So for those reasons I still feel this is actually a positive change. I think it has the potential to accomplish these 3 things:
1. Reduce the iteration of "solved" metas, leading to fewer bans and/or some upcoming unbans;
2. Allow players with under-represented decks to feel represented while being listed, giving them warm fuzzies and the community an understanding that multiple decks and builds are viable enough to 5-0; and
3. Force people to finally realize that online data is trash, and always has been (regardless of whether it accurately demonstrated the online meta).
These are fine goals to have, but I think that #1 shouldn't be a problem when new cards are introduced every three months. We have seen how huge the impact of a single card can be on eternal formats. As for Standard, rotation and lower overall power levels SHOULD keep that in check already. If it's not, information isn't at fault, it's design. For #2, that has never been an issue or deterred anyone from playing and enjoying jank decks at local FNMs. Yes, we have Spikes at the top tables jamming for store credit, but the middle and lower tables are filled with about whatever you could imagine (or whatever they can afford) and people love playing their decks. The strain this lack of information puts is on the players who actually care about making better decisions about their decks, or better prepare themselves in sideboard construction, or try and metagame a large event without the aide of a large team. It's inconsequential for most local players and detrimental for those who want to improve their game. For #3, online data is not perfect, sure, but randomized collection over time does smooth out to represent things as a whole. Also, innovation and experimentation happen at accelerated rates online due to the instantaneous nature of buying/trading cards. It could be a two week turnaround between ordering paper cards, having them arrive, and then waiting for my next local event. On MTGO, that buy and play process takes less than 5 minutes. But the biggest issue is we're not just getting less data, we're getting actively skewed data. It's purposefully-selected, nonrepresentative data. That's significantly worse than random data from a semi-flawed system.
Then the Amonkhet invocations were completely illegible.
The border/text of these were a visual disaster, but the art is really good. They are especially bad when compared to Inventions, which are the best looking card borders WotC has ever printed (IMHO). Wizards admitted it in saying the quality standard wasn't high enough and Masterpiece sets would become less frequent because of it. To keep this on topic - at least in Invocations they reprinted some nice Modern-playable cards like Thoughtseize, Cryptic Command, Blood Moon, Damnation, Wrath of God.
PS. There is probably a thread for people who want to criticize Standard.
Standard is how we get cards, discussion and criticism of Standard is perfectly on topic as it relates to Modern, and Wizards designs and development trickling down to us.
I'm sure you can find a thread that is positive about the Standard format...somewhere.
Of course, as idSurge said, discussing Standard is fine so long as you tie it back to Modern, and the big reason for people constantly pointing out Standard's mishaps is because many people in this thread (myself included) are fairly sure that they've been holding off on potential unbans because the last thing they could risk is another extremely popular format burning down alongside Standard due to an unban.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks
Modern: UWUW Control UBRGrixis Shadow URIzzet Phoenix
I still can't see what in the world the big deal is with this change.
If I came into this conversation, or the various ones on Twitter or Reddit, without first knowing what the change was, I would think that WOTC somehow scrubbed all data of all MTG deck threads, articles, theories, tournament reports, paper, online, etc. - every single data point of the entire game - from the entire internet. The level of vitriol and hyperbole being bandied about certainly suggests such a proportionate level of change.
Instead, they took a horrible metric and made is slightly less valuable. Sure, they halved it. But when something only provides a 2% value and they change it to 1% value, that's still a slight change. You still have literally every single other data point out there, including everything you've had all along for paper. League data has always been a lousy view into any meta.
It's far too comical how people are reacting to this. I've lost a TON of respect for a lot of pros on Twitter for reacting so strongly to this.
Making a leap here that you're not a statistics fan? The biggest issue here isn't really the changing in the number of data sets it's the fact that they will be selected. If data is random on a long enough timeline it begins to reflect the true meta and therefore has value to those who wish to interact with the game on that level. When you select the decks this isn't possible.
If WotC wanted to slow down the rate of solving a format they're keep the selection process random. They're not stupid people, in fact I'd bet there a disproportionately high number of maths and science degrees floating around that building. They know they're totally preventing data from being analysed and saying anything else is an outright lie.
