@cfusion always being negative about the format, because whatever reason is not helpful. To be honest, whoever is not seeing signs of improvement in this current Modern format must be totally biased. Even me, who thought the meta was not good at all 3 months earlier, I got to say that the format is heading into a good direction.
I'm holding judgement until we see what things look like at the next GP and PT, instead of the random brewing grounds of the smaller SCG events. We've only had 2 Modern GPs in a 5 month period, with both of them happening on the same day and more than 3 months ago. The next one is still several weeks away, with it being the last one before the PT.
@cfusion always being negative about the format, because whatever reason is not helpful. To be honest, whoever is not seeing signs of improvement in this current Modern format must be totally biased. Even me, who thought the meta was not good at all 3 months earlier, I got to say that the format is heading into a good direction.
I'm holding judgement until we see what things look like at the next GP and PT, instead of the random brewing grounds of the smaller SCG events. We've only had 2 Modern GPs in a 5 month period, with both of them happening on the same day and more than 3 months ago. The next one is still several weeks away, with it being the last one before the PT.
So just to clarify, from your perspective the only paper tournaments that hold any statistical value are GPs and the PT?
I got why the Modern era from 3 months ago looked grim, but this one is moving better.
Also, we do have several PTQ's/RPTQ's/SCG's to at least have some opinion about the format..
All I can say is that perception is reality, and if people can control the perception, they control the reality. We will see how it looks and what choices are made when pros come from all over the world to play in a large paper tournament with the intent to do the best, most broken, and most powerful things.
@cfusion always being negative about the format, because whatever reason is not helpful. To be honest, whoever is not seeing signs of improvement in this current Modern format must be totally biased. Even me, who thought the meta was not good at all 3 months earlier, I got to say that the format is heading into a good direction.
I'm holding judgement until we see what things look like at the next GP and PT, instead of the random brewing grounds of the smaller SCG events. We've only had 2 Modern GPs in a 5 month period, with both of them happening on the same day and more than 3 months ago. The next one is still several weeks away, with it being the last one before the PT.
So just to clarify, from your perspective the only paper tournaments that hold any statistical value are GPs and the PT?
SCG Tournaments have value, but are a skewed and limited representation of the game. They are often dominated by a small portion of the same people who, regardless of what they are playing, often stomp their way to the top tables (and Top 8s) due to smashing all the weird brews and FNM-level play usually seen. They're definitely fun to watch (and Cedric/Patrick is the best commentary duo in any "sport"), but the days are usually full of sloppy play and wonky brews that may or may not have any relevance to the overall representative metagame. They're smaller tournaments with a lower overall skill level, and attendance is usually limited to locals of the midwest and east coast USA. Plus, most of the top players in the SCG circuit have done little to nothing of significance outside of that circuit. It's like a big FNM and should be treated as such. It has value, but not nearly as much as a GP.
Bolt snap bolt is a top tier deck----but the format is still not good enough for you
Multiple people received flaming/trolling violations because they feel your negative attitude is warping this thread...
We've had the awesome evolution of Jund shadow turn into grixis shadow and 5C Shadow, a totally new 5C Human color deck come out of nowhere that is more than a flash in the pan.
Bant Company went from a fringe deck to possibly the best company currently, Eldrazi Tron really become a deck in 2017 (and now shrinking), Hollow One, Death and Tax decks are actually relevant...
Seriously, like GK said, you're going to ignore all the good that happens in-between the GP's and then reserve judgement to see if something is busted in a GP?
Plus, most of the top players in the SCG circuit have done little to nothing of significance outside of that circuit. It's like a big FNM and should be treated as such. It has value, but not nearly as much as a GP.
That is not very true though. We have regular SCG player like BBD, World champion, Jerry Thompson, Pro tour winner, Tom Ross, currently working for wizards, Christian Calcano, 2 GP wins, several top8s and a PT top8 and these are just from the top of my head. There are other players, regular to the circuit with high level performance at PTs. Saying that most of them don't do well is saying like most of GP players don't do well at PTs because, well, most players actually don't, even in PT level there is only a handful of players consistently performing.
I agree that to a certain extent SCG tournaments have a degree of limitation because they represent the US metagame. We have often seen significantly different meta-games from Japanese GPs and other events. However, unfortunately, we don't have circuits of such magnitudes in other regions. I definitely wish we had, but we don't. So my suggestion is that we should take SCG events of present day, more or less at the same level as we take other NA gps. They have more or less the same representation of USA players, with the exception that NA GPs sometimes have pros from Brazil, Japan and other places. The fact that SCG events however happen at a higher consistency than GPs give a more constant flow of the metagame, which we don't get from GPs.
Every type of event with its value, but nullifying the value of an event by calling it a "glorified FNM", when we have competitors at the level of BBD and JT, I don't think it is the right approach.
