If we can put a pin in the never-ending bashing & justification cycle of Urzatron discussion, I would like to propose another topic.
Noble Hierarch is becoming oppressive. Personally I feel it's reaching a Deathrite-Shaman-level of format warping. Just as the justification for banning DRS, I feel that Noble Hierarch simply does too much for just 1 mana. Any thoughts?
If we can put a pin in the never-ending bashing & justification cycle of Urzatron discussion, I would like to propose another topic.
Noble Hierarch is becoming oppressive. Personally I feel it's reaching a Deathrite-Shaman-level of format warping. Just as the justification for banning DRS, I feel that Noble Hierarch simply does too much for just 1 mana. Any thoughts?
What is it oppressing? There are many different kinds of green strategies that run Hierarch (e.g. Company decks, Humans, Infect), many green strategies that don't run Hierarch (e.g. Jund, Tron, Titan Shift), and many green strategies that could run Hierarch in a dork slot and are instead choosing to run other acceleration (e.g. Ponza, Elves). Moreover, the Hierarch strategies comprise a small metagame share even when combined. It's not remotely offensive by any known ban standard we've seen so far, and the DRS comparison is completely off-base: DRS was pushing a single macro-archetype, BGx Midrange, to 20%-25% of the format. Hierarch doesn't come close.
Just because it's a widely promulgated myth doesn't make it one worth repeating. I don't care too much as to why people believe it. My guess is that many of them try to succeed in Modern using decks and approaches that don't work in Modern, and then look to blame some external factor for their personal shortcomings. That's been my experience of these complaints, anyway. If enough vocal people experience this, they will all eventually gravitate towards the same vocal narratives. That said, no one here should even be repeating this narrative as anything other than a myth; it's been thoroughly debunked at this point.
for me its not so much that i want my deck, or any other particular fair deck, to be 50/50 against the field. honestly i see the format as being TOO diverse. which may sound like an absurd notion, but if we assume that a format with 1000 decks at 0.1% meta share would be bad then there has to be some point where the scales tip from good to bad. i think modern would be better served with more 10%+ decks running around rather than fewer.
This is interesting to me. The diversity serves someone like myself well as a grinder with many thousands of matches played in the format. I'm more prepared for what I see than the average player. But even still, there are days when 30% of my matches are against Tier 3/4 or rogue decks, and I just have to throw my hands up. So there are definitely times when I feel the format is too diverse.
My point is that Tron players complain just as much about other people's decks as everybody else from my experience. There where several postings in this thread that make it look as if only the midrange/control players acted like that. Being a midrange/control player, I experience quite the opposite, which makes me think that the MtG Community in general likes to complain.
So why are you arguing against me if you seem to be in agreement that Tron isn't such a problem in the format that it needs some kind of ban?
Because there were so many points in your posting that looked inaccurate. But after your clarifications, I'm mostly okay with it. I don't think the format needs a ban, but I think that the format would benefit from a different ban policy.
The problem IMO is that wizards doesn't handle the ban list properly. IMO, more bans and unbans should be done, more frequently. The ban list should be treated as a balance patch like they do in online games. Let's ban stirrings and see how the meta evolves etc.
But it's not wizards fault IMO, it's the players fault, because most of them are super anti ban list changes. It's like every ban is gonna make the sky fall...
This is what I also think. I have been playing MtG for a long time and WotC has banned numerous cards that I own and played. They banned deck archetypes that I owned into oblivion. It never felt like a big deal when it let to a more interesting format. Other cards went up in value both financially and in play value as a result of the bannings.
The problem IMO is that wizards doesn't handle the ban list properly. IMO, more bans and unbans should be done, more frequently. The ban list should be treated as a balance patch like they do in online games. Let's ban stirrings and see how the meta evolves etc.
But it's not wizards fault IMO, it's the players fault, because most of them are super anti ban list changes. It's like every ban is gonna make the sky fall...
This is what I also think. I have been playing MtG for a long time and WotC has banned numerous cards that I own and played. They banned entire decks that I owned into oblivion. It never felt like a big deal when it let to a more interesting format.
I actually like the idea of a balance patch approach to Modern. Working with a balancing scalpel to tweak costs and numbers could hugely benefit formats, Modern included. It would make bans obsolete, I wager, and would just ahift power in a more MOBA-esque fashion. Wizards, through MTGO, certainly has the data to do it. A while ago, I said this would be an eventual direction shift for Magic and I still believe that.
Unfortunately, bans are not balance patches. They are the chainsaws to a true balance patch scalpel. Changing Stirrings from dig 5 to dig 4 would have a largely measurable and predictable format effect. That's a balance patch. Removing Stirrings entirely, however, has wildly unforeseen consequences like all the uncertain bans before. Bans also feel bad to swaths of the player base. See Twin which was a great shakeup and pot stirring ban but one that many have not recovered from for literal years. This is why bans need to be reserved for significant issues and not small balance tweaks. The instrument is too blunt. Wizards seems to agree so it's an approach we can be confident in for the foreseeable future,
I tried to analyze the results too. I came up with a slightly different classification, but I may have misunderstood some decks.