Edit - sorry others explained this already
I am a statistics fan. I'm a lawyer, not a numbers guy, but I have a healthy appreciation for stats and sit near our corporate controller (not that that's an indicator of understanding, but I do get an earful all day). I work for an IT company and most of my work relates to corporate governance, contracts, and data privacy laws, so I completely understand idSurge's points earlier about releasing information.
I understand both facets of this change, and how that impacts our understanding of the meta. I simply don't care about the change, and my above post was focused on only the first aspect, not the second.
I don't think our view of the online meta, however complete, ever predicted the paper meta the way others have espoused. For various reasons, people simply play different decks online. Even full league data would never be able to predict the paper meta for those reasons as well as the fact that it's much easier to go 5-0 than it is to go 13-2. And although I do play online occasionally, I've never had much respect for the online version of the game, whether due to meta, player rudeness, the program's multiple bugs, or simply the fact that nothing can replace the feeling of the cards in your hands.
So for those reasons I still feel this is actually a positive change. I think it has the potential to accomplish these 3 things:
1. Reduce the iteration of "solved" metas, leading to fewer bans and/or some upcoming unbans;
2. Allow players with under-represented decks to feel represented while being listed, giving them warm fuzzies and the community an understanding that multiple decks and builds are viable enough to 5-0; and
3. Force people to finally realize that online data is trash, and always has been (regardless of whether it accurately demonstrated the online meta).
I agree with a lot of what you say. The problem is that WotC use online data as justification for bannings. If they did it purely on paper tournaments then you'd be totally right. Being aware of decks that are busted online gives players an opportunity to get rid of cards or have an expectations that the deck they're about to buy into is going to eat a ban.
Anecdote time - I started playing in January 2014 had fallen into modern by December 2014, bought storm and started building towards twin. (I feel like you know where this is going) For Christmas 2015 I ordered myself my last cards for the deck - the playset of snapcaster mage. The cards were late arriving and my LGS was shut until the new year. The cards arrive, but I have to go collect them from the post office (I do this on the 9th (Saturday), no rush right?) I miss modern on the 15th and the next potential FNM the deck I spent over a year putting together is banned. I never got to play it at FNM and as you can expect the salt was sky high. I'd expect most players would quit the game if that was their experience of it.
Every player was shocked at that ban, nobody saw it coming. Without online information and informed opinions that will happen to many more players who are just getting into a given format. Without information we won't see bans coming and that will put people off playing the game.
Every player was shocked at that ban, nobody saw it coming.
I disagree with this. Myself and many folks I know voiced lots of displeasure for the Twin deck and all it's variants. The main problem was that anytime anyone tried to have a reasonable conversation about it they were laughed out of the room because people refused to believe that a deck that had been around as long as Twin had would ever eat a ban.
In before people start arguing about the different strategies in magic(card games). You should all see this informative graph.
The only problem I have with this is I think his lategame/earlygame timings are all wrong. Combo is not a midgame strategy. The point of combo is to be faster than aggro, it just seems like it's slower because all the fastest combos have been banned. Still, decks like Cheeri0s and Grishoalbrand can win on turn 2, UR Battle Rage and Infect can win on turn 3. Combo is definitely an early game strategy. Along with that, he has Control as a midgame strategy, when it's clearly a late game strat.
but how could they be random when they reflect a decently accurate picture of the meta game?
if they where random wouldn't there be tier 3 decks in the top?
and when top was banned in legacy it showed why on mtg goldfish by its meta share? care to explain that?
There are generally 30-40 5-0s per day on mtgo. Just as an example, there were exactly 37 yesterday. If you take a random 10 point sample of that, it's true that you won't necessarily have an accurate representation of that day. However, if you take random 10 point samples every day for a month, your data will start to come closer to approximating the true statistics.
than why do so many on here say how far off and pointless mtg goldfish is? even people who are statisticians??
