It may be worth pointing out that arguments for less variance means reducing the number of viable decks. That's reality. While WOTC may pretend the secondary market doesn't exist, any attempt to streamline the format so that some players feel like it is no longer so "matchup dependent" means invalidating the time, money and effort of a sizable chunk of the playerbase. I mean...guys...quad sleeved taking turns!
They have no issue invalidating strategies people have spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours investing in. In the past two years, Modern has lost nearly all of the "faces" and "pillars" of the format. Some through bannings, some through evolving irrelevance. Either way, WOTC has no problem with this happening.
Bans are worth discussion, but metagame shifts due to new cards I think are not. I keep saying it: EVERY single deck runs the risk of being made irrelevant with the next set. Let the buyer beware. In fact, I think that applies to bans as well. I'm talking specifically about people here favoring the reduction of viable modern decks from the twenty or so we have now to...six or whatever number that is probably less than half of what we have now.
Let's be clear that there have always been 20-30+ "viable" Modern decks. This is apparent in the massive diversity among winners and T8 placements at GPs and SCG Opens for many years. Eldrazi Winter and most of the rest of 2016 were the only truly terrible, awful, and miserable times for the format. Modern has otherwise pretty much always been fairly healthy and plenty diverse, even with "only six" stable, top tier decks.
But you are at least making a reasonable argument of a spikey nature. sisicat literally said he wants a pay to win option in modern, and that's worth a bit of laughter.
no he doesn't. That's strawmanning and you know it.
He wants games to have less matchup variance like legacy has, minus the blue dominance. Which is possible with a plethora of positives this format could use.
That doesn't sound very positive to me. We already have one Legacy. Why do we need another?
if you don't think modern needs any better hate, answers, and unbans to improve it further, than why even comment on my post. Your clearly just trolling here
No trolling at all. Just disagreeing with your statement. I don't see why Modern needs to be like Legacy. We already have Legacy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WoTC, thank you for finally announcing the Modern format, an eternal format where everyone can participate.
Go look at how many of those threads have had a post in the last month please, and then at how many of them have top 32'd an event recently. Legacy has been around like what, 10 years longer or more? And most of the "established" decks are completely dead. Even really solid tier 2-ish decks like Aluren and Food Chain get a post like once a month. Because serious legacy players play one of the 8 or so best decks and that is it.
There is much about your post I disagree with, but this is not the time nor the place. I would like to point out that unlike Modern, Legacy has a more dedicated forum outside these boards. On said forum, Aluren has had multiple posts in the last 24 hours.
Legacy is not a format where people just play the best thing always like a Zombie. In fact most Legacy players, like most Modern players, heavily specialise in a particular style of deck, or just one deck in general. I myself, I play Lands and Stax. The majority of the Stax talk and planing is done on Discord. For Modern I play Lantern and I barely ever post about it. I don't feel like there is a lot of discussion to really be had. That's not a slight against Lantern, more a statement of how few slots you have to play with in the deck.
That is also another truth about discussion boards, sometimes there really is very little to discuss, even with a very active deck.
If Legacy were a supported format like Modern, I guarantee almost all the things blue mages love about that format would get banned. Similarly, the format would be even more warped towards a few strategies, once pros dedicated time to solving it like they do for other formats like Modern and Standard.
I disagree with the first half of your statement. I feel like the change would be better overall but I do not think it would actually happen. Second half is true to a point. There is something to be said about your land base costing as much as a decent used car to stop mobility.
On topic.
I feel like Modern's identity is much more broad than Legacy's is. While it is true that a Xerox style deck is always going to had advantages over non Xerox, the rise of cards like Company in Modern or just the existence of Cryptic let's the format show a side that Legacy could never hope to replicate. G/W Company is a lovely pile of odd cards to watch in action, doing something you haven't seen in almost five years in Legacy. Its ability to derive scry and cantrips from its land base make it a lovely and odd sight. Too little credit is given to Modern by both its own players and players outside the format for its openness and capacity to breed new decks. A printing like Crucible Snake creates a new thread for Legacy and blasts a new deck into the top tables in Modern. This is something I love about Modern. That one new card, or in the case of Eggs no new cards, some ingenuity and a person with more creativity than most and bang, new deck.
This has happened in Vintage of late too, with Mentor and Outcome, but it happens so much more often in Modern. And while cards like Shadow will rise to the top, the issues I once saw of Modern not being able to deal with such situations seem to have faded in time. This format can and does regulate itself. Better than it use to as well. Grixis Shadow went from unbeatable to third place in less than four months.
What Modern needs, it I was god and could shape it a little, is a way to remove some of the dependence on sideboard cards to win Matches. If i was to point out a weakness, thats it. The identity of the format is locked in this binary duel, game one is often a toss up, then games two and three can depend on finding that Stony, that Fulminator or that Relic. While Modern is not alone in this (Vintage decks have it much much worse) its does feel like the biggest weakness to me. I also think that is why Grixis has taken off so much. Having a aggressive deck that forces you to have an answer, while having Discard and Counters of their own is a strong game plan that takes some of the weight off the sideboard. These effects are useful in the first game, but also hold value in the supplementary games. Add to that the removal of Shock lands in built drawback and you have something that is guaranteed to appeal.
All that said, I adore the place Modern is in right now. While I do not have access to Smokestack in Modern, therefore it can not be my favorite format, I have not enjoyed it more since the removal of DRS back when I played The Rock with 4 QG main. Its not perfect, but I have no issue with Modern current place and its current environment.
4-3:
Titanshift: 4
UW Control: 2
UR Storm: 1
UR TTB-Emrakul: 1
Results like these really undermine a lot of the Modern critics' arguments. Indeed, almost all the recent Modern data undermines their arguments, which is why most of the posts identifying Modern problems tend to avoid citing data and tourney finishes.
I do agree with an earlier poster that Modern would benefit from reducing its dependence on sideboard answers to win games. This is just another way of saying Modern needs more generic answers, which I think most people here agree it does. But on the scale of format problema, that's like a 3-4 on a scale of 1-10. Many of the critics treat it as a 9-10, which just isn't warranted when you actually look at the results from past months. Because it's only a 3-4, I'm comfortable waiting for those answers to naturally trickle into the format from Standard; play design has made it clear they will keep coming.
