11 linear aggro decks and 1 each of RG Valakut, GR Tron, Bant Eldrazi, and Naya CoCo.
Snapshot of a bunch of people who have been practicing more standard than they have modern for the last month.
Call it what you will, it's a trend that has not changed for quite a while. And it will be extremely interesting to see what happens next week at the GPs.
11 linear aggro decks and 1 each of RG Valakut, GR Tron, Bant Eldrazi, and Naya CoCo.
Snapshot of a bunch of people who have been practicing more standard than they have modern for the last month.
Call it what you will, it's a trend that has not changed for quite a while. And it will be extremely interesting to see what happens next week at the GPs.
Sadly, I already know how those results will be treated.
If the GP are a linear mess, people will say "I told you so" and cry for bans/unbans.
If the GP are balanced between linear and nonlinear strategies, people will say "it should be better than this" and cry for bans/unbans.
If the GP are heavily nonlinear, people will say "it's an exception and the nonlinear decks aren't really good" and sitll cry for bans/unbans.
As a whole, most Modern players are really bad at measured metagame analysis. They are almost categorically predisposed to find fault with the metagame at any given moment, whether because it's too linear or because it's nonlinear but it won't last. This is particularly true online, and even worse on MTGS than on Reddit, and it is why I encourage players to ignore most popular interpretations of the metagame.
Data was pulled from the last Modern Nexus update. Of course you might disagree with my labeling of some of the decks as linear or nonlinear (a lot of people thought Abzan CoCo should be considered linear, and Merfolk nonlinear for example) but for the majority of decks it's pretty easy to say one way or another.
It seems like MTGO is indeed significantly more linear than paper, so perhaps the perceptions of online and paper players is very different and that could contribute to why we get such differing opinions on the health of the metagame. Still, I think that anything above 50% linear decks is pushing it and its something that could be improved on.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current Modern decks BGW Junk / URB Grixis Shadow / RGB Lantern Control / WUBCBant Eldrazi
Current Legacy decks BUG Shardless BUG / UWR Predict Miracles / RUG Canadian Thresh / WRBG 4c Loam UB Reanimator
11 linear aggro decks and 1 each of RG Valakut, GR Tron, Bant Eldrazi, and Naya CoCo.
Snapshot of a bunch of people who have been practicing more standard than they have modern for the last month.
Call it what you will, it's a trend that has not changed for quite a while. And it will be extremely interesting to see what happens next week at the GPs.
Sadly, I already know how those results will be treated.
If the GP are a linear mess, people will say "I told you so" and cry for bans/unbans.
If the GP are balanced between linear and nonlinear strategies, people will say "it should be better than this" and cry for bans/unbans.
If the GP are heavily nonlinear, people will say "it's an exception and the nonlinear decks aren't really good" and sitll cry for bans/unbans.
As a whole, most Modern players are really bad at measured metagame analysis. They are almost categorically predisposed to find fault with the metagame at any given moment, whether because it's too linear or because it's nonlinear but it won't last. This is particularly true online, and even worse on MTGS than on Reddit, and it is why I encourage players to ignore most popular interpretations of the metagame.
" or because it's nonlinear but it won't last."
nothing ever lasts, the meta game changes all the time when new cards enter it.
yet there seems to be a pattern in modern, linearity is the majority not the minority
" I encourage players to ignore most popular interpretations of the metagame."
but aren't popular interpretations popular because there is some merit to them?
like 2 ships passing at night, modern is linear, sideboard lottery. maybe a bit exaggerated, but there is statistical proof to these arguments on your own website, on mtgo, on a numerous amount of "small" events. yet you give them no merit because they are not gp's.....
11 linear aggro decks and 1 each of RG Valakut, GR Tron, Bant Eldrazi, and Naya CoCo.
Snapshot of a bunch of people who have been practicing more standard than they have modern for the last month.
Call it what you will, it's a trend that has not changed for quite a while. And it will be extremely interesting to see what happens next week at the GPs.
Sadly, I already know how those results will be treated.
If the GP are a linear mess, people will say "I told you so" and cry for bans/unbans.
If the GP are balanced between linear and nonlinear strategies, people will say "it should be better than this" and cry for bans/unbans.
If the GP are heavily nonlinear, people will say "it's an exception and the nonlinear decks aren't really good" and sitll cry for bans/unbans.
As a whole, most Modern players are really bad at measured metagame analysis. They are almost categorically predisposed to find fault with the metagame at any given moment, whether because it's too linear or because it's nonlinear but it won't last. This is particularly true online, and even worse on MTGS than on Reddit, and it is why I encourage players to ignore most popular interpretations of the metagame.
" or because it's nonlinear but it won't last."
nothing ever lasts, the meta game changes all the time when new cards enter it.
yet there seems to be a pattern in modern, linearity is the majority not the minority
" I encourage players to ignore most popular interpretations of the metagame."
but aren't popular interpretations popular because there is some merit to them?
like 2 ships passing at night, modern is linear, sideboard lottery. maybe a bit exaggerated, but there is statistical proof to these arguments on your own website, on mtgo, on a numerous amount of "small" events. yet you give them no merit because they are not gp's.....
"nothing ever lasts, the meta game changes all the time when new cards enter it.
yet there seems to be a pattern in modern, linearity is the majority not the minority"
Metagames are in constant flux. This is a GOOD thing. There have been plenty of times in modern's history where a non-linear deck has been extremely dominate - Abzan last year, DRS Jund, Twin was disgusting in periods, Pod... But nope. You just pretend like modern hasn't gone back and forth multiple times because it fits your narrative.
"but aren't popular interpretations popular because there is some merit to them?"
Sometimes. But sometimes people aren't good at interpreting data. Look at new card evaluations and how often people completely whiff on them. Sometimes the masses are asses.
"like 2 ships passing at night, modern is linear, sideboard lottery. maybe a bit exaggerated, but there is statistical proof to these arguments on your own website, on mtgo, on a numerous amount of "small" events. yet you give them no merit because they are not gp's..... "
Nope. When I was posting various SCG results you were the first person to refute the data. You've been beating the same tired drum for months now.
nothing ever lasts, the meta game changes all the time when new cards enter it.
yet there seems to be a pattern in modern, linearity is the majority not the minority
It's one thing when someone says "the metagame never lasts and is always changing" with some other kind of measured argument. That kind of perspective is fine. It's another when, for example, Jund/Jeskai are Tier 1 and people say "these decks are actually bad and will fall out of Tier 1 in a month." I'm talking about the latter behavior, not the former.
" I encourage players to ignore most popular interpretations of the metagame."
but aren't popular interpretations popular because there is some merit to them?
like 2 ships passing at night, modern is linear, sideboard lottery. maybe a bit exaggerated, but there is statistical proof to these arguments on your own website, on mtgo, on a numerous amount of "small" events. yet you give them no merit because they are not gp's.....
1. There are some popular interpretations which are good and some which are bad. "Abzan Company is the next Twin" is bad. "Modern has very few blue-based control options" is better. You can generally separate the two with careful analysis (see below).
2. If you're going to make a stats-based analysis/argument, do that. Give the numbers, make a conclusion, and then (IMPORTANT) consider counterexamples and alternate explanations. That's a great approach, but it's rarely what we see. What we typically see instead are people complaining about and drawing examples from one result (e.g. the Invitational 7-1 pool which had 0 Jund) while ignoring others (e.g. the SCG Open T8/16 from last weekend with 5 Jund).
3. Even if someone can correctly identify a trend (e.g. a metagame with the right/wrong balance of linear/nonlinear), they rarely draw a good conclusion or next step from that trend. An excellent example was Burn in late 2014 and again in late 2015, when it occupied huge MTGO percentages and people panicked. The trend observation was correct: Burn was everywhere. The conclusion was not: Burn was not a "problem" and the metagame wasn't "broken." Burn was fine, the metagame adapted, and most of the panic was unfounded or at least excessive.