Aggro 44
Humans 11
B/R Hollow One 8
Affinity 8
Burn 5
Colorless Eldrazi 3
G/W Hexproof 3
Elves 2
Naya Zoo 1
R/G Aggro 1
U/R Prowess 1
Bant Knightfall 1 Control 16
Jeskai Control 8
Blue Moon 4
U/W Control 4 Midrange 16
Mardu Pyromancer 7
Grixis Death's Shadow 4
W/B Eldrazi 2
G/R Land Destruction 1
Jund 1
Sultai Midrange 1 Combo 16
U/R Gifts Storm 7
Ironworks Combo 3
Counters Company 2
Dredge 1
Grishoalbrand 1
Kiki Chord 1
Saheeli Evolution 1 Big Mana 12
Mono-Green Tron 3
TitanShift 3
Eldrazi Tron 2
G/R Tron 1
G/W Tron 1
Scapeshift 1
Amulet Titan 1 Total 104
In any case I tryied to look at average performances: I gave 1 to the first place decks, 2 to the finalists 4 to top 4 and 8 to top 8 then I calculate the average of those numbers for each deck (and type of decks). It came up that combo have the highest position (Avg 3.8) and aggro the lowest (6.0)
Combo 3.8
Control 4.8
Midrange 5.3
Big Mana 5.9
Aggro 6.0
I think that this can be an image of a mainly aggro metagame. Aggro decks make top 8 because of high numbers but get punished by control who are strong against them. Big mana decks struggle to make top 8 due to aggro and combo, midrange are... well in the middle. Combo if left ananswered performs well but can be kept in check.
Is it possible or I just said a lot of garbage?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks played: Modern:
0 Affinity;
URG Delver
URGW Countercats
(Here you can find some video contents about Countercats and Temur Delver decks)
yeah i tried to use the mtgsalv archetype system as best as possible. i think a lot of the decks blur the lines, but might as well use what we got.
i found that generally people dont look to closely at specific placements within a top 8. one because its single elimination and therefore subject to more variance, and two because these types of events typically split prizes evenly and are played out for accolades, invitations, or points of some kind. not that people stop trying to win or anything, but less being on the line after a long day of playing is going to be a factor. though since everyone has to agree to split, im sure there are plenty of cases where it doesnt happen; so its just an assumption.
its noteworthy that caleb scherer and paul muller, who are probably the two best modern storm players that people know about, won their respective regionals. at this point im convinced scherer could play modern storm in vintage and still do well with it. his win percentage is ridiculous.
edit: also its hard to say how much you can extrapolate from this information in regards to what the field that showed up to the tournament looked like. more decks should mean more higher placements, but that is assuming everyone is of equal skill and drew similarly throughout the day.
A word of note on SCG Regionals, they should say Regionals: East and Midwest, as there were 0 events anywhere west of Dallas, TX. So it would make sense to mirror the kind of meta seen on the Tour, rather than be a "full" sampling. For example, people in California aren't likely to fly across the country for an event like this.
I've also added in some pro players to a separate dataset and am tracking their 2017/2018 win rates across formats and finding similar numbers. I don't have those written up yet.
--------------
FYI I have updated the SCG MWP by format comparison to see if the matchup lottery analysis still holds. This includes the new SCG Legacy Open and another SCG Modern Open. With all said and done, the MWP ceiling is still identical for both formats. This comparison looks at "good" players in their respective format (+1 standard deviation over average MWP) and "great" players (+2 stdevs). As we see below, there is no difference between their performance in respective formats.
Good Legacy players in Legacy: 57.3% MWP
Good Modern players in Modern: 58.5% MWP
Great Legacy players in Legacy: 67.8% MWP
Great Modern players in Modern: 67.6% MWP
Interestingly, there IS a difference between the average MWP in Modern vs. Legacy for players with 3+ events in both Modern/Legacy and 4+ events in both Modern/Legacy.
3+ events average Legacy MWP: 39.5%
3+ events average Modern MWP: 43.2%
4+ events average Legacy MWP: 44.6%
4+ events average Modern MWP: 49.2%
This means that players who have 3+ Modern events AND 3+ Legacy events (same for 4+ events) under their belts have a 4% better MWP in Modern than in Legacy. This is interesting but also does not support the matchup lottery theory; because their performance is better in Modern than in Legacy, variance clearly is not bringing it down. This might mean that Modern mastery is more important than in Legacy, it might mean Modern is easier than Legacy once you put in lots of events, etc. I don't know what it means! But I do know what it doesn't mean, and it doesn't mean matchup lottery is at play. At least, not insofar as it adversely affects the MWP of regulars and strong players.