And once again, the goalposts start moving. People were complaining about their not being a tier 1 blue deck. Now there is one. So now they complain that it's not "control".
Modern is in a pretty good place. Storm seems to be on a bit of a downswing, new decks are arriving reasonably frequently...
Oh, and people pulling out the "glorified FNM" chestnut to dismiss SCG results because they don't agree with their personal narrative. Fun times.
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.
And once again, the goalposts start moving. People were complaining about their not being a tier 1 blue deck. Now there is one. So now they complain that it's not "control".
Modern is in a pretty good place. Storm seems to be on a bit of a downswing, new decks are arriving reasonably frequently...
Oh, and people pulling out the "glorified FNM" chestnut to dismiss SCG results because they don't agree with their personal narrative. Fun times.
"people"
Yes. Multiple people. Not just one. Multiple people.
You're forgetting the big aspect that "people" wanted. They also want the main win-con to be on a red enchantment. Jeskai Queller doesn't have that!
Public Mod Note
(Torpf):
Warning for Trolling. Keep the discussions on the cards and not the players.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Bolt snap bolt is a top tier deck----but the format is still not good enough for you
I can only control what I play. I can't control what others play. And the games I play with other people have been some of the most unsatisfying experiences I have ever had in Magic. Much of that has to do with the incredibly toxic nature of most of the top decks and the overwhelmingly polarizing lopsided matchups presented. I find that tremendously unfun, and am expressing my opinions as such. I am entitled to that just as much as Lantern players are entitled to enjoy their pile of misery called a "deck."
Multiple people received flaming/trolling violations because they feel your negative attitude is warping this thread...
That sounds more like people with an ax to grind who would prefer personal attacks over calm discussions. They are the ones getting the warnings for their own actions (just as I have received some for my own actions in the past).
Seriously, like GK said, you're going to ignore all the good that happens in-between the GP's and then reserve judgement to see if something is busted in a GP?
I'm curious how these trends will play out at an actual high level event. There are all sorts of small or local trends that never make their way to the big stages. Sometimes they do. I just wish we had a better GP schedule (like maybe 1 a month all year) so we wouldn't have these horrendous gaps and crunches of 2-3 events in one weekend every 3-4 months.
Every type of event with its value, but nullifying the value of an event by calling it a "glorified FNM", when we have competitors at the level of BBD and JT, I don't think it is the right approach.
Those few people have long since moved on to bigger and better things. None of them show up on the "Leaderboard," which collects the points of the top 100 players who frequent the SCG circuit. The ones that are left stay there for... whatever personal reasons they have. But looking up and down the leaderboard list, there's not a lot of names (any?) that jump out as regulars at top GP tables or PT appearances. Even Caleb Scherer, arguably one of the game's best storm player, doesn't have GP appearances. Now, most of these people actually work for SCG and may be contractually bound to NOT play in other events, but for whatever reason, they simply don't. Just as most big name GP/PT players, grinders, and pros don't take the time to go to SCG events.
Honestly, I'm just sitting here watching conversations and trying to start some kind of interesting discussion because there's basically nothing wrong with modern at the moment. There's a few flags flying up because of Storm showing up and 5c humans is now a thing, but nothing is screaming "wizards has to fix this!" right now. It's kind of a breath of fresh air.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Those few people have long since moved on to bigger and better things. None of them show up on the "Leaderboard," which collects the points of the top 100 players who frequent the SCG circuit. The ones that are left stay there for... whatever personal reasons they have. But looking up and down the leaderboard list, there's not a lot of names (any?) that jump out as regulars at top GP tables or PT appearances. Even Caleb Scherer, arguably one of the game's best storm player, doesn't have GP appearances. Now, most of these people actually work for SCG and may be contractually bound to NOT play in other events, but for whatever reason, they simply don't. Just as most big name GP/PT players, grinders, and pros don't take the time to go to SCG events.
I think that has more to do with the cost of travel. Most of the SCG events are nearby if you live on the East Coast. Grand Prix run all around the U.S. and many other countries as well. If you are attending a GP, you are probably missing some SCG Open event and missing out on points for the Leaderboard. Recently I've seen some SCG players have success, like Noah Walker and Dylan Donegan, so they must have some sort of top notch skill in the game. I will admit that I doubted a lot of them, but they have to be scrutinized on an individual level at least.
Modern is diverse. I'm not disputing that at all. I'm just saying that there could be some improvements, akin to when Ancestral Vision and Sword of the Meek came off the ban list. Those unbans did not help our meta at all, but they were at least somewhat correcting the mistakes (having them banned in the first place) from the past.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
And once again, the goalposts start moving. People were complaining about their not being a tier 1 blue deck. Now there is one. So now they complain that it's not "control".
