It's difficult to use numbers in these cases because TC isn't banned (and doesn't look like it will be), so there is obviously no huge change that we can reasonably measure. We're both just guessing what the outcome would be in the event of a ban, essentially, no? How would you go about measuring these post-ban traits when it isn't happening? Is there a way it could be done?
There will be a number of committed people.
There will be people switching to decks that are known to be better in blind metas.
There will be people who will see an opportunity to try a different established deck.
There will be people who will see an opportunity to brew.
So how can we know exactly who will prevail in such a scenario? I give the slight advantage to people in the first two categories, because the first have more experience with the deck, and the others go for a smart move. How well they do (or anyone else, really) is anyone's guess.
It's difficult to use numbers in these cases because TC isn't banned (and doesn't look like it will be), so there is obviously no huge change that we can reasonably measure. We're both just guessing what the outcome would be in the event of a ban, essentially, no? How would you go about measuring these post-ban traits when it isn't happening? Is there a way it could be done?
There will be a number of committed people.
There will be people switching to decks that are known to be better in blind metas.
There will be people who will see an opportunity to try a different established deck.
There will be people who will see an opportunity to brew.
So how can we know exactly who will prevail in such a scenario? I give the slight advantage to people in the first two categories, because the first have more experience with the deck, and the others go for a smart move. How well they do (or anyone else, really) is anyone's guess.
Well my argument is that we can measure it, at least by proxy, by examining the old meta. Unless you think there's some undiscovered gems in Khans that will have a large impact on the format, or would do so if they weren't overshadowed by Treasure Cruise, then the old meta will have roughly the same card pool. If the meta is more affected by the cards available than by arbitrary decisions of players, then a post-banning meta will have many similarities to the pre-Khans meta. For the reasons I stated above, I believe the meta is more affected by the cards available than by players' choices in building their decks: there will always be a representative mixture of archetypes played and those archetypes that are stronger by virtue of the card pool will post better results, on average. It's not necessary to examine the motivations of individual players if you accept this premise, as long as a sufficient number of competent players are playing a sufficient number of strong decks then the relative strengths within the meta will become apparent in rankings.
I think you are going too far down the rabbit hole here.
- not all events are reported
- games are affected by chance
- card availability and price has an effect on what people play
- social inertia - decks take time to evolve
- people have a tendency to make choices which appear sub-optimal but are influences by a huge number of factors
Yes, I was under this impression as well. Thanks for listing these factors, though.
You cannot reasonably, deterministically evaluate the metagame by any method. That is not how you determine whether or not a ban should take place. The only metric you can reliably measure is how many of the high performing decks are running it, and an objective assessment of the card's power level in the context of the format. That is the process that is used for other bannings. The reason cards like Dispel, Force of Will or Brainstorm are not considered for banning despite their incredibly high prevalence in their respective formats is because they are objectively "fair" cards. Dispel and Brainstorm are 1-for-1 cards, while Force of Will puts you 1 card behind.
There are many more ways to measure the impact of Treasure Cruise on the metagame. Have you seen the list of facts that I posted a page ago? There are a lot of things to consider, for sure.
An objective assessment of Treasure cruise might be as follows:
Treasure cruise's card text is "Draw 3 cards". This effect is extraordinary in terms of power level, especially for pauper (a format which has a chronic lack of high quality card advantage). Other cards which offer unconditional 3-for-1 potential cost five mana. The high power level of this card means that it must be balanced by a severely restrictive cost.
Treasure Cruise's mana cost is 7U, however the delve mechanic reduces the colorless component of this substantially. The balance of treasure cruise in Standard is good. It is played "as designed" in standard, where it may be used in the mid-late game to refill one's hand for a cost of around 3-4 mana. At the other extreme, in Vintage, the card is easily abused since there are many ways to quickly fill up the graveyard including fetch lands, cantrips, and powerful instants, artifacts and sorceries. In pauper, an eternal format, we have access to many of the most powerful instants and sorceries (such as counterspell), and also some low quality fetch lands. This is enough to fuel the treasure cruise to a point that it is can frequently be cast for 1-3 mana multiple times in a game. This acceleration, coupled with the lack of 3-for-1s in the format, means that the card is one which should be watched carefully in case it shows up in high numbers.
The high numbers have shown up, and as a result, the potential of having an overpowered card in the format is being exploited. This seems like a textbook case for a ban.
Your first paragraph is very far from objective. You use words like "extraordinary" and "high power level", which indicate a subjective comparison. Stick to facts, and objectivity will follow (usually).
All I can really say is that we need to look at more than just prevalence on a deck/population basis. There are all sorts of interesting facts that I posted earlier this week. I think concentrating on one aspect of the change and not looking at anything else will give you only a partial image of reality.
Bogardan Mage,
I was under the impression that you were going to show an actual way to calculate how the metagame could look. I don't see how this is possible. You can believe that the metagame will look more like what it was before khans. I'm a big believer in "social inertia", as Madmanquail put it.
I was under the impression that you were going to show an actual way to calculate how the metagame could look.
I've told you my method. Use the last known applicable data as a proxy. There is no god equation to solve all metagames; if there was then this game would be way less interesting than it is. But I've told you that I think the pre-Khans meta is relevant and I've told you why I think that.
I'm a big believer in "social inertia", as Madmanquail put it.
Social inertia is irrelevant because individual deck choices are irrelevant. As long as a sufficient number are playing the best archetypes (which you yourself demonstrated to be true, when you counted the number of archetypes in a vacuum) then the best decks will rise to the top and the weakest decks will place rarely if ever and this will furthermore encourage a feedback loop as players emulate the most successful decks. This is what happened in the wake of Treasure Cruise's release and it would happen in the wake of its banning. People didn't just spontaneously decide to start playing UR Control, some people were playing this deck which benefits from Treasure Cruise and enjoyed increased success, encouraging others also to play the archetype. Even if every one of those players kept playing that deck after Treasure Cruise was banned, it would be a weaker deck without Cruise and would give up some of its metagame share to other archetypes purely by tournament records. The best model we have of what the best decks would be in a Treasure Cruise-free meta is the format as it existed before Khans was released. That's why I think a post-banning meta would resemble it.
I don't think banning criteria is or ought to be centered so much in some specific card. Maybe the correct banning is not Treasure Cruise.
I think the criterion related to % of decks with a card, let's call it "dominance", is not limited to just that. I mean, there are (unbanned) staples in all formats. Those are cards that are in much more decks than other cards, even among winning decks. Not all cards seen in the top8s/whatever we get to see are staples. Not at all.
I think it's perfectly fine for a card to "dominate," as long as it doesn't do it in a single archetype. In the end it's about archetype dominance, not card dominance.
Caveat: balance (and bannings are part of balance) is not science. It requires science (meaning statistics,) but the decision is intuitive.
Treasure Cruise is in half the known decklists, but it's not in a single archetype and the format is still diverse enough, so I think it shouldn't be banned based on this dominance criterion alone. For reference, Treasure Cruise was recently banned in Modern for being in 25% of all known decklists and mostly in a single archetype: UR Delver (Multicolor Burn was barely a good deck at that point.) Lightning Bolt is the most "dominant" Modern card at 40% of known decklists.
But there are other criteria. I think the relevant one here is just banning things to move the metagame in a certain direction, or to promote diversity that's felt to be lacking in some part of the grand scheme of things. Like, maybe I want more aggro than control decks, so I ban (or unban!) whatever, in hope of steering the metagame that way.
So, immersed in this subjectiveness, I already thought that Blue control decks needed a serious ban before Treasure Cruise recently became this popular. I thought the best candidate was Delver of Secrets. Cloud of Faeries is another good one, but I think that has undesired collateral damage. Is it now Treasure Cruise the best candidate for a ban? It can be. I think it depends on wether WoTC wants Discard back or not. Or even cares...
What I'm sure is that Blue control decks needed, need more than ever, a ban. You would never stop banning counterspells or cantrips, so that's not a good strategy. I think one of Delver of Secrets, Treasure Cruise and less so, Cloud of Faeries, are all likely ban targets.
Social inertia is irrelevant because individual deck choices are irrelevant. As long as a sufficient number are playing the best archetypes (which you yourself demonstrated to be true, when you counted the number of archetypes in a vacuum) then the best decks will rise to the top and the weakest decks will place rarely if ever and this will furthermore encourage a feedback loop as players emulate the most successful decks. This is what happened in the wake of Treasure Cruise's release and it would happen in the wake of its banning. People didn't just spontaneously decide to start playing UR Control, some people were playing this deck which benefits from Treasure Cruise and enjoyed increased success, encouraging others also to play the archetype. Even if every one of those players kept playing that deck after Treasure Cruise was banned, it would be a weaker deck without Cruise and would give up some of its metagame share to other archetypes purely by tournament records. The best model we have of what the best decks would be in a Treasure Cruise-free meta is the format as it existed before Khans was released. That's why I think a post-banning meta would resemble it.
I disagree. If a number of people represent a large portion of the metagame regardless in a single deck, that deck will eventually post good results. This is why it's sometimes hard to just radically change a deck's tier; it's popularity fuels its success. I completely agree that decks that are well placed in an environment will perform better on average, but how can we exactly know what the "best deck" is? Is there even such a thing? I would argue that Delver decks are the best, but they aren't always the most represented deck (before TC, this wasn't the case). If TC were to be banned, we wouldn't just go back several months; there would be change, but there's no telling exactly where this would lead. There's no guarantee MBC would make a huge comeback, especially since one of the the top-dogs is currently UR Control, which seems to do well against it.
Sigh. Really, Obermeir, at this point you are just arguing semantics. My exact words are: "Treasure Cruise's card text is "Draw 3 cards". This effect is extraordinary in terms of power level." In the above context, "extraordinary" is an appropriate, objective term and clearly indicates that the effect "draw 3 cards" is unusually powerful for pauper. The word literally means "out of the ordinary" and is synonymous with "unusual, uncommon, rare". It is not subjective to state this fact. "Draw three cards" is absolutely an "extraordinary" line of text in pauper; it exists on only one other card (Brilliant Plan), which costs 5 mana. Consequently, it is a completely reasonable and objective statement to say that this card has a high power level which must be balanced by a restrictive mana cost. Nothing in this is subjective, provided that we both agree that powerful effects should be balanced by high costs.
Semantics are important. You can't just say one thing and then say something contradictory in the next sentence. That's very confusing. Simply saying that a "draw three" effect only exists on another card and that the cost is higher on average is fine. Let the reader determine what that means to them, or at least state that these conclusions are your opinion.
Yes. As i just said, we should look at two things (and only two things):
1. prevalence of the card in decks (as a % of total possible played, as well as number of decks running it)
2. objective power level in the context of the format in which it exists, grounded by standard magic: the gathering theoretical concepts like card advantage, tempo and value
Both 1. and 2. are demonstrably high. Indeed, the prevalence of the card has actually increased in recent days, raising treasure cruise to the #1 most played card in the format. It is the most commonly played card, despite the fact that very few decks run a full 4 copies.
The above criteria are what all other MTG bannings in the past have been based on, across all formats. These are useful, measurable metrics. This is the data upon which a banning decision should be based. I admire your tenacity and your efforts in trying to create some kind of unifying theory with which to evaluate the metagame and how the card has impacted it are both interesting and complex. However, attempting to assess the effect of a card using homebrewed criteria, theorycraft or intuition is fundamentally flawed since it is based on the faulty assumptions that:
a) there is sufficient data available to determine such things as the effects of a card on the metagame (clearly, as you have stated yourself, there is no "control" metagame with which to compare),
b) that the uncertaintly levels are low enough to provide scientifically valid estimates, (which, as I mentioned in my previous post, they are almost certainly not)
c) that you, me, or anyone else in this thread are sufficiently qualified to perform these assessments (for yourself this may or may not be true; although based on your self declared short online career I would have to assume "not")
I disagree. There are other important criteria to observe, in my opinion. Another criteria that I consider very relevant is the prevalence of a single strategy or archetype that is dominating the metagame (an example of this could be Cloudpost banning).
I don't think the criteria being observed when calculating the most commonly played card in this statistic is counting the number of copies being run, but rather in how many decks we see Treasure Cruise in. If it were the case, I'd argue that Island is probably the most played card in the format. If you could verify that detail, that would be very appreciated.
Again, I'm fairly certain Wizards don't limit themselves to just two criteria in order to determine a card's value in a format. Do you have any evidence to support that these are the only criteria they use? I'd be more inclined to believe they look at a lot more data, then simplify the reasoning for the masses. It's a huge decision to make, and I can understand that they hesitate. I've compared and assessed the importance of Treasure Cruise to the best of my ability, and that's all I can do.
Please don't attack people's credibility with unrelated information. That just seems inappropriate.