Well, it's clear to me this thread has degnerated to the point that it's not even possible for people who want to talk about the state of Modern to do so here. Not sure what the solution is, but this thread probably needs to just die and be replaced by a new more inclusive on-topic thread and create a separate thread for the ad infinitum WotC bashers to go nuts.
its also funny how people on here see there pet deck doing well, and dont care about the health of the format or the fun of others. and say modern is fine! zero problems!
there are several sides to this argument, yours isnt the only one that exists.
So for those reasons I still feel this is actually a positive change. I think it has the potential to accomplish these 3 things:
1. Reduce the iteration of "solved" metas, leading to fewer bans and/or some upcoming unbans;
2. Allow players with under-represented decks to feel represented while being listed, giving them warm fuzzies and the community an understanding that multiple decks and builds are viable enough to 5-0; and
3. Force people to finally realize that online data is trash, and always has been (regardless of whether it accurately demonstrated the online meta).
MTGO admittedly has some idiosyncrasies; no hurt feelings if someone doesn't enjoy it. As it pertains to the change:
1. The problem is that this is the most confidence-eroding method to reducing chances of a "solved" metagame. It's a public declaration of WoTC's own ham-fisted inability to properly shepherd an eternal format through less draconian means. "WoTC: Because there's nothing to solve if you don't get to see the full question!"
2. Feeling represented is much better accomplished by publishing the full list of 5-0s, not a curated subset that will inevitably leave some under-represented decks out.
3. Where did this grudge come from? It's just funny and dumb. You're using "trash" to mean "I don't like it for reasons I can't explain". The data can be used statistically to, at a minimum, describe the online metagame and will be representative of other formats in varying degrees depending on a couple key factors.
Every player was shocked at that ban, nobody saw it coming.
I disagree with this. Myself and many folks I know voiced lots of displeasure for the Twin deck and all it's variants. The main problem was that anytime anyone tried to have a reasonable conversation about it they were laughed out of the room because people refused to believe that a deck that had been around as long as Twin had would ever eat a ban.
The main crux of my point was that if players are surprised by bans it will drive them away unless they are already heavily invested. We have all seen the mess that standard has been in and how it pushed away players who recently bought into decks thinking they'll be fine.
In before people start arguing about the different strategies in magic(card games). You should all see this informative graph.
The only problem I have with this is I think his lategame/earlygame timings are all wrong. Combo is not a midgame strategy. The point of combo is to be faster than aggro, it just seems like it's slower because all the fastest combos have been banned. Still, decks like Cheeri0s and Grishoalbrand can win on turn 2, UR Battle Rage and Infect can win on turn 3. Combo is definitely an early game strategy. Along with that, he has Control as a midgame strategy, when it's clearly a late game strat.
but how could they be random when they reflect a decently accurate picture of the meta game?
if they where random wouldn't there be tier 3 decks in the top?
and when top was banned in legacy it showed why on mtg goldfish by its meta share? care to explain that?
There are generally 30-40 5-0s per day on mtgo. Just as an example, there were exactly 37 yesterday. If you take a random 10 point sample of that, it's true that you won't necessarily have an accurate representation of that day. However, if you take random 10 point samples every day for a month, your data will start to come closer to approximating the true statistics.
than why do so many on here say how far off and pointless mtg goldfish is? even people who are statisticians??
One of two things is happening -- either you're misunderstanding their critiques or they're statisticians in the same sense that I'm a billionaire president of Zimbabwe. MTG Goldfish is far from pointless, but it does sometimes mis-categorize decks, weight results in a funky way, or outright miss a few events. Those are issues in how the data is prepared and analyzed, not the data itself.
A series of random samplings from a population can be used to approximate the entire population. Not to over-complicate things, but this obscure fact is only one of the fundamental properties of statistics.
Every player was shocked at that ban, nobody saw it coming.
I disagree with this. Myself and many folks I know voiced lots of displeasure for the Twin deck and all it's variants. The main problem was that anytime anyone tried to have a reasonable conversation about it they were laughed out of the room because people refused to believe that a deck that had been around as long as Twin had would ever eat a ban.
