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.
Very true. If only the format weren't prohibitively expensive and had any reasonable support in paper.
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.
If you enjoy high-variance, lopsided matchups, where the pairings board usually matters more than your in-game decisions, then Modern is the place to be. I can see how people would find this "fun" and "healthy" because many people are getting wins they have no business earning. It's great for new players and lower skilled players, which likely make up most of the playerbase.
Public Mod Note
(Ulka):
Infraction for trolling and format bashing
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.
Without intending to offend anyone, this is a very naive view regarding statistical analysis. A larger sample set provides a more accurate view of a population. No, it will not perfectly describe any one particular sample, past or future. But greater accuracy overall means more predictive value. The difference between 4% and 8% may not matter to you, but that means you're twice as likely to face a given deck. When choosing how to gear my sideboard or flex slots, that's welcome information. Not to mention the secondary analysis that's enabled by trustworthy numbers -- change rates, relative comparisons, ban likelihood, etc -- but that is garbage when the available information has such a wide margin of error.
The greater grumble is probably that over the last few years WoTC has intentionally downgraded the available data. Imagine trying to evaluate the quality of a road by driving on it. We started in a new BMW 3 series, able to call out the major potholes and uneven grade. Now, to obscure visibility of their own mistakes, we can only feel the road through the rusted suspension of a 1985 Honda Civic. These metagame analysis expectations aren't nonsensical -- they were mostly fulfilled less than 6 months ago.
Cfusion, I was in 10 (maybe 11) tournaments, 3 different stores, in a row... Place 1-2. This is not possible if you have less experience or a new player. Tom ross and other pros do the same in much larger tournaments. Its not luck only. But Luck is a part of it and you need it
Jason Morgan: "If one were to observe that big mana decks were on a downswing and choose to take BGx midrange deck to a RPTQ a few years back, and then proceed to get paired against the only two Tron players in the room while watching another player on 73 of the same 75 cards qualify while dodging the Tron matchup, how is this not a matchup lottery? Point being, choosing what you want to lose to, making a correct call based on recent meta trends, but still getting paired against that matchup enough times to torpedo your tournament is a thing that happens more frequently in modern than any other format. That is just not acceptable for a high level competitive format. There is already enough variance in this game that can invalidate weeks of preparation, hard work, and correct analysis by simply the luck of the draw. Having that extra layer of matchup variance is purely frustrating, not charming, in my opinion."
If you enjoy high-variance, lopsided matchups, where the pairings board usually matters more than your in-game decisions, then Modern is the place to be. I can see how people would find this "fun" and "healthy" because many people are getting wins they have no business earning. It's great for new players and lower skilled players, which likely make up most of the playerbase.
This myth has been addressed in numerous articles and by past analyses. You don't like Modern. We get it. I don't understand why you feel a need to keep repeating these same criticisms over and over again despite so many sources saying things aren't as dismal as you make them out to be. You are basically saying that people who like Modern, and those who are good at it aren't skilled and just benefit from luck when I have already showed top players are just as likely to place in Modern events as Legacy ones.
Your criticisms are flat out inacccurate. I urge all users in this thread to see that these are irresponsible and unfounded claims and to look at actual results and the content-sphere consensus about Modern. The format is currently healthy, popular, enjoyable, and favors skilled players with intensive matchup knowledge and deck experience.
Re: matchups
One definite issue we have is a lack of good data about real matchup percentages. Claims of 50/50 vs. 70/30 matchups are hard to test when our data is so throttled. It basically forces us to rely on anecdotal information instead of real matchup data. That said, there is enough consistent performance at top Modern tables and big events that it seems very unlikely there are as many 70/30 matchup-lottery games as people claim. I suspect the reality is exactly what I computed in an earlier analysis; matchups in Modern are about 3%-5% more variable than Legacy. This means that 1 in 20 to 30 games at a GP could be really affected by variance.
I've posted multiple times that I'm a big fan (and pilot) of GDS, and while I'm tempted to give the 5c variant a spin, I've been tinkering with the deck in other ways. I'm extremely fortunate to have a local modern community that is very active, and so I'm able to test brews against everything from Timmy's first deck to Spike's ETron and Storm. I can't speak to much of what matchup percentages look like overall, nor can I speak to how healthy modern is from a totally objective point of view; my views are colored by my experiences playing the game for myself, and I just can't get behind an overly negative view of Modern. I'm currently working on compiling the data from my LGS to show what I've been working with as far as a competitive environment.