Again, based on this analysis, the "Modern matchup lottery" effect is either a) not real at all, b) identical in Modern and Legacy, and/or c) does not have a negative impact on the top players' MWP. Naturally, all data limitations apply due to SCG being the event of choice, 15 round events being the size of choice, N being 8,000 instead of the 100,000 many people prefer, etc.
Yet another possibility is that Tron pilots who are salty jerks need to learn how to beat their worst case scenarios, e.g. disrupted Maps, Quarters/Fields on their lands, T3 Karn met with Stubborn, etc. I would totally agree with this. But I would take it to the next step and argue that everyone needs to push themselves to improve from bad scenarios. This includes not just Tron players disrupted before T3 but also Storm players who mull to 6 and lose their engine, Affinity players who get hit with T2 Stony Silence when they are on the draw, Dredge players who face T1 Leyline, and Jeskai players who are battling Tron. All of these players, fair deck pilots included, would benefit from not getting so upset in bad situations and instead looking for and playing to outs. This is a better recipe for improvement.
This is very good advice insofar as it pertains specifically to becoming a better Modern player. Anger severely clouds one’s judgment; and setting aside one’s emotional investment in the result in order to better assess what could have changed if x decision had been made differently is a very useful tool for improvement.
However, I disagree with the underlying implication that “fair” deck players are somehow out of line to complain at higher rates than people who play “unfair” decks.
The overwhelming consensus of the Modern community is that games which lead to both players getting to cast lots of cards and execute at least some significant portion of their game plan are desirable. It also seems clear that games with more frequent decisions—and more complex decision trees—will, on average, tend to reward the more skillful player. No, I do not have data points buttressing these assertions—I would say they fall firmly under the umbrella of common sense.
Perhaps the gap between peak desirability (both players making a great many meaningful decisions) and a game that may as well have been decided by a dice roll (T1 Blood Moon on the play) is lessened at the pro and dedicated grinder levels. People in these categories play such an enormous frequency of matches that individual game experiences don’t loom as large in the memory. But for players with more limited time to actually get games in—and remember that these players comprise the silent majority—experiences that make them feel as though they were robbed of the ability to play the game in any meaningful way are an absolute detriment to the prospects of their long-term participation in this hobby. This applies to new players, yes, but also to skilled and knowledgeable players who simply don’t have the free time to play day-in, day-out.
Consider the plethora of hobby alternatives that exist to a $1k+ investment in one or more tiered Modern decks. Consider the growing prominence of streaming and live coverage of big paper events, both of which benefit greatly from being able to showcase interactive games where the streamer or commentators can narrate a variety of options.
If fair deck pilots complain more (and understand that I’m not specifically addressing Tron here, nor the state of blue decks, nor anything else besides the fair/unfair dichotomy), then I would assert it’s because their complaints are justified. A strong majority presence of fair matches of MtG are healthier for the long-term prospects of this wonderful game than the alternative.
I own one fair deck (Abzan midrange) and one unfair deck (Ad Nauseam). Abzan consistently leads to a more enjoyable game experience for my opponents—and lets be honest, Ad Naus is definitely on the tame side as far as unfair decks go. It’s mostly uninteractive and has a combo kill, but at least it lets the opponent cast spells and have a reasonable shot at interacting or racing.
I’ve personally witnessed severalnew and budding Modern players get driven entirely away from this game because veterans on decks like Pyro Prison want to cast T1 Moons, Chalices, and Bridges. I will never understand this mentality, which seems rooted in the conception of fun as a zero-sum game rather than something that can be symbiotic. I can’t help but assume that the types of players gravitating toward decks which require as few difficult decisions as possible just aren’t very good—otherwise, why would they leave so much to chance?
Radical subjectivism is just as faulty of a framework for assessing the Modern metagame as it is for assessing things in the real world. Traditional control decks, traditional midrange decks, and go-wide/tribal decks that pack a respectable amount of interaction should absolutely be the strong backbone of this format if we want it to survive and thrive.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GB Golgari Midrange GB YouTube Channel, with deck techs, gameplay, analysis, spoiler reviews, and more!
Yet another possibility is that Tron pilots who are salty jerks need to learn how to beat their worst case scenarios, e.g. disrupted Maps, Quarters/Fields on their lands, T3 Karn met with Stubborn, etc. I would totally agree with this. But I would take it to the next step and argue that everyone needs to push themselves to improve from bad scenarios. This includes not just Tron players disrupted before T3 but also Storm players who mull to 6 and lose their engine, Affinity players who get hit with T2 Stony Silence when they are on the draw, Dredge players who face T1 Leyline, and Jeskai players who are battling Tron. All of these players, fair deck pilots included, would benefit from not getting so upset in bad situations and instead looking for and playing to outs. This is a better recipe for improvement.