Probably because it didn't hold an oppressive level of the meta share and didn't break the turn 4 rule. This is in addition to intangibles like promoting interactive gameplay and helping (alongside Jund) to keep linear decks from overwhelming the format. The ban shocked the entire MTG community and dozens of reaction articles after the announcement echoed that. The only reason it wasn't discussed much further at the time is that everyone was too busy trying to survive Eldrazi Winter; the worst period in all of Modern's history. But hey, gotta keep those PTs interesting.
Anecdote time - I started playing in January 2014 had fallen into modern by December 2014, bought storm and started building towards twin. (I feel like you know where this is going) For Christmas 2015 I ordered myself my last cards for the deck - the playset of snapcaster mage. The cards were late arriving and my LGS was shut until the new year. The cards arrive, but I have to go collect them from the post office (I do this on the 9th (Saturday), no rush right?) I miss modern on the 15th and the next potential FNM the deck I spent over a year putting together is banned. I never got to play it at FNM and as you can expect the salt was sky high. I'd expect most players would quit the game if that was their experience of it.
Very similar (though much more depressing) than my story. I entered Modern with the Modern Event Deck, before discovering Great Nate on YouTube and wanting to build a budget Jeskai Geist deck. After MM15 reprinted half a dozen staples for Twin (Cryptic Command, Vendillion Clique, Remand, Lightning Bolt, Electrolyze, Spellskite, and Splinter Twin itself) I decided to build that instead. Built it, played it, fell in love with it. I had spent the fall and beginning of winter foiling out the deck before having the carpet ripped out from underneath. Shoddy and wildly stretched reasoning meant lots of frustration for the years to come because, outside of one previously-insignificant data point, every tracked number for Twin did not line up whatsoever with every previous diversity ban. The removal of public data means they can do more things like this: make bans and other decisions based on behind-closed-doors numbers that frustrate and confuse the public.
There are people who would claim to be very informed who have stated quite emphatically that appearances in Top 8's of major tournaments are the metric WotC uses to determine bans. Now that some MTGO data is taken away, some people are saying that they will be less able to predict incoming bans because WotC uses MTGO data to determine what to ban. It's interesting that people will post these different perceptions to back up their opinion about an issue. People want to hate on the MTGO data change? Fine, shift the narrative, it's not Top 8's anymore, it's MTGO data now.
I had spent the fall and beginning of winter foiling out the deck before having the carpet ripped out from underneath.
This is 100% the reason I will never try to foil out a deck!
I do hope that these changes are effective at least, if so I would hope we can look forward to unbans in August.
I actually thought I would be fine with my Tier 2 Delver deck and actually completed it minus a few price sideboard cards like Ancestral Vision and Engineered explosives. But I had the entire main deck foil and most of the SB foil, including several goodies like FNM promos, original Ravnica Remands, and full art Bolts. Then they go and ruin that deck by banning Probe. Nothing is safe. Live and learn. At least I didn't also waste money on foil Thoughtseizes, Inquisitions, Wraiths, and Shadows.
If unbans do happen on the horizon, I'm definitely ready. Full set of regular and GP foil Stoneforges, full set of foil Twins, Exarchs, and Pestermites and piles of regulars, two FTV foil Jace, one regular, and plenty of Preordains picked up for bulk prices. After getting burned HARD when AV was unbanned ($6 -> $50), I'm not risking it whatsoever with anything even remotely possible.
Well, it's clear to me this thread has degnerated to the point that it's not even possible for people who want to talk about the state of Modern to do so here. Not sure what the solution is, but this thread probably needs to just die and be replaced by a new more inclusive on-topic thread and create a separate thread for the ad infinitum WotC bashers to go nuts.
its also funny how people on here see there pet deck doing well, and dont care about the health of the format or the fun of others. and say modern is fine! zero problems!
there are several sides to this argument, yours isnt the only one that exists.
I agree with you, I actually think Eldrazi Tron is warping modern more than realized.
I'm not calling for a temple ban or anything, but it is very much an observation I've been making, and only felt more confident in after reading yesterdays Modern Nexus article.
I think maybe it's not healthy that we're seeing a ton of decks cheating out big creatures with fast mana or delve/shadows for 1 mana.