Modern is in a pretty good place. Storm seems to be on a bit of a downswing, new decks are arriving reasonably frequently...
Oh, and people pulling out the "glorified FNM" chestnut to dismiss SCG results because they don't agree with their personal narrative. Fun times.
"people"
Yes. Multiple people. Not just one. Multiple people.
You're forgetting the big aspect that "people" wanted. They also want the main win-con to be on a red enchantment. Jeskai Queller doesn't have that!
UR Budget Delver with Vance's Blasting Cannons? (Starts pushing the thing that shall not be named back into the broom closet).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Out of the last recorded 18 leagues, I've gone essentially 3.8/5 wins. I've seen Jeskai a total of 6 times. This is the first time my personal experience is dramatically different than what MTGgoldfish stats summarize from the released information.
Fatal Push is probably the strongest one mana removal ever printed by Wizards of the Coast in terms of modern since the synergy with fetch lands turns it into a "Kill the majority of what everyone plays" spell for modern. I've seen some people on reddit brush it off saying Path to Exile has existed for ages, but Path to Exile is much more situational. It used to be "Needs to survive the bolt test", but going forward creatures need to pass the "Survives pre-revolt Fatal Push and Lightning Bolt" test.
That being said, I think lightning bolt and fatal push are about even on the power scale over all. Lightning Bolt is never dead since it can be used on the opponent even though it can't kill as many things as a revolted Fatal Push. Also, Fatal Push gets far worse when playing decks that do not heavily use fetch lands.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Just a thought on folks pursuing a "true" metagame. What is the value of some kind of global picture of modern when literally nobody plays in that metagame? Like scg represents usa only so we need to splice in japanese results for a true picture - why? There is nobody playing in a japan-us combo metagame.
I get that the curated mtgo stuff is low value and zero value for getting percentage shares down, but all I really want to see out of a metagame breakdown is "what decks are doing well right now". Whether gds is 4 percent or 8 percent is moot because that line wil never be relevant for any individual event. "Oh I set my 75 precisely to combat gds at 8 percent but lost because at my tournament it was 5 percent" - is that the scenario here?
I guess I just find the work sites like goldfish and what modern nexus used to do in terms of presenting a metagame was excellent for what someone can realistically do and what the realistic applications are of knowing a broad metagame picture. The idea its "not good enough" let alone "garbage" really begs the question of what you expect out of a metagame breakdown, and I imagine if you poke at those expectations a bit you'll see their nonsensical.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern
* Esper Draw-Go
* Tezzeret Whir
* Blue Tron
Jeskai flash is how you play control in an open, aggressive format without FoW. Playing draw-go for ten straight turns as you prepare to drop a six mana finisher with counter backup doesn't happen in legacy,
Just saying, exactly this was happening until they banned Sensei's Divining Top. So I'm unsure about what card game you were playing at the time.
And WOTC banned it, so the format is no longer like that. We could use your argument to justify anything pre-ban being okay, but it makes no sense. That style of play, and I am a fan of most control decks, is miserable for any opponent, just as bad arguably worse than combo. At least storm can get hosed in four different ways.
Out of the last recorded 18 leagues, I've gone essentially 3.8/5 wins. I've seen Jeskai a total of 6 times. This is the first time my personal experience is dramatically different than what MTGgoldfish stats summarize from the released information.
Yeah what you describe is true. The reason for this is that Jeskai's high % comes mostly from paper events and way less from MTGO leagues. Out of the last 25 entries of Jeskai in mtggoldfish, only 2 come from MTGO leagues and all other come from SCG events, RPTQs and MTGO challenges.
Also, Fatal-Snap-Fatal is really good but it doesn't close a game. Bolt-Snap-Bolt is 6-8 damage (depending on whether it is on an empty board) which, in modern terms, is usually half of your opponents life.
In any case, I believe your experience coincides with mtggoldfish data, if one would analyze the entries of Jeskai in their dataset.
Out of the last recorded 18 leagues, I've gone essentially 3.8/5 wins. I've seen Jeskai a total of 6 times. This is the first time my personal experience is dramatically different than what MTGgoldfish stats summarize from the released information.
Grixis Shadow has done well enough for almost a year that I wouldn't dispute that.
Still, 2 UR Decks are right at the top, too. Jeskai hasn't been a nothing deck this year.
Grixis Shadow is so hated out in my meta, it's honestly kinda ridiculous.
Out of the last recorded 18 leagues, I've gone essentially 3.8/5 wins. I've seen Jeskai a total of 6 times. This is the first time my personal experience is dramatically different than what MTGgoldfish stats summarize from the released information.
