I'm gonna bring this up again, because it seems to have been skimmed over and I feel it's an important point to nail down in advance.
If, hypothetically, Richmond(and thereafter) have what would be considered "healthy" attendance in the long run, what conclusions would be able to draw from this?
1. That the game in the state it is currently is healthy, and nothing should be done to change anything.
2. Revisions of the antiquated bans from Modern's inceptions are healthy and we should continue with this pattern for GGT, AV, etc.
Only one of these two can be correct. And I think if we wait to see the results, a lot of people are going to be heavily biased and argue for whichever of these two furthers their own agenda when the time comes.
And if this were to be interpreted incorrectly, one way or the other, it could see Modern continuing to be plagued with any of stagnation, over-variance, lack of player confidence, exodus, etc.
(Anyone who knows me already knows how I feel on this issue, so I'm asking all of you because I recognize my own biases as well)
I think you are reading too much into too little data points. Like I have said Richmond will be around 3000 players, setting records. The reasoning is multifold why the attendance will be that high. Instead of looking at a single tournament and its attendance, lets look at Modern in a couple months and see the numbers and the averages. If they are up from last year, great. If the meta is diverse and not dominated by a small group of decks, great. Until then, what you bring up is a moot point.
Isn't the main reason for people playing in the GP that they like the format? It isn't like there will be 1000 players who are playing a format that they hate just because.
I use to think so, but have been told I was wrong. I was told they could make block a GP format and thousands would show up to play.
Maybe 1000, but 3000? The largest Grand Prix of all time is not going to be one for an unpopular format.
There are things that would skew the numbers such as one of the first big Modern events run on the east coast by SCG. Add in the Modern Masters as prize, free pack wars with Modern Masters, free seminars, side events with Modern Masters payouts. All just for registering for the main event.
Like I have said, this is only 1 data point. Even if this one event breaks records, lets see how the attendance levels out through the season. If over all the numbers are greater for the whole season, yes we can say good for the format, but saying that for one event, a record breaking event, the first big event of the season after Wotc turning the format on its head with a B&R announcement, to me would be a little premature.
While it is a bit premature, I'd say that it is still a good indicator.
While it is a bit premature, I'd say that it is still a good indicator.
So with the numbers form last summers Modern Masters event in Vegas, you would conclude.... Sealed is the best format? or Modern Masters was a very good set? or Vegas was a very good spot to hold the event? Or a little of all 3? Or maybe its just one data point.
Quote from Renasce »
Without Storm looming over the format, Ponder and Preordain would probably be safe as well.
P&P make more then Storm consistent. They make all blue based combo and control more consistent. With recent results, I would not expect Ponder or Preordain to come off too soon. I dont know how much better they want to make twin.
And lastly, I think JtMS could be unbanned without breaking the format. I'm not saying that he should - I know and understand why people hate him. But considering how pure control decks look these days, I don't think he's really broken. I honestly think that he could be safely removed from the list.
Another, with the current results, dont hold your breath. If you dont think JTMS wouldnt slide right in to the deck that just won last weekend, you are kidding yourself.
With the ban of DRS the format seems to have (with limited data) shifted to a blue based format, I dont think blue really needs any more help at the moment. Lets see how the meta fleshes out over the next couple months.
Storm the boogieman? I'd say Twin fills that role. Twin is a better more resilliant, more conistent deck than storm. Giving them Preordain/ponder is a bad idea. Twin is strong enough as it is. Preordain and Ponder add nothing to the format other than speeding it up and making blue decks more consistent. Non thanks :).
It's not a silly argument, it's exactly true and one of the reasons they banned Ponder and Preordain... Saying that a card can be safely unbanned as long as it doesn't break a format is what's silly. Read what WotC uses to determine if a card or comes in the danger zone. Preordain and Ponder make combo in general way too consistent (one could argue they would be broken decks within the Modern meta with those cards). Saying they wouldn't break the format is silly, as you can't know that for sure. Have you tested it? WotC did and banned the cards ;). Combo seems balanced at this moment and it's unnecessary to unban cards that will make those decks better. They don't need it. The meta doesn't need it.
Storm the boogieman? I'd say Twin fills that role. Twin is a better more resilliant, more conistent deck than storm. Giving them Preordain/ponder is a bad idea. Twin is strong enough as it is. Preordain and Ponder add nothing to the format other than speeding it up and making blue decks more consistent. Non thanks :).