Re: matchups
One definite issue we have is a lack of good data about real matchup percentages. Claims of 50/50 vs. 70/30 matchups are hard to test when our data is so throttled. It basically forces us to rely on anecdotal information instead of real matchup data. That said, there is enough consistent performance at top Modern tables and big events that it seems very unlikely there are as many 70/30 matchup-lottery games as people claim. I suspect the reality is exactly what I computed in an earlier analysis; matchups in Modern are about 3%-5% more variable than Legacy. This means that 1 in 20 to 30 games at a GP could be really affected by variance.
While it's always going to be a guesstimation on exact MU percentages, I dislike the view that "anecdotal" information is seen as next to useless on this forum particularly when it stems from multiple individuals whom all have 100s if not 1000s of games under their belt and all saying the same thing. At what point does anecdotal information become "Qualitative data"?
Data like that is not anecdotal. Let's get more of that please! I'm talking about users who complain about matchups without posting any numbers to back up their claims. Some people track matchups in a spreadsheet. We want more of that in this thread. Others just recall negative or positive experiences in recent games and extrapolate it to the entire format. That's the anecdotal information I'm fighting against.
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.
Eh, Modern being good from a design standpoint or fun to play? I'll agree with the latter, but oh dear lord lets not start going into the former. I used to play Palladium Books Rifts with their megaverse mashup of different gameplay rule sets and core books coming from two different versions of the game, yet somehow material from all the books still ended up being perfectly applicable and legal in the current game. Modern is like that in many respects.
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!
Obviously the 5-0 data is incomplete because we don't know all of the info, but I do find it interesting that the current trophy leader in Modern competitive leagues, with over 25 5-0s, is playing a Mardu deck of their own design that has been almost entirely unchanged since the start of 2017.
Drawing conclusions from this is difficult. We don't know how much this player is playing competitive leagues - they could be jamming out 5 leagues a day and the majority of those leagues could be 1-4 or whatever. But it does interest me that this has occurred. We can't draw a conclusion from this in terms of data, but it's encouraging to look at - the person with the most 5-0s in Modern has been jamming the same deck for months and continues to regularly put up results with it.
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.
one thing ill never really understand about the argument over match ups is the constant complaint of SB slots. Most SB options actually hit multiple decks because there is a limitation on strategy. RiP hits quite a few decks by itself. dredge, storm, snap control, delver variants, eggs, living end all get hurt by one card. sure there are matches where you cannot prepare for everything but the same can be said for legacy. Standard by its design makes it so you only have to worry about 4-5 decks at the most. Can a homebrew topple a tier 1 deck? sure and that's because SB options constantly hit multiple decks. Ive said this before but if wizards wants to make modern a less diverse format and therefore more viable for big events all they have to do is unban Twin, Pod, summer bloom, and troll. Well i guess they could just unban DRS and you could see junk vs jund all day. I think modern is a pretty skill intensive format. You have to be aware of what a large variety of decks do and what their lists may be running. You even have to know a good amount of the tier 3 decks because they are viable. Also can anyone actually say they like watching energy mirrors all day? do you really want to see the same couple decks all the time? I honestly cant say i miss watching the miracles matchups in legacy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tooth & Nail........Grishoalbrand....Living Dominance....Tezzerator.........Vannifar Pod
My Decks that have been BANNED
DRS Jund | Kiki-Pod | Bloom Titan | Splinter Twin | KCI
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.
Very true. If only the format weren't prohibitively expensive and had any reasonable support in paper.
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.
If you enjoy high-variance, lopsided matchups, where the pairings board usually matters more than your in-game decisions, then Modern is the place to be. I can see how people would find this "fun" and "healthy" because many people are getting wins they have no business earning. It's great for new players and lower skilled players, which likely make up most of the playerbase.
Then play another format?
You talk about how fun EDH is all the time. You haven't enjoyed this format for 2 years and you post daily on a format you don't like, we all don't understand it. You have your right to free speech, but i don't blog for an hour about things that make me miserable.