Yeah what you describe is true. The reason for this is that Jeskai's high % comes mostly from paper events and way less from MTGO leagues. Out of the last 25 entries of Jeskai in mtggoldfish, only 2 come from MTGO leagues and all other come from SCG events, RPTQs and MTGO challenges.
Also, Fatal-Snap-Fatal is really good but it doesn't close a game. Bolt-Snap-Bolt is 6-8 damage (depending on whether it is on an empty board) which, in modern terms, is usually half of your opponents life.
In any case, I believe your experience coincides with mtggoldfish data, if one would analyze the entries of Jeskai in their dataset.
I think that the debate between Lightning Bolt vs Fatal Push is kind of an odd one, to be frank. The two cards both act as removal, but the decks that want them are completely different unless there is a grixis Snap Delver listing lurking somewhere. Right now, given the wave of sentiment that happened earlier on this thread my assumption is that there will be a strong push towards decks that answer spells over creatures and that we'll see a few more creature centric decks pull ahead to take advantage of it. Then again, because I'm saying this right now the MTG Chess Player will probably proceed to the next logical move on the meta board.
Here is a question: has anyone found a dependable backup source to MTGGoldfish for meta data? I'm a bit skeptical of the percentages on the site due to WoTC pushing to make information harder to get, which is why I've not really been quoting anything from there. I get that wizards wants to manipulate the public data to help influence a more even spread of decks, but that can hide important details about the meta like if a deck is really taking over. I don't even know if I can trust that 7% of the meta number for Gifts Storm or Jeskai Control. I'd hate to have to go around and do the numbers manually from looking at the tournament decks making Top 8-16.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Here is a question: has anyone found a dependable backup source to MTGGoldfish for meta data? I'm a bit skeptical of the percentages on the site due to WoTC pushing to make information harder to get, which is why I've not really been quoting anything from there. I get that wizards wants to manipulate the public data to help influence a more even spread of decks, but that can hide important details about the meta like if a deck is really taking over. I don't even know if I can trust that 7% of the meta number for Gifts Storm or Jeskai Control. I'd hate to have to go around and do the numbers manually from looking at the tournament decks making Top 8-16.
I don't think there are any. All the big sites like TCDecks, Goldfish, MTGTop8, MTGDecks, etc. have the Leagues as part of their data-scraping algorithm, and include those Leagues in their final counts. It's too bad Nexus abandoned the metagame analysis because it would be really useful today. Instead, we have to rely on random data entrepreneurs to post their metagame numbers to here/Reddit at unpredictable intervals. I've seen at least three such metagame analyses claiming to be "definitive" that then abandoned the project after a few weeks or months.
Re: GP vs. SCG events
On the one hand, there are appreciable differences between the events and we want to be careful in extrapolating too much data from smaller events to larger ones. On the other hand, in most cases, the aggregate paper metagame tends to be relatively predictive of what is going to happen at a coming GP. They don't tell the whole story, because people tend to identify a metagame trend and adapt to it in a GP, but they do tell part of it. Affinity is a great example of this: if players see that a metagame is vulnerable to Affinity in the weeks leading to a GP, it tends to overperform at that GP.
That said, I am also convinced that some Modern critics actively look for GP to suck. We've seen this happen for the last two years. Here's the standard arguments we see after every single GP:
1. "This GP was not diverse at all; too polarized to certain decks."
2. "This GP had the wrong kind of diversity; two ships passing in the night Modern. It was all linear/uninteractive decks."
3. "This GP was diverse for some players, but I can't play the type of deck (often blue-based control) I want to play."
4. "This GP was diverse for some players, but there are no reactive decks. Everything is proactive."
5. "This GP was diverse for some players, but the control decks aren't 'real' control."
6. "This GP was surprisingly diverse by all counts, but it won't last. The next GP will not be diverse."
You also get similar arguments with large SCG/paper events, except you can add "This isn't representative of GP at all!" to the list.
Since February 2016, I've seen many Modern critics look at every single GP and give one or more of those arguments. Typically, the argument changes as Modern proponents provide evidence and analysis, forcing the critics to shift their goal posts. Of course, to some extent, these arguments were true for much of 2016. 2016 was a bad year for Modern. But they have not at all been true in 2017. The format has improved throughout the year with every single metagame cycle. Anyone who is so jaded by a single bad year of Modern (2016) that they can't see any positives in 2017 is probably just looking for an axe to grind. It would be one thing if we went through a 2-3 year horror story like Standard, after which I too would have no trust in Wizards. But I'm willing to stay optimistic and analyze the actual tournament results after just a single year of Wizards mismanagement. Most players are too, which is why I think the format is widely regarded as healthy (INCLUDING BY WIZARDS) and widely enjoyed.