With only 8 rituals Storm can't break the turn 4 rule with the cantrips being unbanned any more than Infect can right now. As long as a deck can't break the turn 4 rule, there is no reason why consistency should be a problem.
Also, Ponder and Preordain unbans would greatly help Delver decks.
Oh, and speaking of cards that are on the list for silly reason... SDT could come off as well. It doesn't slow down games *that* much in my experience.
What is 'that' much? What is fine for you, may not be fine for everyone. You do understand Wotc has many more data points then just your experiences? Logistics is a valid reason to ban a card (see eggs). If too many games start going long at a large event and pushing the time hours late, its a huge problem. Also, how many have played with SDT? The learning curve is a bit steep for some cards. Just because one person can get the hang of it quick, doesnt mean everyone can.
What is 'that' much? What is fine for you, may not be fine for everyone. You do understand Wotc has many more data points then just your experiences? Logistics is a valid reason to ban a card (see eggs). If too many games start going long at a large event and pushing the time hours late, its a huge problem. Also, how many have played with SDT? The learning curve is a bit steep for some cards. Just because one person can get the hang of it quick, doesnt mean everyone can.
I absolutely agree that SDT is a hard card to play correctly and that it can take a long time for inexperienced players to get the hand of. On the other hand, it's nowhere near the level of Eggs. It doesn't drag out tournaments for hours just by existing (Or at least it shouldn't. If it does, then it should definitely stay banned, but I doubt it.). And since we were discussing combos and how they dictate so much of the ban list, I think it would be healthy for the format to have the CounterTop deck show up to keep the pure combo decks better in check. Overall, I'd say that the benefits outweigh the downsides.
The problem is countertop wouldnt be the only deck SDT would bring to the format. More or less the Legacy miracle deck would instantly be Modern legal. Also it would swing the meta fromcombo to a control dominated format because most would switch to SDT driven decks.
Maybe in time, but right now I feel SDT needs to stay on the list. There are other safer cards that can come off.
there are so many things missing from counter top to stop it from being a tier 1 deck. its main purpose will be to enable you to set up your draws. otherwise, there's no brainstorm, no jace. also no ponder and preordain supplement set ups when you don't have top. no way to get things from your hand to the top of your deck. add to the fact you need a way to win (entreat is a good win condition, but helm/rest in peace is just better) with just the modern card pool, and the deck becomes slower, weaker, and more easily hated on.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I speak in sarcasm because calling people ******* ******** is not allowed.
Storm the boogieman? I'd say Twin fills that role. Twin is a better more resilliant, more conistent deck than storm. Giving them Preordain/ponder is a bad idea. Twin is strong enough as it is. Preordain and Ponder add nothing to the format other than speeding it up and making blue decks more consistent. Non thanks :).
With only 8 rituals Storm can't break the turn 4 rule with the cantrips being unbanned any more than Infect can right now. As long as a deck can't break the turn 4 rule, there is no reason why consistency should be a problem.
Also, Ponder and Preordain unbans would greatly help Delver decks.
I think you missed my point. Why buff decks that are already tier 1 and doing well? Do we really want to see every blue deck add 4x preordain and 4x ponder to list just to make it better?
Exact quote from WotC's reasoning to ban both cards:
" Ponder and Preordain
A large number of blue-red combination decks kept the field less diverse. One thing that made them so efficient was the cards that would find their combinations. Ponder and Preordain were the most widely used of those cards. Banning these should make those combination decks somewhat less efficient without removing the possibility of playing them."
And two and a half years later what do we see? Blue combo decks are very much viable tier 1 deck with Twin Exarch even being one of the best decks in Modern as a whole. So making those decks even more efficient is something that WotC doesn't want and I think that's a good thing. Combo otherwise would become too efficient and will probably will take up too much of the meta. They do not want to completely ban combo, they just want to keep it in check. And that works perfectly well.
Denying this and just repeating they should be unbanned is just silly.
there are so many things missing from counter top to stop it from being a tier 1 deck. its main purpose will be to enable you to set up your draws. otherwise, there's no brainstorm, no jace. also no ponder and preordain supplement set ups when you don't have top. no way to get things from your hand to the top of your deck. add to the fact you need a way to win (entreat is a good win condition, but helm/rest in peace is just better) with just the modern card pool, and the deck becomes slower, weaker, and more easily hated on.