I feel for cfusion somewhat, I really do. I know what kind of gameplay he is missing, and I guess thinking about those days makes me nostalgic too; snare that goyf, lose my delver to a decay, snap block, kommand retrieve snap and discard, activating manlands after 15 grueling turns of combat math, risk calcuation and card counting...
Welp, those days are over.
Tron stopped focusing on pyroclasms and sylvan scrying and instead replaced forests with sol lands that played 4/4 thoughtseizes. You don't midrange those.
Grixis had to play bigger threats than 3/2 fliers or midgame 4/5s or simply risk being run over.
Jund had to... well Jund will have to wait for a tron land to be banned.
Storm exploits the lack of interactive cards to excel. Ironically, this deck would be pretty crappy in a cfusion format.
So long as cheaty lands continue to be in the format as the ultimate go-over, the rest of us are going to have to race, that's just the fact. Well I never liked Tron and when they went colorless it was even worse, so even though grixis is my favorite shard I suck it up and play Storm even if its not really the ideal thing I want to do on Friday. Kicking Tron butt makes it worthwhile, though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
I feel for cfusion somewhat, I really do. I know what kind of gameplay he is missing, and I guess thinking about those days makes me nostalgic too; snare that goyf, lose my delver to a decay, snap block, kommand retrieve snap and discard, activating manlands after 15 grueling turns of combat math, risk calcuation and card counting...
Welp, those days are over.
Tron stopped focusing on pyroclasms and sylvan scrying and instead replaced forests with sol lands that played 4/4 thoughtseizes. You don't midrange those.
Grixis had to play bigger threats than 3/2 fliers or midgame 4/5s or simply risk being run over.
Jund had to... well Jund will have to wait for a tron land to be banned.
Storm exploits the lack of interactive cards to excel. Ironically, this deck would be pretty crappy in a cfusion format.
So long as cheaty lands continue to be in the format as the ultimate go-over, the rest of us are going to have to race, that's just the fact. Well I never liked Tron and when they went colorless it was even worse, so even though grixis is my favorite shard I suck it up and play Storm even if its not really the ideal thing I want to do on Friday. Kicking Tron butt makes it worthwhile, though.
Did both of you forget about Grixis Death's Shadow? It's not the slam dunk over Tron that Storm is, but it definitely appeals to the kind of gameplay you both seem to enjoy.
Ummm, no. Definitely not. GDS's style of play does borrow from elements of both Jund's hand disruption and Countermagic in stubborn denial, but the concept is quite different. I would say the closest cousin of GDS is Delver, you disrupt, play a queen, protect it and win with it. Except in this case the queen is a lot bigger and you gamble with your life total to do it. GDS doesn't have abundant countermagic, and isn't very varied in how it wins.
If you look at traditional midrange players like Corey Burkhart or Ryan Overturf, they don't play GDS for similar reasons; it shares the same colors and has snapcasters, but that's where the similarities end.
Don't worry about me though; I'll go with the flow. The meta Trons, I'll Baral. If the meta changes I'll just adjust again. I just hope they don't ban my storm deck while also leaving Tron untouched, that would not be cool.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
Alrighty, I understand. I'm a big fan of countermagic myself, I even run Familiar's Ruse in my GDS alongside Stubborn Denial, which sometimes leads to some fantastic shenanigans with Snapcaster. My GDS build is tailored to deal with my local meta, if I ever got the time off from work to go to bigger tournaments I'd probably make some changes. For instance, there are two dedicated robots players here so I've got Hurkyl's Recall in the sideboard. Probably would axe those in favor of something a bit more generalized, Echoing Truth or Cyclonic Rift if I was feeling spicy.
Why on earth do you feel for Cfusion? It's been TWO YEARS, he can get the hell over it. I literally know soldiers who got over PTSD quicker from Afghanistan than he has about a god damn red piece of cardboard. Seriously, two years of format bashing is not excusable. Ignoring all the good and waiting for some disastrous event to take place at a GP or Pro Tour is an awful attitude to have. The stats are somewhat visible in reflecting format health and diversity.