Social inertia is irrelevant because individual deck choices are irrelevant. As long as a sufficient number are playing the best archetypes (which you yourself demonstrated to be true, when you counted the number of archetypes in a vacuum) then the best decks will rise to the top and the weakest decks will place rarely if ever and this will furthermore encourage a feedback loop as players emulate the most successful decks. This is what happened in the wake of Treasure Cruise's release and it would happen in the wake of its banning. People didn't just spontaneously decide to start playing UR Control, some people were playing this deck which benefits from Treasure Cruise and enjoyed increased success, encouraging others also to play the archetype. Even if every one of those players kept playing that deck after Treasure Cruise was banned, it would be a weaker deck without Cruise and would give up some of its metagame share to other archetypes purely by tournament records. The best model we have of what the best decks would be in a Treasure Cruise-free meta is the format as it existed before Khans was released. That's why I think a post-banning meta would resemble it.
I disagree. If a number of people represent a large portion of the metagame regardless in a single deck, that deck will eventually post good results. This is why it's sometimes hard to just radically change a deck's tier; it's popularity fuels its success. I completely agree that decks that are well placed in an environment will perform better on average, but how can we exactly know what the "best deck" is? Is there even such a thing? I would argue that Delver decks are the best, but they aren't always the most represented deck (before TC, this wasn't the case). If TC were to be banned, we wouldn't just go back several months; there would be change, but there's no telling exactly where this would lead. There's no guarantee MBC would make a huge comeback, especially since one of the the top-dogs is currently UR Control, which seems to do well against it.
Well to test that you'd need to know what archetypes are being played that don't place, and I don't think we have that data. So do you believe the 15% of the metagame that you've identified as UR Control is just the tip of the iceberg of a vast number of decks that are playing the archetype and not winning? If not, then the social inertia effect you're talking about won't happen. Take away the strongest card in the deck and even if everyone currently playing it continues doing so, it will post worse results. It's only if you believe that Treasure Cruise has nothing to do with the deck's increased prominence that it would make sense for it to maintain its metagame position. But your own data strongly argues against this! So yes, while it's technically possible that it's all just a coincidence and banning Treasure Cruise would not actually impact that archetype's performance, I don't see any justification from drawing that conclusion. Similar arguments can be made for the other archetypes. It won't be exactly like it was before Khans, and I've continuously said I don't believe it will be (now who's putting words in others' mouths?) but it will be closer to that meta such that it makes more sense to use it as a starting point than the current meta.
Well to test that you'd need to know what archetypes are being played that don't place, and I don't think we have that data. So do you believe the 15% of the metagame that you've identified as UR Control is just the tip of the iceberg of a vast number of decks that are playing the archetype and not winning? If not, then the social inertia effect you're talking about won't happen. Take away the strongest card in the deck and even if everyone currently playing it continues doing so, it will post worse results. It's only if you believe that Treasure Cruise has nothing to do with the deck's increased prominence that it would make sense for it to maintain its metagame position. But your own data strongly argues against this! So yes, while it's technically possible that it's all just a coincidence and banning Treasure Cruise would not actually impact that archetype's performance, I don't see any justification from drawing that conclusion. Similar arguments can be made for the other archetypes. It won't be exactly like it was before Khans, and I've continuously said I don't believe it will be (now who's putting words in others' mouths?) but it will be closer to that meta such that it makes more sense to use it as a starting point than the current meta.
I'm sure it's entirely possible (and probable), that there are UR Control decks that didn't place; variance will do that. But as we don't have this data, we can't identify the ratio properly. I'd say it's safe to say there's a number of UR decks that aren't placing. I'm saying a part of a deck's ability to stay in a format is that its current popularity fuels success by encouraging other people to pick it up. A combination of this with a favourable metagame will more or less "lock" it into place.
I apologize for drawing conclusion that you obviously weren't implying. My bad! On that note, I think we may be more or less saying the same thing, but not saying/understanding it in the same way. I don't imagine a metagame that moves backwards in time until a certain point (this is what I've gathered from your statements, please correct me as needed), but rather a metagame that moves forwards from its current state into something different that could potentially resemble what it was before Khans, while not being the same (rather a unique entity). I stand by my beliefs in the first paragraph and how that would make it different from the metagame from several months ago.
Well to test that you'd need to know what archetypes are being played that don't place, and I don't think we have that data. So do you believe the 15% of the metagame that you've identified as UR Control is just the tip of the iceberg of a vast number of decks that are playing the archetype and not winning? If not, then the social inertia effect you're talking about won't happen. Take away the strongest card in the deck and even if everyone currently playing it continues doing so, it will post worse results. It's only if you believe that Treasure Cruise has nothing to do with the deck's increased prominence that it would make sense for it to maintain its metagame position. But your own data strongly argues against this! So yes, while it's technically possible that it's all just a coincidence and banning Treasure Cruise would not actually impact that archetype's performance, I don't see any justification from drawing that conclusion. Similar arguments can be made for the other archetypes. It won't be exactly like it was before Khans, and I've continuously said I don't believe it will be (now who's putting words in others' mouths?) but it will be closer to that meta such that it makes more sense to use it as a starting point than the current meta.
I'm sure it's entirely possible (and probable), that there are UR Control decks that didn't place; variance will do that. But as we don't have this data, we can't identify the ratio properly. I'd say it's safe to say there's a number of UR decks that aren't placing. I'm saying a part of a deck's ability to stay in a format is that its current popularity fuels success by encouraging other people to pick it up. A combination of this with a favourable metagame will more or less "lock" it into place.
Well yes, there's always going to be a combination of factors contributing to an archetype's place in the metagame. But consider this: if the significant increase in UR Control decks is a symptom of a large number of people moving to that archetype, then where is the "social inertia"? Clearly those people were not so married to whatever they were playing before that they couldn't change to a more powerful deck, or a deck perceived to be more powerful. If, conversely, the effect is more due to the strength of the archetype itself and the number of people playing it has not grown proportionately to its metagame dominance (this proportion is important, it's not enough simply to note that people are playing the deck, what matters is the win ratio of the archetype. If, for example, an equal number of people are playing Delver as are playing UR Control but the latter is placing more often then that would suggest UR Control was a stronger deck, at least in the current environment.) then we can hardly expect that dominance to be sustained when the card that made it possible is removed. As I said, I personally prefer to think of the metagame in terms of the latter scenario although obviously that's something of a simplification. The fact is you can't predict the choices every person is going to make, so why bother? Just focus on the knowns, because they will have an impact even though there are other factors that also have an impact.
I apologize for drawing conclusion that you obviously weren't implying. My bad! On that note, I think we may be more or less saying the same thing, but not saying/understanding it in the same way. I don't imagine a metagame that moves backwards in time until a certain point (this is what I've gathered from your statements, please correct me as needed), but rather a metagame that moves forwards from its current state into something different that could potentially resemble what it was before Khans, while not being the same (rather a unique entity). I stand by my beliefs in the first paragraph and how that would make it different from the metagame from several months ago.
If that's all you meant then it sounds like we do agree, more or less. I mean, it's trivially true that the future metagame will be its own metagame, rather than something from the past. I was just thinking that if the question is what impact would Treasure Cruise's removal have, we could do a lot worse than to examine the most recent metagame in which Treasure Cruise was not legal.
I don't think the criteria being observed when calculating the most commonly played card in this statistic is counting the number of copies being run, but rather in how many decks we see Treasure Cruise in. If it were the case, I'd argue that Island is probably the most played card in the format. If you could verify that detail, that would be very appreciated.
I already did that for myself.
It seems you can't attach non-image files here, so I uploaded two tables to Mediafire.
Yes, Island is both the most played card in sum and in % of decklists with at least one copy. But you aren't going to ban a basic land xD. Treasure Cruise and Dispel, Electrickery... are the most "dominant" this month. I have to say that even if the mode of Treasure Cruise is 4 copies, the best archetype in the format, MonoU Delver Faeries, has a mode of 1 Treasure Cruise. I gravely misremembered, sorry. It's actually 2 copies, but 3 is near. Mean is 2.0, standard deviation is 0.72. The decks with 4 copies are just more.
Notes: I only calculated the mode for decks that feature the card in question, otherwise many would be a useless 0.
When the mode is a floating point number, I averaged multiple modes.
Well yes, there's always going to be a combination of factors contributing to an archetype's place in the metagame. But consider this: if the significant increase in UR Control decks is a symptom of a large number of people moving to that archetype, then where is the "social inertia"? Clearly those people were not so married to whatever they were playing before that they couldn't change to a more powerful deck, or a deck perceived to be more powerful. If, conversely, the effect is more due to the strength of the archetype itself and the number of people playing it has not grown proportionately to its metagame dominance (this proportion is important, it's not enough simply to note that people are playing the deck, what matters is the win ratio of the archetype. If, for example, an equal number of people are playing Delver as are playing UR Control but the latter is placing more often then that would suggest UR Control was a stronger deck, at least in the current environment.) then we can hardly expect that dominance to be sustained when the card that made it possible is removed. As I said, I personally prefer to think of the metagame in terms of the latter scenario although obviously that's something of a simplification. The fact is you can't predict the choices every person is going to make, so why bother? Just focus on the knowns, because they will have an impact even though there are other factors that also have an impact.
If you take a look at the data collected by Vaevictis_Asmadi, you'll see there is a definite progression of UR Control elements increasing from December to January. People didn't just jump ship immediately; they saw some winning lists, and more and more people begin to play the deck, it seems. Success fuels popularity, popularity fuels success. It's difficult to break a cycle like that. I think these things are worth thinking about even if they can't be calculated.
If that's all you meant then it sounds like we do agree, more or less. I mean, it's trivially true that the future metagame will be its own metagame, rather than something from the past. I was just thinking that if the question is what impact would Treasure Cruise's removal have, we could do a lot worse than to examine the most recent metagame in which Treasure Cruise was not legal.
This may sound very cheesy, but I think the beginning of the future is the present. I'm certain a new, TC-free metagame might have throws from the past, but I'm also certain it will contain aspects of what the metagame looks like currently.
It seems you can't attach non-image files here, so I uploaded two tables to Mediafire.
Yes, Island is both the most played card in sum and in % of decklists with at least one copy. But you aren't going to ban a basic land xD. Treasure Cruise and Dispel, Electrickery... are the most "dominant" this month. I have to say that even if the mode of Treasure Cruise is 4 copies, the best archetype in the format, MonoU Delver Faeries, has a mode of 1 Treasure Cruise. The decks with 4 copies are just more.
Notes: I only calculated the mode for decks that feature the card in question, otherwise many would be a useless 0.
When the mode is a floating point number, I averaged multiple modes.
Anyone who brings this wealth of information to the table deserves my thanks, sir. And many others, too.
I'm sure some people wouldn't be opposed to banning Island lol
So, if I understand correctly, the most prominent archetype (Delver) has a mode of 1, but all other lists that use treasure Cruise outnumber it, making the mode 4 instead? That makes a lot of sense, considering how so many decks can use Treasure Cruise, but not all to the same extent. So, can I assume that the currently most popular archetype is not reliant on Treasure Cruise for its success?
When I look at the top cards for January, I basically see all the cards that make up Izzet Control, which I find fascinating. Of course, this is due to the fact that a lot of its components also belong to other archetypes (Bolt, Delver, Mulldrifter, Pyroblast, Counterspell, etc.), but its presence certainly can't be neglected in the data found here.
What surprises me the most is the mode of 4. I was under the impression that Treasure Cruise was often run as a 1 or 2-of, sometimes 3. But 4? I suppose Izzet Control can use all 4, but who else?
At first, the number seemed alarming. The more I think about it, however, the more it makes sense. Treasure Cruise has such broad applications in a colour that was already so dominant. No other card has such a general application as Treasure Cruise, not even Delver of Secrets or Counterspell. It isn't tied down to one or even a few strategies. At the same time, its function is not build-around. I think we have the recipe for a format staple.
@Obermeir: You are welcome. Do you want more? Huh?
Sorry, I completely misremembered the Treasure Cruise mode 1 in MonoU Delver Faeries. It's actually mode 2, but 3 is near (mean 2.0, standard deviation 0.72). For the overal format between Jan. the 1st and the 25th, the mean is 3.02, std dev 1.02.
That's the problem with the mode, you never know by how near is the second most common value. You can use the tuple [mean, standard deviation] for that. All stats lose some information.
But you need to keep your imagination in check a little ;). There is no "player intent" reflected in the data. It only shows what the best decks are among the ones we know, and what those decks are doing with cards. That's it. There is always the risk of confirmation bias.
Anyway, to track card use in archetypes, you need another table.
The % of Decks is among all decks for the period, not just in an archetype. 9.47% of the known decks that had any Electrickerys in January (which is incomplete, by the way!) were Affinity Atog Based. It's not that 9.47% of the Affinity Atog Based decks had Electrickery. It can be confusing, I know.