4-3:
Titanshift: 4
UW Control: 2
UR Storm: 1
UR TTB-Emrakul: 1
Results like these really undermine a lot of the Modern critics' arguments. Indeed, almost all the recent Modern data undermines their arguments, which is why most of the posts identifying Modern problems tend to avoid citing data and tourney finishes.
I do agree with an earlier poster that Modern would benefit from reducing its dependence on sideboard answers to win games. This is just another way of saying Modern needs more generic answers, which I think most people here agree it does. But on the scale of format problema, that's like a 3-4 on a scale of 1-10. Many of the critics treat it as a 9-10, which just isn't warranted when you actually look at the results from past months. Because it's only a 3-4, I'm comfortable waiting for those answers to naturally trickle into the format from Standard; play design has made it clear they will keep coming.
while this is true it would be nice if we didnt have to wait years. I think that many of us complainers have been patient. even though it hasn't been a quiet patience.
Results like these really undermine a lot of the Modern critics' arguments. Indeed, almost all the recent Modern data undermines their arguments, which is why most of the posts identifying Modern problems tend to avoid citing data and tourney finishes.
As I said earlier, this is virtually no different than almost the entire history of Modern. Plus, the only pieces of "data" we have available are glorified FNM tournaments and small handful of paper Top 8s, several weeks and months apart. "Results like this" are not an excuse for complacency in a format that still has PLENTY of things it can improve on. It's nice that you have the patience to wait another 2+ years for the PD team to make positive changes. Some of us have just moved on to other things in the meantime.
I have taken the time in the past to crunch hard numbers to back this claim up before. However, school is back in session and I have nearly 200 kids to worry about, so the time to do that again (or for other time periods/other events) is not something I have right now. You can look back at my previous analysis of GP Top 8s and perhaps do another one, expanding to other years and SCG Top 8s yourself. But I will firmly stand by the claim that large diversity among decks at a Top 8- (and definitely T32) level has essentially been the norm in Modern for just about every period in its history OTHER THAN 2016. If you want to make this hard claim about diversity, I would love to see it supported by the same level of evidence and reasoning I require from my 8th grade students. If someone wants to do that analysis, I'd love to see the results.
I have taken the time in the past to crunch hard numbers to back this claim up before. However, school is back in session and I have nearly 200 kids to worry about, so the time to do that again (or for other time periods/other events) is not something I have right now. You can look back at my previous analysis of GP Top 8s and perhaps do another one, expanding to other years and SCG Top 8s yourself. But I will firmly stand by the claim that large diversity among decks at a Top 8- (and definitely T32) level has essentially been the norm in Modern for just about every period in its history OTHER THAN 2016. If you want to make this hard claim about diversity, I would love to see it supported by the same level of evidence and reasoning I require from my 8th grade students. If someone wants to do that analysis, I'd love to see the results.
If I recall correctly, those analysis you posted were from before the gitaxian probe banning, so they do not hold up as accurate for today's numbers. Modern is widely regarded as the most open it has ever been, you see it mentioned all the time in posts here and in articles from the pros (in both positive and negative contexts.) Where do you think this impression is coming from? We're a little far removed from Eldrazi winter to say it just feels better in comparison, this sentiment has grown steadily since the GGT and gitaxian probe bans.
If I recall correctly, those analysis you posted were from before the gitaxian probe banning, so they do not hold up as accurate for today's numbers. Modern is widely regarded as the most open it has ever been, you see it mentioned all the time in posts here and in articles from the pros (in both positive and negative contexts.) Where do you think this impression is coming from? We're a little far removed from Eldrazi winter to say it just feels better in comparison, this sentiment has grown steadily since the GGT and gitaxian probe bans.
The problem I have is that the statement: "Modern is more diverse than evarrr!!!" has not been backed up by anyone at any time with any reasonable amount of evidence or support it, in the form of numbers and analysis. Simply repeating something enough times, and giving small, loose, and statistically irrelevant samples with no comparison basis does nothing to actually support that claim.
Side note example: On a Formula 1 forum, I argued that the current generation Mercedes car is too powerful. The Mercedes dominance is greater than any team in history. They have more raw poles and wins, as well as a greater percentage of poles and wins than any other team in F1 history over a 4-year period (and then provided such numbers as support for the various dominance periods of McLaren '88-91, Williams '92-93, Ferrari '01-04, and Red Bull '10-13). I made a claim and I backed it up with with relevant evidence and data that compared the current results with past results.
It's not just this forum, it's a my necessity for arguments. I will gladly concede the point if someone is able to objectively show that Modern is more diverse now than at any point in the past. My very brief look at GP Top 8s of 2015 showed an incredibly diverse field, and other posters have noted that total number of combined T1/T2 decks has remained nearly unchanged when comparing 2015 to today. I would love to see that looked at with more up-to-date results, as well as spanning back farther into Modern's history. I think it's an interesting discussion to be had.
TL;DR - I can't stand people making claims without evidence, and "MODERN IS MORE DIVERSE THAN EVER" is one of those such claims. Sure, it's "diverse," but there are still a LOT of problems the format faces that could be addressed. Simply saying things like "modern is diverse, therefore everything is fine" is a statement that says nothing and helps no one.
The fact that you ignored the rest of my post and did not quote is so sad. And it goes a long way to showcase why you are not willing to make any kind of conversation happen, rather than support random facts just to make your x-deck come back. Well; it isn't coming back.
It was a list of decks. I can go and list all the decks that have had success and top placements in the past. There's some pretty strange ones and really fun brews. This has always been an element of Modern for every point in its history, except for 2016. You could play just about any deck with the right meta call and T8 or even win a GP. This is not new, this is not different. The only difference now is that the clearly defined roles of "Tier 1" decks of the past are gone and the field is more chaotic and random (leading to more varying matchup lotteries, which can create the illusion of increased diversity).
I think a claim like that would be impossible to back up. I will say it feels to me like the jund/twin/pod/tron era had fewer decks that placed, but with only top 8 data I think it'd be too random.
Anyone got the major tournament top 8s in a crunchable format and able to comment? The data appears to be on mtgtop8, but I don't feel like hand tabulating.