This is very good advice insofar as it pertains specifically to becoming a better Modern player. Anger severely clouds one’s judgment; and setting aside one’s emotional investment in the result in order to better assess what could have changed if x decision had been made differently is a very useful tool for improvement.
However, I disagree with the underlying implication that “fair” deck players are somehow out of line to complain at higher rates than people who play “unfair” decks.
The overwhelming consensus of the Modern community is that games which lead to both players getting to cast lots of cards and execute at least some significant portion of their game plan are desirable. It also seems clear that games with more frequent decisions—and more complex decision trees—will, on average, tend to reward the more skillful player. No, I do not have data points buttressing these assertions—I would say they fall firmly under the umbrella of common sense.
Perhaps the gap between peak desirability (both players making a great many meaningful decisions) and a game that may as well have been decided by a dice roll (T1 Blood Moon on the play) is lessened at the pro and dedicated grinder levels. People in these categories play such an enormous frequency of matches that individual game experiences don’t loom as large in the memory. But for players with more limited time to actually get games in—and remember that these players comprise the silent majority—experiences that make them feel as though they were robbed of the ability to play the game in any meaningful way are an absolute detriment to the prospects of their long-term participation in this hobby. This applies to new players, yes, but also to skilled and knowledgeable players who simply don’t have the free time to play day-in, day-out.
Consider the plethora of hobby alternatives that exist to a $1k+ investment in one or more tiered Modern decks. Consider the growing prominence of streaming and live coverage of big paper events, both of which benefit greatly from being able to showcase interactive games where the streamer or commentators can narrate a variety of options.
If fair deck pilots complain more (and understand that I’m not specifically addressing Tron here, nor the state of blue decks, nor anything else besides the fair/unfair dichotomy), then I would assert it’s because their complaints are justified. A strong majority presence of fair matches of MtG are healthier for the long-term prospects of this wonderful game than the alternative.
I own one fair deck (Abzan midrange) and one unfair deck (Ad Nauseam). Abzan consistently leads to a more enjoyable game experience for my opponents—and lets be honest, Ad Naus is definitely on the tame side as far as unfair decks go. It’s mostly uninteractive and has a combo kill, but at least it lets the opponent cast spells and have a reasonable shot at interacting or racing.
I’ve personally witnessed severalnew and budding Modern players get driven entirely away from this game because veterans on decks like Pyro Prison want to cast T1 Moons, Chalices, and Bridges. I will never understand this mentality, which seems rooted in the conception of fun as a zero-sum game rather than something that can be symbiotic. I can’t help but assume that the types of players gravitating toward decks which require as few difficult decisions as possible just aren’t very good—otherwise, why would they leave so much to chance?
Radical subjectivism is just as faulty of a framework for assessing the Modern metagame as it is for assessing things in the real world. Traditional control decks, traditional midrange decks, and go-wide/tribal decks that pack a respectable amount of interaction should absolutely be the strong backbone of this format if we want it to survive and thrive.
Interestingly I've also had the opposite experience where opponents (friends) would prefer I played U/R prison than grixis shadow because at least they can choose what they play. I honestly hadn't considered anyone would rather be blood moon'd or bridged than thoughtseized but it seems like (locally) there is a substantial casual player base that would rather the illusion of being able to get out from under an effect than it just shred their hands.
Edit - despite never beating U/R prison and having a 60%+ win rate v shadow.
Radical subjectivism is just as faulty of a framework for assessing the Modern metagame as it is for assessing things in the real world. Traditional control decks, traditional midrange decks, and go-wide/tribal decks that pack a respectable amount of interaction should absolutely be the strong backbone of this format if we want it to survive and thrive.
Interesting assertion, but I dont think it holds up.
Modern offers other flavours of the game that cannot be found (often/at all) in Standard. Control, Midrange, and 'Go Wide' certainly are common enough. I played Control to punish a lack of archetype diversity, it worked.
I play Turns when I want to play 'Modern' and not just play 'punish people for thinking they can just be aggro and turn em sideways'.
Turns, Storm, any kind of Prison, none of those types of things will exist in Standard, and THAT is a huge part of the appeal of Modern.
the subjectivity of what leads to fun or enjoyment in magic will always be a divisive topic. i do think there IS a right answer, insofar as it pertains to the majority of players, but its also something we cant find out with any level of certainty. so we fall back on anecdotal evidence and sifting through complaints, some being far more outrageous than others.
it also isnt all or nothing. sure there are some people who think many of the 'unfair' or 'unfun' elements should be excised from the format entirely, but i think that those people are few and far between. however that is separate from believing a better state cant be reached that leaves both parties satisfied, or that there is nothing that can be done without drastic measures (ie bans).
for example wizards unbanning or printing more cards that benefit one side of the fence more than the other. cards like jace and BBE was one step, and so was the printing of damping sphere. a few more steps like these, such as unbanning stoneforge or more catch-all hate cards, could go a long way in giving such players more confidence that they arent placing a self-imposed handicap on themselves while still leaving the door open for players to enjoy the less common elements in magic that are no longer featured in standard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Modern seems to be in a pretty bad place imo, which is forcing players like myself and my playgroup into Pauper (legacy being unjustifiably expensive).