In general, keep in mind there is very little data on Pauper. We got the results of like, one Pauper event every three days. Regardless of the total number of events, which may very well be that low. Standard has much much more data. Modern has less, then Pauper has barely anything.
You can't strongly infer (and science is out of the question xD.) Just look at the rough tendencies and suspect any low numbers, because the can easily change.
Okay, I agree, but you seem to be obliquely implying that I did this confusing thing myself, which I didn't. Furthermore, you fail to address the point I was making, which was that everything in my description of TC was entirely objective, rather than subjective, as you claimed. My point here is that the effect "draw 3 cards" is indeed a powerful, rare effect in pauper which is why the card itself is powerful. Drawing extra cards is just straight-up powerful in Magic, noone would dispute that.
Qualitatives are subjective is basically what I was getting at. Giving information about a card's general place in Pauper and its function is fine. Let others decide how to describe them. Even I'm faulty of doing this sometimes, it's okay. These things happen.
It is not without due cause that I refer to your lack of experience with online pauper. You make repeated use of subjective arguments and anecdotal evidence in support of many of your points. Based on your own admission, you have never played online pauper in a pre-treasure environment. Objective points are of course completely valid from any source, as many of your points are. However, tell me: how can we weigh up the validity of your more subjective statements (of which there are many) without first considering that their only basis is your personal experience. Take a look in the spoiler for examples if you don't believe me:
People will adapt and fight TC decks with faster strategies (scratch that, some already are) and maybe not try to grind so much. Every colour besides White is still very viable. As long as there isn't something outrageous like an 85% presence of TC in all lists, the game is still fair, imo.
I've never played against Boros Kitty, so I wouldn't know how fast/slow it is. But from my experience with Dead Dog, Izzet Control and Dimir Control, they almost never have time for game 3. I've played more than one game against these three archetypes, and it's often come down to time.
It seems to me you can either a) stop relying on your own play experience in support of your claims (unless you have very reliable evidence that your case data is valid), or b) accept that people will naturally call into question your own experience if you choose to rely on it in support of your arguments.
Context is very important here. Read back on what was being discussed. Some of these comments were even emitted before I even gathered any data to have a clear opinion. Talking about grinding decks has basically nothing to do with this conversation (or the argument) anymore. Please stop poisoning the well. This doesn't seem very helpful in advancing an intelligent argument. Taking recourse to this weak type of argument is unnecessary. No more ad hominem. Can we get back to talking about Treasure Cruise?
No, I don't. However, I can say with near-certainty that these two are a very contributor to the decision: 1. Prevalence, 2. Power Level.
I base this on the fact that all bannings in recent years have followed a similar pattern. I'm sure I am wrong about these being the sole criteria for every banning, since there are other factors such as whether a deck is fun to play against, or how long it takes to complete a match (sensei's divining top). However, some of these kinds of questions are wildly subjective and therefore very difficult to agree upon as a common metric for bannings, regardless of how much data you have. There were also cards in the past that were banned based on power level alone, regardless of dominance, such as memory jar. Overall, the reason that I mention these two criteria so strongly is that they are the ones which always come up in WOTC's announcement of bannings. They typically talk about their goal of maximising deck diversity, and then they almost always mention either raw power level of the card which has been banned, or the dominance of that card/archetype as the main factor behind any particular banning, which is the point I wanted to make. These two are the most important criteria by far. In pauper, Treasure Cruise is 1. demonstrably dominant, and 2. of an extraordinary (i.e. above-ordinary) power level. To go against these two data points implies that equally weighty evidence be brought, which has so far not been done. You have speculated about the metagame, you have argued that diversity isn't affected, and you have made many estimations about the possible implications of a ban, and that is all well and good, but you still need to provide evidence which stacks up against the two points above.
Those are two very good things to analyse when determining the value of a card. But they are not the only criteria, as we've gone over before. They shouldn't be ignored, but we can't just ignore everything else that's around it.
I think that is doubtful. Wizards has a lot of respect for our intelligence and has always shown in the past that they are willing to go into detail about their decisions. They would not "simplify the reasoning for the masses", to believe as such would require firmer evidence.
Wizards weigh their words very carefully. I would think that the reasoning is rather simplified, or else going through details like the statistics and in-depth analysis would be rather tedious and probably subject to more criticism. I have no way of backing that up, though. Maybe they really do make their decisions based off of approximately six sentences that they then publish.
Do you actually talk to people like this? *checks through thread*, ah, yes I see that you do. You should know, this statement implies that I "don't matter", which is not only false, but it is actually quite rude. I find this especially surprising coming from someone who so frequently talks about politeness. To the point, Wizards have frequently made very heavy going of the banning process in pauper. For starters, the announcements for online formats come through a different channel, and aren't synchronised with the mainstream game announcement. On top of this, Wizards have a clear history of being extremely slow to get to a point where a card is banned. The storm, infect and cloudpost bannings all took ages to happen and the online format suffered in the mean time (this was back when there were actual "dailies" as opposed to the current "weeklies").
I'm so sorry you found that rude. But really, when it comes to making a decision as to whether Treasure Cruise should be banned, you don't matter. I don't matter either, if that's of any consolation to you. Are you one of the people that has a say in what should be banned? Wizards will take whatever time they need to make the right decision. When that time comes, I'll gladly accept and respect it. For now, making a blunt declaration that Treasure Cruise should be banned is not helpful. I did something similar like 4 pages ago, and I see now that it was a mistake.
So, when presented with overwhelming evidence that a card is incredibly dominant in a format; a card which fits in multiple strategies and strengthens the strongest colour, your reaction is to call it a staple? Staples are cards like counterspell, mulldrifter and evolving wilds - powerful and useful cards, the best of their class, but not auto-includes for every blue deck.
Card % of Decks
Island 51.85%
Treasure Cruise 50.21%
...
Counterspell 35.8%
Lightning Bolt 34.98%
Ponder 34.57%
Preordain 33.33%
Based on these numbers, approx 52% of decks play islands, and 50% of decks play treasure cruise. It seems to me that this implies an absolute auto-include. That is a bad thing for deckbuilding, it's a bad thing for deck diversity, and it's a bad thing for the format - it's actually just boring. To suggest that you can solve this without banning the most obvious culprit card is just incomprehensible.
Well, we could argue what a staple is, I guess. At what percentage do you consider the card to be a staple? Personally, when I look at these cards, I try to evaluate how wide their applications are.
For example, Counterspell. A very good card in mono-blue decks, but can't be used as well by all multicoloured decks. Lightning Bolt: I'd say this one is in pretty much every red deck ever (except Affinity, which has a better Bolt spell). Mulldrifter: an excellent card for slower strategies, but doesn't fit in other strategies like Tempo and Aggro. Evolving Wilds: I suppose a mono-coloured deck could use this, but this isn't really a unanimous decision, and we can find plenty of instances of decks that aren't using this, but rather Dual Lands or just basics. I can go on. Can these cards be considered staples? I don't know, what's a staple to you? Just a powerful and useful card? When I hear staple, I hear incontournable, a word in French that implies a deck can't properly be built without it. It's holding the deck deck together, like papers being held together by a staple.
Did I say I was going to solve something? What do you mean by deck diversity? Saying something is bad for the format and boring is all a matter of opinion (and seems to be an emotional topic). We can definitely talk about deck-building issues and deck diversity, though.
Vaevictus_Asmadi,
More is better!
I'll take some time to look through all this. Thanks for you very insightful comments and remarks.
Well yes, there's always going to be a combination of factors contributing to an archetype's place in the metagame. But consider this: if the significant increase in UR Control decks is a symptom of a large number of people moving to that archetype, then where is the "social inertia"? Clearly those people were not so married to whatever they were playing before that they couldn't change to a more powerful deck, or a deck perceived to be more powerful. If, conversely, the effect is more due to the strength of the archetype itself and the number of people playing it has not grown proportionately to its metagame dominance (this proportion is important, it's not enough simply to note that people are playing the deck, what matters is the win ratio of the archetype. If, for example, an equal number of people are playing Delver as are playing UR Control but the latter is placing more often then that would suggest UR Control was a stronger deck, at least in the current environment.) then we can hardly expect that dominance to be sustained when the card that made it possible is removed. As I said, I personally prefer to think of the metagame in terms of the latter scenario although obviously that's something of a simplification. The fact is you can't predict the choices every person is going to make, so why bother? Just focus on the knowns, because they will have an impact even though there are other factors that also have an impact.
If you take a look at the data collected by Vaevictis_Asmadi, you'll see there is a definite progression of UR Control elements increasing from December to January. People didn't just jump ship immediately; they saw some winning lists, and more and more people begin to play the deck, it seems. Success fuels popularity, popularity fuels success. It's difficult to break a cycle like that. I think these things are worth thinking about even if they can't be calculated.
December to January seems like a pretty short period to me. If by social inertia you mean that, rather than immediately jumping to a new deck, people will wait a few weeks then I agree, and I say that's totally beside the point. When "Dailies" are held at weekly intervals this period of time is not meaningful. The metagame will rapidly shift to accommodate a change such as Treasure Cruise's banning, and apparently it is necessary for me to clarify that "rapidly" here (or anywhere) does not mean "instantaneously".
If that's all you meant then it sounds like we do agree, more or less. I mean, it's trivially true that the future metagame will be its own metagame, rather than something from the past. I was just thinking that if the question is what impact would Treasure Cruise's removal have, we could do a lot worse than to examine the most recent metagame in which Treasure Cruise was not legal.
This may sound very cheesy, but I think the beginning of the future is the present. I'm certain a new, TC-free metagame might have throws from the past, but I'm also certain it will contain aspects of what the metagame looks like currently.
If you're claiming that the metagame resembles a random walk, no we don't agree after all. A major change like a banning will shake things up and cause people to re-examine their deck choices. Some people will stay with the decks they know but many will experiment, or as you suggested earlier go to old standbys that are popular after metagame shifts. Within a short but non-zero period of time the metagame will more or less settle to an equilibrium without Treasure Cruise, and I don't see any good reason to think that wouldn't resemble the pre-Treasure Cruise metagame in many aspects.
December to January seems like a pretty short period to me. If by social inertia you mean that, rather than immediately jumping to a new deck, people will wait a few weeks then I agree, and I say that's totally beside the point. When "Dailies" are held at weekly intervals this period of time is not meaningful. The metagame will rapidly shift to accommodate a change such as Treasure Cruise's banning, and apparently it is necessary for me to clarify that "rapidly" here (or anywhere) does not mean "instantaneously".
You're right, it is a short period and was maybe not the best example I could go for. I still stand by my point, though. It's always necessary to erase as much ambiguity as possible.
If you're claiming that the metagame resembles a random walk, no we don't agree after all. A major change like a banning will shake things up and cause people to re-examine their deck choices. Some people will stay with the decks they know but many will experiment, or as you suggested earlier go to old standbys that are popular after metagame shifts. Within a short but non-zero period of time the metagame will more or less settle to an equilibrium without Treasure Cruise, and I don't see any good reason to think that wouldn't resemble the pre-Treasure Cruise metagame in many aspects.
Where did this random walk comment come from? We agree on almost everything here, which I think is wonderful. Social Inertia, standbys, re-examined deck choices... This doesn't equate to a pre-Treasure Cruise metagame to me. This looks like a new beginning.
December to January seems like a pretty short period to me. If by social inertia you mean that, rather than immediately jumping to a new deck, people will wait a few weeks then I agree, and I say that's totally beside the point. When "Dailies" are held at weekly intervals this period of time is not meaningful. The metagame will rapidly shift to accommodate a change such as Treasure Cruise's banning, and apparently it is necessary for me to clarify that "rapidly" here (or anywhere) does not mean "instantaneously".
You're right, it is a short period and was maybe not the best example I could go for. I still stand by my point, though. It's always necessary to erase as much ambiguity as possible.
I think it's an excellent example because it relates to exactly what we're talking about. It's far better to use an example that has relevance to the topic at hand than to seek out something less relevant that will back up the claims you're making. If your claims aren't supported by this clearly relevant case study then you should re-examine them.
If you're claiming that the metagame resembles a random walk, no we don't agree after all. A major change like a banning will shake things up and cause people to re-examine their deck choices. Some people will stay with the decks they know but many will experiment, or as you suggested earlier go to old standbys that are popular after metagame shifts. Within a short but non-zero period of time the metagame will more or less settle to an equilibrium without Treasure Cruise, and I don't see any good reason to think that wouldn't resemble the pre-Treasure Cruise metagame in many aspects.
Where did this random walk comment come from? We agree on almost everything here, which I think is wonderful. Social Inertia, standbys, re-examined deck choices... This doesn't equate to a pre-Treasure Cruise metagame to me. This looks like a new beginning.