I think a claim like that would be impossible to back up. I will say it feels to me like the jund/twin/pod/tron era had fewer decks that placed, but with only top 8 data I think it'd be too random.
Anyone got the major tournament top 8s in a crunchable format and able to comment? The data appears to be on mtgtop8, but I don't feel like hand tabulating.
I did mine by hand using mtgtop8, pulling from all GPs in a time range. Luckily, they have a tab to sort all PT/GP separately. It gets really dicey when trying to look for SCG Opens and such. I took to doing a few of these things on my own, mostly because I greatly miss the analysis and crunching that used to be provided at Modern Nexus.
And yeah, Top 8s ARE pretty random, because Modern is a format where just about ANY deck at ANY time could Top 8 a large event. It has basically ALWAYS been this way, and that was my entire point.
Results like these really undermine a lot of the Modern critics' arguments. Indeed, almost all the recent Modern data undermines their arguments, which is why most of the posts identifying Modern problems tend to avoid citing data and tourney finishes.
As I said earlier, this is virtually no different than almost the entire history of Modern. Plus, the only pieces of "data" we have available are glorified FNM tournaments and small handful of paper Top 8s, several weeks and months apart. "Results like this" are not an excuse for complacency in a format that still has PLENTY of things it can improve on. It's nice that you have the patience to wait another 2+ years for the PD team to make positive changes. Some of us have just moved on to other things in the meantime.
I don't see how it can get much better. I think we're at peak Modern right now. So far, I haven't seen anything Ixalan that will cause a severe imbalance, but you can never tell for sure. But we need to enjoy this format as it is right now. It may never get to this good of a spot ever again.
P.S. gkourou's post rawks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WoTC, thank you for finally announcing the Modern format, an eternal format where everyone can participate.
Modern is more diverse than ever indeed. I repost my previous post, because this so called certain minority does try to ignore my valid points and arguments.
Modern is vastly different than other times, it's more diverse and it's got no 3ple top 8's. For example, in the past years, if you did want to play:
A ramp deck, you had to go Tron. You can go with Eldra Tron, Gx Tron, Titanshift, Titanbreach now.
An aggro deck, sure, you could play plenty. But there's plenty more now(5c humans, Elves, Dredge, etc)
Midrange, you had to play Jund(or maybe Abzan). There's Grixis Shadow, Jund Shadow in addition to them(some people count Eldra Tron as midrange-y as well) meaning decks like Jund or Abzan. Even BG Rock is back on the map.
Toolbox decks, well you could play Pod. That was it. There's Bant Knightall, Abzan Company, GW company, the Todd Stevens GW Value Town deck, etc.
Control decks, you should play a certain deck. You can play UW with great success now, Jeskai Queller or Jeskai Control seems to be in a great position
Combo decks, well, there were many at times. There is Storm, Ad Nauseam, Amulet Titan, various Reanimator decks, Taking Turns decks, etc atm.)
White-Based Death and Taxes decks or White-based decks in general. You just could not. Now, you can. At various forms also. May it be Eldrazi and Taxes, Mono W Death and Taxes, GW Hatebears
Prison decks. Well, there were not any. There is Lantern Control and RW Prison now.
New strategies are popping up to catch up with the meta, decks like BW Smallpox and others.
Modern is MORE DIVERSE than any other time, it's not even comparable to an era where we used to see "2 Jund, 2 redacted, 2 Affinity, 2 random decks" or older where we used to see "2-3 Pod, 2 Affinity, 2 Jund, 1 Control deck".
It's like "1 Bant Knightfall, 1 grixis Shadow, 1 BG Rock, 1 Affinity, 1 Jeskai Control, 1 Lantern Prison, 1 Burn, 1 Junk" now. And it's much, much better.
Oh, and every time a new deck is winning a certain event.
Just look at the past GP Top8's or SCG Top 8's or Modern Challenges.
It's just like how you ignore our what's wrong with Modern comments too. I already see forum favoritism in effect from the mods, the post that's flamed me still has not received a warning which just confirms my theory that there is favoritism. I'm very surprised the mods have not revised the rules that anything negative about Modern is banned from discussion. You cannot criticize Modern in any way without sounding remotely negative at all because if you are positive, your point does not come across as intended. Just look at ktkenshin's post about generic answers, he posted it in a positive way and it got brushed off like it wasn't a problem in the format.
It's just like how you ignore our what's wrong with Modern comments too. I already see forum favoritism in effect from the mods, the post that's flamed me still has not received a warning which just confirms my theory that there is favoritism. I'm very surprised the mods have not revised the rules that anything negative about Modern is banned from discussion. You cannot criticize Modern in any way without sounding remotely negative at all because if you are positive, your point does not come across as intended. Just look at ktkenshin's post about generic answers, he posted it in a positive way and it got brushed off like it wasn't a problem in the format.
We don't have a problem with people critiquing the format. What we have an issue with is that people will avoid looking at a lot of what is good with the format - such as the deck diversity - just to focus on their personal pet peeves, and will also ignore the results. The Modern Challenges have been described as "basically just a big FNM" and as such aren't worth considering because it doesn't fit some people's narrative of Modern.
Also, you have to personally recognize that what you want out of the format is not what the majority of players, WotC, or even the Hasbro shareholders want. You want a format to be solvable so that you can have a high win percentage. At that point why are you even playing Magic when there are other games without the inherent variance, and that also provide a decent prize? You seem like you're trying to treat Magic as if it's a job and then blaming WotC because your margins are down, rather than take responsibility for the fact that choosing Magic as your career is a super dumb thing to do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Well, I can saw a woman in two, but you won't wanna look in the box when I'm through.
Modern is more diverse than ever indeed. I repost my previous post, because this so called certain minority does try to ignore my valid points and arguments.
Modern is vastly different than other times, it's more diverse and it's got no 3ple top 8's. For example, in the past years, if you did want to play:
A ramp deck, you had to go Tron. You can go with Eldra Tron, Gx Tron, Titanshift, Titanbreach now.
An aggro deck, sure, you could play plenty. But there's plenty more now(5c humans, Elves, Dredge, etc)
Midrange, you had to play Jund(or maybe Abzan). There's Grixis Shadow, Jund Shadow in addition to them(some people count Eldra Tron as midrange-y as well) meaning decks like Jund or Abzan. Even BG Rock is back on the map.
