Nope. This is an extreme oversimplification. They speak about a ton of things:
How bloom and twin made the metagame more fun, diverse. How turn 4 rule is a real thing now besides infect. Also about how modern is more interactive now. Or about how twin ban let nahiri flourish or abzan company be a real deck and how there is not a clear best deck after the banning of twin or bloom. These were my paper decks as.well but.try to be objective.
Well I've ran the numbers several times in this thread across several pages, and the format is about as interactive/non-interactive as it used to be and about as diverse as it used to be. Things are just shaken up so that the decks are different, not necessarily more of them. We're looking at things through rose-tinted glasses and forgetting how amazing and wonderful and highly praised last year was for Modern in terms of fun and diversity. Yes, things are good now. But things were also good before Eldrazi. And looking objectively at numbers, they're not much different than they used to be, we just had to go through several months of hell to get here so it feels so much better by comparison.
Anything you can do to complain that Twin is gone right?
Are you saying I'm wrong and offering a counterpoint? I thought looking at things objectively was a good thing.
I'm saying that you go to great lengths to downplay the positives of the current iteration of Modern which does not contain Splinter Twin.
If the format is about as interactive and diverse as it used to be, and it used to be "amazing and wonderful", then how is anyone "looking at things through rose-tinted glasses"?
Because people seem to go to equally great lengths to justify how awful and oppressive and terrible last year was, when not only is it factually untrue when you look at numbers, its equally untrue with any number of pulled quotes from the time. Honestly though, it's a pointless discussion. I'm merely pointing out the apparent selective/short term memory people seem to display.
and whoever said numbers are objective? seperating decks to linear and non-linear and counting them is an extremely myopic approach to determine how much interaction happens in games
So what is your approach? You keep repeating that the meta is better and that there is more interaction, but provide nothing to support this other than simply repeating it. The process I used in that particular post classified decks by whether or not they intend to win by goldfishing or otherwise ignoring what the opponent is doing as much as possible. While the specific criteria can be up to interpretation, the point was to offer an identifiable control to compare variables against. And that criteria was the same across all seven months of samples. Additionally, I compared the quantity of combined Tier 1 and Tier 2 decks, which actually went down, not up. Meaning banned decks and low end decks were mostly replaced (with an overall reduction of numbers) and there was not growth in the amount of Tiered decks. What process would be more appropriate for you? What are you using to judge the current meta against 2015? If nothing else, it gives us something to talk about because things are so good right now.
what is my approach? mostly common sense and good judgement wihtout being enamored with a single archetype, to see the decks for what they are and how they play out
OK. Let me know when you use something objective. Otherwise, we have nothing further to discuss on the topic.
Modern is more interactive than it was before because we've reached to a point ban after ban that most deck attack from specific angles and can be answered with commonly played answers, the average lenght of Modern games has also increased because truly all you need to survive in this new Modern is a bolt
So like, it was much less interactive when you had to run creature removal, discard spells, or counterspells to deal with Twin? I'm confused.
you can complain all you like about Infect, or Bushwhacker zoo that rised recently
Infect has always been a tiered deck, and Bushwhacker (not a tiered deck) only exists because of a card printed in Oath, after the Twin ban. Dunno why you keep using it as an example.
essentially there's hardly any linear combo decks left in modern
As one example, Ad Nauseam just won a GP and represents a larger metagame share than it used to. It avegraged about 1.5% over the last 6 months of 2015 and is currently 2.2%, giving it a growth rate of about 47%.
the fact that someone can brand two decks linear does not mean they play out the same, both Ad Nauseam and Merfolks are linear for instance, yet anyone accusing of merfolks playing a solitaire game probably has no idea of how the deck plays out
In my classifications, I focused on interactive vs non-interactive, not linear vs non-linear. Ad Nauseam is non-interactive, Merfolk is interactive, and they were classified as such. I chose those specific parameters because people were talking about how much more interactive the format is now. According to my findings, the format is actually less interactive than the average of the last six months of 2015.
but by far the most important reason why this modern meta is better than any other is that the question : 'what's the best deck?' cannot be answered, ofc people have opinions, some think it's Jund, some think it's Abzan Company, others think its' Jeskai, some think it's Infect, while others affinity and so on, the real answer is that there's no best deck in modern and it's all contextual and dependant on the meta, that means mission acomplished
Well, aside from Eldrazi ruling the format for 3 months of unprecedented dominance, the meta we are currently in is the result of several shake ups, several key decks banned, several cards unbanned, and several new cards printed. It would make sense then that the format is still in huge flux while people figure out what the best decks are. With the removal of the pro tour (and lack of consistent GPs), this flux will take longer to settle.
after all let's be honest what are numbers for you if not a way to continue your rants, even if the meta was like 20% more diverse after the ban would you just accept it? i highly doubt it,
If you can provide the evidence to support this claim, I would be happy to accept it. I would love to see this data.