Top decks always warp a format. The question is to what degree does it warp a format. When Jund was the top deck it meant there was no need for other midrange decks like Sultai or Abzan and it meant that decks like Ad Nauseaum had a more difficult time existing.
I had spent the fall and beginning of winter foiling out the deck before having the carpet ripped out from underneath.
This is 100% the reason I will never try to foil out a deck!
I do hope that these changes are effective at least, if so I would hope we can look forward to unbans in August.
I actually thought I would be fine with my Tier 2 Delver deck and actually completed it minus a few price sideboard cards like Ancestral Vision and Engineered explosives. But I had the entire main deck foil and most of the SB foil, including several goodies like FNM promos, original Ravnica Remands, and full art Bolts. Then they go and ruin that deck by banning Probe. Nothing is safe. Live and learn. At least I didn't also waste money on foil Thoughtseizes, Inquisitions, Wraiths, and Shadows.
If unbans do happen on the horizon, I'm definitely ready. Full set of regular and GP foil Stoneforges, full set of foil Twins, Exarchs, and Pestermites and piles of regulars, two FTV foil Jace, one regular, and plenty of Preordains picked up for bulk prices. After getting burned HARD when AV was unbanned ($6 -> $50), I'm not risking it whatsoever with anything even remotely possible.
Why would you buy banned cards when the idiot man-children at WotC will never unban anything or make a move that helps the format?
I agree with you, I actually think Eldrazi Tron is warping modern more than realized.
I'm not calling for a temple ban or anything, but it is very much an observation I've been making, and only felt more confident in after reading yesterdays Modern Nexus article.
Let's be honest, that probably should have happened in April of 2016. Before Eldrazi Tron, Bant Eldrazi had been going over the top and wrecking midrange decks for even longer.
No, it's not healthy at all. Wizards cries about wanting standard to impact modern, but there are problems when a dozen or so creatures are so over curve, and a bunch are colourless.
I know this is really just anecdotal evidence at a low level competition tournament, but there is a Zoo player at one of the LGS that I go to. He has done fairly well for himself, admittedly not as well as he'd do with GDS or E Tron though. But he actually is around 50/50 vs. E Tron. I saw him play it and he just had some minor SB adjustments, super good play, and a little luck too.
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)
than why do so many on here say how far off and pointless mtg goldfish is? even people who are statisticians??
There's a difference between saying that the data MTGGoldfish compiled was somewhat accurate to the online metagame, and saying that it applied to the paper metagame. Their data was mostly for online play, and it was accurate to a degree of the true 5-0 meta because of how random sampling works over many iterations. I doubt any statistician worth anything would debate something as simple as that. That's not the same as saying that the online meta matched the paper meta, which is what some people have argued against, and it's not the same as talking about the overall online meta, not just the 5-0s. MTGGoldfish's data was a relatively accurate portrayal of the decks that were 5-0ing on mtgo, no more, no less. How valuable that information is can be debated, but I would say that some information is better than none.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
There are people who would claim to be very informed who have stated quite emphatically that appearances in Top 8's of major tournaments are the metric WotC uses to determine bans. Now that some MTGO data is taken away, some people are saying that they will be less able to predict incoming bans because WotC uses MTGO data to determine what to ban. It's interesting that people will post these different perceptions to back up their opinion about an issue. People want to hate on the MTGO data change? Fine, shift the narrative, it's not Top 8's anymore, it's MTGO data now.