Toolbox decks, well you could play Pod. That was it. There's Bant Knightall, Abzan Company, GW company, the Todd Stevens GW Value Town deck, etc.
Control decks, you should play a certain deck. You can play UW with great success now, Jeskai Queller or Jeskai Control seems to be in a great position
Combo decks, well, there were many at times. There is Storm, Ad Nauseam, Amulet Titan, various Reanimator decks, Taking Turns decks, etc atm.)
White-Based Death and Taxes decks or White-based decks in general. You just could not. Now, you can. At various forms also. May it be Eldrazi and Taxes, Mono W Death and Taxes, GW Hatebears
Prison decks. Well, there were not any. There is Lantern Control and RW Prison now.
New strategies are popping up to catch up with the meta, decks like BW Smallpox and others.
Modern is MORE DIVERSE than any other time, it's not even comparable to an era where we used to see "2 Jund, 2 redacted, 2 Affinity, 2 random decks" or older where we used to see "2-3 Pod, 2 Affinity, 2 Jund, 1 Control deck".
It's like "1 Bant Knightfall, 1 grixis Shadow, 1 BG Rock, 1 Affinity, 1 Jeskai Control, 1 Lantern Prison, 1 Burn, 1 Junk" now. And it's much, much better.
Oh, and every time a new deck is winning a certain event.
Just look at the past GP Top8's or SCG Top 8's or Modern Challenges.
It's just like how you ignore our what's wrong with Modern comments too. I already see forum favoritism in effect from the mods, the post that's flamed me still has not received a warning which just confirms my theory that there is favoritism. I'm very surprised the mods have not revised the rules that anything negative about Modern is banned from discussion. You cannot criticize Modern in any way without sounding remotely negative at all because if you are positive, your point does not come across as intended. Just look at ktkenshin's post about generic answers, he posted it in a positive way and it got brushed off like it wasn't a problem in the format.
Sorry, I don't see anything wrong with this format right now. It might not be what you like, but that doesn't mean there's something wrong here. People have freedom to choose so many different decks and all of them can do well at small and large tourneys. This is as close to ideal as Magic has ever been.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WoTC, thank you for finally announcing the Modern format, an eternal format where everyone can participate.
It's just like how you ignore our what's wrong with Modern comments too. I already see forum favoritism in effect from the mods, the post that's flamed me still has not received a warning which just confirms my theory that there is favoritism. I'm very surprised the mods have not revised the rules that anything negative about Modern is banned from discussion. You cannot criticize Modern in any way without sounding remotely negative at all because if you are positive, your point does not come across as intended. Just look at ktkenshin's post about generic answers, he posted it in a positive way and it got brushed off like it wasn't a problem in the format.
We don't have a problem with people critiquing the format. What we have an issue with is that people will avoid looking at a lot of what is good with the format - such as the deck diversity - just to focus on their personal pet peeves, and will also ignore the results. The Modern Challenges have been described as "basically just a big FNM" and as such aren't worth considering because it doesn't fit some people's narrative of Modern.
Also, you have to personally recognize that what you want out of the format is not what the majority of players, WotC, or even the Hasbro shareholders want. You want a format to be solvable so that you can have a high win percentage. At that point why are you even playing Magic when there are other games without the inherent variance, and that also provide a decent prize? You seem like you're trying to treat Magic as if it's a job and then blaming WotC because your margins are down, rather than take responsibility for the fact that choosing Magic as your career is a super dumb thing to do.
If diversity is a "good" thing, I can't find anything positive about the format because diversity is the reason I hate the format. If Magic is supposed to be just a "game", it certainly isn't priced appropriately to be sold in such a fashion. You literally have to spend an amount of money that the large majority of people really cannot afford and wealth redistribution is a complete joke and why MTG cannot be considered an e-sport. That's why if you have to make profit, the only path to doing that is winning all your matches. Any result that isn't first place in a lot of tournaments means you are losing money and time, especially when the format you are forced to play in PPTQs for 3 months of the year is a format you hate. I think if I was going to start liking Modern again, you'd would need to begin with needing better answers to everything. Anything that would reduce the amount of non-games you have to play. As it stands, any deck I choose to register, I am at the mercy of a poor pairing which is completely out of my control. I want to play games of Magic in Modern, but I cannot when the tools are not available to help with that purpose. I have no problem losing to someone who is head and shoulders better than me at playing Magic, I do however have a problem when I am losing to someone who just happened to have the perfect counter deck to my deck of choice and plays like garbage and I chose not to prepare for it because I didn't have room in my 75 to try and beat it. That's what diversity does, you have to gamble and coinflip your matchups that you have no control over.
Modern is more diverse than ever indeed. I repost my previous post, because this so called certain minority does try to ignore my valid points and arguments.
Modern is vastly different than other times, it's more diverse and it's got no 3ple top 8's. For example, in the past years, if you did want to play:
A ramp deck, you had to go Tron. You can go with Eldra Tron, Gx Tron, Titanshift, Titanbreach now.
An aggro deck, sure, you could play plenty. But there's plenty more now(5c humans, Elves, Dredge, etc)
Midrange, you had to play Jund(or maybe Abzan). There's Grixis Shadow, Jund Shadow in addition to them(some people count Eldra Tron as midrange-y as well) meaning decks like Jund or Abzan. Even BG Rock is back on the map.
Toolbox decks, well you could play Pod. That was it. There's Bant Knightall, Abzan Company, GW company, the Todd Stevens GW Value Town deck, etc.
Control decks, you should play a certain deck. You can play UW with great success now, Jeskai Queller or Jeskai Control seems to be in a great position
Combo decks, well, there were many at times. There is Storm, Ad Nauseam, Amulet Titan, various Reanimator decks, Taking Turns decks, etc atm.)
White-Based Death and Taxes decks or White-based decks in general. You just could not. Now, you can. At various forms also. May it be Eldrazi and Taxes, Mono W Death and Taxes, GW Hatebears
Prison decks. Well, there were not any. There is Lantern Control and RW Prison now.
New strategies are popping up to catch up with the meta, decks like BW Smallpox and others.
Modern is MORE DIVERSE than any other time, it's not even comparable to an era where we used to see "2 Jund, 2 redacted, 2 Affinity, 2 random decks" or older where we used to see "2-3 Pod, 2 Affinity, 2 Jund, 1 Control deck".