GP Top X which are more diverse than ever, you never even bothered mentioning because they're always damning to the Twin meta,
Twin averaged about 1-2 copies per top 8 between PTs and GPs. Good, and representative of probably the best deck, but hardly dominant and certainly not oppressive. During those GPs and PTs, there were also about 30 other archetypes represented among the top 8, including five won by five different decks: Zoo, Lantern, Affinity, Merfolk, and Elves. Let's not also forget that PT results are mostly irrelevant due to six rounds of the tournament being decided by Draft.
Luckily the F1 Baku race was incredibly boring and Fox Sports totally screwed up the 24 Hours of Le Mans coverage, so I can waste my time here the rest of the afternoon.
The word "Objective" doesn't mean what I assume most people think it means when they use it. It doesn't mean driven by data or numbers. It means that your subjective feelings are removed from the analysis. That's all. In law, a standard is objective when it looks at what a reasonable person with a specified skill set (or lack there of) is in a specified situation. It's subjective when the defendant's (or plaintiff's, for that matter) state of mind, perception, etc. are used in the analysis.
So if we're being objective, we can very easily see that this is a healthier format. Compare articles about the format on scg.com, cfb.com, and Nexus from before Twin's ban and after Twin's ban and you'll see the vast majority of writers and commenters agree that Modern is better right now. That's an objective view since you're taking a comprehensive look at it.
Numbers-based approaches are typically called "empirical," not necessarily "objective," though "objective" is a broader term and can encompass "empirical."
EDIT: Actually, I just looked up the definition for "empirical" and that doesn't even mention numbers. So not sure what the term is. "Data-driven"?
So if we're being objective, we can very easily see that this is a healthier format. Compare articles about the format on scg.com, cfb.com, and Nexus from before Twin's ban and after Twin's ban and you'll see the vast majority of writers and commenters agree that Modern is better right now. That's an objective view since you're taking a comprehensive look at it.
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, these articles and opinions are influenced by the horror and hell we had to deal with through Eldrazi Winter? And that the "better" and "healthier" opinions are impacted by the short term memory of how unbelievably bad Eldrazi Winter was? And that the relative comparison of the 2015 meta to the current meta is skewed through the distortion Eldrazi caused? (lol for flavor)
Otherwise, how do you quantify health? How to you comparatively analyze differences in metagames if not using numbers? Isn't any other means of doing so just some form of subjective opinion? Or should I go back and dig up more quotes of everyone here saying how great and healthy the metagame was in that time?
So if we're being objective, we can very easily see that this is a healthier format. Compare articles about the format on scg.com, cfb.com, and Nexus from before Twin's ban and after Twin's ban and you'll see the vast majority of writers and commenters agree that Modern is better right now. That's an objective view since you're taking a comprehensive look at it.
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, these articles and opinions are influenced by the horror and hell we had to deal with through Eldrazi Winter? And that the "better" and "healthier" opinions are impacted by the short term memory of how unbelievably bad Eldrazi Winter was? And that the relative comparison of the 2015 meta to the current meta is skewed through the distortion Eldrazi caused? (lol for flavor)
Nope. It's certainly healthier than Eldrazi Winter (almost anything would be) but it's also healthier than pre-Twin ban.
Otherwise, how do you quantify health? How to you comparatively analyze differences in metagames if not using numbers? Isn't any other means of doing so just some form of subjective opinion? Or should I go back and dig up more quotes of everyone here saying how great and healthy the metagame was in that time?
I've already responded about how I think those quotes are not only meaningless but also drudged up through nothing more than petulance. And just because people enjoyed it before Twin's ban (I did too) doesn't mean they can't recognize that this is better.
We agree here.
Go dontWannaMakeThisThreadGhostTown boys!
I really wish: NO MORE ELDRAZI IN THIS SET PLZ!
Given one of the 3 titans appeared on the plane, its quite unlikely she won't have any back-up. At the very least, you can expect some Humans that transform into Eldrazi, since flavor-wise that's what she's doing.
I'amrakul.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
We agree here.
Go dontWannaMakeThisThreadGhostTown boys!
I really wish: NO MORE ELDRAZI IN THIS SET PLZ!