Jeskai midrange is a top deck, Grixis Death Shadow is a tempo deck that has over performed all year long, Eldrazi Tron and land ramp is down. He cannot seem to find anything in modern that makes him happy. He also wants to control what his opponents play so it's fun for him...it doesn't work that way, it never has, in any format. It sounds like he wants a UR deck that wins on the spot if he plays against a deck that denies him the fun grind.
Also, Marc, how much Tron are you seeing locally? Big ramp and Eldrazi Tron has really fallen off the map in multiple stores around me, along with MTGO.
Tron lands/Temple haven't really done enough to warrant a ban. We still have a few months to see if Storm really has since it's borderline right now.
There isn't a tron meta going on unless your local store is heavily warped and behind the meta.
Public Mod Note
(Torpf):
Infraction for flaming. Keep the discussions on the cards and not the players.
Probably the one card I hate seeing the most in modern right now is Chalice of the Void.
As someone who is a big proponent of interaction, I feel like this card shuts it down too much.
I get that cards like this help to keep Turbo Xerox strategies like Grixis Shadow and Storm in check, but there are other ways to combat those decks without shutting them down completely. "soft" taxers like Thalia or Thorn of Amethyst and Rule of Law type cards work well enough to fight Xerox without completely blanking the majority of their deck.
Also, as someone who plays storm, I would gladly give up another card from that archetype in exchange for not having Chalice anymore in the format.
...Billion, Chalice is barely relevant in the format right now
The meta is cyclical. It will come back.
Also, others apparently agree with me as it was the 2nd most suggested card for banning during the last poll behind Eldrazi Temple
Which seems to come less from Chalice of the Void being a problem itself and more from the fact it saw heavy play in EldraziTron, which was perceived by some as being too good (hence Eldrazi Temple taking the top spot). And that "2nd most suggested" doesn't seem quite as impressive when you consider it couldn't even crack 20%.
...Billion, Chalice is barely relevant in the format right now
The meta is cyclical. It will come back.
Also, others apparently agree with me as it was the 2nd most suggested card for banning during the last poll behind Eldrazi Temple
Which seems to come less from Chalice of the Void being a problem itself and more from the fact it saw heavy play in EldraziTron, which was perceived by some as being too good (hence Eldrazi Temple taking the top spot). And that "2nd most suggested" doesn't seem quite as impressive when you consider it couldn't even crack 20%.
I don't think Eldrazi Tron is too good as long as you can use your Path to Exiles, your Ceremonious Rejections, and your Thoughtseizes to fight back.
Wizards won't ban Eldrazi Temple. It would kill off too many decks overnight. They don't want another Splinter Twin situation on their hands.
Maybe the meta has adapted to Eldrazi Tron, but the card still makes for some of the most boring games imaginable when one player is locked out of playing their spells.
Why on earth do you feel for Cfusion? It's been TWO YEARS, he can get the hell over it. I literally know soldiers who got over PTSD quicker from Afghanistan than he has about a god damn red piece of cardboard. Seriously, two years of format bashing is not excusable. Ignoring all the good and waiting for some disastrous event to take place at a GP or Pro Tour is an awful attitude to have. The stats are somewhat visible in reflecting format health and diversity.
Jeskai midrange is a top deck, Grixis Death Shadow is a tempo deck that has over performed all year long, Eldrazi Tron and land ramp is down. He cannot seem to find anything in modern that makes him happy. He also wants to control what his opponents play so it's fun for him...it doesn't work that way, it never has, in any format. It sounds like he wants a UR deck that wins on the spot if he plays against a deck that denies him the fun grind.
Also, Marc, how much Tron are you seeing locally? Big ramp and Eldrazi Tron has really fallen off the map in multiple stores around me, along with MTGO.
Tron lands/Temple haven't really done enough to warrant a ban. We still have a few months to see if Storm really has since it's borderline right now.
There isn't a tron meta going on unless your local store is heavily warped and behind the meta.
Well, what can I say, I haven't been following this thread for 2 years and I skipped a lot of pages, I probably haven't read every post he posted. I did notice that towards the end he was getting very negative, it was a little concerning.
I think a lot of frustration between him and the large number of people liking every post that's against him is probably a combination of his persistent negativity and the fact a lot of people have stopped trying to understand what he wants. That Jeskai midrange being stated as a reason he should be happy is a sign of that misunderstanding; its not the gameplay he wants. However, the format isn't about what one particular player wants, so there's that. Anyway, just as its unhealthy for him to keep harping on the loss of a certain style of gameplay, I don't think its healthy for us to keep discussing one forum poster so, let's move on.
RE: My meta
Yes, yes there is a lot of tron locally. I hate it. Up till a couple of weeks ago 1 in every 3 decks would be tron and its a match up you'd have to be prepared for every friday. Despite being a local store there aren't budget decks or brews - its a mishmash of T1 and 2s, the occasional off-the-radar bogles/8rack. But tron was a fixture, because there were nearly no storm players ever turning up. I'd like to think I pushed them out of my store. Any moment now I'm expecting someone to bust out a humans deck. I wouldn't be surprised at all. Then maybe I can go back to playing elves or midrange.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
To fill up the void Sspiegel left in there, even if you do want a skillfull,unforgiving deck with lots of impactful decisions and a high skill cap, there is that Grixis Shadow deck. The world is your oyster if you play that deck with a good amount of anticipation and careful plays.
There is literally too little things to complain about at the moment and even if I truly adore the 2015 meta, this one fills the gap just fine as long as Eldra Tron is going down. This was my only problem when this deck was the top dog. It is too unhealthy as the one deck to beat.
Eh, what can I say, GDS isn't "like" the other grixis decks. And that suicidal style isn't my thing. At some point I believe there will be room for mana leaks, cryptics and spell snares to shine again. If more people play storm around me and tron continues to stay away I might bring my old favorite back.
Things to complain about.... eh. I have the same complaints that have already been stated before - the match ups are kinda lopsided. You go way over, you go way under, and there's very little head to head now. The closest thing I get to a grindy, even-ish game is postboard storm against GDS. I really enjoy that. The #1 thing I enjoy right now is still casting turn 2 baral against an expedition map.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
...Billion, Chalice is barely relevant in the format right now
The meta is cyclical. It will come back.
Also, others apparently agree with me as it was the 2nd most suggested card for banning during the last poll behind Eldrazi Temple
I agree with you on Chalice. The problem is that it just passively sits there and warps the game around it at potentially a very early point in the game. It also can make games turn into a coin flip where it's all about whether chalice lands or not, which is also why I don't like leylines. However, at least with the Leyline of Sanctity, it's a bit of a high variance affair since usually someone isn't running 4x of them, they are bad in multiples, and if one doesn't get it in their opening hand it comes down kind of late.
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!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Very true. If only the format weren't prohibitively expensive and had any reasonable support in paper.
If you enjoy high-variance, lopsided matchups, where the pairings board usually matters more than your in-game decisions, then Modern is the place to be. I can see how people would find this "fun" and "healthy" because many people are getting wins they have no business earning. It's great for new players and lower skilled players, which likely make up most of the playerbase.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Without intending to offend anyone, this is a very naive view regarding statistical analysis. A larger sample set provides a more accurate view of a population. No, it will not perfectly describe any one particular sample, past or future. But greater accuracy overall means more predictive value. The difference between 4% and 8% may not matter to you, but that means you're twice as likely to face a given deck. When choosing how to gear my sideboard or flex slots, that's welcome information. Not to mention the secondary analysis that's enabled by trustworthy numbers -- change rates, relative comparisons, ban likelihood, etc -- but that is garbage when the available information has such a wide margin of error.
The greater grumble is probably that over the last few years WoTC has intentionally downgraded the available data. Imagine trying to evaluate the quality of a road by driving on it. We started in a new BMW 3 series, able to call out the major potholes and uneven grade. Now, to obscure visibility of their own mistakes, we can only feel the road through the rusted suspension of a 1985 Honda Civic. These metagame analysis expectations aren't nonsensical -- they were mostly fulfilled less than 6 months ago.
A comment from the SCG article:
Jason Morgan: "If one were to observe that big mana decks were on a downswing and choose to take BGx midrange deck to a RPTQ a few years back, and then proceed to get paired against the only two Tron players in the room while watching another player on 73 of the same 75 cards qualify while dodging the Tron matchup, how is this not a matchup lottery? Point being, choosing what you want to lose to, making a correct call based on recent meta trends, but still getting paired against that matchup enough times to torpedo your tournament is a thing that happens more frequently in modern than any other format. That is just not acceptable for a high level competitive format. There is already enough variance in this game that can invalidate weeks of preparation, hard work, and correct analysis by simply the luck of the draw. Having that extra layer of matchup variance is purely frustrating, not charming, in my opinion."
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
This myth has been addressed in numerous articles and by past analyses. You don't like Modern. We get it. I don't understand why you feel a need to keep repeating these same criticisms over and over again despite so many sources saying things aren't as dismal as you make them out to be. You are basically saying that people who like Modern, and those who are good at it aren't skilled and just benefit from luck when I have already showed top players are just as likely to place in Modern events as Legacy ones.
Your criticisms are flat out inacccurate. I urge all users in this thread to see that these are irresponsible and unfounded claims and to look at actual results and the content-sphere consensus about Modern. The format is currently healthy, popular, enjoyable, and favors skilled players with intensive matchup knowledge and deck experience.
One definite issue we have is a lack of good data about real matchup percentages. Claims of 50/50 vs. 70/30 matchups are hard to test when our data is so throttled. It basically forces us to rely on anecdotal information instead of real matchup data. That said, there is enough consistent performance at top Modern tables and big events that it seems very unlikely there are as many 70/30 matchup-lottery games as people claim. I suspect the reality is exactly what I computed in an earlier analysis; matchups in Modern are about 3%-5% more variable than Legacy. This means that 1 in 20 to 30 games at a GP could be really affected by variance.
Data like that is not anecdotal. Let's get more of that please! I'm talking about users who complain about matchups without posting any numbers to back up their claims. Some people track matchups in a spreadsheet. We want more of that in this thread. Others just recall negative or positive experiences in recent games and extrapolate it to the entire format. That's the anecdotal information I'm fighting against.
Eh, Modern being good from a design standpoint or fun to play? I'll agree with the latter, but oh dear lord lets not start going into the former. I used to play Palladium Books Rifts with their megaverse mashup of different gameplay rule sets and core books coming from two different versions of the game, yet somehow material from all the books still ended up being perfectly applicable and legal in the current game. Modern is like that in many respects.
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!
Drawing conclusions from this is difficult. We don't know how much this player is playing competitive leagues - they could be jamming out 5 leagues a day and the majority of those leagues could be 1-4 or whatever. But it does interest me that this has occurred. We can't draw a conclusion from this in terms of data, but it's encouraging to look at - the person with the most 5-0s in Modern has been jamming the same deck for months and continues to regularly put up results with it.
Tooth & Nail........Grishoalbrand....Living Dominance....Tezzerator.........Vannifar Pod
My Decks that have been BANNED
DRS Jund | Kiki-Pod | Bloom Titan | Splinter Twin | KCI
Then play another format?
You talk about how fun EDH is all the time. You haven't enjoyed this format for 2 years and you post daily on a format you don't like, we all don't understand it. You have your right to free speech, but i don't blog for an hour about things that make me miserable.
Welp, those days are over.
Tron stopped focusing on pyroclasms and sylvan scrying and instead replaced forests with sol lands that played 4/4 thoughtseizes. You don't midrange those.
Grixis had to play bigger threats than 3/2 fliers or midgame 4/5s or simply risk being run over.
Jund had to... well Jund will have to wait for a tron land to be banned.
Storm exploits the lack of interactive cards to excel. Ironically, this deck would be pretty crappy in a cfusion format.
So long as cheaty lands continue to be in the format as the ultimate go-over, the rest of us are going to have to race, that's just the fact. Well I never liked Tron and when they went colorless it was even worse, so even though grixis is my favorite shard I suck it up and play Storm even if its not really the ideal thing I want to do on Friday. Kicking Tron butt makes it worthwhile, though.
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
Did both of you forget about Grixis Death's Shadow? It's not the slam dunk over Tron that Storm is, but it definitely appeals to the kind of gameplay you both seem to enjoy.
If you look at traditional midrange players like Corey Burkhart or Ryan Overturf, they don't play GDS for similar reasons; it shares the same colors and has snapcasters, but that's where the similarities end.
Don't worry about me though; I'll go with the flow. The meta Trons, I'll Baral. If the meta changes I'll just adjust again. I just hope they don't ban my storm deck while also leaving Tron untouched, that would not be cool.