Again, comparing the Legacy version to what is available in Modern. Countertop was a deck in Standard, granted no near as powerful as the Legacy version, but there are piece there to make a very powerful countertop deck.
1. Tarmogoyf and Shock. Abrupt Decay and Electrolyze. None of these cards in and of themselves 'add' anything to the format, they just slot into archetypal "goodstuff" decks, or see no play at all. Does this mean we should just ban them? Should we ban the vast majority of the Modern pool because all of them "add nothing" in that they don't enable multiple new deck types. Because the argument that things should remain banned because they don't enable multiple new deck types and simply slot into existing decks is about as farcical as this. It makes no sense, no matter how much you try to argue it to further your agenda. You're simply wrong.(This is not aimed at any particular person, but a LOT of people who try to use this exceedingly false logic).
2. Anyone who knows anything about statistics knows that using them to "prove" anything, is basically impossible. The best you can do is "fail to disprove." The best you can do is get a "statistically significant" result, "within X standard deviations." Meaning we could have data points for the past 20 years, and we could not draw a single conclusion definitively out of all of that. And yet, people still use statistics, they are still relevant, and we can use even a limited sampling to draw conclusions that are "highly likely." And as with any statistical test, a null hypothesis needs to be established, with outcomes defined, before the data gets collected and tested against that hypothesis. Once more, this is a 'fact' that you can't realistically argue against without trying to dispute statistics as a whole as the practice has been established for centuries.
Except Wotc has stated why they were banned in the first place, and some of the cards talked about are in the same situation today as they were when banned.
What I see is people looking at one aspect of a ban or unban and not looking at the whole picture. They just wish to play a card/deck they want to play and could care less what anyone else says or has to deal with. These people are not looking at the format for many, but personal agendas for a format they wish.
Also not everyone has the same idea about the format so there will be a natural disagreement in what and how things should be handled.
I swear, at least once a week someone spouts up, "Ban Grapeshot! Ban Empty!" without any concept of what an engine combo deck does, or that it's kill condition isn't relevant. Would these people be happier if I Grapeshotted them for 20 or Banefired them for 20? It is never the kill spell that wins in engine combo decks.
THIS 100X!!! If you don't agree with this then there is no amount of logic that will ever convince you that good, non-oppressive, combos should be allowed. If you don't agree with it then just don't play this game, and you certainly shouldn't feel entitled to make any comment on ban lists ever.
you said "more or less," and in this case, it is significantly less. except for the part where you can easily manipulate the top of your deck with top, none of the other pieces of the deck are there to make it "very powerful." you're also discounting the wider curve modern has. unless you're willing to dig deep and play stuff like leyline of anticipation with serum visions and those effects..
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I speak in sarcasm because calling people ******* ******** is not allowed.
Haven't read the thread for a long time but I wanted to say the meta looks healthy and better than prebans.
Gotta hand it to wizards, they did it right again. I was scared of zoo but it seems it wasn't all that bad in the end. My bad.
Still think pod will get banned in the future :).
I swear, at least once a week someone spouts up, "Ban Grapeshot! Ban Empty!" without any concept of what an engine combo deck does, or that it's kill condition isn't relevant. Would these people be happier if I Grapeshotted them for 20 or Banefired them for 20? It is never the kill spell that wins in engine combo decks.
Storm doesn't make big mana, it just makes an ok amount of mana over the course of 10+ spells with which to kill you via death of a thousand lashes.
It's something of a recurring limitation of ritual-fueled decks, there's sort of a peak mana output even when you play good mana rits like Dark and Cabal.
Though it can be said that that peak is a function of your most abusive loops.
My reference point for Dark+Cabal is in a (obviously not Modern) kitchen brew I've got going where the best thing I can do is Ill Gotten Gains a few times and that at best just barely gets you to Ad Nauseam mana +1. If it could make more, then Null Profusion would be in there and all bets would be off as to the Storm ever fizzling.
Is there reason to worry about Snapcaster mage eventually coming to the chopping block? Lately I've been feeling like it's just getting better and better in modern, really don't want to see it go any time down the road though.