Here is a question: has anyone found a dependable backup source to MTGGoldfish for meta data? I'm a bit skeptical of the percentages on the site due to WoTC pushing to make information harder to get, which is why I've not really been quoting anything from there. I get that wizards wants to manipulate the public data to help influence a more even spread of decks, but that can hide important details about the meta like if a deck is really taking over. I don't even know if I can trust that 7% of the meta number for Gifts Storm or Jeskai Control. I'd hate to have to go around and do the numbers manually from looking at the tournament decks making Top 8-16.
I don't think there are any. All the big sites like TCDecks, Goldfish, MTGTop8, MTGDecks, etc. have the Leagues as part of their data-scraping algorithm, and include those Leagues in their final counts. It's too bad Nexus abandoned the metagame analysis because it would be really useful today. Instead, we have to rely on random data entrepreneurs to post their metagame numbers to here/Reddit at unpredictable intervals. I've seen at least three such metagame analyses claiming to be "definitive" that then abandoned the project after a few weeks or months.
Re: GP vs. SCG events
On the one hand, there are appreciable differences between the events and we want to be careful in extrapolating too much data from smaller events to larger ones. On the other hand, in most cases, the aggregate paper metagame tends to be relatively predictive of what is going to happen at a coming GP. They don't tell the whole story, because people tend to identify a metagame trend and adapt to it in a GP, but they do tell part of it. Affinity is a great example of this: if players see that a metagame is vulnerable to Affinity in the weeks leading to a GP, it tends to overperform at that GP.
That said, I am also convinced that some Modern critics actively look for GP to suck. We've seen this happen for the last two years. Here's the standard arguments we see after every single GP:
1. "This GP was not diverse at all; too polarized to certain decks."
2. "This GP had the wrong kind of diversity; two ships passing in the night Modern. It was all linear/uninteractive decks."
3. "This GP was diverse for some players, but I can't play the type of deck (often blue-based control) I want to play."
4. "This GP was diverse for some players, but there are no reactive decks. Everything is proactive."
5. "This GP was diverse for some players, but the control decks aren't 'real' control."
6. "This GP was surprisingly diverse by all counts, but it won't last. The next GP will not be diverse."
You also get similar arguments with large SCG/paper events, except you can add "This isn't representative of GP at all!" to the list.
Since February 2016, I've seen many Modern critics look at every single GP and give one or more of those arguments. Typically, the argument changes as Modern proponents provide evidence and analysis, forcing the critics to shift their goal posts. Of course, to some extent, these arguments were true for much of 2016. 2016 was a bad year for Modern. But they have not at all been true in 2017. The format has improved throughout the year with every single metagame cycle. Anyone who is so jaded by a single bad year of Modern (2016) that they can't see any positives in 2017 is probably just looking for an axe to grind. It would be one thing if we went through a 2-3 year horror story like Standard, after which I too would have no trust in Wizards. But I'm willing to stay optimistic and analyze the actual tournament results after just a single year of Wizards mismanagement. Most players are too, which is why I think the format is widely regarded as healthy (INCLUDING BY WIZARDS) and widely enjoyed.
I agree on the later half of your post about critics being overly critical of GPs. If anything the events I'd be scrutinizing over the most would be Pro Tour runs because given how the people get selected to participate on those runs, there is zero chance the meta that shows up is going to give a good picture of Modern as a whole.
Wizards actively states the way that people get to play at a pro tour level are as follows:
1) Being a top finisher at a Regional Pro Tour Qualifier
2) Winning a Magic Online Championship Series event
3) Being a top finisher of a Grand Prix
4) Having the appropriate Pro Players Club status
5) Finishing with 33 match points or greater at the previously held Pro Tour
6) Being a member of the Pro Tour Hall of Fame
With that kind of restriction in place most teams are probably going to focus on the safest strategies available in the format, so if I wanted to make Modern appear healthy, I'd actually be kit-bashing Pro Tours and going over all the interesting things happening at the smaller tournaments. The issue is that Wizards PR would probably have a fit.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Jadine Klomparens wrote, in my opinion, a solid article today for SCG pointing out that the skills regarding metagaming and preparation for modern are very different than standard or even legacy. Specifically, she makes a claim that many of modern's detractors are assuming that their abilities in other formats HAVE to be able to translate into modern, and an inability to do so means the format is flawed. However, instead she points out how a few changes in preparation and perspective could mean a world of difference.
I liked it, and it highlights the "its too diverse" argument well. I appreciate the diversity, as it rewards knowledge of one's deck inside and out heavily as opposed to just picking the best deck in a field of four options and practicing the mirror over and over (since the best deck will regularly overpower everything else on sheer card quality).
Anyone who is so jaded by a single bad year of Modern (2016) that they can't see any positives in 2017 is probably just looking for an axe to grind.