Given one of the 3 titans appeared on the plane, its quite unlikely she won't have any back-up. At the very least, you can expect some Humans that transform into Eldrazi, since flavor-wise that's what she's doing.
I'amrakul.
Do you not love the tentacle?! But yeah serious.. nothing better happen to Thalia.. that new art is awesome.
Is this the rght place to lobby / advocate for banning of blood moon, or am I supposed to do that at home while crying in the fetal position, naked?
Can't it be both. Currently I see nothing wrong with Blood Moon. If you are playing a greedy landbase and get punished by it.. well you knew the risks.
Is this the rght place to lobby / advocate for banning of blood moon, or am I supposed to do that at home while crying in the fetal position, naked?
The banlist thread cycle continues! As usual, Moon is fine. It doesn't even see play in any of the top-tier decks today, or at least sees extremely minimal and sporadic play in a few of their sideboards. The card is neither dominant nor format warping (plenty of top-tier decks are playing Moon-vulnerable manabases), and cards aren't banned because we dislike playing against them and they beat up our deck.
Is this the rght place to lobby / advocate for banning of blood moon, or am I supposed to do that at home while crying in the fetal position, naked?
The banlist thread cycle continues! As usual, Moon is fine. It doesn't even see play in any of the top-tier decks today, or at least sees extremely minimal and sporadic play in a few of their sideboards. The card is neither dominant nor format warping (plenty of top-tier decks are playing Moon-vulnerable manabases), and cards aren't banned because we dislike playing against them and they beat up our deck.
no, but some of the cards from 8th and 9th aren't what I would call fun magic, and that is a criteria for what wizards wants for this format. a turn 2 ssg into blood moon on the draw, or an affinity deck puking out there hand and then a turn 2 blood moon on the play from opal, is something I wouldnt allow if I had any say. based off of this, If i had a say, Id ban opal and ssg immediately, maybe even become immense. then, see what the format looks like after words. the format would then probably slow down which would cause tron to take up too much meta share, I would then hit tron lands, and be very happy with the new modern. And im sure everyone else would be who enjoy actual games of magic, the end.
Is this the rght place to lobby / advocate for banning of blood moon, or am I supposed to do that at home while crying in the fetal position, naked?
The banlist thread cycle continues! As usual, Moon is fine. It doesn't even see play in any of the top-tier decks today, or at least sees extremely minimal and sporadic play in a few of their sideboards. The card is neither dominant nor format warping (plenty of top-tier decks are playing Moon-vulnerable manabases), and cards aren't banned because we dislike playing against them and they beat up our deck.
no, but some of the cards from 8th and 9th aren't what I would call fun magic, and that is a criteria for what wizards wants for this format. a turn 2 ssg into blood moon on the draw, or an affinity deck puking out there hand and then a turn 2 blood moon on the play from opal, is something I wouldnt allow if I had any say. based off of this, If i had a say, Id ban opal and ssg immediately, maybe even become immense. then, see what the format looks like after words. the format would then probably slow down which would cause tron to take up too much meta share, I would then hit tron lands, and be very happy with the new modern. And im sure everyone else would be who enjoy actual games of magic, the end.
Sure. I mean, we currently have an amazingly fun and diverse metagame, so why not introduce a neverending spiral of bans. Sounds reasonable. If it worked for Sisyphus, it can work for Modern!
Is this the rght place to lobby / advocate for banning of blood moon, or am I supposed to do that at home while crying in the fetal position, naked?
The banlist thread cycle continues! As usual, Moon is fine. It doesn't even see play in any of the top-tier decks today, or at least sees extremely minimal and sporadic play in a few of their sideboards. The card is neither dominant nor format warping (plenty of top-tier decks are playing Moon-vulnerable manabases), and cards aren't banned because we dislike playing against them and they beat up our deck.
no, but some of the cards from 8th and 9th aren't what I would call fun magic, and that is a criteria for what wizards wants for this format. a turn 2 ssg into blood moon on the draw, or an affinity deck puking out there hand and then a turn 2 blood moon on the play from opal, is something I wouldnt allow if I had any say. based off of this, If i had a say, Id ban opal and ssg immediately, maybe even become immense. then, see what the format looks like after words. the format would then probably slow down which would cause tron to take up too much meta share, I would then hit tron lands, and be very happy with the new modern. And im sure everyone else would be who enjoy actual games of magic, the end.