Is there reason to worry about Snapcaster mage eventually coming to the chopping block? Lately I've been feeling like it's just getting better and better in modern, really don't want to see it go any time down the road though.
Still have plenty of GY hate on the format. Its not like DRS was the only piece keeping Snapcaster in check. Yes with DRS gone Snappy gets a tad better, but not out of control dominating.
Is there reason to worry about Snapcaster mage eventually coming to the chopping block? Lately I've been feeling like it's just getting better and better in modern, really don't want to see it go any time down the road though.
In a perfect world where Wizards was doing their job and following their own rules, no.
In the real world where Wizards frequently caves to political pressure and has demonstrated a willingness to ban popular things for the sheer reason that they're popular, yes.
Which is why cards like Snapcaster, Bob, Bolt, Goyf, Electrolyze, Decay, Path, etc will never be safe despite also being perfectly fair and balanced. Anything good can be banned if it finds itself in the wrong deck at the wrong time(see BBE).
Is there reason to worry about Snapcaster mage eventually coming to the chopping block? Lately I've been feeling like it's just getting better and better in modern, really don't want to see it go any time down the road though.
In a perfect world where Wizards was doing their job and following their own rules, no.
In the real world where Wizards frequently caves to political pressure and has demonstrated a willingness to ban popular things for the sheer reason that they're popular, yes.
Which is why cards like Snapcaster, Bob, Bolt, Goyf, Electrolyze, Decay, Path, etc will never be safe despite also being perfectly fair and balanced. Anything good can be banned if it finds itself in the wrong deck at the wrong time(see BBE).
Now this is doomsaying.
Especially Electrolyze, how in the seven hells can anyone say that card could be banned?
When's the last time it oppressed anyone?
Even when it's card advantageous it's a resoundingly meh card.
Is there reason to worry about Snapcaster mage eventually coming to the chopping block? Lately I've been feeling like it's just getting better and better in modern, really don't want to see it go any time down the road though.
Still have plenty of GY hate on the format. Its not like DRS was the only piece keeping Snapcaster in check. Yes with DRS gone Snappy gets a tad better, but not out of control dominating.
Really hoping that's the case, I'll just keep playing them and try not worry about it too much, haha.
Is there reason to worry about Snapcaster mage eventually coming to the chopping block? Lately I've been feeling like it's just getting better and better in modern, really don't want to see it go any time down the road though.
In a perfect world where Wizards was doing their job and following their own rules, no.
In the real world where Wizards frequently caves to political pressure and has demonstrated a willingness to ban popular things for the sheer reason that they're popular, yes.
Which is why cards like Snapcaster, Bob, Bolt, Goyf, Electrolyze, Decay, Path, etc will never be safe despite also being perfectly fair and balanced. Anything good can be banned if it finds itself in the wrong deck at the wrong time(see BBE).
Now this is doomsaying.
Especially Electrolyze, how in the seven hells can anyone say that card could be banned?
When's the last time it oppressed anyone?
Even when it's card advantageous it's a resoundingly meh card.
When was the last time BBE oppressed anyone? Never? Oh yeah.
It was merely in the deck that was the most successful at the time(kinda like WUR is now). And they banned it because it would "weaken that deck specifically while not causing collateral damage to any other decks." You know, because it was a card used primarily in that one deck that was popular, and not so much anywhere else...kinda like how Electrolyze is most known for its showing in WUR, and it doesn't really pop up many other places. Of all those cards listed, it has the strongest corollary with BBE.
Is there reason to worry about Snapcaster mage eventually coming to the chopping block? Lately I've been feeling like it's just getting better and better in modern, really don't want to see it go any time down the road though.
In a perfect world where Wizards was doing their job and following their own rules, no.
In the real world where Wizards frequently caves to political pressure and has demonstrated a willingness to ban popular things for the sheer reason that they're popular, yes.
Which is why cards like Snapcaster, Bob, Bolt, Goyf, Electrolyze, Decay, Path, etc will never be safe despite also being perfectly fair and balanced. Anything good can be banned if it finds itself in the wrong deck at the wrong time(see BBE).
Now this is doomsaying.
Especially Electrolyze, how in the seven hells can anyone say that card could be banned?
When's the last time it oppressed anyone?
Even when it's card advantageous it's a resoundingly meh card.
When was the last time BBE oppressed anyone? Never? Oh yeah.
It was merely in the deck that was the most successful at the time(kinda like WUR is now). And they banned it because it would "weaken that deck specifically while not causing collateral damage to any other decks." You know, because it was a card used primarily in that one deck that was popular, and not so much anywhere else...kinda like how Electrolyze is most known for its showing in WUR, and it doesn't really pop up many other places. Of all those cards listed, it has the strongest corollary with BBE.
I get what you're trying to say... but something about it doesn't actually make sense, at least in how I'm parsing it.
It's like you've, whether intentionally or not, merely reduced the picture to its most illogical absurd state, in fact illustrating the unlikeliness of any other card being banned.
Someone wasnt paying attention what the BBE ban did. It made the BGx shell multiple decks and didnt force people to play red because of the power level of BBE. Wotc banned BBE and it opened up the whole deck to different builds. I hope Wotc does more bans like BBE to open up the builds of different decks. As it sits now, most decks are very tight and dont have much room for innovation or changes without changing the whole deck.
If I remember correctly, when Jund had BBE, right before RTR came out, Jund was one of the strongest decks - strong enough that people were talking about something being banned from it. When RTR came out, that pushed Jund over the top, and now with DRS gone, we're seeing it die down (at least temporarily). Wouldn't unbanning BBE push Jund back up to high tier 1 again, since all the same cards will be available, plus Scooze and AD as well? I know the meta has changed a bit with Kitty coming back, but do we really think that will keep Jund in check?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Things WotC cares about:
-making certain Standard cards can be played in Modern, therefore increasing their value and increasing WotC's profit margin
Things WotC does not care about:
-keeping the ban list as short as possible
-taking chances with an entire format for the benefit of a single card
-catering to play styles that newer players generally don't like and will lose them more players than it will gain
-keeping the meta balanced between archetypes/colors/whatever
-keeping cards on the secondary market cheap (available yes, but not cheap)
-keeping the meta diverse (as long as a single deck doesn't threaten the popularity of the format)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While it is a bit premature, I'd say that it is still a good indicator.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
So with the numbers form last summers Modern Masters event in Vegas, you would conclude.... Sealed is the best format? or Modern Masters was a very good set? or Vegas was a very good spot to hold the event? Or a little of all 3? Or maybe its just one data point.
P&P make more then Storm consistent. They make all blue based combo and control more consistent. With recent results, I would not expect Ponder or Preordain to come off too soon. I dont know how much better they want to make twin.
Another, with the current results, dont hold your breath. If you dont think JTMS wouldnt slide right in to the deck that just won last weekend, you are kidding yourself.
With the ban of DRS the format seems to have (with limited data) shifted to a blue based format, I dont think blue really needs any more help at the moment. Lets see how the meta fleshes out over the next couple months.
With only 8 rituals Storm can't break the turn 4 rule with the cantrips being unbanned any more than Infect can right now. As long as a deck can't break the turn 4 rule, there is no reason why consistency should be a problem.
Also, Ponder and Preordain unbans would greatly help Delver decks.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
What is 'that' much? What is fine for you, may not be fine for everyone. You do understand Wotc has many more data points then just your experiences? Logistics is a valid reason to ban a card (see eggs). If too many games start going long at a large event and pushing the time hours late, its a huge problem. Also, how many have played with SDT? The learning curve is a bit steep for some cards. Just because one person can get the hang of it quick, doesnt mean everyone can.
The problem is countertop wouldnt be the only deck SDT would bring to the format. More or less the Legacy miracle deck would instantly be Modern legal. Also it would swing the meta fromcombo to a control dominated format because most would switch to SDT driven decks.
Maybe in time, but right now I feel SDT needs to stay on the list. There are other safer cards that can come off.
I think you missed my point. Why buff decks that are already tier 1 and doing well? Do we really want to see every blue deck add 4x preordain and 4x ponder to list just to make it better?
Exact quote from WotC's reasoning to ban both cards:
" Ponder and Preordain
A large number of blue-red combination decks kept the field less diverse. One thing that made them so efficient was the cards that would find their combinations. Ponder and Preordain were the most widely used of those cards. Banning these should make those combination decks somewhat less efficient without removing the possibility of playing them."
And two and a half years later what do we see? Blue combo decks are very much viable tier 1 deck with Twin Exarch even being one of the best decks in Modern as a whole. So making those decks even more efficient is something that WotC doesn't want and I think that's a good thing. Combo otherwise would become too efficient and will probably will take up too much of the meta. They do not want to completely ban combo, they just want to keep it in check. And that works perfectly well.
Denying this and just repeating they should be unbanned is just silly.
Again, comparing the Legacy version to what is available in Modern. Countertop was a deck in Standard, granted no near as powerful as the Legacy version, but there are piece there to make a very powerful countertop deck.
2. Anyone who knows anything about statistics knows that using them to "prove" anything, is basically impossible. The best you can do is "fail to disprove." The best you can do is get a "statistically significant" result, "within X standard deviations." Meaning we could have data points for the past 20 years, and we could not draw a single conclusion definitively out of all of that. And yet, people still use statistics, they are still relevant, and we can use even a limited sampling to draw conclusions that are "highly likely." And as with any statistical test, a null hypothesis needs to be established, with outcomes defined, before the data gets collected and tested against that hypothesis. Once more, this is a 'fact' that you can't realistically argue against without trying to dispute statistics as a whole as the practice has been established for centuries.
What I see is people looking at one aspect of a ban or unban and not looking at the whole picture. They just wish to play a card/deck they want to play and could care less what anyone else says or has to deal with. These people are not looking at the format for many, but personal agendas for a format they wish.
Also not everyone has the same idea about the format so there will be a natural disagreement in what and how things should be handled.
Gotta hand it to wizards, they did it right again. I was scared of zoo but it seems it wasn't all that bad in the end. My bad.
Still think pod will get banned in the future :).
Storm doesn't make big mana, it just makes an ok amount of mana over the course of 10+ spells with which to kill you via death of a thousand lashes.
It's something of a recurring limitation of ritual-fueled decks, there's sort of a peak mana output even when you play good mana rits like Dark and Cabal.
Though it can be said that that peak is a function of your most abusive loops.
My reference point for Dark+Cabal is in a (obviously not Modern) kitchen brew I've got going where the best thing I can do is Ill Gotten Gains a few times and that at best just barely gets you to Ad Nauseam mana +1. If it could make more, then Null Profusion would be in there and all bets would be off as to the Storm ever fizzling.
Still have plenty of GY hate on the format. Its not like DRS was the only piece keeping Snapcaster in check. Yes with DRS gone Snappy gets a tad better, but not out of control dominating.
In a perfect world where Wizards was doing their job and following their own rules, no.
In the real world where Wizards frequently caves to political pressure and has demonstrated a willingness to ban popular things for the sheer reason that they're popular, yes.
Which is why cards like Snapcaster, Bob, Bolt, Goyf, Electrolyze, Decay, Path, etc will never be safe despite also being perfectly fair and balanced. Anything good can be banned if it finds itself in the wrong deck at the wrong time(see BBE).
Now this is doomsaying.
Especially Electrolyze, how in the seven hells can anyone say that card could be banned?
When's the last time it oppressed anyone?
Even when it's card advantageous it's a resoundingly meh card.
Really hoping that's the case, I'll just keep playing them and try not worry about it too much, haha.
When was the last time BBE oppressed anyone? Never? Oh yeah.
It was merely in the deck that was the most successful at the time(kinda like WUR is now). And they banned it because it would "weaken that deck specifically while not causing collateral damage to any other decks." You know, because it was a card used primarily in that one deck that was popular, and not so much anywhere else...kinda like how Electrolyze is most known for its showing in WUR, and it doesn't really pop up many other places. Of all those cards listed, it has the strongest corollary with BBE.
I get what you're trying to say... but something about it doesn't actually make sense, at least in how I'm parsing it.
It's like you've, whether intentionally or not, merely reduced the picture to its most illogical absurd state, in fact illustrating the unlikeliness of any other card being banned.
-making certain Standard cards can be played in Modern, therefore increasing their value and increasing WotC's profit margin
Things WotC does not care about:
-keeping the ban list as short as possible
-taking chances with an entire format for the benefit of a single card
-catering to play styles that newer players generally don't like and will lose them more players than it will gain
-keeping the meta balanced between archetypes/colors/whatever
-keeping cards on the secondary market cheap (available yes, but not cheap)
-keeping the meta diverse (as long as a single deck doesn't threaten the popularity of the format)