Not everyone's 2017 has been all sunshine and rainbows.
You don't have to enjoy Modern now or at any future time period. In fact, I don't think Modern is the format for you. Based on what you have said about matchup variance, sideboard slots, blue control, and a certain preferred type of gameplay, Legacy is almost definitely a better format for you. See Jadine's excellent article today for more on this and the different skills required in Modern.
That said, you do have to be open to how Modern is very healthy by non-cfusion standards. It's the difference between saying "I don't like Modern" (totally fair but you don't really say this) and "Modern is objectively bad" (this is not even defensible today and is mostly what you say). You keep repeating the same tired anti-Modern arguments even as the format's finishes/events no longer support those kinds of criticisms. They were true in 2016. 2016 kinda sucked. But they are untrue today and have been untrue for most of 2017.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
So just to clarify, from your perspective the only paper tournaments that hold any statistical value are GPs and the PT?
All I can say is that perception is reality, and if people can control the perception, they control the reality. We will see how it looks and what choices are made when pros come from all over the world to play in a large paper tournament with the intent to do the best, most broken, and most powerful things.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
SCG Tournaments have value, but are a skewed and limited representation of the game. They are often dominated by a small portion of the same people who, regardless of what they are playing, often stomp their way to the top tables (and Top 8s) due to smashing all the weird brews and FNM-level play usually seen. They're definitely fun to watch (and Cedric/Patrick is the best commentary duo in any "sport"), but the days are usually full of sloppy play and wonky brews that may or may not have any relevance to the overall representative metagame. They're smaller tournaments with a lower overall skill level, and attendance is usually limited to locals of the midwest and east coast USA. Plus, most of the top players in the SCG circuit have done little to nothing of significance outside of that circuit. It's like a big FNM and should be treated as such. It has value, but not nearly as much as a GP.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Multiple people received flaming/trolling violations because they feel your negative attitude is warping this thread...
We've had the awesome evolution of Jund shadow turn into grixis shadow and 5C Shadow, a totally new 5C Human color deck come out of nowhere that is more than a flash in the pan.
Bant Company went from a fringe deck to possibly the best company currently, Eldrazi Tron really become a deck in 2017 (and now shrinking), Hollow One, Death and Tax decks are actually relevant...
Seriously, like GK said, you're going to ignore all the good that happens in-between the GP's and then reserve judgement to see if something is busted in a GP?
I agree that to a certain extent SCG tournaments have a degree of limitation because they represent the US metagame. We have often seen significantly different meta-games from Japanese GPs and other events. However, unfortunately, we don't have circuits of such magnitudes in other regions. I definitely wish we had, but we don't. So my suggestion is that we should take SCG events of present day, more or less at the same level as we take other NA gps. They have more or less the same representation of USA players, with the exception that NA GPs sometimes have pros from Brazil, Japan and other places. The fact that SCG events however happen at a higher consistency than GPs give a more constant flow of the metagame, which we don't get from GPs.
Every type of event with its value, but nullifying the value of an event by calling it a "glorified FNM", when we have competitors at the level of BBD and JT, I don't think it is the right approach.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
Modern is in a pretty good place. Storm seems to be on a bit of a downswing, new decks are arriving reasonably frequently...
Oh, and people pulling out the "glorified FNM" chestnut to dismiss SCG results because they don't agree with their personal narrative. Fun times.
"people"
Yes. Multiple people. Not just one. Multiple people.
You're forgetting the big aspect that "people" wanted. They also want the main win-con to be on a red enchantment. Jeskai Queller doesn't have that!
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
I can only control what I play. I can't control what others play. And the games I play with other people have been some of the most unsatisfying experiences I have ever had in Magic. Much of that has to do with the incredibly toxic nature of most of the top decks and the overwhelmingly polarizing lopsided matchups presented. I find that tremendously unfun, and am expressing my opinions as such. I am entitled to that just as much as Lantern players are entitled to enjoy their pile of misery called a "deck."
That sounds more like people with an ax to grind who would prefer personal attacks over calm discussions. They are the ones getting the warnings for their own actions (just as I have received some for my own actions in the past).
I'm curious how these trends will play out at an actual high level event. There are all sorts of small or local trends that never make their way to the big stages. Sometimes they do. I just wish we had a better GP schedule (like maybe 1 a month all year) so we wouldn't have these horrendous gaps and crunches of 2-3 events in one weekend every 3-4 months.