Many of us like the type of magic that you're decrying - the game (and this format specifically) exist for all the people who don't want to be bound to the current design philosophies and restrictions. If you don't want to deal with blood moons (or other 'unfun' cards like Ensnaring Bridge), a LITTLE bit of fast mana, and some occasional combos, then go play standard.
Is this the rght place to lobby / advocate for banning of blood moon, or am I supposed to do that at home while crying in the fetal position, naked?
The banlist thread cycle continues! As usual, Moon is fine. It doesn't even see play in any of the top-tier decks today, or at least sees extremely minimal and sporadic play in a few of their sideboards. The card is neither dominant nor format warping (plenty of top-tier decks are playing Moon-vulnerable manabases), and cards aren't banned because we dislike playing against them and they beat up our deck.
no, but some of the cards from 8th and 9th aren't what I would call fun magic, and that is a criteria for what wizards wants for this format. a turn 2 ssg into blood moon on the draw, or an affinity deck puking out there hand and then a turn 2 blood moon on the play from opal, is something I wouldnt allow if I had any say. based off of this, If i had a say, Id ban opal and ssg immediately, maybe even become immense. then, see what the format looks like after words. the format would then probably slow down which would cause tron to take up too much meta share, I would then hit tron lands, and be very happy with the new modern. And im sure everyone else would be who enjoy actual games of magic, the end.
Many of us like the type of magic that you're decrying - the game (and this format specifically) exist for all the people who don't want to be bound to the current design philosophies and restrictions. If you don't want to deal with blood moons (or other 'unfun' cards like Ensnaring Bridge), a LITTLE bit of fast mana, and some occasional combos, then go play standard.
Great point. Personally, I really enjoy having cards like that in the format. Probably because I like solving puzzles. I like making the correct decisions in every situation, and that includes sideboarding decisions, mulligan decisions, sequencing, fetching correctly, etc. Blood Moon and other cards many people think are "unfun" actually just promote more thought into the game, which is to say that they provide extra puzzles to solve. I really don't like Standard's midrange slugfest where the only puzzle is in combat. Sure, that's a puzzle too and it can be fun, but it shouldn't be the ONLY puzzle. That's why I enjoy older formats like Modern, Legacy, Vintage so much. They promote and reward various types of play and careful consideration of your lines. I'm firmly against any ban that dumbs things down, like banning Blood Moon.
Is this the rght place to lobby / advocate for banning of blood moon, or am I supposed to do that at home while crying in the fetal position, naked?
The banlist thread cycle continues! As usual, Moon is fine. It doesn't even see play in any of the top-tier decks today, or at least sees extremely minimal and sporadic play in a few of their sideboards. The card is neither dominant nor format warping (plenty of top-tier decks are playing Moon-vulnerable manabases), and cards aren't banned because we dislike playing against them and they beat up our deck.
no, but some of the cards from 8th and 9th aren't what I would call fun magic, and that is a criteria for what wizards wants for this format. a turn 2 ssg into blood moon on the draw, or an affinity deck puking out there hand and then a turn 2 blood moon on the play from opal, is something I wouldnt allow if I had any say. based off of this, If i had a say, Id ban opal and ssg immediately, maybe even become immense. then, see what the format looks like after words. the format would then probably slow down which would cause tron to take up too much meta share, I would then hit tron lands, and be very happy with the new modern. And im sure everyone else would be who enjoy actual games of magic, the end.
Those criteria I listed are in place so bans aren't operating on a subjective measure of fun. For instance, you hate Moon. Nialls seems to enjoy it and others do too. Instead of just getting locked in a subjective "It's fun!" vs. "It's not fun!" spiral, Wizards defers to ban criteria. Since the pre-PT Philly bans, no ban was made without it a) violating the T4 rule, b) warping the format/reducing diversity, or c) breaking logistics. Those three criteria are much more objective and consistent proxies for "It's not fun," and we should be happy Wizards uses them.
Wizards will not ever actually use the "fun" factor as ban criteria, if you think that was there for any reason other than to dress up the article, your fooling yourself. If they ever banned something on the basis of being unfun, ill eat a goyf
Is this the rght place to lobby / advocate for banning of blood moon, or am I supposed to do that at home while crying in the fetal position, naked?