Random walk is just the Econ major in me talking. All I mean by it is the view that the meta has to move step by step towards its new position and is not able to simply jump there as soon as the bannings are announced. But it is able to make such a jump. I don't think it's worthwhile to split hairs over whether this is a "new beginning" or not. You've not given any real support for elements of the current meta persisting beyond a Treasure Cruise ban beyond simply asserting that they will persist. So I don't see any backing to the claim that it won't resemble the pre-Treasure Cruise metagame.
I think it's an excellent example because it relates to exactly what we're talking about. It's far better to use an example that has relevance to the topic at hand than to seek out something less relevant that will back up the claims you're making. If your claims aren't supported by this clearly relevant case study then you should re-examine them.
It's not the best example because the time period is so short. We need more data to have something conclusive. I think we're a bit ahead of the curve, here.
Random walk is just the Econ major in me talking. All I mean by it is the view that the meta has to move step by step towards its new position and is not able to simply jump there as soon as the bannings are announced. But it is able to make such a jump. I don't think it's worthwhile to split hairs over whether this is a "new beginning" or not. You've not given any real support for elements of the current meta persisting beyond a Treasure Cruise ban beyond simply asserting that they will persist. So I don't see any backing to the claim that it won't resemble the pre-Treasure Cruise metagame.
How could I possibly provide evidence of something that might happen in the future? We're speculating a future event. These elements have been present in the past. All I'm doing is naming aspects to consider in an evolving metagame. These aspects will have an impact that will result in a unique metagame. How closely it will resemble pre-khans is anyone's guess. Conversely, is there any proof it will resemble the pre-khans metagame? I'm not asking you to prove this, because it's impossible. It's only what you think.
I've also been reading up on the subject elsewhere, and it seems some people are much more worried about tertiary impacts of TC rather than TC itself. Pauper's inability to deal with Combo decks of all sorts is being uncovered once again, and some are coming to the conclusion that we may be facing an eventual Cloud of Faeries ban, rather than a Treasure Cruise one.
I think it's an excellent example because it relates to exactly what we're talking about. It's far better to use an example that has relevance to the topic at hand than to seek out something less relevant that will back up the claims you're making. If your claims aren't supported by this clearly relevant case study then you should re-examine them.
It's not the best example because the time period is so short. We need more data to have something conclusive. I think we're a bit ahead of the curve, here.
But the shortness of the period is what's relevant here! It refutes your claim that people don't switch decks over short periods. Clearly they can. You may say we need more data, but this is a clear and unambiguous example of exactly the thing you say won't happen happening. To simply brush it aside (I cynically note, only after it is pointed out to you that it in fact refutes your point rather than supports it) is disingenuous.
Random walk is just the Econ major in me talking. All I mean by it is the view that the meta has to move step by step towards its new position and is not able to simply jump there as soon as the bannings are announced. But it is able to make such a jump. I don't think it's worthwhile to split hairs over whether this is a "new beginning" or not. You've not given any real support for elements of the current meta persisting beyond a Treasure Cruise ban beyond simply asserting that they will persist. So I don't see any backing to the claim that it won't resemble the pre-Treasure Cruise metagame.
How could I possibly provide evidence of something that might happen in the future? We're speculating a future event. These elements have been present in the past. All I'm doing is naming aspects to consider in an evolving metagame. These aspects will have an impact that will result in a unique metagame. How closely it will resemble pre-khans is anyone's guess. Conversely, is there any proof it will resemble the pre-khans metagame? I'm not asking you to prove this, because it's impossible. It's only what you think.
I am asking you to provide a plausible mechanism whereby these "aspects to consider" will have any noticeable impact on a post-banning format. You keep asserting the relative metagame positions of various archetypes will persist. This is an absurd claim. Even if social inertia does has more of an impact that I estimate, for what you're proposing it would have to be literally the only factor at work. So no, you are not naming "aspects to consider". You are naming a single aspect and trying to convince me that it will be the only relevant consideration.
The "proof" that the post-banning metagame would resemble the pre-Khans metagame is that the most powerful cards would all be the same. I've previously asked you to refute this assumption, for example by naming a non-Treasure Cruise card from Khans that has or would have an impact on the format if Treasure Cruise were not in the way. You don't seem interested in this line, though, so I can only conclude that such a card does not exist. The relevant pool would be the same, so we can expect the dominant decks to be the same. There will be the usual metagame drifts and the like but more or less it would resemble the old meta. That is my mechanism. Dispute it if you wish, but for heaven's sake provide your own!
I've also been reading up on the subject elsewhere, and it seems some people are much more worried about tertiary impacts of TC rather than TC itself. Pauper's inability to deal with Combo decks of all sorts is being uncovered once again, and some are coming to the conclusion that we may be facing an eventual Cloud of Faeries ban, rather than a Treasure Cruise one.
I said earlier that in my opinion, if the same banning criteria that were applied to the other formats were applied to Pauper, Treasure Cruise would have been banned. Thinking on this, I've come to the conclusion that a number of other cards would also have been banned if that were the case. Cloud of Faeries would probably have been one of them. It's tempting to think that the Pauper list represents more of conservative approach to bannings; that a conscious decision has been made to keep the format as open as possible and only ban in the most extreme of cases. But realistically I think it's better explained by WotC not really paying much attention, probably there are no big Pauper fans in the relevant positions to focus attention.
But the shortness of the period is what's relevant here! It refutes your claim that people don't switch decks over short periods. Clearly they can. You may say we need more data, but this is a clear and unambiguous example of exactly the thing you say won't happen happening. To simply brush it aside (I cynically note, only after it is pointed out to you that it in fact refutes your point rather than supports it) is disingenuous.
A short period equals inaccurate results due to small sample size. We should perhaps look further back, if possible.
I am asking you to provide a plausible mechanism whereby these "aspects to consider" will have any noticeable impact on a post-banning format. You keep asserting the relative metagame positions of various archetypes will persist. This is an absurd claim. Even if social inertia does has more of an impact that I estimate, for what you're proposing it would have to be literally the only factor at work. So no, you are not naming "aspects to consider". You are naming a single aspect and trying to convince me that it will be the only relevant consideration.
I did not say it would be the only factor at work. I did state there were multiple aspects. You noted this in the same paragraph. Some people will stick to their decks. Others will change to old standards, etc. I've gone over this before, need I repeat myself?
The "proof" that the post-banning metagame would resemble the pre-Khans metagame is that the most powerful cards would all be the same. I've previously asked you to refute this assumption, for example by naming a non-Treasure Cruise card from Khans that has or would have an impact on the format if Treasure Cruise were not in the way. You don't seem interested in this line, though, so I can only conclude that such a card does not exist. The relevant pool would be the same, so we can expect the dominant decks to be the same. There will be the usual metagame drifts and the like but more or less it would resemble the old meta. That is my mechanism. Dispute it if you wish, but for heaven's sake provide your own!
I don't believe the format will simply regress. This metagame that you wish we could return to is so ephemeral. For a deck to be dominant, multiple criteria need to be met. Multiple people need to actually be playing it. Decks that do well against it need to be unpopular (this is currently not the case for MBC). Decks that perform poorly against it need to be present in higher numbers. A good list in a good metagame position has the best chances to succeed. But when do we reach that sweet-spot? We may never reach that point again, because people change their minds on what they want to play.
Also, Temur Battle Rage looks like it could be a promising addition to some lists. Looking forward to what will happen with it. You seem to be burdening me quite heavily to find another card in khans. Don't depend on me for this, you'll probably be disappointed. Try and look yourself, and make your conclusions based on that.
Please don't get frustrated. We're all just discussing. All in good fun.
I said earlier that in my opinion, if the same banning criteria that were applied to the other formats were applied to Pauper, Treasure Cruise would have been banned. Thinking on this, I've come to the conclusion that a number of other cards would also have been banned if that were the case. Cloud of Faeries would probably have been one of them. It's tempting to think that the Pauper list represents more of conservative approach to bannings; that a conscious decision has been made to keep the format as open as possible and only ban in the most extreme of cases. But realistically I think it's better explained by WotC not really paying much attention, probably there are no big Pauper fans in the relevant positions to focus attention.
You're using past tense. Do you think Wizards has truly given up on Pauper?
I can't help but think: Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?
You're using past tense. Do you think Wizards has truly given up on Pauper?
either they listen mostly to alex ullman, which himself thinks that treasure cruise isn't an issue in pauper, or they just need to have the meta so completely warped to remove all the issues in one fell sweep like the last time.
But the shortness of the period is what's relevant here! It refutes your claim that people don't switch decks over short periods. Clearly they can. You may say we need more data, but this is a clear and unambiguous example of exactly the thing you say won't happen happening. To simply brush it aside (I cynically note, only after it is pointed out to you that it in fact refutes your point rather than supports it) is disingenuous.
A short period equals inaccurate results due to small sample size. We should perhaps look further back, if possible.
Of course we should. But if we're to examine how quickly people adopt new decks, we can't throw out any result that shows they adopt them quickly on the grounds that the "period" is too short. You are the one who brought up this example, by all means expand it if you believe more data will vilify you. What you're saying is we need to examine a longer period of time to make sure this effect wasn't just a statistical fluke. But what this does not mean is that any effect that occurs over a short period of time is a statistical fluke. If we examine a long period and find a rapid increase followed by a sustained presence, then the point is proven.
I am asking you to provide a plausible mechanism whereby these "aspects to consider" will have any noticeable impact on a post-banning format. You keep asserting the relative metagame positions of various archetypes will persist. This is an absurd claim. Even if social inertia does has more of an impact that I estimate, for what you're proposing it would have to be literally the only factor at work. So no, you are not naming "aspects to consider". You are naming a single aspect and trying to convince me that it will be the only relevant consideration.
I did not say it would be the only factor at work. I did state there were multiple aspects. You noted this in the same paragraph. Some people will stick to their decks. Others will change to old standards, etc. I've gone over this before, need I repeat myself?
Until it leads logically to your conclusions. The effect of that will be that the metagame will change dramatically. It will not move gradually, step by step, to a new position. It will immediately jump to a different spot and then probably move gradually. Every time you cite the current metagame distribution you prove that you don't understand this. You say there are other factors but you are either not properly understanding their significance or you are simply forgetting about them when it comes time to draw conclusions. The metagame distribution of archetypes will be totally different if even a single other factor has any impact at all. That's why I think you're placing too much emphasis on social inertia, it doesn't have a predictable impact and it certainly won't have the impact you predict.
The "proof" that the post-banning metagame would resemble the pre-Khans metagame is that the most powerful cards would all be the same. I've previously asked you to refute this assumption, for example by naming a non-Treasure Cruise card from Khans that has or would have an impact on the format if Treasure Cruise were not in the way. You don't seem interested in this line, though, so I can only conclude that such a card does not exist. The relevant pool would be the same, so we can expect the dominant decks to be the same. There will be the usual metagame drifts and the like but more or less it would resemble the old meta. That is my mechanism. Dispute it if you wish, but for heaven's sake provide your own!
I don't believe the format will simply regress. This metagame that you wish we could return to is so ephemeral. For a deck to be dominant, multiple criteria need to be met. Multiple people need to actually be playing it. Decks that do well against it need to be unpopular (this is currently not the case for MBC). Decks that perform poorly against it need to be present in higher numbers. A good list in a good metagame position has the best chances to succeed. But when do we reach that sweet-spot? We may never reach that point again, because people change their minds on what they want to play.
A point that I probably should have spend more time on is that people will make deck choices based on conventional wisdom. If Delver decks are seen to be strong in the meta, people will play them. If MBC is seen to be strong, people will play that. If Treasure Cruise is banned, people will look for what is the strongest deck in a Cruise-free meta and I think that will lead them to the pre-Khans meta. This effect will be even stronger if this thinking is correct, because in addition to the popularity argument there will be an actual edge for decks like MBC over the competition. As I said, there will be metagame shifts that may unseat MBC. I just think the starting point will look more like pre-Khans than it will like the current meta. People will not continue playing decks that they only started playing because of Treasure Cruise after Treasure Cruise is banned. No amount of social inertia will make that scenario make sense.
Also, Temur Battle Rage looks like it could be a promising addition to some lists. Looking forward to what will happen with it. You seem to be burdening me quite heavily to find another card in khans. Don't depend on me for this, you'll probably be disappointed. Try and look yourself, and make your conclusions based on that.
I have and I am. I don't believe there is any other common in Khans or Fate Reforged that will drastically alter the metagame. Cyclops/Fiend decks will play Battle Rage, but I don't think it will noticeably impact that archetype's dominance. It's marginally better than some other options and thus worth playing, but I don't think that effect will be large enough to be visible in Daily results. The same can be said for the handful of other playable commons. So I am making my conclusions based on what I've found, and I don't think the pool is appreciably different save Treasure Cruise. I am inviting you to refute this argument if you wish. I'm not burdening you with the necessity of doing this, I'm giving you a chance to point out an error in my reasoning. It would be nice if you would acknowledge the validity of the argument if you do not do this, at least.