The actual answer is that they've done both. Specifically, Twin's ban was based on its GP top 8s, while Felidar Guardian's ban was (supposedly) based on MTGO data. Is it really so hard to think that they might use more than one source of data to make these decisions?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
These are fine goals to have, but I think that #1 shouldn't be a problem when new cards are introduced every three months. We have seen how huge the impact of a single card can be on eternal formats. As for Standard, rotation and lower overall power levels SHOULD keep that in check already. If it's not, information isn't at fault, it's design. For #2, that has never been an issue or deterred anyone from playing and enjoying jank decks at local FNMs. Yes, we have Spikes at the top tables jamming for store credit, but the middle and lower tables are filled with about whatever you could imagine (or whatever they can afford) and people love playing their decks. The strain this lack of information puts is on the players who actually care about making better decisions about their decks, or better prepare themselves in sideboard construction, or try and metagame a large event without the aide of a large team. It's inconsequential for most local players and detrimental for those who want to improve their game. For #3, online data is not perfect, sure, but randomized collection over time does smooth out to represent things as a whole. Also, innovation and experimentation happen at accelerated rates online due to the instantaneous nature of buying/trading cards. It could be a two week turnaround between ordering paper cards, having them arrive, and then waiting for my next local event. On MTGO, that buy and play process takes less than 5 minutes. But the biggest issue is we're not just getting less data, we're getting actively skewed data. It's purposefully-selected, nonrepresentative data. That's significantly worse than random data from a semi-flawed system.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
The border/text of these were a visual disaster, but the art is really good. They are especially bad when compared to Inventions, which are the best looking card borders WotC has ever printed (IMHO). Wizards admitted it in saying the quality standard wasn't high enough and Masterpiece sets would become less frequent because of it. To keep this on topic - at least in Invocations they reprinted some nice Modern-playable cards like Thoughtseize, Cryptic Command, Blood Moon, Damnation, Wrath of God.
PS. There is probably a thread for people who want to criticize Standard.
I'm sure you can find a thread that is positive about the Standard format...somewhere.
Spirits
Of course, as idSurge said, discussing Standard is fine so long as you tie it back to Modern, and the big reason for people constantly pointing out Standard's mishaps is because many people in this thread (myself included) are fairly sure that they've been holding off on potential unbans because the last thing they could risk is another extremely popular format burning down alongside Standard due to an unban.
Modern:
UWUW Control
UBRGrixis Shadow
URIzzet Phoenix
I agree with a lot of what you say. The problem is that WotC use online data as justification for bannings. If they did it purely on paper tournaments then you'd be totally right. Being aware of decks that are busted online gives players an opportunity to get rid of cards or have an expectations that the deck they're about to buy into is going to eat a ban.
Anecdote time - I started playing in January 2014 had fallen into modern by December 2014, bought storm and started building towards twin. (I feel like you know where this is going) For Christmas 2015 I ordered myself my last cards for the deck - the playset of snapcaster mage. The cards were late arriving and my LGS was shut until the new year. The cards arrive, but I have to go collect them from the post office (I do this on the 9th (Saturday), no rush right?) I miss modern on the 15th and the next potential FNM the deck I spent over a year putting together is banned. I never got to play it at FNM and as you can expect the salt was sky high. I'd expect most players would quit the game if that was their experience of it.
Every player was shocked at that ban, nobody saw it coming. Without online information and informed opinions that will happen to many more players who are just getting into a given format. Without information we won't see bans coming and that will put people off playing the game.
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT
I disagree with this. Myself and many folks I know voiced lots of displeasure for the Twin deck and all it's variants. The main problem was that anytime anyone tried to have a reasonable conversation about it they were laughed out of the room because people refused to believe that a deck that had been around as long as Twin had would ever eat a ban.
than why do so many on here say how far off and pointless mtg goldfish is? even people who are statisticians??
decks playing:
none
its also funny how people on here see there pet deck doing well, and dont care about the health of the format or the fun of others. and say modern is fine! zero problems!
there are several sides to this argument, yours isnt the only one that exists.
decks playing:
none
MTGO admittedly has some idiosyncrasies; no hurt feelings if someone doesn't enjoy it. As it pertains to the change:
1. The problem is that this is the most confidence-eroding method to reducing chances of a "solved" metagame. It's a public declaration of WoTC's own ham-fisted inability to properly shepherd an eternal format through less draconian means. "WoTC: Because there's nothing to solve if you don't get to see the full question!"
2. Feeling represented is much better accomplished by publishing the full list of 5-0s, not a curated subset that will inevitably leave some under-represented decks out.
3. Where did this grudge come from? It's just funny and dumb. You're using "trash" to mean "I don't like it for reasons I can't explain". The data can be used statistically to, at a minimum, describe the online metagame and will be representative of other formats in varying degrees depending on a couple key factors.