The banlist thread cycle continues! As usual, Moon is fine. It doesn't even see play in any of the top-tier decks today, or at least sees extremely minimal and sporadic play in a few of their sideboards. The card is neither dominant nor format warping (plenty of top-tier decks are playing Moon-vulnerable manabases), and cards aren't banned because we dislike playing against them and they beat up our deck.
no, but some of the cards from 8th and 9th aren't what I would call fun magic, and that is a criteria for what wizards wants for this format. a turn 2 ssg into blood moon on the draw, or an affinity deck puking out there hand and then a turn 2 blood moon on the play from opal, is something I wouldnt allow if I had any say. based off of this, If i had a say, Id ban opal and ssg immediately, maybe even become immense. then, see what the format looks like after words. the format would then probably slow down which would cause tron to take up too much meta share, I would then hit tron lands, and be very happy with the new modern. And im sure everyone else would be who enjoy actual games of magic, the end.
Many of us like the type of magic that you're decrying - the game (and this format specifically) exist for all the people who don't want to be bound to the current design philosophies and restrictions. If you don't want to deal with blood moons (or other 'unfun' cards like Ensnaring Bridge), a LITTLE bit of fast mana, and some occasional combos, then go play standard.
Great point. Personally, I really enjoy having cards like that in the format. Probably because I like solving puzzles. I like making the correct decisions in every situation, and that includes sideboarding decisions, mulligan decisions, sequencing, fetching correctly, etc. Blood Moon and other cards many people think are "unfun" actually just promote more thought into the game, which is to say that they provide extra puzzles to solve. I really don't like Standard's midrange slugfest where the only puzzle is in combat. Sure, that's a puzzle too and it can be fun, but it shouldn't be the ONLY puzzle. That's why I enjoy older formats like Modern, Legacy, Vintage so much. They promote and reward various types of play and careful consideration of your lines. I'm firmly against any ban that dumbs things down, like banning Blood Moon.
what decisions do you have with the scenarios I mentioned above?
what decisions do you have with the scenarios I mentioned above?
Those scenarios are absurd. The format is great right now and most people I know and most people I see online seem to be enjoying it a lot. Why would we risk that by banning 2-3 cards now, then banning another card later in the year, just to maybe have a more fun format? That's ridiculous and incredibly risky. Also, there is no way the playerbase would stick with Modern after such an outrageous and unprecedented shakeup.
There is no Modern scenario where everyone is happy. See this thread where we still have about 2-3 people complaining about Twin, the lack of control, Tron's ability to beat their pet deck, their inability to find a deck with 51-49 or better matchups across the board, etc. But there are Modern scenarios where the majority of people are happy and we are in such a scenario now. There is no reason to change that for a radically different scenario which may or may not please an equal majority of people, and is significantly more likely to cause problems.
Is this the rght place to lobby / advocate for banning of blood moon, or am I supposed to do that at home while crying in the fetal position, naked?
The banlist thread cycle continues! As usual, Moon is fine. It doesn't even see play in any of the top-tier decks today, or at least sees extremely minimal and sporadic play in a few of their sideboards. The card is neither dominant nor format warping (plenty of top-tier decks are playing Moon-vulnerable manabases), and cards aren't banned because we dislike playing against them and they beat up our deck.
no, but some of the cards from 8th and 9th aren't what I would call fun magic, and that is a criteria for what wizards wants for this format. a turn 2 ssg into blood moon on the draw, or an affinity deck puking out there hand and then a turn 2 blood moon on the play from opal, is something I wouldnt allow if I had any say. based off of this, If i had a say, Id ban opal and ssg immediately, maybe even become immense. then, see what the format looks like after words. the format would then probably slow down which would cause tron to take up too much meta share, I would then hit tron lands, and be very happy with the new modern. And im sure everyone else would be who enjoy actual games of magic, the end.
Many of us like the type of magic that you're decrying - the game (and this format specifically) exist for all the people who don't want to be bound to the current design philosophies and restrictions. If you don't want to deal with blood moons (or other 'unfun' cards like Ensnaring Bridge), a LITTLE bit of fast mana, and some occasional combos, then go play standard.
Not saying I disagree with you entirely, but your argument could be turned around on you, and someone could tell you if you like to play that kind of Magic, go play Legacy. Just saying.
I believe the Modern format was created for the newer player. Look where they started it. Its when the up tick in attendance started to rise again. With the way they have maintained the format I also think Wotc is leaning away from what you desire for the 'good old' days.
The banlist thread cycle continues! As usual, Moon is fine. It doesn't even see play in any of the top-tier decks today, or at least sees extremely minimal and sporadic play in a few of their sideboards. The card is neither dominant nor format warping (plenty of top-tier decks are playing Moon-vulnerable manabases), and cards aren't banned because we dislike playing against them and they beat up our deck.
no, but some of the cards from 8th and 9th aren't what I would call fun magic, and that is a criteria for what wizards wants for this format. a turn 2 ssg into blood moon on the draw, or an affinity deck puking out there hand and then a turn 2 blood moon on the play from opal, is something I wouldnt allow if I had any say. based off of this, If i had a say, Id ban opal and ssg immediately, maybe even become immense. then, see what the format looks like after words. the format would then probably slow down which would cause tron to take up too much meta share, I would then hit tron lands, and be very happy with the new modern. And im sure everyone else would be who enjoy actual games of magic, the end.
Many of us like the type of magic that you're decrying - the game (and this format specifically) exist for all the people who don't want to be bound to the current design philosophies and restrictions. If you don't want to deal with blood moons (or other 'unfun' cards like Ensnaring Bridge), a LITTLE bit of fast mana, and some occasional combos, then go play standard.
Great point. Personally, I really enjoy having cards like that in the format. Probably because I like solving puzzles. I like making the correct decisions in every situation, and that includes sideboarding decisions, mulligan decisions, sequencing, fetching correctly, etc. Blood Moon and other cards many people think are "unfun" actually just promote more thought into the game, which is to say that they provide extra puzzles to solve. I really don't like Standard's midrange slugfest where the only puzzle is in combat. Sure, that's a puzzle too and it can be fun, but it shouldn't be the ONLY puzzle. That's why I enjoy older formats like Modern, Legacy, Vintage so much. They promote and reward various types of play and careful consideration of your lines. I'm firmly against any ban that dumbs things down, like banning Blood Moon.
what decisions do you have with the scenarios I mentioned above?
Don't play a deck that auto folds to blood moon. Run enchantment removal. Run creature removal (for Become Immense). Counter a spell. Do broken things yourself that still work through a blood moon. These are all choices that you have to make - if every deck could just run 4/5 color goodstuff without fear of any reprisal then we'd have a much more boring format. As it is, blood moon and burn help to reign in the extreme greed (and I wish they'd push things a little farther with things like Price of Progress, Wasteland, Back to Basics, or Rishadan Port but I absolutely know why they won't and wouldn't argue they should) which is good because it helps to create a series of decks that all answer each other. This thread has repeatedly acted as if midrange and control are the only two types of decks that should exist, which is silly.
Is this the rght place to lobby / advocate for banning of blood moon, or am I supposed to do that at home while crying in the fetal position, naked?
The banlist thread cycle continues! As usual, Moon is fine. It doesn't even see play in any of the top-tier decks today, or at least sees extremely minimal and sporadic play in a few of their sideboards. The card is neither dominant nor format warping (plenty of top-tier decks are playing Moon-vulnerable manabases), and cards aren't banned because we dislike playing against them and they beat up our deck.
no, but some of the cards from 8th and 9th aren't what I would call fun magic, and that is a criteria for what wizards wants for this format. a turn 2 ssg into blood moon on the draw, or an affinity deck puking out there hand and then a turn 2 blood moon on the play from opal, is something I wouldnt allow if I had any say. based off of this, If i had a say, Id ban opal and ssg immediately, maybe even become immense. then, see what the format looks like after words. the format would then probably slow down which would cause tron to take up too much meta share, I would then hit tron lands, and be very happy with the new modern. And im sure everyone else would be who enjoy actual games of magic, the end.
Many of us like the type of magic that you're decrying - the game (and this format specifically) exist for all the people who don't want to be bound to the current design philosophies and restrictions. If you don't want to deal with blood moons (or other 'unfun' cards like Ensnaring Bridge), a LITTLE bit of fast mana, and some occasional combos, then go play standard.
Not saying I disagree with you entirely, but your argument could be turned around on you, and someone could tell you if you like to play that kind of Magic, go play Legacy. Just saying.
I believe the Modern format was created for the newer player. Look where they started it. Its when the up tick in attendance started to rise again. With the way they have maintained the format I also think Wotc is leaning away from what you desire for the 'good old' days.
I believe modern exists in the midpoint between Legacy and Standard - and as such both sides of the equation need to make concessions towards the other side. Some combo, 'unfun' prison stuff and fast mana from legacy exist alongside the more midrangey sorts of standard strategies.
I don't think the modern format was created specifically for the newer player at all. I think it's intended to be a more universal format where many wayward players can find a home.
This thread has repeatedly acted as if midrange and control are the only two types of decks that should exist, which is silly.