These are all problems I'm talking about above. Thankfully, most players don't have them. It's just a small and vocal contingent, which tends to have an inverse relationship between their size and their noise. The smaller the group, the more vocal they get: that's particularly true online and especially on MTGS.
Sadly, I already know how those results will be treated.
If the GP are a linear mess, people will say "I told you so" and cry for bans/unbans.
If the GP are balanced between linear and nonlinear strategies, people will say "it should be better than this" and cry for bans/unbans.
If the GP are heavily nonlinear, people will say "it's an exception and the nonlinear decks aren't really good" and sitll cry for bans/unbans.
As a whole, most Modern players are really bad at measured metagame analysis. They are almost categorically predisposed to find fault with the metagame at any given moment, whether because it's too linear or because it's nonlinear but it won't last. This is particularly true online, and even worse on MTGS than on Reddit, and it is why I encourage players to ignore most popular interpretations of the metagame.
It will always be like this. Maybe it's because so many cards were preemptively banned? Some of those ended up legal now and never were theoretically a problem. Maybe it's because there have been so many bans and unbans? But Modern players are always going to be more prepared to just say, "ban the card" than actually try to work past the problem. Now I am not saying that some cards were too much of a problem (Eldrazi, wink, wink), but just banning every "problem" deck can be a problem within itself. It's also part of the reason that the B&R announcement is more of a holiday than damn Christmas to most people who post on this forum.
Brad Nelson just won on turn 2 with Suicide Zoo after a turn 1 Inquisition of Kozilek took Temur Battle Rage, but couldn't take his 1 mana spells that had a 5G in the corner. This prompted Patrick Sullivan to say that Become Immense may be banned at the next announcement. He may or may not be right, but I don't think commentators should discuss bannings in any way. It just helps the stereotype that Modern is a ban format. I love PSully and Cedric. They are still my favorite team commentators of all time, but I think someone somewhere should let the commentators know how dangerous it is to discuss bans. Just my opinion...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
I think it comes down to how the hands matched up. You could have easily beaten the turn 2 kill with the right rips. Its not a become immense ban that is needed in the least. And I truly do agree that commentator discussion about bans pushes internet discussion into an overhaul. I'm assuming there is going to be a revisited discussion on data concerning the consistency of the turn 2 kill, which when published will calm things down.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks I have in my bag of tricks- Needless to say, someone who wants to play will probably have a deck UB/x Faeries UR Storm XURWB Affinity G Elves UW control
Sadly, I already know how those results will be treated.
If the GP are a linear mess, people will say "I told you so" and cry for bans/unbans.
If the GP are balanced between linear and nonlinear strategies, people will say "it should be better than this" and cry for bans/unbans.
If the GP are heavily nonlinear, people will say "it's an exception and the nonlinear decks aren't really good" and sitll cry for bans/unbans.
As a whole, most Modern players are really bad at measured metagame analysis. They are almost categorically predisposed to find fault with the metagame at any given moment, whether because it's too linear or because it's nonlinear but it won't last. This is particularly true online, and even worse on MTGS than on Reddit, and it is why I encourage players to ignore most popular interpretations of the metagame.
It will always be like this. Maybe it's because so many cards were preemptively banned? Some of those ended up legal now and never were theoretically a problem. Maybe it's because there have been so many bans and unbans? But Modern players are always going to be more prepared to just say, "ban the card" than actually try to work past the problem. Now I am not saying that some cards were too much of a problem (Eldrazi, wink, wink), but just banning every "problem" deck can be a problem within itself. It's also part of the reason that the B&R announcement is more of a holiday than damn Christmas to most people who post on this forum.
Brad Nelson just won on turn 2 with Suicide Zoo after a turn 1 Inquisition of Kozilek took Temur Battle Rage, but couldn't take his 1 mana spells that had a 5G in the corner. This prompted Patrick Sullivan to say that Become Immense may be banned at the next announcement. He may or may not be right, but I don't think commentators should discuss bannings in any way. It just helps the stereotype that Modern is a ban format. I love PSully and Cedric. They are still my favorite team commentators of all time, but I think someone somewhere should let the commentators know how dangerous it is to discuss bans. Just my opinion...
Patrick Sullivan also talked a lot about how he thought Infect was the most powerful deck in the format (in a vacuum) and that he was really surprised that it hadn't eaten a ban yet. So in his mind Become Immense just makes double sense. But of course, his comments belie a misunderstanding of the reasons WHY Infect hasn't been banned yet, especially right after Sam Stoddard's recent comments. We can most likely ignore his talk about Become Immense.
nothing ever lasts, the meta game changes all the time when new cards enter it.
yet there seems to be a pattern in modern, linearity is the majority not the minority
It's one thing when someone says "the metagame never lasts and is always changing" with some other kind of measured argument. That kind of perspective is fine. It's another when, for example, Jund/Jeskai are Tier 1 and people say "these decks are actually bad and will fall out of Tier 1 in a month." I'm talking about the latter behavior, not the former.
" I encourage players to ignore most popular interpretations of the metagame."
but aren't popular interpretations popular because there is some merit to them?
like 2 ships passing at night, modern is linear, sideboard lottery. maybe a bit exaggerated, but there is statistical proof to these arguments on your own website, on mtgo, on a numerous amount of "small" events. yet you give them no merit because they are not gp's.....
1. There are some popular interpretations which are good and some which are bad. "Abzan Company is the next Twin" is bad. "Modern has very few blue-based control options" is better. You can generally separate the two with careful analysis (see below).
2. If you're going to make a stats-based analysis/argument, do that. Give the numbers, make a conclusion, and then (IMPORTANT) consider counterexamples and alternate explanations. That's a great approach, but it's rarely what we see. What we typically see instead are people complaining about and drawing examples from one result (e.g. the Invitational 7-1 pool which had 0 Jund) while ignoring others (e.g. the SCG Open T8/16 from last weekend with 5 Jund).
3. Even if someone can correctly identify a trend (e.g. a metagame with the right/wrong balance of linear/nonlinear), they rarely draw a good conclusion or next step from that trend. An excellent example was Burn in late 2014 and again in late 2015, when it occupied huge MTGO percentages and people panicked. The trend observation was correct: Burn was everywhere. The conclusion was not: Burn was not a "problem" and the metagame wasn't "broken." Burn was fine, the metagame adapted, and most of the panic was unfounded or at least excessive.
These are all problems I'm talking about above. Thankfully, most players don't have them. It's just a small and vocal contingent, which tends to have an inverse relationship between their size and their noise. The smaller the group, the more vocal they get: that's particularly true online and especially on MTGS.
Jund and uwr nahiri seem to be fine and holding strong I agree With that.
1. yep the blue argument certainly holds merit
2. I agree and that's why using modern nexus as a reference is probably the best bet, speaking of which, Im currently working on a stats-based analysis.
3. people panic, it seems people want a balance I think this is fine.
Patrick Sullivan also talked a lot about how he thought Infect was the most powerful deck in the format (in a vacuum) and that he was really surprised that it hadn't eaten a ban yet. So in his mind Become Immense just makes double sense. But of course, his comments belie a misunderstanding of the reasons WHY Infect hasn't been banned yet, especially right after Sam Stoddard's recent comments. We can most likely ignore his talk about Become Immense.
Some people may ignore the talk, but the majority of people watching won't, especially those who already have a poor view on Modern. Even to me, someone who plays exclusively Modern, a Become Immense ban seems logical. I can only imagine the Standard players who are stuck playing games with 4 creatures in play on both sides are probably saying, "yep, this is why Modern sucks so badly." I can see Legacy players saying, yep, they can't deal with a measly Become Immense. I hear it all the time from players I know, most of which are not exclusively Modern players like myself.
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
I also just watched Jund absolutely savage Death's Shadow Zoo 3-1, going 1-1 on pre-sideboard and 2-0 on post-sideboard. Considering Jund's performance last week, and I'm comfortable saying this is clearly the interactive and nonlinear policeman of Modern, and one very capable of stopping linear nonsense.
Patrick Sullivan also talked a lot about how he thought Infect was the most powerful deck in the format (in a vacuum) and that he was really surprised that it hadn't eaten a ban yet. So in his mind Become Immense just makes double sense. But of course, his comments belie a misunderstanding of the reasons WHY Infect hasn't been banned yet, especially right after Sam Stoddard's recent comments. We can most likely ignore his talk about Become Immense.
Some people may ignore the talk, but the majority of people watching won't, especially those who already have a poor view on Modern. Even to me, someone who plays exclusively Modern, a Become Immense ban seems logical. I can only imagine the Standard players who are stuck playing games with 4 creatures in play on both sides are probably saying, "yep, this is why Modern sucks so badly." I can see Legacy players saying, yep, they can't deal with a measly Become Immense. I hear it all the time from players I know, most of which are not exclusively Modern players like myself.
I'm not exclusively a Modern player either, and I rarely hear anything bad about Modern at events. I haven't played Standard since shortly after I started law school 3 years ago, but I do play Modern, Legacy, and Vintage. They're all just different, and I think they each have an equal number of pros and cons. For everybody who says Modern is bad because it's just linear there's someone who says Legacy is bad because it's just blue.
And it's worth noting that the game Brad Nelson won on T2 through Inquisition was the ONLY game in that match that he won. Jadine took it with Jund 3-1 (best of 5).
Patrick Sullivan also talked a lot about how he thought Infect was the most powerful deck in the format (in a vacuum) and that he was really surprised that it hadn't eaten a ban yet. So in his mind Become Immense just makes double sense. But of course, his comments belie a misunderstanding of the reasons WHY Infect hasn't been banned yet, especially right after Sam Stoddard's recent comments. We can most likely ignore his talk about Become Immense.
Some people may ignore the talk, but the majority of people watching won't, especially those who already have a poor view on Modern. Even to me, someone who plays exclusively Modern, a Become Immense ban seems logical. I can only imagine the Standard players who are stuck playing games with 4 creatures in play on both sides are probably saying, "yep, this is why Modern sucks so badly." I can see Legacy players saying, yep, they can't deal with a measly Become Immense. I hear it all the time from players I know, most of which are not exclusively Modern players like myself.
I'm not exclusively a Modern player either, and I rarely hear anything bad about Modern at events. I haven't played Standard since shortly after I started law school 3 years ago, but I do play Modern, Legacy, and Vintage. They're all just different, and I think they each have an equal number of pros and cons. For everybody who says Modern is bad because it's just linear there's someone who says Legacy is bad because it's just blue.
And it's worth noting that the game Brad Nelson won on T2 through Inquisition was the ONLY game in that match that he won. Jadine took it with Jund 3-1 (best of 5).
Yeah that's true. I should just stop letting it get to me what others say about my format. I have my strong opinions on Standard as well. I think if Legacy events were closer, I would attend those more often.
Regarding the Nelson play, plays like that stand out to people moreso than the actual outcome of the match. I won a game on turn 1 in a PPTQ before my Elves opponent drew a card, but he beat me on turns 5 and 6 in the other games. People were more disgusted at the turn 1 win because they felt like he couldn't do anything about it, which kind of implies that I coudl have done something about the games I lost. I felt that drawing through a good portion of my deck with Faithless Looting and Night's Whisper was sufficient, but alas, it was not.
