perhaps Hexproof).
3) Cloudpost restricted deck building for control decks in the format. Any control deck trying to play without the Cloudpost package was simply not viable in the format. I argue that Treasure Cruise is restricting deck building for blue decks in the current format. Save a few exceptions most of them are forced to run TC to keep up with the other blue decks in the format. The most notable exception here is Familiar Combo which doesn't use it.
4) There is likely more diversity among different Treasure Cruise decks than there were among Cloudpost decks. The main Cloudpost decks were Izzet Post, Mono-Blue Fissure Post, and then in a distant third Simic Post (which played sort of like a turbofog deck but had Fangren Marauder and Kaervek's Torch to clean things up). These decks had their differences (Izzet played more of a control game, Fissure Post relied on its combo, Simic focused more on stalling until it could ramp up its fireball effect) but overall they were constructed in some similar ways. The main TC decks are Delver, Cyclops, UR control and then a few others with more negligible representation (Tron, a few Affinity lists, decks splashing for it). Even just looking at the main three we have an aggro-control deck, a combo deck, and a control deck. So a nice bit more diversity than we saw between Cloudpost decks. This might be the biggest thing in TC's favor - the decks using it at least have some level of diversity among themselves and you don't really try to fight them in similar ways like you would with Cloudpost decks.
5) Treasure Cruise however is much more prevalent in the format than Cloudpost was (as far as I remember anyways). I'm too lazy to look up specifics but I doubt Cloudpost was played in more than 30% of the decks and even that number is probably high. Treasure Cruise currently appears in roughly half of the decks in the format. Now, part of this is because it's a much easier card to jam into a deck than Cloudpost. You didn't just go jamming Cloudposts into Delver decks since they didn't do anything for that deck. But drawing cards? Well, everyone likes to draw cards. At the same time I find so many of the decks using the card to be alarming.
6) The prevalence of Cloudpost caused decks to run more land destruction in their sideboards than they otherwise would have. Stompy players ran Thermokarst, Goblins often had Raze, MBC used Rancid Earth/Choking Sands to try and fight their tough opponent. If you look at sideboards in a non-Cloudpost environment you see a lot of that land destruction is gone. If this were to happen now we would see decks adopting graveyard hate (Relic of Progenitus, Crypt Incursion, etc). We haven't seen a lot of this so far, a few decks are playing more Relics in their board but save for one exception it hasn't become adopted widespread yet. The one exception being MBC which has been forced into running 3-4 Bojuka Bogs maindeck as a way of fighting TC. This comes at a cost for MBC though as it cannot run Barren Moor any longer (or it can't run as many) meaning it becomes more susceptible to flooding out than previously.
Sorry I wrote a lot there, but I think using the CLoudpost banning as a basis of comparison is important here because it's a precedent we can refer to either in favor of, or against bannings. Any other thoughts or comparisons to add that I may have overlooked?
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?
Exactly right. It went from about 5% to 15%. I find that significantly less impressive than going from 0% (completely unplayed) to 10% (a significant chunk). The advantage of counting percentage points is that we can observe different degrees of significance depending on where the increase took place.
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 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).
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?
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.
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