It's like "1 Bant Knightfall, 1 grixis Shadow, 1 BG Rock, 1 Affinity, 1 Jeskai Control, 1 Lantern Prison, 1 Burn, 1 Junk" now. And it's much, much better.
Oh, and every time a new deck is winning a certain event.
Just look at the past GP Top8's or SCG Top 8's or Modern Challenges.
It's just like how you ignore our what's wrong with Modern comments too. I already see forum favoritism in effect from the mods, the post that's flamed me still has not received a warning which just confirms my theory that there is favoritism. I'm very surprised the mods have not revised the rules that anything negative about Modern is banned from discussion. You cannot criticize Modern in any way without sounding remotely negative at all because if you are positive, your point does not come across as intended. Just look at ktkenshin's post about generic answers, he posted it in a positive way and it got brushed off like it wasn't a problem in the format.
Sorry, I don't see anything wrong with this format right now. It might not be what you like, but that doesn't mean there's something wrong here. People have freedom to choose so many different decks and all of them can do well at small and large tourneys. This is as close to ideal as Magic has ever been.
Sure, that may be a selling point for you. As a result of that, players that play poorly in game, are beating Platinum level pros with poor play on a regular basis which leads me to believe that in-game skill is not rewarded often enough. That's how I get my perception that in-game playskill has little to no impact in Modern when a Platinum level Pro is capable of losing so easily to a person who just go their DCI number on the day of the tournament.
Public Mod Note
(Xaricore):
Infraction issued for repeated Format Bashing
Modern is more diverse than ever indeed. I repost my previous post, because this so called certain minority does try to ignore my valid points and arguments.
Modern is vastly different than other times, it's more diverse and it's got no 3ple top 8's. For example, in the past years, if you did want to play:
A ramp deck, you had to go Tron. You can go with Eldra Tron, Gx Tron, Titanshift, Titanbreach now.
An aggro deck, sure, you could play plenty. But there's plenty more now(5c humans, Elves, Dredge, etc)
Midrange, you had to play Jund(or maybe Abzan). There's Grixis Shadow, Jund Shadow in addition to them(some people count Eldra Tron as midrange-y as well) meaning decks like Jund or Abzan. Even BG Rock is back on the map.
Toolbox decks, well you could play Pod. That was it. There's Bant Knightall, Abzan Company, GW company, the Todd Stevens GW Value Town deck, etc.
Control decks, you should play a certain deck. You can play UW with great success now, Jeskai Queller or Jeskai Control seems to be in a great position
Combo decks, well, there were many at times. There is Storm, Ad Nauseam, Amulet Titan, various Reanimator decks, Taking Turns decks, etc atm.)
White-Based Death and Taxes decks or White-based decks in general. You just could not. Now, you can. At various forms also. May it be Eldrazi and Taxes, Mono W Death and Taxes, GW Hatebears
Prison decks. Well, there were not any. There is Lantern Control and RW Prison now.
New strategies are popping up to catch up with the meta, decks like BW Smallpox and others.
Modern is MORE DIVERSE than any other time, it's not even comparable to an era where we used to see "2 Jund, 2 redacted, 2 Affinity, 2 random decks" or older where we used to see "2-3 Pod, 2 Affinity, 2 Jund, 1 Control deck".
It's like "1 Bant Knightfall, 1 grixis Shadow, 1 BG Rock, 1 Affinity, 1 Jeskai Control, 1 Lantern Prison, 1 Burn, 1 Junk" now. And it's much, much better.
Oh, and every time a new deck is winning a certain event.
Just look at the past GP Top8's or SCG Top 8's or Modern Challenges.
In case it wasn't clear, or perhaps was missed, here's a quick breakdown from another poster just after yours:
I have excluded the team unified tournaments and the other mixed events, but i have included the pro tour for its relevance.
The suddivision in archetypes is really a subjective thing, and some i actually didn't know how to classify well (es Twin Decks, Death Shadows, Eldrazi Tron etc.) However even considering only the number of decks that top8ed/top16ed, the result is more or less the same for both years.
Sorry, I don't see anything wrong with this format right now. It might not be what you like, but that doesn't mean there's something wrong here. People have freedom to choose so many different decks and all of them can do well at small and large tourneys. This is as close to ideal as Magic has ever been.
The lack of a clear and defined "Tier 1" means that preparing for an event is miserable, sideboards are stretched incredibly thin, and the chances of auto-losing to a weird or poor matchup is much higher. It increases variance, reduces impact of skill, and encourages games that are non-games. As a result, the most prominent strategies are ones that attack quickly or through an odd axis that is difficult to interact with. Dredge, Storm, Valakut, Eldrazi, etc, promote toxic gameplay and do not make the format better.
I'll repeat this yet again: people have always had the freedom to bring many different decks and have a chance to do well with good metagaming and a little luck. The excel link above is a perfect example. The difference between then and now is that the "establishment" of preparedness is basically completely gone and your preparations (and sideboards) are stretched incredibly thin over a ton of narrow decks; amplifying your risk of random bad matchups and sideboard lottery blowouts.
Modern is more diverse than ever indeed. I repost my previous post, because this so called certain minority does try to ignore my valid points and arguments.
Modern is vastly different than other times, it's more diverse and it's got no 3ple top 8's. For example, in the past years, if you did want to play:
A ramp deck, you had to go Tron. You can go with Eldra Tron, Gx Tron, Titanshift, Titanbreach now.
An aggro deck, sure, you could play plenty. But there's plenty more now(5c humans, Elves, Dredge, etc)
Midrange, you had to play Jund(or maybe Abzan). There's Grixis Shadow, Jund Shadow in addition to them(some people count Eldra Tron as midrange-y as well) meaning decks like Jund or Abzan. Even BG Rock is back on the map.
Toolbox decks, well you could play Pod. That was it. There's Bant Knightall, Abzan Company, GW company, the Todd Stevens GW Value Town deck, etc.
Control decks, you should play a certain deck. You can play UW with great success now, Jeskai Queller or Jeskai Control seems to be in a great position
Combo decks, well, there were many at times. There is Storm, Ad Nauseam, Amulet Titan, various Reanimator decks, Taking Turns decks, etc atm.)