Nowadays when people ask me why I don't play Standard, I'll tell them that I will when a Combo deck is Tier 1. Sorry guys, I realize that Collected Company and Emrakul are "combo" decks to you, but I have my own interpretation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
I really don't see how people can be complaining about the meta. Aggro, control, midrange, and combo are all doing well, and we have a wide variety of tier 1 decks. Yeah, Abzan Coco doesn't see a lot of play online, but that's because you have to keep on doing the combo.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB
I really don't see how people can be complaining about the meta. Aggro, control, midrange, and combo are all doing well, and we have a wide variety of tier 1 decks. Yeah, Abzan Coco doesn't see a lot of play online, but that's because you have to keep on doing the combo.
I understand why someone would hate to do that online, despite not being an online player myself. But, I have also seen the numbers dwindle in Paper Magic as well. I have been asking people the reason why.
1. My teammate, who had been on Abzan Company for a while told me that outside of Infect, it just doesn't have too many matchups better than 50%. So, it's tough to have a 85% win rate, or whatever you need, to top 8 a tournament.
2. A guy who I have known to have played the deck since Collected Company was printed told me that he disagrees. He said if you ignore GR Tron and Scapeshift especially, you absolutely can do well with the deck. I only talked with him briefly at the last FNM because he usually plays elsewhere.
3. Other players have mentioned that because players use MTGO as a testing tool for a large tournament and no one wants to play Company online, it cuts the number of players also that will play it at a given tournament.
My own experience was this. I played only at 3 FNMs, but I also play Modern a lot overall. (also played a different version when Company was printed for a month) I went 4-1, 4-1, and 3-3. I felt that the deck was very average and a lot of wins had to be scraped up. I felt like it did the attrition game worse than Jund. I did get a straight Combo on turn 3 on the play, but overall I felt that the deck was not quite Tier 1, but close.
I do feel that GR Tron's presence declining is good for this deck, but it may be offset by Suicide Zoo's incline. That deck is just too quick and powerful for Company.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Call it what you will, it's a trend that has not changed for quite a while. And it will be extremely interesting to see what happens next week at the GPs.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Sadly, I already know how those results will be treated.
If the GP are a linear mess, people will say "I told you so" and cry for bans/unbans.
If the GP are balanced between linear and nonlinear strategies, people will say "it should be better than this" and cry for bans/unbans.
If the GP are heavily nonlinear, people will say "it's an exception and the nonlinear decks aren't really good" and sitll cry for bans/unbans.
As a whole, most Modern players are really bad at measured metagame analysis. They are almost categorically predisposed to find fault with the metagame at any given moment, whether because it's too linear or because it's nonlinear but it won't last. This is particularly true online, and even worse on MTGS than on Reddit, and it is why I encourage players to ignore most popular interpretations of the metagame.
Data was pulled from the last Modern Nexus update. Of course you might disagree with my labeling of some of the decks as linear or nonlinear (a lot of people thought Abzan CoCo should be considered linear, and Merfolk nonlinear for example) but for the majority of decks it's pretty easy to say one way or another.
It seems like MTGO is indeed significantly more linear than paper, so perhaps the perceptions of online and paper players is very different and that could contribute to why we get such differing opinions on the health of the metagame. Still, I think that anything above 50% linear decks is pushing it and its something that could be improved on.
BGW Junk / URB Grixis Shadow / RGB Lantern Control / WUBCBant Eldrazi
Current Legacy decks
BUG Shardless BUG / UWR Predict Miracles / RUG Canadian Thresh / WRBG 4c Loam
UB Reanimator
" or because it's nonlinear but it won't last."
nothing ever lasts, the meta game changes all the time when new cards enter it.
yet there seems to be a pattern in modern, linearity is the majority not the minority
" I encourage players to ignore most popular interpretations of the metagame."
but aren't popular interpretations popular because there is some merit to them?
like 2 ships passing at night, modern is linear, sideboard lottery. maybe a bit exaggerated, but there is statistical proof to these arguments on your own website, on mtgo, on a numerous amount of "small" events. yet you give them no merit because they are not gp's.....
decks playing:
none
"nothing ever lasts, the meta game changes all the time when new cards enter it.
yet there seems to be a pattern in modern, linearity is the majority not the minority"
Metagames are in constant flux. This is a GOOD thing. There have been plenty of times in modern's history where a non-linear deck has been extremely dominate - Abzan last year, DRS Jund, Twin was disgusting in periods, Pod... But nope. You just pretend like modern hasn't gone back and forth multiple times because it fits your narrative.
"but aren't popular interpretations popular because there is some merit to them?"
Sometimes. But sometimes people aren't good at interpreting data. Look at new card evaluations and how often people completely whiff on them. Sometimes the masses are asses.
"like 2 ships passing at night, modern is linear, sideboard lottery. maybe a bit exaggerated, but there is statistical proof to these arguments on your own website, on mtgo, on a numerous amount of "small" events. yet you give them no merit because they are not gp's..... "
Nope. When I was posting various SCG results you were the first person to refute the data. You've been beating the same tired drum for months now.
It's one thing when someone says "the metagame never lasts and is always changing" with some other kind of measured argument. That kind of perspective is fine. It's another when, for example, Jund/Jeskai are Tier 1 and people say "these decks are actually bad and will fall out of Tier 1 in a month." I'm talking about the latter behavior, not the former.
1. There are some popular interpretations which are good and some which are bad. "Abzan Company is the next Twin" is bad. "Modern has very few blue-based control options" is better. You can generally separate the two with careful analysis (see below).
2. If you're going to make a stats-based analysis/argument, do that. Give the numbers, make a conclusion, and then (IMPORTANT) consider counterexamples and alternate explanations. That's a great approach, but it's rarely what we see. What we typically see instead are people complaining about and drawing examples from one result (e.g. the Invitational 7-1 pool which had 0 Jund) while ignoring others (e.g. the SCG Open T8/16 from last weekend with 5 Jund).
3. Even if someone can correctly identify a trend (e.g. a metagame with the right/wrong balance of linear/nonlinear), they rarely draw a good conclusion or next step from that trend. An excellent example was Burn in late 2014 and again in late 2015, when it occupied huge MTGO percentages and people panicked. The trend observation was correct: Burn was everywhere. The conclusion was not: Burn was not a "problem" and the metagame wasn't "broken." Burn was fine, the metagame adapted, and most of the panic was unfounded or at least excessive.
These are all problems I'm talking about above. Thankfully, most players don't have them. It's just a small and vocal contingent, which tends to have an inverse relationship between their size and their noise. The smaller the group, the more vocal they get: that's particularly true online and especially on MTGS.
It will always be like this. Maybe it's because so many cards were preemptively banned? Some of those ended up legal now and never were theoretically a problem. Maybe it's because there have been so many bans and unbans? But Modern players are always going to be more prepared to just say, "ban the card" than actually try to work past the problem. Now I am not saying that some cards were too much of a problem (Eldrazi, wink, wink), but just banning every "problem" deck can be a problem within itself. It's also part of the reason that the B&R announcement is more of a holiday than damn Christmas to most people who post on this forum.
Brad Nelson just won on turn 2 with Suicide Zoo after a turn 1 Inquisition of Kozilek took Temur Battle Rage, but couldn't take his 1 mana spells that had a 5G in the corner. This prompted Patrick Sullivan to say that Become Immense may be banned at the next announcement. He may or may not be right, but I don't think commentators should discuss bannings in any way. It just helps the stereotype that Modern is a ban format. I love PSully and Cedric. They are still my favorite team commentators of all time, but I think someone somewhere should let the commentators know how dangerous it is to discuss bans. Just my opinion...
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)UB/x Faeries
UR Storm
XURWB Affinity
G Elves
UW control
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
Jund and uwr nahiri seem to be fine and holding strong I agree With that.
1. yep the blue argument certainly holds merit
2. I agree and that's why using modern nexus as a reference is probably the best bet, speaking of which, Im currently working on a stats-based analysis.