I said earlier that in my opinion, if the same banning criteria that were applied to the other formats were applied to Pauper, Treasure Cruise would have been banned. Thinking on this, I've come to the conclusion that a number of other cards would also have been banned if that were the case. Cloud of Faeries would probably have been one of them. It's tempting to think that the Pauper list represents more of conservative approach to bannings; that a conscious decision has been made to keep the format as open as possible and only ban in the most extreme of cases. But realistically I think it's better explained by WotC not really paying much attention, probably there are no big Pauper fans in the relevant positions to focus attention.
You're using past tense. Do you think Wizards has truly given up on Pauper?
I can't help but think: Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?
As I said, I don't think there is a Pauper champion in a relevant position at WotC (unlike, say, EDH or Cube) so it gets overlooked. I don't think this constitutes "giving up", I think they just don't have that connection with the format and don't really think much about it. That's just my take on the banned list; they ban things that are overwhelmingly format warping but don't apply their usual standards, it suggests that they simply don't know much about the format and can only act when something is glaringly broken.
adopt them quickly on the grounds that the "period" is too short. You are the one who brought up this example, by all means expand it if you believe more data will vilify you. What you're saying is we need to examine a longer period of time to make sure this effect wasn't just a statistical fluke. But what this does not mean is that any effect that occurs over a short period of time is a statistical fluke. If we examine a long period and find a rapid increase followed by a sustained presence, then the point is proven.
More research will be pending. I just need to put on my big boy pants and do it (kind of a long process).
Until it leads logically to your conclusions. The effect of that will be that the metagame will change dramatically. It will not move gradually, step by step, to a new position. It will immediately jump to a different spot and then probably move gradually. Every time you cite the current metagame distribution you prove that you don't understand this. You say there are other factors but you are either not properly understanding their significance or you are simply forgetting about them when it comes time to draw conclusions. The metagame distribution of archetypes will be totally different if even a single other factor has any impact at all. That's why I think you're placing too much emphasis on social inertia, it doesn't have a predictable impact and it certainly won't have the impact you predict.
What's leading to my conclusions? I predict a gradual change from the current metagame to a new one, using the many devices I've named. What does my approximation of the current distribution have to do with this? I haven't mentioned it in a while, either. How do you know how I interpret significance of data, or what's been omitted in calculations? I think you may be beginning to blend several of our arguments together, which is causing some interference in understanding. How much emphasis am I placing in social inertia, do you think?
A point that I probably should have spend more time on is that people will make deck choices based on conventional wisdom. If Delver decks are seen to be strong in the meta, people will play them. If MBC is seen to be strong, people will play that. If Treasure Cruise is banned, people will look for what is the strongest deck in a Cruise-free meta and I think that will lead them to the pre-Khans meta. This effect will be even stronger if this thinking is correct, because in addition to the popularity argument there will be an actual edge for decks like MBC over the competition. As I said, there will be metagame shifts that may unseat MBC. I just think the starting point will look more like pre-Khans than it will like the current meta. People will not continue playing decks that they only started playing because of Treasure Cruise after Treasure Cruise is banned. No amount of social inertia will make that scenario make sense.
That's not entirely true. If people see a deck being successful, they may also opt to choose a deck that fights it efficiently. Either route is effective, and that's what contributes to a healthy game. Not all archetypes that became suddenly popular are running Treasure Cruise, as I've read in Alex Ullman's articles. What about them? Delver is certainly still very playable (considering it was running only 1-2 TCs), UR Control is a bomb versus MBC (even before TC), then there's everything else that's been gaining in popularity, like Stompy, Esper Combo and Burn. These decks have evolved since Khans, and there's no reason to stop playing them in the increasingly unlikely scenario that Treasure Cruise is banned. We have to think moving forwards, not backwards, in my opinion.
I have and I am. I don't believe there is any other common in Khans or Fate Reforged that will drastically alter the metagame. Cyclops/Fiend decks will play Battle Rage, but I don't think it will noticeably impact that archetype's dominance. It's marginally better than some other options and thus worth playing, but I don't think that effect will be large enough to be visible in Daily results. The same can be said for the handful of other playable commons. So I am making my conclusions based on what I've found, and I don't think the pool is appreciably different save Treasure Cruise. I am inviting you to refute this argument if you wish. I'm not burdening you with the necessity of doing this, I'm giving you a chance to point out an error in my reasoning. It would be nice if you would acknowledge the validity of the argument if you do not do this, at least.
Every detail contributes to a changing metagame (though some admittedly more than others). Why not let us know earlier about your thoughts on this? It would have saved us a bit of typing.
As I said, I don't think there is a Pauper champion in a relevant position at WotC (unlike, say, EDH or Cube) so it gets overlooked. I don't think this constitutes "giving up", I think they just don't have that connection with the format and don't really think much about it. That's just my take on the banned list; they ban things that are overwhelmingly format warping but don't apply their usual standards, it suggests that they simply don't know much about the format and can only act when something is glaringly broken.
So you are saying Pauper is simply being neglected? It would be so disheartening to think that Pauper is just being overlooked. Wizards has the final say in all things Magic, and I respect them so much in their decisions. I always tend to think that they know better than anyone what to do. Perhaps they need a little more time to analyse how Pauper is doing before making any difficult decisions. It has been a relatively short period, and there are much fewer tournament results to analyse, when comparing with other formats. I definitely understand it being a little longer to see the light in these circumstances.
Until it leads logically to your conclusions. The effect of that will be that the metagame will change dramatically. It will not move gradually, step by step, to a new position. It will immediately jump to a different spot and then probably move gradually. Every time you cite the current metagame distribution you prove that you don't understand this. You say there are other factors but you are either not properly understanding their significance or you are simply forgetting about them when it comes time to draw conclusions. The metagame distribution of archetypes will be totally different if even a single other factor has any impact at all. That's why I think you're placing too much emphasis on social inertia, it doesn't have a predictable impact and it certainly won't have the impact you predict.
What's leading to my conclusions? I predict a gradual change from the current metagame to a new one, using the many devices I've named. What does my approximation of the current distribution have to do with this? I haven't mentioned it in a while, either. How do you know how I interpret significance of data, or what's been omitted in calculations? I think you may be beginning to blend several of our arguments together, which is causing some interference in understanding. How much emphasis am I placing in social inertia, do you think?
I'm talking about the predictions you're making and the data you quote ostensibly in support of these predictions. I don't need to see your working to do my own reasoning on your data and decide that it doesn't lead to the conclusion you're making. If you're basing it on different data please tell me what data. If you're just guessing then please explain how you reconcile those guesses with your own data.
A point that I probably should have spend more time on is that people will make deck choices based on conventional wisdom. If Delver decks are seen to be strong in the meta, people will play them. If MBC is seen to be strong, people will play that. If Treasure Cruise is banned, people will look for what is the strongest deck in a Cruise-free meta and I think that will lead them to the pre-Khans meta. This effect will be even stronger if this thinking is correct, because in addition to the popularity argument there will be an actual edge for decks like MBC over the competition. As I said, there will be metagame shifts that may unseat MBC. I just think the starting point will look more like pre-Khans than it will like the current meta. People will not continue playing decks that they only started playing because of Treasure Cruise after Treasure Cruise is banned. No amount of social inertia will make that scenario make sense.
That's not entirely true. If people see a deck being successful, they may also opt to choose a deck that fights it efficiently. Either route is effective, and that's what contributes to a healthy game. Not all archetypes that became suddenly popular are running Treasure Cruise, as I've read in Alex Ullman's articles. What about them? Delver is certainly still very playable (considering it was running only 1-2 TCs), UR Control is a bomb versus MBC (even before TC), then there's everything else that's been gaining in popularity, like Stompy, Esper Combo and Burn. These decks have evolved since Khans, and there's no reason to stop playing them in the increasingly unlikely scenario that Treasure Cruise is banned. We have to think moving forwards, not backwards, in my opinion.
"Only 1-2 Treasure Cruises" is still running Treasure Cruise. It's a fallacy to assume that the card must be played as a four-of to have an impact on the format. But your earlier data says that mono-blue Delver decks have remained relatively constant in metagame presence so I'm not sure why you mention that amongst "suddenly popular" decks. Stompy, Burn, and Familiars might be an independent movement or they might be a secondary effect (in other words, an example of what you're talking about where people move to decks that prey upon the best decks in the format). In the latter case, a decrease in their presence will happen at something of a lag but it will still happen, and in the former case it's something that can be taken into account. I'm not advocating just blindly assuming the entire metagame will be exactly what it was 6 months ago. I'm saying use that as a baseline and apply changes like this one to it. But you should not apply changes like the increase in UR Control because that's clearly down to Treasure Cruise as a primary effect. I get the feeling that this is pretty much the only significant difference between our predictions: I don't believe UR Control would maintain the position that it has now through a Treasure Cruise ban and you do. But even if social inertia is the only thing that matters, that literally everyone who plays UR Control now continued to play it after a ban, it would still lose metagame stake because it would be a weaker deck. That's why I think you're putting too much emphasis on social inertia, because any less than 100% weighting would cause a clear decrease in UR Control's dominance and you don't seem to think that will happen.
I have and I am. I don't believe there is any other common in Khans or Fate Reforged that will drastically alter the metagame. Cyclops/Fiend decks will play Battle Rage, but I don't think it will noticeably impact that archetype's dominance. It's marginally better than some other options and thus worth playing, but I don't think that effect will be large enough to be visible in Daily results. The same can be said for the handful of other playable commons. So I am making my conclusions based on what I've found, and I don't think the pool is appreciably different save Treasure Cruise. I am inviting you to refute this argument if you wish. I'm not burdening you with the necessity of doing this, I'm giving you a chance to point out an error in my reasoning. It would be nice if you would acknowledge the validity of the argument if you do not do this, at least.
Every detail contributes to a changing metagame (though some admittedly more than others). Why not let us know earlier about your thoughts on this? It would have saved us a bit of typing.
I thought I had, but we've been pursuing a line of argument more concerned with deck choice than card pool so it didn't come up much.
As I said, I don't think there is a Pauper champion in a relevant position at WotC (unlike, say, EDH or Cube) so it gets overlooked. I don't think this constitutes "giving up", I think they just don't have that connection with the format and don't really think much about it. That's just my take on the banned list; they ban things that are overwhelmingly format warping but don't apply their usual standards, it suggests that they simply don't know much about the format and can only act when something is glaringly broken.
So you are saying Pauper is simply being neglected? It would be so disheartening to think that Pauper is just being overlooked. Wizards has the final say in all things Magic, and I respect them so much in their decisions. I always tend to think that they know better than anyone what to do. Perhaps they need a little more time to analyse how Pauper is doing before making any difficult decisions. It has been a relatively short period, and there are much fewer tournament results to analyse, when comparing with other formats. I definitely understand it being a little longer to see the light in these circumstances.
I don't think it's dire, but I think a lot of other casual formats and variants have champions within R&D that (I infer) Pauper lacks. Pauper does have an advantage in its place in MTGO, and enjoys more official recognition that way than many other formats, but it's clearly a step or two below the major formats and even official casual formats like Commander in WotC's minds.
I'm talking about the predictions you're making and the data you quote ostensibly in support of these predictions. I don't need to see your working to do my own reasoning on your data and decide that it doesn't lead to the conclusion you're making. If you're basing it on different data please tell me what data. If you're just guessing then please explain how you reconcile those guesses with your own data.
What data are you looking at? Very little data can be used to see what the future might look like. I'm basing my predictions on theories of how people think. These theories all have a part in shaping a new metagame after a ban (and all the time, really).
"Only 1-2 Treasure Cruises" is still running Treasure Cruise. It's a fallacy to assume that the card must be played as a four-of to have an impact on the format. But your earlier data says that mono-blue Delver decks have remained relatively constant in metagame presence so I'm not sure why you mention that amongst "suddenly popular" decks. Stompy, Burn, and Familiars might be an independent movement or they might be a secondary effect (in other words, an example of what you're talking about where people move to decks that prey upon the best decks in the format). In the latter case, a decrease in their presence will happen at something of a lag but it will still happen, and in the former case it's something that can be taken into account. I'm not advocating just blindly assuming the entire metagame will be exactly what it was 6 months ago. I'm saying use that as a baseline and apply changes like this one to it. But you should not apply changes like the increase in UR Control because that's clearly down to Treasure Cruise as a primary effect. I get the feeling that this is pretty much the only significant difference between our predictions: I don't believe UR Control would maintain the position that it has now through a Treasure Cruise ban and you do. But even if social inertia is the only thing that matters, that literally everyone who plays UR Control now continued to play it after a ban, it would still lose metagame stake because it would be a weaker deck. That's why I think you're putting too much emphasis on social inertia, because any less than 100% weighting would cause a clear decrease in UR Control's dominance and you don't seem to think that will happen.