White-Based Death and Taxes decks or White-based decks in general. You just could not. Now, you can. At various forms also. May it be Eldrazi and Taxes, Mono W Death and Taxes, GW Hatebears
Prison decks. Well, there were not any. There is Lantern Control and RW Prison now.
New strategies are popping up to catch up with the meta, decks like BW Smallpox and others.
Modern is MORE DIVERSE than any other time, it's not even comparable to an era where we used to see "2 Jund, 2 redacted, 2 Affinity, 2 random decks" or older where we used to see "2-3 Pod, 2 Affinity, 2 Jund, 1 Control deck".
It's like "1 Bant Knightfall, 1 grixis Shadow, 1 BG Rock, 1 Affinity, 1 Jeskai Control, 1 Lantern Prison, 1 Burn, 1 Junk" now. And it's much, much better.
Oh, and every time a new deck is winning a certain event.
Just look at the past GP Top8's or SCG Top 8's or Modern Challenges.
In case it wasn't clear, or perhaps was missed, here's a quick breakdown from another poster just after yours:
I have excluded the team unified tournaments and the other mixed events, but i have included the pro tour for its relevance.
The suddivision in archetypes is really a subjective thing, and some i actually didn't know how to classify well (es Twin Decks, Death Shadows, Eldrazi Tron etc.) However even considering only the number of decks that top8ed/top16ed, the result is more or less the same for both years.
Sorry, I don't see anything wrong with this format right now. It might not be what you like, but that doesn't mean there's something wrong here. People have freedom to choose so many different decks and all of them can do well at small and large tourneys. This is as close to ideal as Magic has ever been.
The lack of a clear and defined "Tier 1" means that preparing for an event is miserable, sideboards are stretched incredibly thin, and the chances of auto-losing to a weird or poor matchup is much higher. It increases variance, reduces impact of skill, and encourages games that are non-games. As a result, the most prominent strategies are ones that attack quickly or through an odd axis that is difficult to interact with. Dredge, Storm, Valakut, Eldrazi, etc, promote toxic gameplay and do not make the format better.
I'll repeat this yet again: people have always had the freedom to bring many different decks and have a chance to do well with good metagaming and a little luck. The excel link above is a perfect example. The difference between then and now is that the "establishment" of preparedness is basically completely gone and your preparations (and sideboards) are stretched incredibly thin over a ton of narrow decks; amplifying your risk of random bad matchups and sideboard lottery blowouts.
well said. unbans and new cards could help this. since bans wont happen unless something dominates (even if some decks are a large contributor to the lottery match ups)
overall a decent format atm, but most certainly improvable. id give it a 7/10.
Based on my previous PTQ results and my previous 5 or 6 leagues, all I have to say is:
It's just a shame that these sparse, small events, which have always shown diversity throughout the history of the format, are the only source of data we have access to today, outside paper events that only occur in isolation every several months and all at once (meaning people can't observe and evolve from one to the other on the same weekend). It's also a shame to see no response to the negative impacts on play (especially competitive play) with the increase of variance lotteries in both matchups and sideboards. Never mind that the biggest point that overall diversity among decks is.... shockingly: about the same.
I'm glad you think everything is sunshine and roses, I do not. There are some massive downsides that come from the format as it exists today, many of which have been stated and repeated multiple times by multiple people. Things are different than any other time in Modern's past, but I don't necessarily feel the current state is any better, for a laundry list of reasons stated multiple times already.
I have excluded the team unified tournaments and the other mixed events, but i have included the pro tour for its relevance.
The suddivision in archetypes is really a subjective thing, and some i actually didn't know how to classify well (es Twin Decks, Death Shadows, Eldrazi Tron etc.)
However even considering only the number of decks that top8ed/top16ed, the result is more or less the same for both years.
Thanks for this data, it's great to see the numbers, I hope you can continue it for the remainder of the year.
So after reading that anyone claiming diversity is definitely higher than ever really needs to add IMO or anecdotally to their statements. Diversity within any reasonable margin of error is unchanged (and tempo/combo has gone entirely which is hardly a positive).
However, the texture of the format has changed significantly (ie distribution and ratio of decks traditionally seen as problems) fast aggro and combo seem to have dropped significantly.
What most players are perceiving as increased diversity is probably the increased number of midrange and control decks.
Personally I'm a fan of control so the larger the slice of the pie the happier I will be.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern - E-Tron & UWControl
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Let's be clear that there have always been 20-30+ "viable" Modern decks. This is apparent in the massive diversity among winners and T8 placements at GPs and SCG Opens for many years. Eldrazi Winter and most of the rest of 2016 were the only truly terrible, awful, and miserable times for the format. Modern has otherwise pretty much always been fairly healthy and plenty diverse, even with "only six" stable, top tier decks.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
No trolling at all. Just disagreeing with your statement. I don't see why Modern needs to be like Legacy. We already have Legacy.
There is much about your post I disagree with, but this is not the time nor the place. I would like to point out that unlike Modern, Legacy has a more dedicated forum outside these boards. On said forum, Aluren has had multiple posts in the last 24 hours.
Legacy is not a format where people just play the best thing always like a Zombie. In fact most Legacy players, like most Modern players, heavily specialise in a particular style of deck, or just one deck in general. I myself, I play Lands and Stax. The majority of the Stax talk and planing is done on Discord. For Modern I play Lantern and I barely ever post about it. I don't feel like there is a lot of discussion to really be had. That's not a slight against Lantern, more a statement of how few slots you have to play with in the deck.
That is also another truth about discussion boards, sometimes there really is very little to discuss, even with a very active deck.
I disagree with the first half of your statement. I feel like the change would be better overall but I do not think it would actually happen. Second half is true to a point. There is something to be said about your land base costing as much as a decent used car to stop mobility.
On topic.
I feel like Modern's identity is much more broad than Legacy's is. While it is true that a Xerox style deck is always going to had advantages over non Xerox, the rise of cards like Company in Modern or just the existence of Cryptic let's the format show a side that Legacy could never hope to replicate. G/W Company is a lovely pile of odd cards to watch in action, doing something you haven't seen in almost five years in Legacy. Its ability to derive scry and cantrips from its land base make it a lovely and odd sight. Too little credit is given to Modern by both its own players and players outside the format for its openness and capacity to breed new decks. A printing like Crucible Snake creates a new thread for Legacy and blasts a new deck into the top tables in Modern. This is something I love about Modern. That one new card, or in the case of Eggs no new cards, some ingenuity and a person with more creativity than most and bang, new deck.