3. people panic, it seems people want a balance I think this is fine.
decks playing:
none
Some people may ignore the talk, but the majority of people watching won't, especially those who already have a poor view on Modern. Even to me, someone who plays exclusively Modern, a Become Immense ban seems logical. I can only imagine the Standard players who are stuck playing games with 4 creatures in play on both sides are probably saying, "yep, this is why Modern sucks so badly." I can see Legacy players saying, yep, they can't deal with a measly Become Immense. I hear it all the time from players I know, most of which are not exclusively Modern players like myself.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)And it's worth noting that the game Brad Nelson won on T2 through Inquisition was the ONLY game in that match that he won. Jadine took it with Jund 3-1 (best of 5).
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
Yeah that's true. I should just stop letting it get to me what others say about my format. I have my strong opinions on Standard as well. I think if Legacy events were closer, I would attend those more often.
Regarding the Nelson play, plays like that stand out to people moreso than the actual outcome of the match. I won a game on turn 1 in a PPTQ before my Elves opponent drew a card, but he beat me on turns 5 and 6 in the other games. People were more disgusted at the turn 1 win because they felt like he couldn't do anything about it, which kind of implies that I coudl have done something about the games I lost. I felt that drawing through a good portion of my deck with Faithless Looting and Night's Whisper was sufficient, but alas, it was not.
Nowadays when people ask me why I don't play Standard, I'll tell them that I will when a Combo deck is Tier 1. Sorry guys, I realize that Collected Company and Emrakul are "combo" decks to you, but I have my own interpretation.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB
I understand why someone would hate to do that online, despite not being an online player myself. But, I have also seen the numbers dwindle in Paper Magic as well. I have been asking people the reason why.
1. My teammate, who had been on Abzan Company for a while told me that outside of Infect, it just doesn't have too many matchups better than 50%. So, it's tough to have a 85% win rate, or whatever you need, to top 8 a tournament.
2. A guy who I have known to have played the deck since Collected Company was printed told me that he disagrees. He said if you ignore GR Tron and Scapeshift especially, you absolutely can do well with the deck. I only talked with him briefly at the last FNM because he usually plays elsewhere.
3. Other players have mentioned that because players use MTGO as a testing tool for a large tournament and no one wants to play Company online, it cuts the number of players also that will play it at a given tournament.
My own experience was this. I played only at 3 FNMs, but I also play Modern a lot overall. (also played a different version when Company was printed for a month) I went 4-1, 4-1, and 3-3. I felt that the deck was very average and a lot of wins had to be scraped up. I felt like it did the attrition game worse than Jund. I did get a straight Combo on turn 3 on the play, but overall I felt that the deck was not quite Tier 1, but close.
I do feel that GR Tron's presence declining is good for this deck, but it may be offset by Suicide Zoo's incline. That deck is just too quick and powerful for Company.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Greetings,
Kathal
Modern/Legacy
either funpolice (Delver, Deathcloud, UW Control) or the fun decks (especially those ft. Griselbrand)
decks playing:
none
3 Aggro Midrange decks (Eldrazi)
2 Control decks (Mardu Control and Blue Moon)
2 Aggro decks (Affinity and Bogles)
1 Combi deck (Dredge)
Which looks great.
So even though, there is a lot of Eldrazi, nothing to worry about tbh (just a spike from them, see Dredge last weekend).
Greetings,
Kathal
Modern/Legacy
either funpolice (Delver, Deathcloud, UW Control) or the fun decks (especially those ft. Griselbrand)
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffYou have to prepare for it, cause it WILL see play, however, it will not see as much play as it would have last weekend.
Greetings,
Kathal
Modern/Legacy
either funpolice (Delver, Deathcloud, UW Control) or the fun decks (especially those ft. Griselbrand)
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffUR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Can't have a Modern coverage weekend without lots of complaining!
That said, all this discussion needs to be in a different thread. Please direct all conversation to the thread below until the weekend is done:
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/753245-gp-weekend-guangzhou-lille-indianapolis