It's not even "this thread." It's a tiny and vocal contingent of about 2-3 (maybe 3-5?) people within the thread as a whole. Whenever you're getting annoyed with these kinds of arguments, remember that it's almost certainly the tiny and vocal minority. Even the pros, who historically blast Modern with unsubstantiated arguments in most of their articles, are on board with the format right now!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Because people seem to go to equally great lengths to justify how awful and oppressive and terrible last year was, when not only is it factually untrue when you look at numbers, its equally untrue with any number of pulled quotes from the time. Honestly though, it's a pointless discussion. I'm merely pointing out the apparent selective/short term memory people seem to display.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
So what is your approach? You keep repeating that the meta is better and that there is more interaction, but provide nothing to support this other than simply repeating it. The process I used in that particular post classified decks by whether or not they intend to win by goldfishing or otherwise ignoring what the opponent is doing as much as possible. While the specific criteria can be up to interpretation, the point was to offer an identifiable control to compare variables against. And that criteria was the same across all seven months of samples. Additionally, I compared the quantity of combined Tier 1 and Tier 2 decks, which actually went down, not up. Meaning banned decks and low end decks were mostly replaced (with an overall reduction of numbers) and there was not growth in the amount of Tiered decks. What process would be more appropriate for you? What are you using to judge the current meta against 2015? If nothing else, it gives us something to talk about because things are so good right now.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
OK. Let me know when you use something objective. Otherwise, we have nothing further to discuss on the topic.
So like, it was much less interactive when you had to run creature removal, discard spells, or counterspells to deal with Twin? I'm confused.
Infect has always been a tiered deck, and Bushwhacker (not a tiered deck) only exists because of a card printed in Oath, after the Twin ban. Dunno why you keep using it as an example.
As one example, Ad Nauseam just won a GP and represents a larger metagame share than it used to. It avegraged about 1.5% over the last 6 months of 2015 and is currently 2.2%, giving it a growth rate of about 47%.
In my classifications, I focused on interactive vs non-interactive, not linear vs non-linear. Ad Nauseam is non-interactive, Merfolk is interactive, and they were classified as such. I chose those specific parameters because people were talking about how much more interactive the format is now. According to my findings, the format is actually less interactive than the average of the last six months of 2015.
Well, aside from Eldrazi ruling the format for 3 months of unprecedented dominance, the meta we are currently in is the result of several shake ups, several key decks banned, several cards unbanned, and several new cards printed. It would make sense then that the format is still in huge flux while people figure out what the best decks are. With the removal of the pro tour (and lack of consistent GPs), this flux will take longer to settle.
If you can provide the evidence to support this claim, I would be happy to accept it. I would love to see this data.
Twin averaged about 1-2 copies per top 8 between PTs and GPs. Good, and representative of probably the best deck, but hardly dominant and certainly not oppressive. During those GPs and PTs, there were also about 30 other archetypes represented among the top 8, including five won by five different decks: Zoo, Lantern, Affinity, Merfolk, and Elves. Let's not also forget that PT results are mostly irrelevant due to six rounds of the tournament being decided by Draft.
Luckily the F1 Baku race was incredibly boring and Fox Sports totally screwed up the 24 Hours of Le Mans coverage, so I can waste my time here the rest of the afternoon.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
So if we're being objective, we can very easily see that this is a healthier format. Compare articles about the format on scg.com, cfb.com, and Nexus from before Twin's ban and after Twin's ban and you'll see the vast majority of writers and commenters agree that Modern is better right now. That's an objective view since you're taking a comprehensive look at it.
Numbers-based approaches are typically called "empirical," not necessarily "objective," though "objective" is a broader term and can encompass "empirical."
EDIT: Actually, I just looked up the definition for "empirical" and that doesn't even mention numbers. So not sure what the term is. "Data-driven"?
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
I miss the simpler times when people complained about Jund being too good.
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, these articles and opinions are influenced by the horror and hell we had to deal with through Eldrazi Winter? And that the "better" and "healthier" opinions are impacted by the short term memory of how unbelievably bad Eldrazi Winter was? And that the relative comparison of the 2015 meta to the current meta is skewed through the distortion Eldrazi caused? (lol for flavor)
Otherwise, how do you quantify health? How to you comparatively analyze differences in metagames if not using numbers? Isn't any other means of doing so just some form of subjective opinion? Or should I go back and dig up more quotes of everyone here saying how great and healthy the metagame was in that time?
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I've already responded about how I think those quotes are not only meaningless but also drudged up through nothing more than petulance. And just because people enjoyed it before Twin's ban (I did too) doesn't mean they can't recognize that this is better.
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
Given one of the 3 titans appeared on the plane, its quite unlikely she won't have any back-up. At the very least, you can expect some Humans that transform into Eldrazi, since flavor-wise that's what she's doing.