Those few people have long since moved on to bigger and better things. None of them show up on the "Leaderboard," which collects the points of the top 100 players who frequent the SCG circuit. The ones that are left stay there for... whatever personal reasons they have. But looking up and down the leaderboard list, there's not a lot of names (any?) that jump out as regulars at top GP tables or PT appearances. Even Caleb Scherer, arguably one of the game's best storm player, doesn't have GP appearances. Now, most of these people actually work for SCG and may be contractually bound to NOT play in other events, but for whatever reason, they simply don't. Just as most big name GP/PT players, grinders, and pros don't take the time to go to SCG events.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I think that has more to do with the cost of travel. Most of the SCG events are nearby if you live on the East Coast. Grand Prix run all around the U.S. and many other countries as well. If you are attending a GP, you are probably missing some SCG Open event and missing out on points for the Leaderboard. Recently I've seen some SCG players have success, like Noah Walker and Dylan Donegan, so they must have some sort of top notch skill in the game. I will admit that I doubted a lot of them, but they have to be scrutinized on an individual level at least.
Modern is diverse. I'm not disputing that at all. I'm just saying that there could be some improvements, akin to when Ancestral Vision and Sword of the Meek came off the ban list. Those unbans did not help our meta at all, but they were at least somewhat correcting the mistakes (having them banned in the first place) from the past.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)UR Budget Delver with Vance's Blasting Cannons? (Starts pushing the thing that shall not be named back into the broom closet).
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I definitely need to rephase this for you, it's Fatal Push, Snapcaster Mage, Fatal Push. Let's not kid ourselves, Lightning Bolt right now is for Burn decks and Tech against Mirran Crusader.
Out of the last recorded 18 leagues, I've gone essentially 3.8/5 wins. I've seen Jeskai a total of 6 times. This is the first time my personal experience is dramatically different than what MTGgoldfish stats summarize from the released information.
Fatal Push is probably the strongest one mana removal ever printed by Wizards of the Coast in terms of modern since the synergy with fetch lands turns it into a "Kill the majority of what everyone plays" spell for modern. I've seen some people on reddit brush it off saying Path to Exile has existed for ages, but Path to Exile is much more situational. It used to be "Needs to survive the bolt test", but going forward creatures need to pass the "Survives pre-revolt Fatal Push and Lightning Bolt" test.
That being said, I think lightning bolt and fatal push are about even on the power scale over all. Lightning Bolt is never dead since it can be used on the opponent even though it can't kill as many things as a revolted Fatal Push. Also, Fatal Push gets far worse when playing decks that do not heavily use fetch lands.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I get that the curated mtgo stuff is low value and zero value for getting percentage shares down, but all I really want to see out of a metagame breakdown is "what decks are doing well right now". Whether gds is 4 percent or 8 percent is moot because that line wil never be relevant for any individual event. "Oh I set my 75 precisely to combat gds at 8 percent but lost because at my tournament it was 5 percent" - is that the scenario here?
I guess I just find the work sites like goldfish and what modern nexus used to do in terms of presenting a metagame was excellent for what someone can realistically do and what the realistic applications are of knowing a broad metagame picture. The idea its "not good enough" let alone "garbage" really begs the question of what you expect out of a metagame breakdown, and I imagine if you poke at those expectations a bit you'll see their nonsensical.
* Esper Draw-Go
* Tezzeret Whir
* Blue Tron
And WOTC banned it, so the format is no longer like that. We could use your argument to justify anything pre-ban being okay, but it makes no sense. That style of play, and I am a fan of most control decks, is miserable for any opponent, just as bad arguably worse than combo. At least storm can get hosed in four different ways.
Also, Fatal-Snap-Fatal is really good but it doesn't close a game. Bolt-Snap-Bolt is 6-8 damage (depending on whether it is on an empty board) which, in modern terms, is usually half of your opponents life.
In any case, I believe your experience coincides with mtggoldfish data, if one would analyze the entries of Jeskai in their dataset.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
Grixis Shadow has done well enough for almost a year that I wouldn't dispute that.
Still, 2 UR Decks are right at the top, too. Jeskai hasn't been a nothing deck this year.
Grixis Shadow is so hated out in my meta, it's honestly kinda ridiculous.
I think that the debate between Lightning Bolt vs Fatal Push is kind of an odd one, to be frank. The two cards both act as removal, but the decks that want them are completely different unless there is a grixis Snap Delver listing lurking somewhere. Right now, given the wave of sentiment that happened earlier on this thread my assumption is that there will be a strong push towards decks that answer spells over creatures and that we'll see a few more creature centric decks pull ahead to take advantage of it. Then again, because I'm saying this right now the MTG Chess Player will probably proceed to the next logical move on the meta board.