With the completely irresponsible printing of WotC over the past few years it has created a standard like environment that just isn't fun. Eldrazi was a monumental mistake, the general power creep of creatures (in general) is just out of control and the mana fixing lands is beyond stupid. You used to have to make key decisions in regards of deck building when it came to a balance (or none at all) of threats, interaction and manabase. Now, hell... you either play the theme WotC created for you (eldrazi) or you just smash a bunch of creatures into a deck, close your eyes and slap em on the table! They even forced a control deck on us (out of sympathy perhaps) by giving us the very WotC "designed" feel of the Teferi / Azcanta combo.
It's very clear that Mr. Rosewater enjoys pleasuring himself in a room filled of MTG Comics. Unfortunately, that enthusiasm doesn't help when it comes to the responsible printing of cards. Remember when everyone thought Jace, TMC was OP? Ha! Now in a world where you can play a 4/4 Trample with a build in Thoughtseize on T2. It is clear that the new sets are now being printed with Modern in mind (since its more popular than standard, mostly because standard is meta trash), and this is very sad.
I don't mind powerful things, I don't mind broken things, but I do mind when these powerful and broken things take absolutely no thought or skill to pull off.
And this is where Modern is for me. Bye! Off to pauper where I am truly competing against my opponent, not just his deck.
Wanna fix it? Unban it all. Things have gotten so out of hand and cards have been created so irresponsibly, the whole modern meta is ruined. Just unban it all and let people play what they like. Warning issued for inappropriate content. --CavalryWolfPack
Uhh...I think you give them too much credit if you think they designed Azcanta and Teferi to work together. Teferi is just a throw back to 'refund' spells, from Dominaria's past.
Modern seems to be in a pretty bad place imo, which is forcing players like myself and my playgroup into Pauper (legacy being unjustifiably expensive).
With the completely irresponsible printing of WotC over the past few years it has created a standard like environment that just isn't fun. Eldrazi was a monumental mistake, the general power creep of creatures (in general) is just out of control and the mana fixing lands is beyond stupid. You used to have to make key decisions in regards of deck building when it came to a balance (or none at all) of threats, interaction and manabase. Now, hell... you either play the theme WotC created for you (eldrazi) or you just smash a bunch of creatures into a deck, close your eyes and slap em on the table! They even forced a control deck on us (out of sympathy perhaps) by giving us the very WotC "designed" feel of the Teferi / Azcanta combo.
It's very clear that Mr. Rosewater enjoys pleasuring himself in a room filled of MTG Comics. Unfortunately, that enthusiasm doesn't help when it comes to the responsible printing of cards. Remember when everyone thought Jace, TMC was OP? Ha! Now in a world where you can play a 4/4 Trample with a build in Thoughtseize on T2. It is clear that the new sets are now being printed with Modern in mind (since its more popular than standard, mostly because standard is meta trash), and this is very sad.
I don't mind powerful things, I don't mind broken things, but I do mind when these powerful and broken things take absolutely no thought or skill to pull off.
And this is where Modern is for me. Bye! Off to pauper where I am truly competing against my opponent, not just his deck.
Wanna fix it? Unban it all. Things have gotten so out of hand and cards have been created so irresponsibly, the whole modern meta is ruined. Just unban it all and let people play what they like.
uhm...thanks for sharing? not sure there is an adequate response to a bashing the format with so much hyperbole (eldrazi? really? TKS doesnt have trample btw).
funny you mention power creep then talk about pauper, which exists on the back of powerful cards that could never be printed in the modern era of magic.
also i think you are the first person ive seen who believes wizards is designing and printing a lot of cards specifically for the modern format. its a pretty novel idea. though there isnt much evidence to support it, it still could be plausible; though unlikely considering they have a much higher vested interest in making standard successful since its their primary source of sales. maybe they are printing cards to specifically make modern a bad format. again no evidence though, and slightly too tin-foil hat for my tastes.
one idea that you brought up, that doesnt exactly pertain to modern, is wizards recent penchant for designing 'on rails'. i believe its the primary reason that standard has suffered these last few years. their is so much hand-holding because the powerful cards or interactions are too obvious, and the ability to counter them are noticeably absent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
to be honest, i think that humans (all the deck. there's no single card that seems powerful enough to justify a ban. i think that the manabase of the deck is a problem) and burning inquiry are the more problematic aspects of modern. Burning inquiry is just no fun and abusable for hollow one/dredge
Noble Hierarch is becoming oppressive. Personally I feel it's reaching a Deathrite-Shaman-level of format warping. Just as the justification for banning DRS, I feel that Noble Hierarch simply does too much for just 1 mana. Any thoughts?
Draft My Cube!
It was not too long I stared at a playset for under $100.
I would have to play green though...
It's a fine Modern card.
Spirits
What is it oppressing? There are many different kinds of green strategies that run Hierarch (e.g. Company decks, Humans, Infect), many green strategies that don't run Hierarch (e.g. Jund, Tron, Titan Shift), and many green strategies that could run Hierarch in a dork slot and are instead choosing to run other acceleration (e.g. Ponza, Elves). Moreover, the Hierarch strategies comprise a small metagame share even when combined. It's not remotely offensive by any known ban standard we've seen so far, and the DRS comparison is completely off-base: DRS was pushing a single macro-archetype, BGx Midrange, to 20%-25% of the format. Hierarch doesn't come close.
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT
I actually like the idea of a balance patch approach to Modern. Working with a balancing scalpel to tweak costs and numbers could hugely benefit formats, Modern included. It would make bans obsolete, I wager, and would just ahift power in a more MOBA-esque fashion. Wizards, through MTGO, certainly has the data to do it. A while ago, I said this would be an eventual direction shift for Magic and I still believe that.
Unfortunately, bans are not balance patches. They are the chainsaws to a true balance patch scalpel. Changing Stirrings from dig 5 to dig 4 would have a largely measurable and predictable format effect. That's a balance patch. Removing Stirrings entirely, however, has wildly unforeseen consequences like all the uncertain bans before. Bans also feel bad to swaths of the player base. See Twin which was a great shakeup and pot stirring ban but one that many have not recovered from for literal years. This is why bans need to be reserved for significant issues and not small balance tweaks. The instrument is too blunt. Wizards seems to agree so it's an approach we can be confident in for the foreseeable future,
Humans 11
Hollow One 11
Jeskai Control 8
Affinity 8
Gifts Storm 7
Mardu Pyro 7
Grixis DS 6
Gx Tron 5
Burn 5
UW Control 4
Titanshift 4
Blue Moon (comboless) 3
KCI 3
Bogles 3
Colorless Eldrazi 3
Eldrazi Taxes 2
Eldrazi Tron 2
Elves 2
Counters Company 2
Ponza 2
RUG Scapeshift 1
Kiki-chord 1
Dredge 1
Big Zoo 1
Amulet Titan 1
Saheeli Evolution 1
Grishoalbrand 1
UR Wizards 1
Sultai Midrange 1
Bant Knightfall 1
Grixis Moon 1
GR burning bush 1
Jund 1
Living End 1
-------------------------------------------------
total: 112
-------------------------------------------------
aggro 49
midrange 18
combo 17
control 16
big mana 12
edit: updated the list with another event
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Humans 11
B/R Hollow One 8
Affinity 8
Burn 5
Colorless Eldrazi 3
G/W Hexproof 3
Elves 2
Naya Zoo 1
R/G Aggro 1
U/R Prowess 1
Bant Knightfall 1
Control 16
Jeskai Control 8
Blue Moon 4
U/W Control 4
Midrange 16
Mardu Pyromancer 7
Grixis Death's Shadow 4
W/B Eldrazi 2
G/R Land Destruction 1
Jund 1
Sultai Midrange 1
Combo 16
U/R Gifts Storm 7
Ironworks Combo 3
Counters Company 2
Dredge 1
Grishoalbrand 1
Kiki Chord 1
Saheeli Evolution 1
Big Mana 12
Mono-Green Tron 3
TitanShift 3
Eldrazi Tron 2
G/R Tron 1
G/W Tron 1
Scapeshift 1
Amulet Titan 1
Total 104
Combo 3.8
Control 4.8
Midrange 5.3
Big Mana 5.9
Aggro 6.0
I think that this can be an image of a mainly aggro metagame. Aggro decks make top 8 because of high numbers but get punished by control who are strong against them. Big mana decks struggle to make top 8 due to aggro and combo, midrange are... well in the middle. Combo if left ananswered performs well but can be kept in check.
Is it possible or I just said a lot of garbage?
Modern:
i found that generally people dont look to closely at specific placements within a top 8. one because its single elimination and therefore subject to more variance, and two because these types of events typically split prizes evenly and are played out for accolades, invitations, or points of some kind. not that people stop trying to win or anything, but less being on the line after a long day of playing is going to be a factor. though since everyone has to agree to split, im sure there are plenty of cases where it doesnt happen; so its just an assumption.
its noteworthy that caleb scherer and paul muller, who are probably the two best modern storm players that people know about, won their respective regionals. at this point im convinced scherer could play modern storm in vintage and still do well with it. his win percentage is ridiculous.
edit: also its hard to say how much you can extrapolate from this information in regards to what the field that showed up to the tournament looked like. more decks should mean more higher placements, but that is assuming everyone is of equal skill and drew similarly throughout the day.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Modern:
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I haven't updated this since March so it's missing some Opens. I will try to update it later this week:
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/modern-archives/789239-the-state-of-modern-thread-b-r-10-02-18?page=37#c923
I've also added in some pro players to a separate dataset and am tracking their 2017/2018 win rates across formats and finding similar numbers. I don't have those written up yet.
--------------
FYI I have updated the SCG MWP by format comparison to see if the matchup lottery analysis still holds. This includes the new SCG Legacy Open and another SCG Modern Open. With all said and done, the MWP ceiling is still identical for both formats. This comparison looks at "good" players in their respective format (+1 standard deviation over average MWP) and "great" players (+2 stdevs). As we see below, there is no difference between their performance in respective formats.
Good Legacy players in Legacy: 57.3% MWP
Good Modern players in Modern: 58.5% MWP
Great Legacy players in Legacy: 67.8% MWP
Great Modern players in Modern: 67.6% MWP
Interestingly, there IS a difference between the average MWP in Modern vs. Legacy for players with 3+ events in both Modern/Legacy and 4+ events in both Modern/Legacy.
3+ events average Legacy MWP: 39.5%
3+ events average Modern MWP: 43.2%
4+ events average Legacy MWP: 44.6%
4+ events average Modern MWP: 49.2%
This means that players who have 3+ Modern events AND 3+ Legacy events (same for 4+ events) under their belts have a 4% better MWP in Modern than in Legacy. This is interesting but also does not support the matchup lottery theory; because their performance is better in Modern than in Legacy, variance clearly is not bringing it down. This might mean that Modern mastery is more important than in Legacy, it might mean Modern is easier than Legacy once you put in lots of events, etc. I don't know what it means! But I do know what it doesn't mean, and it doesn't mean matchup lottery is at play. At least, not insofar as it adversely affects the MWP of regulars and strong players.
Again, based on this analysis, the "Modern matchup lottery" effect is either a) not real at all, b) identical in Modern and Legacy, and/or c) does not have a negative impact on the top players' MWP. Naturally, all data limitations apply due to SCG being the event of choice, 15 round events being the size of choice, N being 8,000 instead of the 100,000 many people prefer, etc.
This is very good advice insofar as it pertains specifically to becoming a better Modern player. Anger severely clouds one’s judgment; and setting aside one’s emotional investment in the result in order to better assess what could have changed if x decision had been made differently is a very useful tool for improvement.
However, I disagree with the underlying implication that “fair” deck players are somehow out of line to complain at higher rates than people who play “unfair” decks.
The overwhelming consensus of the Modern community is that games which lead to both players getting to cast lots of cards and execute at least some significant portion of their game plan are desirable. It also seems clear that games with more frequent decisions—and more complex decision trees—will, on average, tend to reward the more skillful player. No, I do not have data points buttressing these assertions—I would say they fall firmly under the umbrella of common sense.
Perhaps the gap between peak desirability (both players making a great many meaningful decisions) and a game that may as well have been decided by a dice roll (T1 Blood Moon on the play) is lessened at the pro and dedicated grinder levels. People in these categories play such an enormous frequency of matches that individual game experiences don’t loom as large in the memory. But for players with more limited time to actually get games in—and remember that these players comprise the silent majority—experiences that make them feel as though they were robbed of the ability to play the game in any meaningful way are an absolute detriment to the prospects of their long-term participation in this hobby. This applies to new players, yes, but also to skilled and knowledgeable players who simply don’t have the free time to play day-in, day-out.
Consider the plethora of hobby alternatives that exist to a $1k+ investment in one or more tiered Modern decks. Consider the growing prominence of streaming and live coverage of big paper events, both of which benefit greatly from being able to showcase interactive games where the streamer or commentators can narrate a variety of options.
If fair deck pilots complain more (and understand that I’m not specifically addressing Tron here, nor the state of blue decks, nor anything else besides the fair/unfair dichotomy), then I would assert it’s because their complaints are justified. A strong majority presence of fair matches of MtG are healthier for the long-term prospects of this wonderful game than the alternative.
I own one fair deck (Abzan midrange) and one unfair deck (Ad Nauseam). Abzan consistently leads to a more enjoyable game experience for my opponents—and lets be honest, Ad Naus is definitely on the tame side as far as unfair decks go. It’s mostly uninteractive and has a combo kill, but at least it lets the opponent cast spells and have a reasonable shot at interacting or racing.
I’ve personally witnessed severalnew and budding Modern players get driven entirely away from this game because veterans on decks like Pyro Prison want to cast T1 Moons, Chalices, and Bridges. I will never understand this mentality, which seems rooted in the conception of fun as a zero-sum game rather than something that can be symbiotic. I can’t help but assume that the types of players gravitating toward decks which require as few difficult decisions as possible just aren’t very good—otherwise, why would they leave so much to chance?
Radical subjectivism is just as faulty of a framework for assessing the Modern metagame as it is for assessing things in the real world. Traditional control decks, traditional midrange decks, and go-wide/tribal decks that pack a respectable amount of interaction should absolutely be the strong backbone of this format if we want it to survive and thrive.
YouTube Channel, with deck techs, gameplay, analysis, spoiler reviews, and more!
Interestingly I've also had the opposite experience where opponents (friends) would prefer I played U/R prison than grixis shadow because at least they can choose what they play. I honestly hadn't considered anyone would rather be blood moon'd or bridged than thoughtseized but it seems like (locally) there is a substantial casual player base that would rather the illusion of being able to get out from under an effect than it just shred their hands.
Edit - despite never beating U/R prison and having a 60%+ win rate v shadow.
Also thanks ktkenshinx!
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT
Interesting assertion, but I dont think it holds up.
Modern offers other flavours of the game that cannot be found (often/at all) in Standard. Control, Midrange, and 'Go Wide' certainly are common enough. I played Control to punish a lack of archetype diversity, it worked.
I play Turns when I want to play 'Modern' and not just play 'punish people for thinking they can just be aggro and turn em sideways'.
Turns, Storm, any kind of Prison, none of those types of things will exist in Standard, and THAT is a huge part of the appeal of Modern.
Spirits
it also isnt all or nothing. sure there are some people who think many of the 'unfair' or 'unfun' elements should be excised from the format entirely, but i think that those people are few and far between. however that is separate from believing a better state cant be reached that leaves both parties satisfied, or that there is nothing that can be done without drastic measures (ie bans).
for example wizards unbanning or printing more cards that benefit one side of the fence more than the other. cards like jace and BBE was one step, and so was the printing of damping sphere. a few more steps like these, such as unbanning stoneforge or more catch-all hate cards, could go a long way in giving such players more confidence that they arent placing a self-imposed handicap on themselves while still leaving the door open for players to enjoy the less common elements in magic that are no longer featured in standard.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)With the completely irresponsible printing of WotC over the past few years it has created a standard like environment that just isn't fun. Eldrazi was a monumental mistake, the general power creep of creatures (in general) is just out of control and the mana fixing lands is beyond stupid. You used to have to make key decisions in regards of deck building when it came to a balance (or none at all) of threats, interaction and manabase. Now, hell... you either play the theme WotC created for you (eldrazi) or you just smash a bunch of creatures into a deck, close your eyes and slap em on the table! They even forced a control deck on us (out of sympathy perhaps) by giving us the very WotC "designed" feel of the Teferi / Azcanta combo.
It's very clear that Mr. Rosewater enjoys pleasuring himself in a room filled of MTG Comics. Unfortunately, that enthusiasm doesn't help when it comes to the responsible printing of cards. Remember when everyone thought Jace, TMC was OP? Ha! Now in a world where you can play a 4/4 Trample with a build in Thoughtseize on T2. It is clear that the new sets are now being printed with Modern in mind (since its more popular than standard, mostly because standard is meta trash), and this is very sad.
I don't mind powerful things, I don't mind broken things, but I do mind when these powerful and broken things take absolutely no thought or skill to pull off.
And this is where Modern is for me. Bye! Off to pauper where I am truly competing against my opponent, not just his deck.
Wanna fix it? Unban it all. Things have gotten so out of hand and cards have been created so irresponsibly, the whole modern meta is ruined. Just unban it all and let people play what they like.
Warning issued for inappropriate content. --CavalryWolfPack
Spirits
uhm...thanks for sharing? not sure there is an adequate response to a bashing the format with so much hyperbole (eldrazi? really? TKS doesnt have trample btw).
funny you mention power creep then talk about pauper, which exists on the back of powerful cards that could never be printed in the modern era of magic.
also i think you are the first person ive seen who believes wizards is designing and printing a lot of cards specifically for the modern format. its a pretty novel idea. though there isnt much evidence to support it, it still could be plausible; though unlikely considering they have a much higher vested interest in making standard successful since its their primary source of sales. maybe they are printing cards to specifically make modern a bad format. again no evidence though, and slightly too tin-foil hat for my tastes.
one idea that you brought up, that doesnt exactly pertain to modern, is wizards recent penchant for designing 'on rails'. i believe its the primary reason that standard has suffered these last few years. their is so much hand-holding because the powerful cards or interactions are too obvious, and the ability to counter them are noticeably absent.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Would be interesting to see something like Rewind printed at 3 mana. Maybe as 1UU or UUU.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Yeah, Unwind was almost interesting. Cant be hitting those creatures though, makes the Timmy/Tammy feel sad.
Spirits