I'amrakul.
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
Do you not love the tentacle?! But yeah serious.. nothing better happen to Thalia.. that new art is awesome.
Can't it be both. Currently I see nothing wrong with Blood Moon. If you are playing a greedy landbase and get punished by it.. well you knew the risks.
The banlist thread cycle continues! As usual, Moon is fine. It doesn't even see play in any of the top-tier decks today, or at least sees extremely minimal and sporadic play in a few of their sideboards. The card is neither dominant nor format warping (plenty of top-tier decks are playing Moon-vulnerable manabases), and cards aren't banned because we dislike playing against them and they beat up our deck.
decks playing:
none
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
Many of us like the type of magic that you're decrying - the game (and this format specifically) exist for all the people who don't want to be bound to the current design philosophies and restrictions. If you don't want to deal with blood moons (or other 'unfun' cards like Ensnaring Bridge), a LITTLE bit of fast mana, and some occasional combos, then go play standard.
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
Those criteria I listed are in place so bans aren't operating on a subjective measure of fun. For instance, you hate Moon. Nialls seems to enjoy it and others do too. Instead of just getting locked in a subjective "It's fun!" vs. "It's not fun!" spiral, Wizards defers to ban criteria. Since the pre-PT Philly bans, no ban was made without it a) violating the T4 rule, b) warping the format/reducing diversity, or c) breaking logistics. Those three criteria are much more objective and consistent proxies for "It's not fun," and we should be happy Wizards uses them.
UWRjeskai nahiri UWR
UBRgrixis titi UBR
UBRgrixis delverUBR
UR ur kikimite UR
EDH
RUG Riku of Two Reflections RUG
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose UBR
UBRGYidris, Maelstrom Wielder UBRG
UBRJeleva, Nephalia's ScourgeUBR
decks playing:
none
Those scenarios are absurd. The format is great right now and most people I know and most people I see online seem to be enjoying it a lot. Why would we risk that by banning 2-3 cards now, then banning another card later in the year, just to maybe have a more fun format? That's ridiculous and incredibly risky. Also, there is no way the playerbase would stick with Modern after such an outrageous and unprecedented shakeup.
There is no Modern scenario where everyone is happy. See this thread where we still have about 2-3 people complaining about Twin, the lack of control, Tron's ability to beat their pet deck, their inability to find a deck with 51-49 or better matchups across the board, etc. But there are Modern scenarios where the majority of people are happy and we are in such a scenario now. There is no reason to change that for a radically different scenario which may or may not please an equal majority of people, and is significantly more likely to cause problems.
Not saying I disagree with you entirely, but your argument could be turned around on you, and someone could tell you if you like to play that kind of Magic, go play Legacy. Just saying.
I believe the Modern format was created for the newer player. Look where they started it. Its when the up tick in attendance started to rise again. With the way they have maintained the format I also think Wotc is leaning away from what you desire for the 'good old' days.
Don't play a deck that auto folds to blood moon. Run enchantment removal. Run creature removal (for Become Immense). Counter a spell. Do broken things yourself that still work through a blood moon. These are all choices that you have to make - if every deck could just run 4/5 color goodstuff without fear of any reprisal then we'd have a much more boring format. As it is, blood moon and burn help to reign in the extreme greed (and I wish they'd push things a little farther with things like Price of Progress, Wasteland, Back to Basics, or Rishadan Port but I absolutely know why they won't and wouldn't argue they should) which is good because it helps to create a series of decks that all answer each other. This thread has repeatedly acted as if midrange and control are the only two types of decks that should exist, which is silly.
I believe modern exists in the midpoint between Legacy and Standard - and as such both sides of the equation need to make concessions towards the other side. Some combo, 'unfun' prison stuff and fast mana from legacy exist alongside the more midrangey sorts of standard strategies.
I don't think the modern format was created specifically for the newer player at all. I think it's intended to be a more universal format where many wayward players can find a home.
RGTron
UGInfect
URStorm
WUBRAd Nauseam
BRGrishoalbrand
URGScapeshift
WBGAbzan Company
WUBRGAmulet Titan
BRGLiving End
WGBogles
It's not even "this thread." It's a tiny and vocal contingent of about 2-3 (maybe 3-5?) people within the thread as a whole. Whenever you're getting annoyed with these kinds of arguments, remember that it's almost certainly the tiny and vocal minority. Even the pros, who historically blast Modern with unsubstantiated arguments in most of their articles, are on board with the format right now!