Here is a question: has anyone found a dependable backup source to MTGGoldfish for meta data? I'm a bit skeptical of the percentages on the site due to WoTC pushing to make information harder to get, which is why I've not really been quoting anything from there. I get that wizards wants to manipulate the public data to help influence a more even spread of decks, but that can hide important details about the meta like if a deck is really taking over. I don't even know if I can trust that 7% of the meta number for Gifts Storm or Jeskai Control. I'd hate to have to go around and do the numbers manually from looking at the tournament decks making Top 8-16.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I don't think there are any. All the big sites like TCDecks, Goldfish, MTGTop8, MTGDecks, etc. have the Leagues as part of their data-scraping algorithm, and include those Leagues in their final counts. It's too bad Nexus abandoned the metagame analysis because it would be really useful today. Instead, we have to rely on random data entrepreneurs to post their metagame numbers to here/Reddit at unpredictable intervals. I've seen at least three such metagame analyses claiming to be "definitive" that then abandoned the project after a few weeks or months.
Re: GP vs. SCG events
On the one hand, there are appreciable differences between the events and we want to be careful in extrapolating too much data from smaller events to larger ones. On the other hand, in most cases, the aggregate paper metagame tends to be relatively predictive of what is going to happen at a coming GP. They don't tell the whole story, because people tend to identify a metagame trend and adapt to it in a GP, but they do tell part of it. Affinity is a great example of this: if players see that a metagame is vulnerable to Affinity in the weeks leading to a GP, it tends to overperform at that GP.
That said, I am also convinced that some Modern critics actively look for GP to suck. We've seen this happen for the last two years. Here's the standard arguments we see after every single GP:
1. "This GP was not diverse at all; too polarized to certain decks."
2. "This GP had the wrong kind of diversity; two ships passing in the night Modern. It was all linear/uninteractive decks."
3. "This GP was diverse for some players, but I can't play the type of deck (often blue-based control) I want to play."
4. "This GP was diverse for some players, but there are no reactive decks. Everything is proactive."
5. "This GP was diverse for some players, but the control decks aren't 'real' control."
6. "This GP was surprisingly diverse by all counts, but it won't last. The next GP will not be diverse."
You also get similar arguments with large SCG/paper events, except you can add "This isn't representative of GP at all!" to the list.
Since February 2016, I've seen many Modern critics look at every single GP and give one or more of those arguments. Typically, the argument changes as Modern proponents provide evidence and analysis, forcing the critics to shift their goal posts. Of course, to some extent, these arguments were true for much of 2016. 2016 was a bad year for Modern. But they have not at all been true in 2017. The format has improved throughout the year with every single metagame cycle. Anyone who is so jaded by a single bad year of Modern (2016) that they can't see any positives in 2017 is probably just looking for an axe to grind. It would be one thing if we went through a 2-3 year horror story like Standard, after which I too would have no trust in Wizards. But I'm willing to stay optimistic and analyze the actual tournament results after just a single year of Wizards mismanagement. Most players are too, which is why I think the format is widely regarded as healthy (INCLUDING BY WIZARDS) and widely enjoyed.
I agree on the later half of your post about critics being overly critical of GPs. If anything the events I'd be scrutinizing over the most would be Pro Tour runs because given how the people get selected to participate on those runs, there is zero chance the meta that shows up is going to give a good picture of Modern as a whole.
Wizards actively states the way that people get to play at a pro tour level are as follows:
1) Being a top finisher at a Regional Pro Tour Qualifier
2) Winning a Magic Online Championship Series event
3) Being a top finisher of a Grand Prix
4) Having the appropriate Pro Players Club status
5) Finishing with 33 match points or greater at the previously held Pro Tour
6) Being a member of the Pro Tour Hall of Fame
With that kind of restriction in place most teams are probably going to focus on the safest strategies available in the format, so if I wanted to make Modern appear healthy, I'd actually be kit-bashing Pro Tours and going over all the interesting things happening at the smaller tournaments. The issue is that Wizards PR would probably have a fit.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Not everyone's 2017 has been all sunshine and rainbows.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I liked it, and it highlights the "its too diverse" argument well. I appreciate the diversity, as it rewards knowledge of one's deck inside and out heavily as opposed to just picking the best deck in a field of four options and practicing the mirror over and over (since the best deck will regularly overpower everything else on sheer card quality).
You don't have to enjoy Modern now or at any future time period. In fact, I don't think Modern is the format for you. Based on what you have said about matchup variance, sideboard slots, blue control, and a certain preferred type of gameplay, Legacy is almost definitely a better format for you. See Jadine's excellent article today for more on this and the different skills required in Modern.
That said, you do have to be open to how Modern is very healthy by non-cfusion standards. It's the difference between saying "I don't like Modern" (totally fair but you don't really say this) and "Modern is objectively bad" (this is not even defensible today and is mostly what you say). You keep repeating the same tired anti-Modern arguments even as the format's finishes/events no longer support those kinds of criticisms. They were true in 2016. 2016 kinda sucked. But they are untrue today and have been untrue for most of 2017.