We're not talking about the impact of Treasure Cruise here. We're talking how viable Delver is without it. Therefore, the number of copies being run in Delver is a good indicator of how much it relies on the card. I think it's reasonable to think that Delver is going to do just fine without Treasure Cruise. I think you misread my sentence. I did not say that Delver suddenly became popular. It remained rather stable, with a small growth. Among the decks I mentioned, some belong to secondary and others to tertiary effects. I'm glad we agree on most everything now. With UR Control having become so popular in recent weeks, I can't imagine it returning to the sidelines like it was. It's going to be played more than in the past, but not as much as today. I think you're concentrating too much on this social inertia thing; it's one of many possible factors I believe shape the metagame. It seems like that really bothered you.
I don't think it's dire, but I think a lot of other casual formats and variants have champions within R&D that (I infer) Pauper lacks. Pauper does have an advantage in its place in MTGO, and enjoys more official recognition that way than many other formats, but it's clearly a step or two below the major formats and even official casual formats like Commander in WotC's minds.
The lack of having a recognized paper counterpart probably explains this. There must be someone taking care of Pauper if it stills exists and receive bans (no matter how delayed). I'll just continue believing Wizards are a cautious bunch and don't take ban decisions lightly.
I'm talking about the predictions you're making and the data you quote ostensibly in support of these predictions. I don't need to see your working to do my own reasoning on your data and decide that it doesn't lead to the conclusion you're making. If you're basing it on different data please tell me what data. If you're just guessing then please explain how you reconcile those guesses with your own data.
What data are you looking at? Very little data can be used to see what the future might look like. I'm basing my predictions on theories of how people think. These theories all have a part in shaping a new metagame after a ban (and all the time, really).
Except the data we've been examining in this thread has exposed serious divergences between your theories of how people think and how they actually behave. You cannot keep hiding behind protests that the future cannot be flawlessly predicted. You go on about the importance of evidence and speaking on objective fact, but when you try to make predictions about the future you're all too happy to accept that such evidence cannot exist and thereby make predictions on relatively weak footing. But "very little" is not "none" and what has been posted in this thread argues against you.
"Only 1-2 Treasure Cruises" is still running Treasure Cruise. It's a fallacy to assume that the card must be played as a four-of to have an impact on the format. But your earlier data says that mono-blue Delver decks have remained relatively constant in metagame presence so I'm not sure why you mention that amongst "suddenly popular" decks. Stompy, Burn, and Familiars might be an independent movement or they might be a secondary effect (in other words, an example of what you're talking about where people move to decks that prey upon the best decks in the format). In the latter case, a decrease in their presence will happen at something of a lag but it will still happen, and in the former case it's something that can be taken into account. I'm not advocating just blindly assuming the entire metagame will be exactly what it was 6 months ago. I'm saying use that as a baseline and apply changes like this one to it. But you should not apply changes like the increase in UR Control because that's clearly down to Treasure Cruise as a primary effect. I get the feeling that this is pretty much the only significant difference between our predictions: I don't believe UR Control would maintain the position that it has now through a Treasure Cruise ban and you do. But even if social inertia is the only thing that matters, that literally everyone who plays UR Control now continued to play it after a ban, it would still lose metagame stake because it would be a weaker deck. That's why I think you're putting too much emphasis on social inertia, because any less than 100% weighting would cause a clear decrease in UR Control's dominance and you don't seem to think that will happen.
We're not talking about the impact of Treasure Cruise here. We're talking how viable Delver is without it. Therefore, the number of copies being run in Delver is a good indicator of how much it relies on the card. I think it's reasonable to think that Delver is going to do just fine without Treasure Cruise. I think you misread my sentence. I did not say that Delver suddenly became popular. It remained rather stable, with a small growth.
We're not talking about the impact of Treasure Cruise, we're talking about the impact of Treasure Cruise on Delver. Glad we sorted that out. The number of copies played is still irrelevant to making this determination. If Delver had received a massive increase in power due to running Treasure Cruise, this would not be refuted by the fact that it doesn't run a play set. The only way to determine this is to examine the deck's prominence before and after Khans was released. So the number of copies is still a red herring.
Among the decks I mentioned, some belong to secondary and others to tertiary effects. I'm glad we agree on most everything now. With UR Control having become so popular in recent weeks, I can't imagine it returning to the sidelines like it was. It's going to be played more than in the past, but not as much as today.
With UR Control having become so popular so rapidly, it's very easy to imagine it losing popularity at the same pace! Again, please tell me what mechanism will maintain it.
I think you're concentrating too much on this social inertia thing; it's one of many possible factors I believe shape the metagame. It seems like that really bothered you.
What bothers me is you insisting there are multiple factors but then making predictions wherein the only visible factor is social inertia. As I said, if the efficacy of social inertia is any less than 100% then the metagame will instantly and drastically shift upon the announcement of any ban (even if it isn't Treasure Cruise). Unless I'm completely misunderstanding your prediction, you are saying that this is not true, and therefore I cannot reconcile your predictions with your assurances that you believe factors other than social inertia exist. I'm either misunderstanding you or you've not thought this through.
I don't think it's dire, but I think a lot of other casual formats and variants have champions within R&D that (I infer) Pauper lacks. Pauper does have an advantage in its place in MTGO, and enjoys more official recognition that way than many other formats, but it's clearly a step or two below the major formats and even official casual formats like Commander in WotC's minds.
The lack of having a recognized paper counterpart probably explains this. There must be someone taking care of Pauper if it stills exists and receive bans (no matter how delayed). I'll just continue believing Wizards are a cautious bunch and don't take ban decisions lightly.
It's not as though there's a lack of evidence of Treasure Cruise's impact on the format. Banning it would not be taking the decision lightly if the evidence was properly examined. Thus I can only conclude that the evidence wasn't properly examined, because there isn't anyone who pays close attention to Pauper. That doesn't mean they want to abolish the format, it means they don't know enough about it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There will be a number of committed people.
There will be people switching to decks that are known to be better in blind metas.
There will be people who will see an opportunity to try a different established deck.
There will be people who will see an opportunity to brew.
So how can we know exactly who will prevail in such a scenario? I give the slight advantage to people in the first two categories, because the first have more experience with the deck, and the others go for a smart move. How well they do (or anyone else, really) is anyone's guess.
UGTurboFogGU
BRSacrificial AggroBR
16The Paper Pauper Battle Bag16
EDH
BRRakdos, Lord of PingersBR
GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
UB Ramses OverdarkUB
Sig by Ace5301 of Ace of Spades Studio
Well my argument is that we can measure it, at least by proxy, by examining the old meta. Unless you think there's some undiscovered gems in Khans that will have a large impact on the format, or would do so if they weren't overshadowed by Treasure Cruise, then the old meta will have roughly the same card pool. If the meta is more affected by the cards available than by arbitrary decisions of players, then a post-banning meta will have many similarities to the pre-Khans meta. For the reasons I stated above, I believe the meta is more affected by the cards available than by players' choices in building their decks: there will always be a representative mixture of archetypes played and those archetypes that are stronger by virtue of the card pool will post better results, on average. It's not necessary to examine the motivations of individual players if you accept this premise, as long as a sufficient number of competent players are playing a sufficient number of strong decks then the relative strengths within the meta will become apparent in rankings.
Yes, I was under this impression as well. Thanks for listing these factors, though.
There are many more ways to measure the impact of Treasure Cruise on the metagame. Have you seen the list of facts that I posted a page ago? There are a lot of things to consider, for sure.
Your first paragraph is very far from objective. You use words like "extraordinary" and "high power level", which indicate a subjective comparison. Stick to facts, and objectivity will follow (usually).
All I can really say is that we need to look at more than just prevalence on a deck/population basis. There are all sorts of interesting facts that I posted earlier this week. I think concentrating on one aspect of the change and not looking at anything else will give you only a partial image of reality.
Bogardan Mage,
I was under the impression that you were going to show an actual way to calculate how the metagame could look. I don't see how this is possible. You can believe that the metagame will look more like what it was before khans. I'm a big believer in "social inertia", as Madmanquail put it.
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've told you my method. Use the last known applicable data as a proxy. There is no god equation to solve all metagames; if there was then this game would be way less interesting than it is. But I've told you that I think the pre-Khans meta is relevant and I've told you why I think that.
Social inertia is irrelevant because individual deck choices are irrelevant. As long as a sufficient number are playing the best archetypes (which you yourself demonstrated to be true, when you counted the number of archetypes in a vacuum) then the best decks will rise to the top and the weakest decks will place rarely if ever and this will furthermore encourage a feedback loop as players emulate the most successful decks. This is what happened in the wake of Treasure Cruise's release and it would happen in the wake of its banning. People didn't just spontaneously decide to start playing UR Control, some people were playing this deck which benefits from Treasure Cruise and enjoyed increased success, encouraging others also to play the archetype. Even if every one of those players kept playing that deck after Treasure Cruise was banned, it would be a weaker deck without Cruise and would give up some of its metagame share to other archetypes purely by tournament records. The best model we have of what the best decks would be in a Treasure Cruise-free meta is the format as it existed before Khans was released. That's why I think a post-banning meta would resemble it.
I think the criterion related to % of decks with a card, let's call it "dominance", is not limited to just that. I mean, there are (unbanned) staples in all formats. Those are cards that are in much more decks than other cards, even among winning decks. Not all cards seen in the top8s/whatever we get to see are staples. Not at all.
I think it's perfectly fine for a card to "dominate," as long as it doesn't do it in a single archetype. In the end it's about archetype dominance, not card dominance.
Caveat: balance (and bannings are part of balance) is not science. It requires science (meaning statistics,) but the decision is intuitive.
Treasure Cruise is in half the known decklists, but it's not in a single archetype and the format is still diverse enough, so I think it shouldn't be banned based on this dominance criterion alone. For reference, Treasure Cruise was recently banned in Modern for being in 25% of all known decklists and mostly in a single archetype: UR Delver (Multicolor Burn was barely a good deck at that point.) Lightning Bolt is the most "dominant" Modern card at 40% of known decklists.
But there are other criteria. I think the relevant one here is just banning things to move the metagame in a certain direction, or to promote diversity that's felt to be lacking in some part of the grand scheme of things. Like, maybe I want more aggro than control decks, so I ban (or unban!) whatever, in hope of steering the metagame that way.
So, immersed in this subjectiveness, I already thought that Blue control decks needed a serious ban before Treasure Cruise recently became this popular. I thought the best candidate was Delver of Secrets. Cloud of Faeries is another good one, but I think that has undesired collateral damage. Is it now Treasure Cruise the best candidate for a ban? It can be. I think it depends on wether WoTC wants Discard back or not. Or even cares...
What I'm sure is that Blue control decks needed, need more than ever, a ban. You would never stop banning counterspells or cantrips, so that's not a good strategy. I think one of Delver of Secrets, Treasure Cruise and less so, Cloud of Faeries, are all likely ban targets.
I disagree. If a number of people represent a large portion of the metagame regardless in a single deck, that deck will eventually post good results. This is why it's sometimes hard to just radically change a deck's tier; it's popularity fuels its success. I completely agree that decks that are well placed in an environment will perform better on average, but how can we exactly know what the "best deck" is? Is there even such a thing? I would argue that Delver decks are the best, but they aren't always the most represented deck (before TC, this wasn't the case). If TC were to be banned, we wouldn't just go back several months; there would be change, but there's no telling exactly where this would lead. There's no guarantee MBC would make a huge comeback, especially since one of the the top-dogs is currently UR Control, which seems to do well against it.
Semantics are important. You can't just say one thing and then say something contradictory in the next sentence. That's very confusing. Simply saying that a "draw three" effect only exists on another card and that the cost is higher on average is fine. Let the reader determine what that means to them, or at least state that these conclusions are your opinion.
I disagree. There are other important criteria to observe, in my opinion. Another criteria that I consider very relevant is the prevalence of a single strategy or archetype that is dominating the metagame (an example of this could be Cloudpost banning).
I don't think the criteria being observed when calculating the most commonly played card in this statistic is counting the number of copies being run, but rather in how many decks we see Treasure Cruise in. If it were the case, I'd argue that Island is probably the most played card in the format. If you could verify that detail, that would be very appreciated.
Again, I'm fairly certain Wizards don't limit themselves to just two criteria in order to determine a card's value in a format. Do you have any evidence to support that these are the only criteria they use? I'd be more inclined to believe they look at a lot more data, then simplify the reasoning for the masses. It's a huge decision to make, and I can understand that they hesitate. I've compared and assessed the importance of Treasure Cruise to the best of my ability, and that's all I can do.
Please don't attack people's credibility with unrelated information. That just seems inappropriate.
It seems that the people who actually matter (and know better) disagree with you. (I'm not talking about myself, for the record)
UGTurboFogGU
BRSacrificial AggroBR
16The Paper Pauper Battle Bag16
EDH
BRRakdos, Lord of PingersBR
GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
UB Ramses OverdarkUB
Sig by Ace5301 of Ace of Spades Studio
Well to test that you'd need to know what archetypes are being played that don't place, and I don't think we have that data. So do you believe the 15% of the metagame that you've identified as UR Control is just the tip of the iceberg of a vast number of decks that are playing the archetype and not winning? If not, then the social inertia effect you're talking about won't happen. Take away the strongest card in the deck and even if everyone currently playing it continues doing so, it will post worse results. It's only if you believe that Treasure Cruise has nothing to do with the deck's increased prominence that it would make sense for it to maintain its metagame position. But your own data strongly argues against this! So yes, while it's technically possible that it's all just a coincidence and banning Treasure Cruise would not actually impact that archetype's performance, I don't see any justification from drawing that conclusion. Similar arguments can be made for the other archetypes. It won't be exactly like it was before Khans, and I've continuously said I don't believe it will be (now who's putting words in others' mouths?) but it will be closer to that meta such that it makes more sense to use it as a starting point than the current meta.
I'm sure it's entirely possible (and probable), that there are UR Control decks that didn't place; variance will do that. But as we don't have this data, we can't identify the ratio properly. I'd say it's safe to say there's a number of UR decks that aren't placing. I'm saying a part of a deck's ability to stay in a format is that its current popularity fuels success by encouraging other people to pick it up. A combination of this with a favourable metagame will more or less "lock" it into place.
I apologize for drawing conclusion that you obviously weren't implying. My bad! On that note, I think we may be more or less saying the same thing, but not saying/understanding it in the same way. I don't imagine a metagame that moves backwards in time until a certain point (this is what I've gathered from your statements, please correct me as needed), but rather a metagame that moves forwards from its current state into something different that could potentially resemble what it was before Khans, while not being the same (rather a unique entity). I stand by my beliefs in the first paragraph and how that would make it different from the metagame from several months ago.
UGTurboFogGU
BRSacrificial AggroBR
16The Paper Pauper Battle Bag16
EDH
BRRakdos, Lord of PingersBR
GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
UB Ramses OverdarkUB
Sig by Ace5301 of Ace of Spades Studio
Well yes, there's always going to be a combination of factors contributing to an archetype's place in the metagame. But consider this: if the significant increase in UR Control decks is a symptom of a large number of people moving to that archetype, then where is the "social inertia"? Clearly those people were not so married to whatever they were playing before that they couldn't change to a more powerful deck, or a deck perceived to be more powerful. If, conversely, the effect is more due to the strength of the archetype itself and the number of people playing it has not grown proportionately to its metagame dominance (this proportion is important, it's not enough simply to note that people are playing the deck, what matters is the win ratio of the archetype. If, for example, an equal number of people are playing Delver as are playing UR Control but the latter is placing more often then that would suggest UR Control was a stronger deck, at least in the current environment.) then we can hardly expect that dominance to be sustained when the card that made it possible is removed. As I said, I personally prefer to think of the metagame in terms of the latter scenario although obviously that's something of a simplification. The fact is you can't predict the choices every person is going to make, so why bother? Just focus on the knowns, because they will have an impact even though there are other factors that also have an impact.
If that's all you meant then it sounds like we do agree, more or less. I mean, it's trivially true that the future metagame will be its own metagame, rather than something from the past. I was just thinking that if the question is what impact would Treasure Cruise's removal have, we could do a lot worse than to examine the most recent metagame in which Treasure Cruise was not legal.
It seems you can't attach non-image files here, so I uploaded two tables to Mediafire.
Yes, Island is both the most played card in sum and in % of decklists with at least one copy. But you aren't going to ban a basic land xD. Treasure Cruise and Dispel, Electrickery... are the most "dominant" this month. I have to say that even if the mode of Treasure Cruise is 4 copies, the best archetype in the format, MonoU Delver Faeries,
has a mode of 1 Treasure Cruise. I gravely misremembered, sorry. It's actually 2 copies, but 3 is near. Mean is 2.0, standard deviation is 0.72. The decks with 4 copies are just more.Notes: I only calculated the mode for decks that feature the card in question, otherwise many would be a useless 0.
When the mode is a floating point number, I averaged multiple modes.
If you take a look at the data collected by Vaevictis_Asmadi, you'll see there is a definite progression of UR Control elements increasing from December to January. People didn't just jump ship immediately; they saw some winning lists, and more and more people begin to play the deck, it seems. Success fuels popularity, popularity fuels success. It's difficult to break a cycle like that. I think these things are worth thinking about even if they can't be calculated.
This may sound very cheesy, but I think the beginning of the future is the present. I'm certain a new, TC-free metagame might have throws from the past, but I'm also certain it will contain aspects of what the metagame looks like currently.
Anyone who brings this wealth of information to the table deserves my thanks, sir. And many others, too.
I'm sure some people wouldn't be opposed to banning Island lol
So, if I understand correctly, the most prominent archetype (Delver) has a mode of 1, but all other lists that use treasure Cruise outnumber it, making the mode 4 instead? That makes a lot of sense, considering how so many decks can use Treasure Cruise, but not all to the same extent. So, can I assume that the currently most popular archetype is not reliant on Treasure Cruise for its success?
When I look at the top cards for January, I basically see all the cards that make up Izzet Control, which I find fascinating. Of course, this is due to the fact that a lot of its components also belong to other archetypes (Bolt, Delver, Mulldrifter, Pyroblast, Counterspell, etc.), but its presence certainly can't be neglected in the data found here.
What surprises me the most is the mode of 4. I was under the impression that Treasure Cruise was often run as a 1 or 2-of, sometimes 3. But 4? I suppose Izzet Control can use all 4, but who else?
At first, the number seemed alarming. The more I think about it, however, the more it makes sense. Treasure Cruise has such broad applications in a colour that was already so dominant. No other card has such a general application as Treasure Cruise, not even Delver of Secrets or Counterspell. It isn't tied down to one or even a few strategies. At the same time, its function is not build-around. I think we have the recipe for a format staple.
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
Sorry, I completely misremembered the Treasure Cruise mode 1 in MonoU Delver Faeries. It's actually mode 2, but 3 is near (mean 2.0, standard deviation 0.72). For the overal format between Jan. the 1st and the 25th, the mean is 3.02, std dev 1.02.
That's the problem with the mode, you never know by how near is the second most common value. You can use the tuple [mean, standard deviation] for that. All stats lose some information.
But you need to keep your imagination in check a little ;). There is no "player intent" reflected in the data. It only shows what the best decks are among the ones we know, and what those decks are doing with cards. That's it. There is always the risk of confirmation bias.
Anyway, to track card use in archetypes, you need another table.
The % of Decks is among all decks for the period, not just in an archetype. 9.47% of the known decks that had any Electrickerys in January (which is incomplete, by the way!) were Affinity Atog Based. It's not that 9.47% of the Affinity Atog Based decks had Electrickery. It can be confusing, I know.
In general, keep in mind there is very little data on Pauper. We got the results of like, one Pauper event every three days. Regardless of the total number of events, which may very well be that low. Standard has much much more data. Modern has less, then Pauper has barely anything.
You can't strongly infer (and science is out of the question xD.) Just look at the rough tendencies and suspect any low numbers, because the can easily change.
Qualitatives are subjective is basically what I was getting at. Giving information about a card's general place in Pauper and its function is fine. Let others decide how to describe them. Even I'm faulty of doing this sometimes, it's okay. These things happen.
Context is very important here. Read back on what was being discussed. Some of these comments were even emitted before I even gathered any data to have a clear opinion. Talking about grinding decks has basically nothing to do with this conversation (or the argument) anymore. Please stop poisoning the well. This doesn't seem very helpful in advancing an intelligent argument. Taking recourse to this weak type of argument is unnecessary. No more ad hominem. Can we get back to talking about Treasure Cruise?
Those are two very good things to analyse when determining the value of a card. But they are not the only criteria, as we've gone over before. They shouldn't be ignored, but we can't just ignore everything else that's around it.
Wizards weigh their words very carefully. I would think that the reasoning is rather simplified, or else going through details like the statistics and in-depth analysis would be rather tedious and probably subject to more criticism. I have no way of backing that up, though. Maybe they really do make their decisions based off of approximately six sentences that they then publish.
I'm so sorry you found that rude. But really, when it comes to making a decision as to whether Treasure Cruise should be banned, you don't matter. I don't matter either, if that's of any consolation to you. Are you one of the people that has a say in what should be banned? Wizards will take whatever time they need to make the right decision. When that time comes, I'll gladly accept and respect it. For now, making a blunt declaration that Treasure Cruise should be banned is not helpful. I did something similar like 4 pages ago, and I see now that it was a mistake.
Well, we could argue what a staple is, I guess. At what percentage do you consider the card to be a staple? Personally, when I look at these cards, I try to evaluate how wide their applications are.
For example, Counterspell. A very good card in mono-blue decks, but can't be used as well by all multicoloured decks. Lightning Bolt: I'd say this one is in pretty much every red deck ever (except Affinity, which has a better Bolt spell). Mulldrifter: an excellent card for slower strategies, but doesn't fit in other strategies like Tempo and Aggro. Evolving Wilds: I suppose a mono-coloured deck could use this, but this isn't really a unanimous decision, and we can find plenty of instances of decks that aren't using this, but rather Dual Lands or just basics. I can go on. Can these cards be considered staples? I don't know, what's a staple to you? Just a powerful and useful card? When I hear staple, I hear incontournable, a word in French that implies a deck can't properly be built without it. It's holding the deck deck together, like papers being held together by a staple.
Did I say I was going to solve something? What do you mean by deck diversity? Saying something is bad for the format and boring is all a matter of opinion (and seems to be an emotional topic). We can definitely talk about deck-building issues and deck diversity, though.
Vaevictus_Asmadi,
More is better!
I'll take some time to look through all this. Thanks for you very insightful comments and remarks.
Down, imagination, down!!!
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
December to January seems like a pretty short period to me. If by social inertia you mean that, rather than immediately jumping to a new deck, people will wait a few weeks then I agree, and I say that's totally beside the point. When "Dailies" are held at weekly intervals this period of time is not meaningful. The metagame will rapidly shift to accommodate a change such as Treasure Cruise's banning, and apparently it is necessary for me to clarify that "rapidly" here (or anywhere) does not mean "instantaneously".
If you're claiming that the metagame resembles a random walk, no we don't agree after all. A major change like a banning will shake things up and cause people to re-examine their deck choices. Some people will stay with the decks they know but many will experiment, or as you suggested earlier go to old standbys that are popular after metagame shifts. Within a short but non-zero period of time the metagame will more or less settle to an equilibrium without Treasure Cruise, and I don't see any good reason to think that wouldn't resemble the pre-Treasure Cruise metagame in many aspects.
You're right, it is a short period and was maybe not the best example I could go for. I still stand by my point, though. It's always necessary to erase as much ambiguity as possible.
Where did this random walk comment come from? We agree on almost everything here, which I think is wonderful. Social Inertia, standbys, re-examined deck choices... This doesn't equate to a pre-Treasure Cruise metagame to me. This looks like a new beginning.
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 think it's an excellent example because it relates to exactly what we're talking about. It's far better to use an example that has relevance to the topic at hand than to seek out something less relevant that will back up the claims you're making. If your claims aren't supported by this clearly relevant case study then you should re-examine them.
Random walk is just the Econ major in me talking. All I mean by it is the view that the meta has to move step by step towards its new position and is not able to simply jump there as soon as the bannings are announced. But it is able to make such a jump. I don't think it's worthwhile to split hairs over whether this is a "new beginning" or not. You've not given any real support for elements of the current meta persisting beyond a Treasure Cruise ban beyond simply asserting that they will persist. So I don't see any backing to the claim that it won't resemble the pre-Treasure Cruise metagame.
It's not the best example because the time period is so short. We need more data to have something conclusive. I think we're a bit ahead of the curve, here.
How could I possibly provide evidence of something that might happen in the future? We're speculating a future event. These elements have been present in the past. All I'm doing is naming aspects to consider in an evolving metagame. These aspects will have an impact that will result in a unique metagame. How closely it will resemble pre-khans is anyone's guess. Conversely, is there any proof it will resemble the pre-khans metagame? I'm not asking you to prove this, because it's impossible. It's only what you think.
I've also been reading up on the subject elsewhere, and it seems some people are much more worried about tertiary impacts of TC rather than TC itself. Pauper's inability to deal with Combo decks of all sorts is being uncovered once again, and some are coming to the conclusion that we may be facing an eventual Cloud of Faeries ban, rather than a Treasure Cruise one.
UGTurboFogGU
BRSacrificial AggroBR
16The Paper Pauper Battle Bag16
EDH
BRRakdos, Lord of PingersBR
GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
UB Ramses OverdarkUB
Sig by Ace5301 of Ace of Spades Studio
But the shortness of the period is what's relevant here! It refutes your claim that people don't switch decks over short periods. Clearly they can. You may say we need more data, but this is a clear and unambiguous example of exactly the thing you say won't happen happening. To simply brush it aside (I cynically note, only after it is pointed out to you that it in fact refutes your point rather than supports it) is disingenuous.
I am asking you to provide a plausible mechanism whereby these "aspects to consider" will have any noticeable impact on a post-banning format. You keep asserting the relative metagame positions of various archetypes will persist. This is an absurd claim. Even if social inertia does has more of an impact that I estimate, for what you're proposing it would have to be literally the only factor at work. So no, you are not naming "aspects to consider". You are naming a single aspect and trying to convince me that it will be the only relevant consideration.
The "proof" that the post-banning metagame would resemble the pre-Khans metagame is that the most powerful cards would all be the same. I've previously asked you to refute this assumption, for example by naming a non-Treasure Cruise card from Khans that has or would have an impact on the format if Treasure Cruise were not in the way. You don't seem interested in this line, though, so I can only conclude that such a card does not exist. The relevant pool would be the same, so we can expect the dominant decks to be the same. There will be the usual metagame drifts and the like but more or less it would resemble the old meta. That is my mechanism. Dispute it if you wish, but for heaven's sake provide your own!
I said earlier that in my opinion, if the same banning criteria that were applied to the other formats were applied to Pauper, Treasure Cruise would have been banned. Thinking on this, I've come to the conclusion that a number of other cards would also have been banned if that were the case. Cloud of Faeries would probably have been one of them. It's tempting to think that the Pauper list represents more of conservative approach to bannings; that a conscious decision has been made to keep the format as open as possible and only ban in the most extreme of cases. But realistically I think it's better explained by WotC not really paying much attention, probably there are no big Pauper fans in the relevant positions to focus attention.
A short period equals inaccurate results due to small sample size. We should perhaps look further back, if possible.
I did not say it would be the only factor at work. I did state there were multiple aspects. You noted this in the same paragraph. Some people will stick to their decks. Others will change to old standards, etc. I've gone over this before, need I repeat myself?
I don't believe the format will simply regress. This metagame that you wish we could return to is so ephemeral. For a deck to be dominant, multiple criteria need to be met. Multiple people need to actually be playing it. Decks that do well against it need to be unpopular (this is currently not the case for MBC). Decks that perform poorly against it need to be present in higher numbers. A good list in a good metagame position has the best chances to succeed. But when do we reach that sweet-spot? We may never reach that point again, because people change their minds on what they want to play.
Also, Temur Battle Rage looks like it could be a promising addition to some lists. Looking forward to what will happen with it. You seem to be burdening me quite heavily to find another card in khans. Don't depend on me for this, you'll probably be disappointed. Try and look yourself, and make your conclusions based on that.
Please don't get frustrated. We're all just discussing. All in good fun.
You're using past tense. Do you think Wizards has truly given up on Pauper?
I can't help but think: Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?
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
either they listen mostly to alex ullman, which himself thinks that treasure cruise isn't an issue in pauper, or they just need to have the meta so completely warped to remove all the issues in one fell sweep like the last time.
Of course we should. But if we're to examine how quickly people adopt new decks, we can't throw out any result that shows they adopt them quickly on the grounds that the "period" is too short. You are the one who brought up this example, by all means expand it if you believe more data will vilify you. What you're saying is we need to examine a longer period of time to make sure this effect wasn't just a statistical fluke. But what this does not mean is that any effect that occurs over a short period of time is a statistical fluke. If we examine a long period and find a rapid increase followed by a sustained presence, then the point is proven.
Until it leads logically to your conclusions. The effect of that will be that the metagame will change dramatically. It will not move gradually, step by step, to a new position. It will immediately jump to a different spot and then probably move gradually. Every time you cite the current metagame distribution you prove that you don't understand this. You say there are other factors but you are either not properly understanding their significance or you are simply forgetting about them when it comes time to draw conclusions. The metagame distribution of archetypes will be totally different if even a single other factor has any impact at all. That's why I think you're placing too much emphasis on social inertia, it doesn't have a predictable impact and it certainly won't have the impact you predict.
A point that I probably should have spend more time on is that people will make deck choices based on conventional wisdom. If Delver decks are seen to be strong in the meta, people will play them. If MBC is seen to be strong, people will play that. If Treasure Cruise is banned, people will look for what is the strongest deck in a Cruise-free meta and I think that will lead them to the pre-Khans meta. This effect will be even stronger if this thinking is correct, because in addition to the popularity argument there will be an actual edge for decks like MBC over the competition. As I said, there will be metagame shifts that may unseat MBC. I just think the starting point will look more like pre-Khans than it will like the current meta. People will not continue playing decks that they only started playing because of Treasure Cruise after Treasure Cruise is banned. No amount of social inertia will make that scenario make sense.
I have and I am. I don't believe there is any other common in Khans or Fate Reforged that will drastically alter the metagame. Cyclops/Fiend decks will play Battle Rage, but I don't think it will noticeably impact that archetype's dominance. It's marginally better than some other options and thus worth playing, but I don't think that effect will be large enough to be visible in Daily results. The same can be said for the handful of other playable commons. So I am making my conclusions based on what I've found, and I don't think the pool is appreciably different save Treasure Cruise. I am inviting you to refute this argument if you wish. I'm not burdening you with the necessity of doing this, I'm giving you a chance to point out an error in my reasoning. It would be nice if you would acknowledge the validity of the argument if you do not do this, at least.
As I said, I don't think there is a Pauper champion in a relevant position at WotC (unlike, say, EDH or Cube) so it gets overlooked. I don't think this constitutes "giving up", I think they just don't have that connection with the format and don't really think much about it. That's just my take on the banned list; they ban things that are overwhelmingly format warping but don't apply their usual standards, it suggests that they simply don't know much about the format and can only act when something is glaringly broken.
More research will be pending. I just need to put on my big boy pants and do it (kind of a long process).
What's leading to my conclusions? I predict a gradual change from the current metagame to a new one, using the many devices I've named. What does my approximation of the current distribution have to do with this? I haven't mentioned it in a while, either. How do you know how I interpret significance of data, or what's been omitted in calculations? I think you may be beginning to blend several of our arguments together, which is causing some interference in understanding. How much emphasis am I placing in social inertia, do you think?
That's not entirely true. If people see a deck being successful, they may also opt to choose a deck that fights it efficiently. Either route is effective, and that's what contributes to a healthy game. Not all archetypes that became suddenly popular are running Treasure Cruise, as I've read in Alex Ullman's articles. What about them? Delver is certainly still very playable (considering it was running only 1-2 TCs), UR Control is a bomb versus MBC (even before TC), then there's everything else that's been gaining in popularity, like Stompy, Esper Combo and Burn. These decks have evolved since Khans, and there's no reason to stop playing them in the increasingly unlikely scenario that Treasure Cruise is banned. We have to think moving forwards, not backwards, in my opinion.
Every detail contributes to a changing metagame (though some admittedly more than others). Why not let us know earlier about your thoughts on this? It would have saved us a bit of typing.
So you are saying Pauper is simply being neglected? It would be so disheartening to think that Pauper is just being overlooked. Wizards has the final say in all things Magic, and I respect them so much in their decisions. I always tend to think that they know better than anyone what to do. Perhaps they need a little more time to analyse how Pauper is doing before making any difficult decisions. It has been a relatively short period, and there are much fewer tournament results to analyse, when comparing with other formats. I definitely understand it being a little longer to see the light in these circumstances.
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 talking about the predictions you're making and the data you quote ostensibly in support of these predictions. I don't need to see your working to do my own reasoning on your data and decide that it doesn't lead to the conclusion you're making. If you're basing it on different data please tell me what data. If you're just guessing then please explain how you reconcile those guesses with your own data.
"Only 1-2 Treasure Cruises" is still running Treasure Cruise. It's a fallacy to assume that the card must be played as a four-of to have an impact on the format. But your earlier data says that mono-blue Delver decks have remained relatively constant in metagame presence so I'm not sure why you mention that amongst "suddenly popular" decks. Stompy, Burn, and Familiars might be an independent movement or they might be a secondary effect (in other words, an example of what you're talking about where people move to decks that prey upon the best decks in the format). In the latter case, a decrease in their presence will happen at something of a lag but it will still happen, and in the former case it's something that can be taken into account. I'm not advocating just blindly assuming the entire metagame will be exactly what it was 6 months ago. I'm saying use that as a baseline and apply changes like this one to it. But you should not apply changes like the increase in UR Control because that's clearly down to Treasure Cruise as a primary effect. I get the feeling that this is pretty much the only significant difference between our predictions: I don't believe UR Control would maintain the position that it has now through a Treasure Cruise ban and you do. But even if social inertia is the only thing that matters, that literally everyone who plays UR Control now continued to play it after a ban, it would still lose metagame stake because it would be a weaker deck. That's why I think you're putting too much emphasis on social inertia, because any less than 100% weighting would cause a clear decrease in UR Control's dominance and you don't seem to think that will happen.
I thought I had, but we've been pursuing a line of argument more concerned with deck choice than card pool so it didn't come up much.
I don't think it's dire, but I think a lot of other casual formats and variants have champions within R&D that (I infer) Pauper lacks. Pauper does have an advantage in its place in MTGO, and enjoys more official recognition that way than many other formats, but it's clearly a step or two below the major formats and even official casual formats like Commander in WotC's minds.
What data are you looking at? Very little data can be used to see what the future might look like. I'm basing my predictions on theories of how people think. These theories all have a part in shaping a new metagame after a ban (and all the time, really).
We're not talking about the impact of Treasure Cruise here. We're talking how viable Delver is without it. Therefore, the number of copies being run in Delver is a good indicator of how much it relies on the card. I think it's reasonable to think that Delver is going to do just fine without Treasure Cruise. I think you misread my sentence. I did not say that Delver suddenly became popular. It remained rather stable, with a small growth. Among the decks I mentioned, some belong to secondary and others to tertiary effects. I'm glad we agree on most everything now. With UR Control having become so popular in recent weeks, I can't imagine it returning to the sidelines like it was. It's going to be played more than in the past, but not as much as today. I think you're concentrating too much on this social inertia thing; it's one of many possible factors I believe shape the metagame. It seems like that really bothered you.
The lack of having a recognized paper counterpart probably explains this. There must be someone taking care of Pauper if it stills exists and receive bans (no matter how delayed). I'll just continue believing Wizards are a cautious bunch and don't take ban decisions lightly.
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
Except the data we've been examining in this thread has exposed serious divergences between your theories of how people think and how they actually behave. You cannot keep hiding behind protests that the future cannot be flawlessly predicted. You go on about the importance of evidence and speaking on objective fact, but when you try to make predictions about the future you're all too happy to accept that such evidence cannot exist and thereby make predictions on relatively weak footing. But "very little" is not "none" and what has been posted in this thread argues against you.
We're not talking about the impact of Treasure Cruise, we're talking about the impact of Treasure Cruise on Delver. Glad we sorted that out. The number of copies played is still irrelevant to making this determination. If Delver had received a massive increase in power due to running Treasure Cruise, this would not be refuted by the fact that it doesn't run a play set. The only way to determine this is to examine the deck's prominence before and after Khans was released. So the number of copies is still a red herring.
With UR Control having become so popular so rapidly, it's very easy to imagine it losing popularity at the same pace! Again, please tell me what mechanism will maintain it.
What bothers me is you insisting there are multiple factors but then making predictions wherein the only visible factor is social inertia. As I said, if the efficacy of social inertia is any less than 100% then the metagame will instantly and drastically shift upon the announcement of any ban (even if it isn't Treasure Cruise). Unless I'm completely misunderstanding your prediction, you are saying that this is not true, and therefore I cannot reconcile your predictions with your assurances that you believe factors other than social inertia exist. I'm either misunderstanding you or you've not thought this through.
It's not as though there's a lack of evidence of Treasure Cruise's impact on the format. Banning it would not be taking the decision lightly if the evidence was properly examined. Thus I can only conclude that the evidence wasn't properly examined, because there isn't anyone who pays close attention to Pauper. That doesn't mean they want to abolish the format, it means they don't know enough about it.