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
Jeskai midrange is a top deck, Grixis Death Shadow is a tempo deck that has over performed all year long, Eldrazi Tron and land ramp is down. He cannot seem to find anything in modern that makes him happy. He also wants to control what his opponents play so it's fun for him...it doesn't work that way, it never has, in any format. It sounds like he wants a UR deck that wins on the spot if he plays against a deck that denies him the fun grind.
Also, Marc, how much Tron are you seeing locally? Big ramp and Eldrazi Tron has really fallen off the map in multiple stores around me, along with MTGO.
Tron lands/Temple haven't really done enough to warrant a ban. We still have a few months to see if Storm really has since it's borderline right now.
There isn't a tron meta going on unless your local store is heavily warped and behind the meta.
Dredge is going to spike, control/midrange is going to come back to fight the creature aggro
I already started scouting my store and thought, "god, I'd destroy most of the store with the deck".
As someone who is a big proponent of interaction, I feel like this card shuts it down too much.
I get that cards like this help to keep Turbo Xerox strategies like Grixis Shadow and Storm in check, but there are other ways to combat those decks without shutting them down completely. "soft" taxers like Thalia or Thorn of Amethyst and Rule of Law type cards work well enough to fight Xerox without completely blanking the majority of their deck.
Also, as someone who plays storm, I would gladly give up another card from that archetype in exchange for not having Chalice anymore in the format.
The meta is cyclical. It will come back.
Also, others apparently agree with me as it was the 2nd most suggested card for banning during the last poll behind Eldrazi Temple
I don't think Eldrazi Tron is too good as long as you can use your Path to Exiles, your Ceremonious Rejections, and your Thoughtseizes to fight back.
Wizards won't ban Eldrazi Temple. It would kill off too many decks overnight. They don't want another Splinter Twin situation on their hands.
Maybe the meta has adapted to Eldrazi Tron, but the card still makes for some of the most boring games imaginable when one player is locked out of playing their spells.
Well, what can I say, I haven't been following this thread for 2 years and I skipped a lot of pages, I probably haven't read every post he posted. I did notice that towards the end he was getting very negative, it was a little concerning.
I think a lot of frustration between him and the large number of people liking every post that's against him is probably a combination of his persistent negativity and the fact a lot of people have stopped trying to understand what he wants. That Jeskai midrange being stated as a reason he should be happy is a sign of that misunderstanding; its not the gameplay he wants. However, the format isn't about what one particular player wants, so there's that. Anyway, just as its unhealthy for him to keep harping on the loss of a certain style of gameplay, I don't think its healthy for us to keep discussing one forum poster so, let's move on.
RE: My meta
Yes, yes there is a lot of tron locally. I hate it. Up till a couple of weeks ago 1 in every 3 decks would be tron and its a match up you'd have to be prepared for every friday. Despite being a local store there aren't budget decks or brews - its a mishmash of T1 and 2s, the occasional off-the-radar bogles/8rack. But tron was a fixture, because there were nearly no storm players ever turning up. I'd like to think I pushed them out of my store. Any moment now I'm expecting someone to bust out a humans deck. I wouldn't be surprised at all. Then maybe I can go back to playing elves or midrange.
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
Eh, what can I say, GDS isn't "like" the other grixis decks. And that suicidal style isn't my thing. At some point I believe there will be room for mana leaks, cryptics and spell snares to shine again. If more people play storm around me and tron continues to stay away I might bring my old favorite back.
Things to complain about.... eh. I have the same complaints that have already been stated before - the match ups are kinda lopsided. You go way over, you go way under, and there's very little head to head now. The closest thing I get to a grindy, even-ish game is postboard storm against GDS. I really enjoy that. The #1 thing I enjoy right now is still casting turn 2 baral against an expedition map.
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
I agree with you on Chalice. The problem is that it just passively sits there and warps the game around it at potentially a very early point in the game. It also can make games turn into a coin flip where it's all about whether chalice lands or not, which is also why I don't like leylines. However, at least with the Leyline of Sanctity, it's a bit of a high variance affair since usually someone isn't running 4x of them, they are bad in multiples, and if one doesn't get it in their opening hand it comes down kind of late.
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!