This has happened in Vintage of late too, with Mentor and Outcome, but it happens so much more often in Modern. And while cards like Shadow will rise to the top, the issues I once saw of Modern not being able to deal with such situations seem to have faded in time. This format can and does regulate itself. Better than it use to as well. Grixis Shadow went from unbeatable to third place in less than four months.
What Modern needs, it I was god and could shape it a little, is a way to remove some of the dependence on sideboard cards to win Matches. If i was to point out a weakness, thats it. The identity of the format is locked in this binary duel, game one is often a toss up, then games two and three can depend on finding that Stony, that Fulminator or that Relic. While Modern is not alone in this (Vintage decks have it much much worse) its does feel like the biggest weakness to me. I also think that is why Grixis has taken off so much. Having a aggressive deck that forces you to have an answer, while having Discard and Counters of their own is a strong game plan that takes some of the weight off the sideboard. These effects are useful in the first game, but also hold value in the supplementary games. Add to that the removal of Shock lands in built drawback and you have something that is guaranteed to appeal.
All that said, I adore the place Modern is in right now. While I do not have access to Smokestack in Modern, therefore it can not be my favorite format, I have not enjoyed it more since the removal of DRS back when I played The Rock with 4 QG main. Its not perfect, but I have no issue with Modern current place and its current environment.
Current decks of choice:
Vintage: Shops.
Legacy: Lands.
Modern: Lantern.
Really?
With the things I'm asking modern would not be legacy. It would be a better modern...
If that's what you disagree with that than good for you. We will never agree on this.
decks playing:
none
I still say we should ban Puresteel Paladin Cheerios is too good. /s
Results like these really undermine a lot of the Modern critics' arguments. Indeed, almost all the recent Modern data undermines their arguments, which is why most of the posts identifying Modern problems tend to avoid citing data and tourney finishes.
I do agree with an earlier poster that Modern would benefit from reducing its dependence on sideboard answers to win games. This is just another way of saying Modern needs more generic answers, which I think most people here agree it does. But on the scale of format problema, that's like a 3-4 on a scale of 1-10. Many of the critics treat it as a 9-10, which just isn't warranted when you actually look at the results from past months. Because it's only a 3-4, I'm comfortable waiting for those answers to naturally trickle into the format from Standard; play design has made it clear they will keep coming.
decks playing:
none
Looks like people are starting to put more artifact hate in their sideboards to tamp down Affinity. Time to switch to Dredge!
Where do you see this info?
As I said earlier, this is virtually no different than almost the entire history of Modern. Plus, the only pieces of "data" we have available are glorified FNM tournaments and small handful of paper Top 8s, several weeks and months apart. "Results like this" are not an excuse for complacency in a format that still has PLENTY of things it can improve on. It's nice that you have the patience to wait another 2+ years for the PD team to make positive changes. Some of us have just moved on to other things in the meantime.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I have taken the time in the past to crunch hard numbers to back this claim up before. However, school is back in session and I have nearly 200 kids to worry about, so the time to do that again (or for other time periods/other events) is not something I have right now. You can look back at my previous analysis of GP Top 8s and perhaps do another one, expanding to other years and SCG Top 8s yourself. But I will firmly stand by the claim that large diversity among decks at a Top 8- (and definitely T32) level has essentially been the norm in Modern for just about every period in its history OTHER THAN 2016. If you want to make this hard claim about diversity, I would love to see it supported by the same level of evidence and reasoning I require from my 8th grade students. If someone wants to do that analysis, I'd love to see the results.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
If I recall correctly, those analysis you posted were from before the gitaxian probe banning, so they do not hold up as accurate for today's numbers. Modern is widely regarded as the most open it has ever been, you see it mentioned all the time in posts here and in articles from the pros (in both positive and negative contexts.) Where do you think this impression is coming from? We're a little far removed from Eldrazi winter to say it just feels better in comparison, this sentiment has grown steadily since the GGT and gitaxian probe bans.
U Merfolk
UB Tezzerator
UB Mill
The problem I have is that the statement: "Modern is more diverse than evarrr!!!" has not been backed up by anyone at any time with any reasonable amount of evidence or support it, in the form of numbers and analysis. Simply repeating something enough times, and giving small, loose, and statistically irrelevant samples with no comparison basis does nothing to actually support that claim.
Side note example: On a Formula 1 forum, I argued that the current generation Mercedes car is too powerful. The Mercedes dominance is greater than any team in history. They have more raw poles and wins, as well as a greater percentage of poles and wins than any other team in F1 history over a 4-year period (and then provided such numbers as support for the various dominance periods of McLaren '88-91, Williams '92-93, Ferrari '01-04, and Red Bull '10-13). I made a claim and I backed it up with with relevant evidence and data that compared the current results with past results.
It's not just this forum, it's a my necessity for arguments. I will gladly concede the point if someone is able to objectively show that Modern is more diverse now than at any point in the past. My very brief look at GP Top 8s of 2015 showed an incredibly diverse field, and other posters have noted that total number of combined T1/T2 decks has remained nearly unchanged when comparing 2015 to today. I would love to see that looked at with more up-to-date results, as well as spanning back farther into Modern's history. I think it's an interesting discussion to be had.
TL;DR - I can't stand people making claims without evidence, and "MODERN IS MORE DIVERSE THAN EVER" is one of those such claims. Sure, it's "diverse," but there are still a LOT of problems the format faces that could be addressed. Simply saying things like "modern is diverse, therefore everything is fine" is a statement that says nothing and helps no one.
It was a list of decks. I can go and list all the decks that have had success and top placements in the past. There's some pretty strange ones and really fun brews. This has always been an element of Modern for every point in its history, except for 2016. You could play just about any deck with the right meta call and T8 or even win a GP. This is not new, this is not different. The only difference now is that the clearly defined roles of "Tier 1" decks of the past are gone and the field is more chaotic and random (leading to more varying matchup lotteries, which can create the illusion of increased diversity).
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Anyone got the major tournament top 8s in a crunchable format and able to comment? The data appears to be on mtgtop8, but I don't feel like hand tabulating.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
I did mine by hand using mtgtop8, pulling from all GPs in a time range. Luckily, they have a tab to sort all PT/GP separately. It gets really dicey when trying to look for SCG Opens and such. I took to doing a few of these things on my own, mostly because I greatly miss the analysis and crunching that used to be provided at Modern Nexus.
And yeah, Top 8s ARE pretty random, because Modern is a format where just about ANY deck at ANY time could Top 8 a large event. It has basically ALWAYS been this way, and that was my entire point.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I don't see how it can get much better. I think we're at peak Modern right now. So far, I haven't seen anything Ixalan that will cause a severe imbalance, but you can never tell for sure. But we need to enjoy this format as it is right now. It may never get to this good of a spot ever again.
P.S. gkourou's post rawks.
It's just like how you ignore our what's wrong with Modern comments too. I already see forum favoritism in effect from the mods, the post that's flamed me still has not received a warning which just confirms my theory that there is favoritism. I'm very surprised the mods have not revised the rules that anything negative about Modern is banned from discussion. You cannot criticize Modern in any way without sounding remotely negative at all because if you are positive, your point does not come across as intended. Just look at ktkenshin's post about generic answers, he posted it in a positive way and it got brushed off like it wasn't a problem in the format.
We don't have a problem with people critiquing the format. What we have an issue with is that people will avoid looking at a lot of what is good with the format - such as the deck diversity - just to focus on their personal pet peeves, and will also ignore the results. The Modern Challenges have been described as "basically just a big FNM" and as such aren't worth considering because it doesn't fit some people's narrative of Modern.
Also, you have to personally recognize that what you want out of the format is not what the majority of players, WotC, or even the Hasbro shareholders want. You want a format to be solvable so that you can have a high win percentage. At that point why are you even playing Magic when there are other games without the inherent variance, and that also provide a decent prize? You seem like you're trying to treat Magic as if it's a job and then blaming WotC because your margins are down, rather than take responsibility for the fact that choosing Magic as your career is a super dumb thing to do.
Sorry, I don't see anything wrong with this format right now. It might not be what you like, but that doesn't mean there's something wrong here. People have freedom to choose so many different decks and all of them can do well at small and large tourneys. This is as close to ideal as Magic has ever been.
If diversity is a "good" thing, I can't find anything positive about the format because diversity is the reason I hate the format. If Magic is supposed to be just a "game", it certainly isn't priced appropriately to be sold in such a fashion. You literally have to spend an amount of money that the large majority of people really cannot afford and wealth redistribution is a complete joke and why MTG cannot be considered an e-sport. That's why if you have to make profit, the only path to doing that is winning all your matches. Any result that isn't first place in a lot of tournaments means you are losing money and time, especially when the format you are forced to play in PPTQs for 3 months of the year is a format you hate. I think if I was going to start liking Modern again, you'd would need to begin with needing better answers to everything. Anything that would reduce the amount of non-games you have to play. As it stands, any deck I choose to register, I am at the mercy of a poor pairing which is completely out of my control. I want to play games of Magic in Modern, but I cannot when the tools are not available to help with that purpose. I have no problem losing to someone who is head and shoulders better than me at playing Magic, I do however have a problem when I am losing to someone who just happened to have the perfect counter deck to my deck of choice and plays like garbage and I chose not to prepare for it because I didn't have room in my 75 to try and beat it. That's what diversity does, you have to gamble and coinflip your matchups that you have no control over.
Sure, that may be a selling point for you. As a result of that, players that play poorly in game, are beating Platinum level pros with poor play on a regular basis which leads me to believe that in-game skill is not rewarded often enough. That's how I get my perception that in-game playskill has little to no impact in Modern when a Platinum level Pro is capable of losing so easily to a person who just go their DCI number on the day of the tournament.
In case it wasn't clear, or perhaps was missed, here's a quick breakdown from another poster just after yours:
The lack of a clear and defined "Tier 1" means that preparing for an event is miserable, sideboards are stretched incredibly thin, and the chances of auto-losing to a weird or poor matchup is much higher. It increases variance, reduces impact of skill, and encourages games that are non-games. As a result, the most prominent strategies are ones that attack quickly or through an odd axis that is difficult to interact with. Dredge, Storm, Valakut, Eldrazi, etc, promote toxic gameplay and do not make the format better.
I'll repeat this yet again: people have always had the freedom to bring many different decks and have a chance to do well with good metagaming and a little luck. The excel link above is a perfect example. The difference between then and now is that the "establishment" of preparedness is basically completely gone and your preparations (and sideboards) are stretched incredibly thin over a ton of narrow decks; amplifying your risk of random bad matchups and sideboard lottery blowouts.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
overall a decent format atm, but most certainly improvable. id give it a 7/10.
decks playing:
none
It's just a shame that these sparse, small events, which have always shown diversity throughout the history of the format, are the only source of data we have access to today, outside paper events that only occur in isolation every several months and all at once (meaning people can't observe and evolve from one to the other on the same weekend). It's also a shame to see no response to the negative impacts on play (especially competitive play) with the increase of variance lotteries in both matchups and sideboards. Never mind that the biggest point that overall diversity among decks is.... shockingly: about the same.
I'm glad you think everything is sunshine and roses, I do not. There are some massive downsides that come from the format as it exists today, many of which have been stated and repeated multiple times by multiple people. Things are different than any other time in Modern's past, but I don't necessarily feel the current state is any better, for a laundry list of reasons stated multiple times already.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Thanks for this data, it's great to see the numbers, I hope you can continue it for the remainder of the year.
So after reading that anyone claiming diversity is definitely higher than ever really needs to add IMO or anecdotally to their statements. Diversity within any reasonable margin of error is unchanged (and tempo/combo has gone entirely which is hardly a positive).
However, the texture of the format has changed significantly (ie distribution and ratio of decks traditionally seen as problems) fast aggro and combo seem to have dropped significantly.
What most players are perceiving as increased diversity is probably the increased number of midrange and control decks.
Personally I'm a fan of control so the larger the slice of the pie the happier I will be.
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT