Storm has a critical role in the meta (I mean it wouldn't HAVE to be storm, but that's the deck doing it now). First, it is keeping in check ramp. Anyone who hates Tron or Valakut decks should be happy it exists to fight those two. Second, it falls prey to the old disruption + clock thing, so if you like jeskai flash and grixis shadow being around playing fair, one big reason is they do pretty well against storm.
Perhaps complaints about it being able to win even against bad matchups is more a reminder that the "it's all luck in getting the right matchups" negativity around modern is a bit misguided. Being a 2:1 dog means you still win sometimes...
Yesssss you said it. Tron is gone from my LGS, I've never been happier. People have to actually play magic now.
I find it somewhat hypocritical to suggest Tron isn't "playing Magic" when playing a deck that wins T3 in >10% of games is somehow "playing Magic." I'm pretty sure either both of those experiences or neither of those experiences count.
Remember that many (not all) of those considering Storm bannable don't dislike the deck. I certainly don't and think it is currently filling an important role. I do, however, think Storm is a) the best linear/non-interactive deck in Modern and it's not super close, and b) its T3 win-rate puts it in the running for a possible ban (but not guaranteed). It's not about encouraging Wizards to act in a certain way, or about advancing some personal belief. It's about trying to predict what might happen.
Also, saying Storm needs 7 exact cards to win on T3 is either unintentionally wrong or deliberately disingenuous. When a deck wins on T3 in 12% of games, there is no way it's off a single 7 card combo. We can defend and appreciate Storm without these kind of gross minimizations.
Storm has a critical role in the meta (I mean it wouldn't HAVE to be storm, but that's the deck doing it now). First, it is keeping in check ramp. Anyone who hates Tron or Valakut decks should be happy it exists to fight those two. Second, it falls prey to the old disruption + clock thing, so if you like jeskai flash and grixis shadow being around playing fair, one big reason is they do pretty well against storm.
Perhaps complaints about it being able to win even against bad matchups is more a reminder that the "it's all luck in getting the right matchups" negativity around modern is a bit misguided. Being a 2:1 dog means you still win sometimes...
Yesssss you said it. Tron is gone from my LGS, I've never been happier. People have to actually play magic now.
I find it somewhat hypocritical to suggest Tron isn't "playing Magic" when playing a deck that wins T3 in >10% of games is somehow "playing Magic." I'm pretty sure either both of those experiences or neither of those experiences count.
Remember that many (not all) of those considering Storm bannable don't dislike the deck. I certainly don't and think it is currently filling an important role. I do, however, think Storm is a) the best linear/non-interactive deck in Modern and it's not super close, and b) its T3 win-rate puts it in the running for a possible ban (but not guaranteed). It's not about encouraging Wizards to act in a certain way, or about advancing some personal belief. It's about trying to predict what might happen.
Also, saying Storm needs 7 exact cards to win on T3 is either unintentionally wrong or deliberately disingenuous. When a deck wins on T3 in 12% of games, there is no way it's off a single 7 card combo. We can defend and appreciate Storm without these kind of gross minimizations.
I think it is known what people mean by not playing magic at this point....when your deck mostly goldfishes and either combo kills or slaps bombs turn after turn with little interaction. it isn't healthy to have too many of those decks in the top tiers of the meta game imo.
I agree with ari lax about the 3 best, and I also think this format would be alot better without tron lands, death shadow, and grapeshot.
I feel like these cards are secretly stifling diversity in modern.
and if you use your little scale of interaction and linearity you would probably come to the conclusion that modern is minimally interactive and quite linear atm. which is not balanced nor diverse in that regard.
in fact I challenge you to that task. because you are capable of it more than I, and because I am confident about my claim.
Latest Mark Nestico article named "Why everything sucks".
It came with a big surprise that this guy could not even mention a valid argument to support why "Modern sucks", but he was easily able to present some about why "Modern is great".
Being able to play over twenty different decks is absolutely ridiculous. They don't even have that many choices when you go to Sonic to get one of those ballin' slushies that give people diabetes. There is something for everyone: Storm, Tron, Burn, Infect, Dredge, Collected Company, TitanShift, Affinity, Death's Shadow, and more. That kind of diversity is completely indicative of an on-the-surface healthy format.
His best argument about why "Modern sucks" is the supposedly hotheaded Modern fanboys. And that argument is only a humoristic one.
Modern fans are almost as insufferable as Doctor Whovians or whatever they call themselves. If you bring up the slightest criticism of their fandom, they are literally ready to burn your house down and pour Mountain Dew on the ashes.
This guy used to have some valid arguments as to why Modern sucks. The fact that he has (almost) none now, goes one to tell much about Modern.
"Modern is inherently terrible because it's a goldfish format where the games occasionally devolve into gutter wars that last past Turn 10, but it generally feels like a mad dash to Turn 4 or 5 where you kill your opponent, and that's totally cool. But let's not put lipstick on a pig and act like you're down in the trenches playing the most wildly intricate Magic of your life."
actually those are his reaasons, and he sums it up quite well imo.
I'm having a very different experience from you, I'm having a good mix of interaction and linearity against my opponents. That's both in psper and mtgo.
Asking for 3 bans all at once is absurd and this doesn't sound healthy st all.
If you're so unhappy about modern why are you devoting time to complain about it on here?
I'm having a very different experience from you, I'm having a good mix of interaction and linearity against my opponents. That's both in psper and mtgo.
Asking for 3 bans all at once is absurd and this doesn't sound healthy st all.
If you're so unhappy about modern why are you devoting time to complain about it on here?
because people like you dont seem to see the big picture. your fnm experience isnt all of modern.
No, YOU don't get the picture. Sheridan and GK have shown data and results otherwise to indicate the meta and it's results are diverse and healthy. Modern has its share of linear degeneracy but that doesn't mean there isn't a large variety of strategies.
You've backed up none of your assertions except one that format bashes with nothing to back it up. Jeskai just got 1st place this weekend, and Ali and his team got 4th place with him playing a draw go jeskai deck
Modern was hot garbage in 2016 and it's vastly improved this year, I see no reason to wreck all the progression it's continuing to make
I'm having a very different experience from you, I'm having a good mix of interaction and linearity against my opponents. That's both in psper and mtgo.
Asking for 3 bans all at once is absurd and this doesn't sound healthy st all.
If you're so unhappy about modern why are you devoting time to complain about it on here?
because people like you dont seem to see the big picture. your fnm experience isnt all of modern.
The present Modern picture of Modern is indisputably healthy. Anyone who thinks otherwise is somewhere on the spectrum of misinformed (understandable but fixable) to deliberately spreading misinformation (unreasonable and unfounded). I haven't seen a single metagame breakdown, or even article/opinion piece, from a reputable source to suggest otherwise.
Now, it's a much more open question about how Modern will look at the PT. That's a real question and I'm a little nervous for reasons already mentioned. But the CURRENT state/picture of Modern is extremely healthy.
I thought it was pretty clear that Nestico's article was meant to be taken as a joke, not as personal offense. I understand some areas of the playerbase no longer understand the difference (honestly not referring to any frequent posters on this forum), but I don't think it makes sense to base any discussion around one "pro player's" trollish fun article. Hell, I laughed at the description and now want to wear a fedora to every modern event.
It's not a knee-jerk reaction, I've felt this way for a few months now, I think sometime around when Jessup lost to Kazu in the semi-finals of that Open. I actually have a very solid record against the deck but that's because of the nature of decks I play---but I'm still finding this deck problematic even when I beat it. I do want to make it clear it isn't really a vent, it's a problem deck I've come to identify.
Wasn't that semi finals the game (correct me if I'm wrong) where Jessup got incredibly unlucky and did not draw a single threat both games? A Slippery Bogle with no Auras could've solo'd that.
We know by now Storm is capable of turn 3-ing, as is DS of spitting out one or two 8/8's on turn 2 after stripping your best card, which I personally find just as disgusting.
Storm has its bad MUs (3 in tier 1 alone) as do all decks and can very well be hated out if you dedicate a few slots to it, so whilst it isn't outright dominating the top tables and is deemed to not break the turn 4 rule please refrain from these biased comments after a bad FNM experience or I'll start coming here crying about turn 2 8/8's with a 1cc hard counter backup.
One thing I want to address which is not nearly taken into account enough is that Fetchless Storm can be built for around 120€ and is by far the cheapest tier 1 deck,the next one being around 3x the price. This affects mostly paper events, where Humans for example has a much lesser representation on paper than on MTGO, being the new hotness but a pretty expensive deck. I'm curious how these next few months shape the paper format and if that deck is going to gain even more traction or slowly descend to tier 2.
If by your definitions healthy is linear dominated and highly interactive decks being a minority than yes its healthy.
I see both sides to this argument. One looks at meta shares and the fact Thier are interactive decks. The other looks at the percentage of which decks are linear and with less interaction.
But I think you guys are arguing over completely different axis'
For all who are in the conversation that are critical of the current Modern metagame, I have a question. I'll preface it with the statement that it takes minimal effort to complain about something without doing work to provide a solution, based on actual data that can be peer reviewed. An opinion without work isn't worthy of much respect - Anyone can post an opinion without evidence of work done to back it up.
So, my question is, what specific decks do you think should comprise the metagame, and at what exact percentages? And when I say specific decks, I'm looking for specific examples of a decklist. Being vague here only serves as a cop-out for doing actual work. Additionally, which of those decks would you be choosing to play? There is one more follow-up question, in the request that you actually playtest those decks against eachother, at least in double-digit numbers of matches, and provide the data (in a manner that everyone else can check), so that everyone can be sure that those percentages are realistic for each deck in the metagame.
If you cannot at least do that minimal amount of work to answer the very first question, then what entitles your opinion to any level of respect?
If you're so unhappy about modern why are you devoting time to complain about it on here?
Ok, MTGSalvation Modern forums, we need to stop posting complete messages to each other like this.
There could be a thousand reasons as to why Modern players are complaining, but let's just go through the obvious ones;
- Financially invested
- Dissatisfaction, and the satisfaction would not be found by entering other formats
- Financially invested in the format, then lost deck due to bans/other external factors
- Locals attendance are better for Modern than other formats
- Most enjoyable of the formats
- Are able to borrow decks from friends who only play Modern
etc, etc, etc....
The point is, the quoted text is complete garbage. I propose we start infractions on posts like these. They are either direct personal attacks, or will undoubtedly lead to personal attacks. They do not add anything constructive, or promote solutions to debates on this very thread. Some people, should, and could go to other formats. The problem is, that Magic in general has attendance problems, why are we trying to collectively bash others on forums for why they choose to invest their time in the same game we all play?
If you're so unhappy about modern why are you devoting time to complain about it on here?
Ok, MTGSalvation Modern forums, we need to stop posting complete messages to each other like this.
There could be a thousand reasons as to why Modern players are complaining, but let's just go through the obvious ones;
- Financially invested
- Dissatisfaction, and the satisfaction would not be found by entering other formats
- Financially invested in the format, then lost deck due to bans/other external factors
- Locals attendance are better for Modern than other formats
- Most enjoyable of the formats
- Are able to borrow decks from friends who only play Modern
etc, etc, etc....
The point is, the quoted text is complete garbage. I propose we start infractions on posts like these. They are either direct personal attacks, or will undoubtedly lead to personal attacks. They do not add anything constructive, or promote solutions to debates on this very thread. Some people, should, and could go to other formats. The problem is, that Magic in general has attendance problems, why are we trying to collectively bash others on forums for why they choose to invest their time in the same game we all play?
I'm having a very different experience from you, I'm having a good mix of interaction and linearity against my opponents. That's both in psper and mtgo.
Asking for 3 bans all at once is absurd and this doesn't sound healthy st all.
If you're so unhappy about modern why are you devoting time to complain about it on here?
because people like you dont seem to see the big picture. your fnm experience isnt all of modern.
The present Modern picture of Modern is indisputably healthy. Anyone who thinks otherwise is somewhere on the spectrum of misinformed (understandable but fixable) to deliberately spreading misinformation (unreasonable and unfounded). I haven't seen a single metagame breakdown, or even article/opinion piece, from a reputable source to suggest otherwise.
Now, it's a much more open question about how Modern will look at the PT. That's a real question and I'm a little nervous for reasons already mentioned. But the CURRENT state/picture of Modern is extremely healthy.
I agree with this. Each time the metagame begins to look like it might leaning into unhealthy territory, the metagame has been adapting. GDS looked like trouble until E-Tron decks became "the menace". Then, Storm rose up to beat that. Now, Humans is stepping up to combat Storm. From a percentage share perspective, nothing is has been too dominating at any point. Of course, whether or not Storm is breaking the turn 4 rule is another question... but that's really only something that more data will answer (which some have done work looking at).
My post wasn't intended to be trolling or flaming nor is it a personal attack.
I'm asking a serious question, if someone is so unhappy after over a year, why are they spending so much energy writing about it? I don't understand constantly format bashing, which by the way, is an infraction we see upheld here sometimes.
It feels like people want that 2015 meta game back and we don't have it, and that's ok
There's so many decks out there, both linear and interactive. Saying that 3 decks need a ban is really feeding into this massive ban mentality.
I hate tron but I don't think it needs a ban
I don't go on the call of duty message boards and call the game trash. Why is it different here? I understand if there's rough periods and people voicing their concern, but this is becoming a habitual pattern.
Several people have conceptualized the idea of "linearity" as it pertains to this discussion. One rough version would be that "linearity" is the degree to which a deck's play pattern changes according to an opponent's plays, as compared to a baseline goldfish match. There are three places you can interact with your opponent, beyond their life total -- the board, their hand, and the stack. Depending on the volume and intensity of a deck's cards that interact in those ways, it falls somewhere along a spectrum of "linearity". Yes, all decks interact in some way; they have to, by definition, otherwise the game would never end. But no, they do not interact equally. That's not a matter of bias for or against it, simply an observation of play patterns that follows both wide anecdotal evidence and even cursory analysis much less what KTK has proposed.
I really like this bolded bit (emphasis added) as an entry-point for talking about interactivity. Here's how I might expand on and quantify this, evaluating every card on the following dimensions (1 point for each).
Interacts with opponent's life total (attacking counts)
Interacts with your life total
Interacts with planeswalker loyality
Interacts with opposing creatures (combat/blocking)
Interacts with opposing creatures (abilities)
Interacts with your creatures (abilities)
Interacts with the stack
Interacts with opponent's hand
Interacts with your hand
Interacts with your deck
Interacts with your opponent's deck
Requires a choice (one point for each choice)
Interacts with your graveyard
Interacts with opponent's graveyard
Interacts with your non-creature permanents (one point for each permanent type)
Interacts with opponent's non-creature permanents (one point for each permanent type)
Interacts with opponent's exile zone
Interacts with your exile zone
Ability/spell "targets" (+1 point for each target available)
What am I missing here? I think this is an even better refinement to previous methods.
In a general sense, is interacting with your opponents deck really interaction though? In most games playing tome scour does not interact with your opponents hand, board, or stack, nor does it (usually) present them with more choices throughout the rest of the game. It presents information that the player can use to make better informed decisions, but not usually an additional decision to the tree bar a graveyard interaction.
A tome scour turn one, or a lightning bolt to the face turn 1 are essentially the same play in terms of game state and interactivity. I'm fairly certain everyone here is in agreement that a turn 1 bolt to the face is a hallmark of a linear deck, regardless of how we eventually define "linear". Burn and mill are both decks looking to be extremely consistent and play their game with minimal influence from what the opponent is doing.
I like that we are trying to take this into a more model driven approach, but I fear we may lose sight of the actual point in doing so. These bullets are all possible points of interaction, sure, but some more so or more often than others.
We need to have some stipulation for these bullets "when they change the decision tree" of a game such that a tome scour is only considered interactive if it actually provides resources that are used in game. Or possibly some sort of "how many decisions" count could be monitored with decks to see how the number of meaningful decisions changes throughout a game that allows us to quantify the linearity. The problem with these approaches is that they are both highly dependent on the opponent and we would need an unreasonably large sample size to be able to make any conclusions with confidence. The only other thought I have is to weight the bullets, but then that leads us back down the subjective path.
My post wasn't intended to be trolling or flaming nor is it a personal attack.
I'm asking a serious question, if someone is so unhappy after over a year, why are they spending so much energy writing about it? I don't understand constantly format bashing, which by the way, is an infraction we see upheld here sometimes.
It feels like people want that 2015 meta game back and we don't have it, and that's ok
There's so many decks out there, both linear and interactive. Saying that 3 decks need a ban is really feeding into this massive ban mentality.
I hate tron but I don't think it needs a ban
I don't go on the call of duty message boards and call the game trash. Why is it different here? I understand if there's rough periods and people voicing their concern, but this is becoming a habitual pattern.
Sorry, I meant to edit and somehow double posted. Sorry.
Several people have conceptualized the idea of "linearity" as it pertains to this discussion. One rough version would be that "linearity" is the degree to which a deck's play pattern changes according to an opponent's plays, as compared to a baseline goldfish match. There are three places you can interact with your opponent, beyond their life total -- the board, their hand, and the stack. Depending on the volume and intensity of a deck's cards that interact in those ways, it falls somewhere along a spectrum of "linearity". Yes, all decks interact in some way; they have to, by definition, otherwise the game would never end. But no, they do not interact equally. That's not a matter of bias for or against it, simply an observation of play patterns that follows both wide anecdotal evidence and even cursory analysis much less what KTK has proposed.
I really like this bolded bit (emphasis added) as an entry-point for talking about interactivity. Here's how I might expand on and quantify this, evaluating every card on the following dimensions (1 point for each).
Interacts with opponent's life total (attacking counts)
Interacts with your life total
Interacts with planeswalker loyality
Interacts with opposing creatures (combat/blocking)
Interacts with opposing creatures (abilities)
Interacts with your creatures (abilities)
Interacts with the stack
Interacts with opponent's hand
Interacts with your hand
Interacts with your deck
Interacts with your opponent's deck
Requires a choice (one point for each choice)
Interacts with your graveyard
Interacts with opponent's graveyard
Interacts with your non-creature permanents (one point for each permanent type)
Interacts with opponent's non-creature permanents (one point for each permanent type)
Interacts with opponent's exile zone
Interacts with your exile zone
Ability/spell "targets" (+1 point for each target available)
What am I missing here? I think this is an even better refinement to previous methods.
In a general sense, is interacting with your opponents deck really interaction though? In most games playing tome scour does not interact with your opponents hand, board, or stack, nor does it (usually) present them with more choices throughout the rest of the game. It presents information that the player can use to make better informed decisions, but not usually an additional decision to the tree bar a graveyard interaction.
A tome scour turn one, or a lightning bolt to the face turn 1 are essentially the same play in terms of game state and interactivity. I'm fairly certain everyone here is in agreement that a turn 1 bolt to the face is a hallmark of a linear deck, regardless of how we eventually define "linear". Burn and mill are both decks looking to be extremely consistent and play their game with minimal influence from what the opponent is doing.
I like that we are trying to take this into a more model driven approach, but I fear we may lose sight of the actual point in doing so. These bullets are all possible points of interaction, sure, but some more so or more often than others.
We need to have some stipulation for these bullets "when they change the decision tree" of a game such that a tome scour is only considered interactive if it actually provides resources that are used in game. Or possibly some sort of "how many decisions" count could be monitored with decks to see how the number of meaningful decisions changes throughout a game that allows us to quantify the linearity. The problem with these approaches is that they are both highly dependent on the opponent and we would need an unreasonably large sample size to be able to make any conclusions with confidence. The only other thought I have is to weight the bullets, but then that leads us back down the subjective path.
That's a fair point, although I think KTK's general direction is viable. You could weight the actions by category -- 4 points for interacting with what an opponent is trying to do (on the stack), 3 points for interacting with what an opponent has done (on the battlefield), 2 points for interacting with what they may immediately do (their hand), 1 point for interacting with what they don't know about but may eventually do (their library). There would be some disagreement about the values, but that might define relative interaction along intuitive lines. And of course the end result would have an element of subjectivity to it, although (theoretically at least) you could use regressions to tweak the values assigned and mitigate collinearity.
I love the idea of a weighted decision tree of actual matches. With enough information and data coding, you could assign a "decision" score to each deck. But I'm conflicted on whether that gives you interactivity or complexity. Decisions could be mild pivots based on an opponent's actions (do/don't attack) rather than interaction, although perhaps that's widely applicable enough to be canceled out in comparisons across decks.
I think the problem that we also have to be aware of is, again, being quick to define gamestate interactions in a self-centered way. Interactions can occur that affect the gamestate that do not immediately seem to affect a player.
I have to admit, I just 4-1'd three more leagues this morning. I have never seen a single Jeskai Deck in those leagues. So I tried to do a league with Jeskai, and I saw the mirror twice. I think the deck is just beyond horrible. I have no clue how people are thinking Bolt and Geist are good in a metagame with Thought-Knot Seer. What is this Jeskai deck actually preying on? Cause it's not JDS, GDS, Burn, and Scapeshift. Is the Affinity Matchup amazing?
I love the idea of a weighted decision tree of actual matches. With enough information and data coding, you could assign a "decision" score to each deck. But I'm conflicted on whether that gives you interactivity or complexity. Decisions could be mild pivots based on an opponent's actions (do/don't attack) rather than interaction, although perhaps that's widely applicable enough to be canceled out in comparisons across decks.
All around good reply. In addition though, I'd like to point out that we were discussing linearity. We were using interaction as a beginning point to begin defining parameters and at least come to some common agreement to start with. Interaction is related to linearity so with some assumptions a valid model could be produced. A decision tree score as we both hinted at would be a more direct route to defining linear decks. Those deemed "linear" would literally be those with the most linear decision tree, or those with a decreasing decision tree.
To the bolded part, you are correct that it would be difficult to separate what we were actually seeing. If we continue to use lightning bolt and burn as an example: a hand of 3 mountains and 4 bolts would have a vastly different (less linear) decision tree than a hand of 3 mountains and 4 lava spikes, IF the opponent gives you additional bolt targets. But this seems disingenuous because very rarely will the hand play out differently for the burn player, and relies heavily on the opponent.
Repeated trials could allow us to smooth the decision trees of decks down to a more representative average as opposed to these unlikely chosen scenarios, but the number of trials needed to have some confidence that what you are seeing isn't random variation or based on inconsistent opponent data would be very large. Even then, I'm not sure we could separate the linearity aspect from the interactivity or complexity issue without making a ton of assumptions which may ultimately render the model useless anyway.
We could certainly do some regression for one deck against another deck and could obtain data, with minimal assumptions, that in a matchup one deck takes on the linear roll and the other takes on the less linear, reactive roll. But that isn't what we want. The complexity involved in extrapolating that throughout the meta is mind blowing.
For all who are in the conversation that are critical of the current Modern metagame, I have a question. I'll preface it with the statement that it takes minimal effort to complain about something without doing work to provide a solution, based on actual data that can be peer reviewed. An opinion without work isn't worthy of much respect - Anyone can post an opinion without evidence of work done to back it up.
So, my question is, what specific decks do you think should comprise the metagame, and at what exact percentages? And when I say specific decks, I'm looking for specific examples of a decklist. Being vague here only serves as a cop-out for doing actual work. Additionally, which of those decks would you be choosing to play? There is one more follow-up question, in the request that you actually playtest those decks against eachother, at least in double-digit numbers of matches, and provide the data (in a manner that everyone else can check), so that everyone can be sure that those percentages are realistic for each deck in the metagame.
If you cannot at least do that minimal amount of work to answer the very first question, then what entitles your opinion to any level of respect?
Evidence no.1(Source HERE-reddit)
(containing all the Modern decks that are >=2%)
Tier 1 Metagame
Affinity 7.5%
Jeskai Control 7.4%
Storm 6.8%
Humans 6.2%
Burn 5.6%
Death's Shadow Grixis 5.6%
Eldrazi Tron 4.6%
Devoted Company 4.6%
Tron 4.0%
Titan Shift 3.4%
Thanks a lot for the post. This is super productive and it's the million dollar question.
So, personally, I think a healthy Modern format in terms of strategies/decks representation should:
- Have several Tier 1/2 strategies. This includes: Aggro, Control/Tempo, Combo, Midrange, Big mana, Toolbox, some special other categories(like aggro/combo).
In that metagame breakdown, we can see this results:
I mean there is that 31.7% missing, but better not calculate those <2% decks, because I doubt their validity. Now, I don't know if this is going to be the PT metagame picture and I am as nervous as Sheridan is. But this is looking pretty healthy to me. It's looking pretty interactive and it's got all of the categories covered up concerning the metagame status.
PS: Those RPTQ data seem much, much worse. And I posted about that. This is a reason to worry, because those are the future PT players that are probably going to choose linear decks more often than not.
Important question: what specific decks do you think should comprise the metagame, and at what exact percentages?
Answer: I think the ideal scenario would be:
Aggro: 20.0%
Midrange: 20.0%
Control/Tempo: 20.0%
Big Mana: 10.0%
Combo: 10.0%
Toolbox: 5-10%
Aggro/Combo(Dredge+Infect): 5-10%
Special decks/Categories: Remaining decks/Whatever special decks there are out there.
PS: Edited for the last two paragraphs.
so basically out of 68 percent of modern decks 2/3 of them are "linear" and I'm getting called a format bashing heathen for stating it?
And of course people will argue tron/eldra/titan isn't linear.
But really they are in comparison to shadow or uwr.
And I'm not saying every deck should be like urx and bgx.
I'm just saying that modern "overall" seems more linear than it is not. And I think if the linearity was more like 50/50 it would be better.
Because as it is my LGS has moved on to other things. And when I asked other Lgs nearby they said: game 1 matchups are too lopsided, and the game feels like it needs to be less linear.
My post wasn't intended to be trolling or flaming nor is it a personal attack.
I'm asking a serious question, if someone is so unhappy after over a year, why are they spending so much energy writing about it? I don't understand constantly format bashing, which by the way, is an infraction we see upheld here sometimes.
It feels like people want that 2015 meta game back and we don't have it, and that's ok
There's so many decks out there, both linear and interactive. Saying that 3 decks need a ban is really feeding into this massive ban mentality.
I hate tron but I don't think it needs a ban
I don't go on the call of duty message boards and call the game trash. Why is it different here? I understand if there's rough periods and people voicing their concern, but this is becoming a habitual pattern.
this a forum on the health of modern. If someone cannot criticize it with reason, than what is this forum for? A bunch of modern fanboys cheering about the game? This isn't a dictatorship.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Modern-
decks playing:
none
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I find it somewhat hypocritical to suggest Tron isn't "playing Magic" when playing a deck that wins T3 in >10% of games is somehow "playing Magic." I'm pretty sure either both of those experiences or neither of those experiences count.
Remember that many (not all) of those considering Storm bannable don't dislike the deck. I certainly don't and think it is currently filling an important role. I do, however, think Storm is a) the best linear/non-interactive deck in Modern and it's not super close, and b) its T3 win-rate puts it in the running for a possible ban (but not guaranteed). It's not about encouraging Wizards to act in a certain way, or about advancing some personal belief. It's about trying to predict what might happen.
Also, saying Storm needs 7 exact cards to win on T3 is either unintentionally wrong or deliberately disingenuous. When a deck wins on T3 in 12% of games, there is no way it's off a single 7 card combo. We can defend and appreciate Storm without these kind of gross minimizations.
I agree with ari lax about the 3 best, and I also think this format would be alot better without tron lands, death shadow, and grapeshot.
I feel like these cards are secretly stifling diversity in modern.
and if you use your little scale of interaction and linearity you would probably come to the conclusion that modern is minimally interactive and quite linear atm. which is not balanced nor diverse in that regard.
in fact I challenge you to that task. because you are capable of it more than I, and because I am confident about my claim.
decks playing:
none
That's a very bold assertion and would just lead to more bans
The tron lands and shadow are fine. The meta as a whole looks healthy and is plenty interactive
there will always be bans. and it isnt about the top. its about a balanced format in regards to linearity and interactivity.
look at the big picture and stop thinking its about a pet deck.
decks playing:
none
"Modern is inherently terrible because it's a goldfish format where the games occasionally devolve into gutter wars that last past Turn 10, but it generally feels like a mad dash to Turn 4 or 5 where you kill your opponent, and that's totally cool. But let's not put lipstick on a pig and act like you're down in the trenches playing the most wildly intricate Magic of your life."
actually those are his reaasons, and he sums it up quite well imo.
asides from his mockery beside it.
decks playing:
none
Asking for 3 bans all at once is absurd and this doesn't sound healthy st all.
If you're so unhappy about modern why are you devoting time to complain about it on here?
because people like you dont seem to see the big picture. your fnm experience isnt all of modern.
decks playing:
none
You've backed up none of your assertions except one that format bashes with nothing to back it up. Jeskai just got 1st place this weekend, and Ali and his team got 4th place with him playing a draw go jeskai deck
Modern was hot garbage in 2016 and it's vastly improved this year, I see no reason to wreck all the progression it's continuing to make
The present Modern picture of Modern is indisputably healthy. Anyone who thinks otherwise is somewhere on the spectrum of misinformed (understandable but fixable) to deliberately spreading misinformation (unreasonable and unfounded). I haven't seen a single metagame breakdown, or even article/opinion piece, from a reputable source to suggest otherwise.
Now, it's a much more open question about how Modern will look at the PT. That's a real question and I'm a little nervous for reasons already mentioned. But the CURRENT state/picture of Modern is extremely healthy.
Wasn't that semi finals the game (correct me if I'm wrong) where Jessup got incredibly unlucky and did not draw a single threat both games? A Slippery Bogle with no Auras could've solo'd that.
We know by now Storm is capable of turn 3-ing, as is DS of spitting out one or two 8/8's on turn 2 after stripping your best card, which I personally find just as disgusting.
Storm has its bad MUs (3 in tier 1 alone) as do all decks and can very well be hated out if you dedicate a few slots to it, so whilst it isn't outright dominating the top tables and is deemed to not break the turn 4 rule please refrain from these biased comments after a bad FNM experience or I'll start coming here crying about turn 2 8/8's with a 1cc hard counter backup.
One thing I want to address which is not nearly taken into account enough is that Fetchless Storm can be built for around 120€ and is by far the cheapest tier 1 deck,the next one being around 3x the price. This affects mostly paper events, where Humans for example has a much lesser representation on paper than on MTGO, being the new hotness but a pretty expensive deck. I'm curious how these next few months shape the paper format and if that deck is going to gain even more traction or slowly descend to tier 2.
I see both sides to this argument. One looks at meta shares and the fact Thier are interactive decks. The other looks at the percentage of which decks are linear and with less interaction.
But I think you guys are arguing over completely different axis'
So, my question is, what specific decks do you think should comprise the metagame, and at what exact percentages? And when I say specific decks, I'm looking for specific examples of a decklist. Being vague here only serves as a cop-out for doing actual work. Additionally, which of those decks would you be choosing to play? There is one more follow-up question, in the request that you actually playtest those decks against eachother, at least in double-digit numbers of matches, and provide the data (in a manner that everyone else can check), so that everyone can be sure that those percentages are realistic for each deck in the metagame.
If you cannot at least do that minimal amount of work to answer the very first question, then what entitles your opinion to any level of respect?
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
Ok, MTGSalvation Modern forums, we need to stop posting complete messages to each other like this.
There could be a thousand reasons as to why Modern players are complaining, but let's just go through the obvious ones;
- Financially invested
- Dissatisfaction, and the satisfaction would not be found by entering other formats
- Financially invested in the format, then lost deck due to bans/other external factors
- Locals attendance are better for Modern than other formats
- Most enjoyable of the formats
- Are able to borrow decks from friends who only play Modern
etc, etc, etc....
The point is, the quoted text is complete garbage. I propose we start infractions on posts like these. They are either direct personal attacks, or will undoubtedly lead to personal attacks. They do not add anything constructive, or promote solutions to debates on this very thread. Some people, should, and could go to other formats. The problem is, that Magic in general has attendance problems, why are we trying to collectively bash others on forums for why they choose to invest their time in the same game we all play?
Stop posting trash like this.
I agree with this. Each time the metagame begins to look like it might leaning into unhealthy territory, the metagame has been adapting. GDS looked like trouble until E-Tron decks became "the menace". Then, Storm rose up to beat that. Now, Humans is stepping up to combat Storm. From a percentage share perspective, nothing is has been too dominating at any point. Of course, whether or not Storm is breaking the turn 4 rule is another question... but that's really only something that more data will answer (which some have done work looking at).
I'm asking a serious question, if someone is so unhappy after over a year, why are they spending so much energy writing about it? I don't understand constantly format bashing, which by the way, is an infraction we see upheld here sometimes.
It feels like people want that 2015 meta game back and we don't have it, and that's ok
There's so many decks out there, both linear and interactive. Saying that 3 decks need a ban is really feeding into this massive ban mentality.
I hate tron but I don't think it needs a ban
I don't go on the call of duty message boards and call the game trash. Why is it different here? I understand if there's rough periods and people voicing their concern, but this is becoming a habitual pattern.
In a general sense, is interacting with your opponents deck really interaction though? In most games playing tome scour does not interact with your opponents hand, board, or stack, nor does it (usually) present them with more choices throughout the rest of the game. It presents information that the player can use to make better informed decisions, but not usually an additional decision to the tree bar a graveyard interaction.
A tome scour turn one, or a lightning bolt to the face turn 1 are essentially the same play in terms of game state and interactivity. I'm fairly certain everyone here is in agreement that a turn 1 bolt to the face is a hallmark of a linear deck, regardless of how we eventually define "linear". Burn and mill are both decks looking to be extremely consistent and play their game with minimal influence from what the opponent is doing.
I like that we are trying to take this into a more model driven approach, but I fear we may lose sight of the actual point in doing so. These bullets are all possible points of interaction, sure, but some more so or more often than others.
We need to have some stipulation for these bullets "when they change the decision tree" of a game such that a tome scour is only considered interactive if it actually provides resources that are used in game. Or possibly some sort of "how many decisions" count could be monitored with decks to see how the number of meaningful decisions changes throughout a game that allows us to quantify the linearity. The problem with these approaches is that they are both highly dependent on the opponent and we would need an unreasonably large sample size to be able to make any conclusions with confidence. The only other thought I have is to weight the bullets, but then that leads us back down the subjective path.
Sorry, I meant to edit and somehow double posted. Sorry.
That's a fair point, although I think KTK's general direction is viable. You could weight the actions by category -- 4 points for interacting with what an opponent is trying to do (on the stack), 3 points for interacting with what an opponent has done (on the battlefield), 2 points for interacting with what they may immediately do (their hand), 1 point for interacting with what they don't know about but may eventually do (their library). There would be some disagreement about the values, but that might define relative interaction along intuitive lines. And of course the end result would have an element of subjectivity to it, although (theoretically at least) you could use regressions to tweak the values assigned and mitigate collinearity.
I love the idea of a weighted decision tree of actual matches. With enough information and data coding, you could assign a "decision" score to each deck. But I'm conflicted on whether that gives you interactivity or complexity. Decisions could be mild pivots based on an opponent's actions (do/don't attack) rather than interaction, although perhaps that's widely applicable enough to be canceled out in comparisons across decks.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
All around good reply. In addition though, I'd like to point out that we were discussing linearity. We were using interaction as a beginning point to begin defining parameters and at least come to some common agreement to start with. Interaction is related to linearity so with some assumptions a valid model could be produced. A decision tree score as we both hinted at would be a more direct route to defining linear decks. Those deemed "linear" would literally be those with the most linear decision tree, or those with a decreasing decision tree.
To the bolded part, you are correct that it would be difficult to separate what we were actually seeing. If we continue to use lightning bolt and burn as an example: a hand of 3 mountains and 4 bolts would have a vastly different (less linear) decision tree than a hand of 3 mountains and 4 lava spikes, IF the opponent gives you additional bolt targets. But this seems disingenuous because very rarely will the hand play out differently for the burn player, and relies heavily on the opponent.
Repeated trials could allow us to smooth the decision trees of decks down to a more representative average as opposed to these unlikely chosen scenarios, but the number of trials needed to have some confidence that what you are seeing isn't random variation or based on inconsistent opponent data would be very large. Even then, I'm not sure we could separate the linearity aspect from the interactivity or complexity issue without making a ton of assumptions which may ultimately render the model useless anyway.
We could certainly do some regression for one deck against another deck and could obtain data, with minimal assumptions, that in a matchup one deck takes on the linear roll and the other takes on the less linear, reactive roll. But that isn't what we want. The complexity involved in extrapolating that throughout the meta is mind blowing.
And of course people will argue tron/eldra/titan isn't linear.
But really they are in comparison to shadow or uwr.
And I'm not saying every deck should be like urx and bgx.
I'm just saying that modern "overall" seems more linear than it is not. And I think if the linearity was more like 50/50 it would be better.
Because as it is my LGS has moved on to other things. And when I asked other Lgs nearby they said: game 1 matchups are too lopsided, and the game feels like it needs to be less linear.
decks playing:
none
decks playing:
none