Hindsight is 20:20 and I really don't want to instigate one of those discussions but I'll just leave this thread of people saying they didn't see it coming here.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/modern-archives/662745-current-modern-banlist-discussion-1-18-2016-update
The main crux of my point was that if players are surprised by bans it will drive them away unless they are already heavily invested. We have all seen the mess that standard has been in and how it pushed away players who recently bought into decks thinking they'll be fine.
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT
One of two things is happening -- either you're misunderstanding their critiques or they're statisticians in the same sense that I'm a billionaire president of Zimbabwe. MTG Goldfish is far from pointless, but it does sometimes mis-categorize decks, weight results in a funky way, or outright miss a few events. Those are issues in how the data is prepared and analyzed, not the data itself.
A series of random samplings from a population can be used to approximate the entire population. Not to over-complicate things, but this obscure fact is only one of the fundamental properties of statistics.
Very similar (though much more depressing) than my story. I entered Modern with the Modern Event Deck, before discovering Great Nate on YouTube and wanting to build a budget Jeskai Geist deck. After MM15 reprinted half a dozen staples for Twin (Cryptic Command, Vendillion Clique, Remand, Lightning Bolt, Electrolyze, Spellskite, and Splinter Twin itself) I decided to build that instead. Built it, played it, fell in love with it. I had spent the fall and beginning of winter foiling out the deck before having the carpet ripped out from underneath. Shoddy and wildly stretched reasoning meant lots of frustration for the years to come because, outside of one previously-insignificant data point, every tracked number for Twin did not line up whatsoever with every previous diversity ban. The removal of public data means they can do more things like this: make bans and other decisions based on behind-closed-doors numbers that frustrate and confuse the public.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
This is 100% the reason I will never try to foil out a deck!
I do hope that these changes are effective at least, if so I would hope we can look forward to unbans in August.
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT
It honestly was exactly what I've been preaching in this thread
I really think the format has warped around Eldrazi-Tron, not Grixis Death Shadow.
I actually thought I would be fine with my Tier 2 Delver deck and actually completed it minus a few price sideboard cards like Ancestral Vision and Engineered explosives. But I had the entire main deck foil and most of the SB foil, including several goodies like FNM promos, original Ravnica Remands, and full art Bolts. Then they go and ruin that deck by banning Probe. Nothing is safe. Live and learn. At least I didn't also waste money on foil Thoughtseizes, Inquisitions, Wraiths, and Shadows.
If unbans do happen on the horizon, I'm definitely ready. Full set of regular and GP foil Stoneforges, full set of foil Twins, Exarchs, and Pestermites and piles of regulars, two FTV foil Jace, one regular, and plenty of Preordains picked up for bulk prices. After getting burned HARD when AV was unbanned ($6 -> $50), I'm not risking it whatsoever with anything even remotely possible.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I agree with you, I actually think Eldrazi Tron is warping modern more than realized.
I'm not calling for a temple ban or anything, but it is very much an observation I've been making, and only felt more confident in after reading yesterdays Modern Nexus article.
I think maybe it's not healthy that we're seeing a ton of decks cheating out big creatures with fast mana or delve/shadows for 1 mana.
Why would you buy banned cards when the idiot man-children at WotC will never unban anything or make a move that helps the format?
U Merfolk
UB Tezzerator
UB Mill
Let's be honest, that probably should have happened in April of 2016. Before Eldrazi Tron, Bant Eldrazi had been going over the top and wrecking midrange decks for even longer.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Normal decks will never hang in Modern.
Where is Zoo now?
Spirits
This article seems like a very well written version of what I and others have been saying for what feels like 100 odd pages of this forum.
link for the lazy amongst us - http://modernnexus.com/junds-demise-hidden-metagame-warp/
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT
I know this is really just anecdotal evidence at a low level competition tournament, but there is a Zoo player at one of the LGS that I go to. He has done fairly well for himself, admittedly not as well as he'd do with GDS or E Tron though. But he actually is around 50/50 vs. E Tron. I saw him play it and he just had some minor SB adjustments, super good play, and a little luck too.
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)UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW