All I've managed to gather in the last few pages is that people want some sort of extended. Larger than standard and decks change more frequently. Not sure why those same people just don't go play Standard instead of a non-rotating format.
The take away from Wizards' post from yesterday is they are going to periodically ban cards from decks that are good for a long period of time to ensure there isn't too much power creep over time. If they didn't do so, gradually the format would crystallize and fewer new cards would have the opportunity to impact Modern.
That is still non-rotating, but they are telling you the ban list is going to gradually get longer, and they also said its only going to shorten if essentially the format has passed by a card that's banned.
Might as well stop telling people to go play Standard when Wizards is telling you get used to more bans.
Technically... by banning the top deck every year you are indeed forcing an "artificial" rotation.
No way around that.
All I've managed to gather in the last few pages is that people want some sort of extended. Larger than standard and decks change more frequently. Not sure why those same people just don't go play Standard instead of a non-rotating format.
Really? Because I get the same feel when people talk about raising the power level. It's like they want some kind of extended, why don't they go play legacy.
Thank you!! Someone else is finally saying it. Just because Modern and Legacy are both non rotating formats doesnt mean both need to be handled in the same manner.
On the restricted list talk. The format would come down to who ever could tutor or draw into those one ofs. Thats how powerful those one ofs are.
So you and Sheepz think that Modern should see enough bannings that Standard legal sets shake it up enough that decks change in competitive levels fairly often? So what would the purpose of Modern be at all at that point?
As I mentioned earlier, there is a format out there if you wish to play the same deck for years and play against the same decks for years, is called Legacy.
Standard has 3 actual competitive decks, maybe 5?
Modern has dozens of T1.5-T2 decks that people can find what they enjoy and play it.
Its more than Standard, and should be less then Legacy, different from both. Handled different then both also. <GASP!!!> A format of its own.
And again, banning 1 or 2 cards in not a rotation. All formats have ban lists.
I am perfectly fine with how the format has been handled and from the article posted a few pages back about their desires for the format, I am all on board with it.
Not all formats are for everyone. I dislike Legacy, Vintage, and Standard, do you see me posting in their forums complaining and trying to get Wotc to change those format to something I like? Nope, because I understand not every format is designed for everyone. I dont have the right to try and change something others are enjoying. That is selfish. The entitlement crowd!
I will tell you another thing, if Wotc decides you go another way that I dont agree with for Modern, I am not going to have a tantrum and complain for 2 weeks , I will walk away and find something else to spend my money on.
Quote from theaxeman »
I'm starting to feel like the few people that actually like these changes... have only been playing Modern for less then 1-2 years.
Nice try. Been playing since the inception of the format. Like I have said before, I dont mind bans. I feel they are a tool to shape the format. Not a big deal really. Some are making more out of it then it really is. We dont get bans every 3 months. We dont get bans every 6 months, or 9 months. I have no problem if Wotc holds bans till January for the PT and we get bans once a year if Wotc seems to feel we need them. Notice I said Wotc, and not the player base.
Stop with the 'artificial' rotation crap. Its 1 or 2 cards. Its not a rotation.
I wonder if you complained as much when Wotc banned survival or mental misstep or treasure cruise from Legacy. Because you know, Legacy is a non-rotating format and how dare they ban cards to fix a format they feel is top heavy or not diverse enough.
All I've managed to gather in the last few pages is that people want some sort of extended. Larger than standard and decks change more frequently. Not sure why those same people just don't go play Standard instead of a non-rotating format.
The take away from Wizards' post from yesterday is they are going to periodically ban cards from decks that are good for a long period of time to ensure there isn't too much power creep over time. If they didn't do so, gradually the format would crystallize and fewer new cards would have the opportunity to impact Modern.
That is still non-rotating, but they are telling you the ban list is going to gradually get longer, and they also said its only going to shorten if essentially the format has passed by a card that's banned.
Might as well stop telling people to go play Standard when Wizards is telling you get used to more bans.
Yet legacy is well respected? We shouldn't have to deal with artificial bans at artificial times. They are directly telling you that you will be ****ed for playing modern. How well does that bode for us? Our cost of entry will be directly impacted by the secondary market every year. Why would I not just fork up the cash for legacy at this point? Why should I trust anything wizards has to do with modern anymore?
Overextended was such a better format than this garbage.
All I've managed to gather in the last few pages is that people want some sort of extended. Larger than standard and decks change more frequently. Not sure why those same people just don't go play Standard instead of a non-rotating format.
Really? Because I get the same feel when people talk about raising the power level. It's like they want some kind of extended, why don't they go play legacy.
Thank you!! Someone else is finally saying it. Just because Modern and Legacy are both non rotating formats doesnt mean both need to be handled in the same manner.
On the restricted list talk. The format would come down to who ever could tutor or draw into those one ofs. Thats how powerful those one ofs are.
So you and Sheepz think that Modern should see enough bannings that Standard legal sets shake it up enough that decks change in competitive levels fairly often? So what would the purpose of Modern be at all at that point?
I'm not talking bans strictly. I'm saying BETWEEN BANS UNBANS AND NEW PRINTINGS I would like to see a SINGLE tier 1 deck move to tier 2 and a tier 2 rise up to replace it as a tier 1 every YEAR OR SO and maybe see SIX MONTH STRETCHES where tier one decks are TEMPORARILY NOT WELL POSITIONED DUE TO BANS UNBANS OR NEW PRINTINGS ALA TWIN IN THE CRUISE META. This would address MY ISSUE OF LACK OF TIER MOBILITY WITHIN MODERN so we would not see so similar top 8s across modern's history as we do now.
To be MORE clear I am not saying ban something every six months. I am not saying ban something every year. There are two approaches to what I want. Raise the power level of standard, or lower the power level of modern. AS LONG AS MODERN BECOMES MORE IN LINE WITH STANDARD, I DONT CARE. Currently, twin hindered the viability of new cards entering the format competitively, and MOST unbans do not create new decks AND/OR raise the power level higher making it LESS LIKELY that standard printings will have an impact. I don't know how I can be more clear in my reasoning or on what exactly I want. Do you need examples? Because as it stands you are not correctly interpreting what I am saying or are willfully misconstruing it.
So why do you think it was we had 30 or so different archetypes represented in the Top 8s of all GPs/PTs of 2015? Expand that out to major SCG events, and it's closer to 40+. Doesn't that imply a great ebb and flow of tier 2 decks rising and falling with the changes and natural evolution of the format? Why does a top deck need to be artificially banned to induce this shake up when it already happens naturally with new sets? Did everyone seem to forget Twin falling heavily out of favor over the summer, and trending downward most of the last half of the year?
All I've managed to gather in the last few pages is that people want some sort of extended. Larger than standard and decks change more frequently. Not sure why those same people just don't go play Standard instead of a non-rotating format.
Really? Because I get the same feel when people talk about raising the power level. It's like they want some kind of extended, why don't they go play legacy.
Thank you!! Someone else is finally saying it. Just because Modern and Legacy are both non rotating formats doesnt mean both need to be handled in the same manner.
On the restricted list talk. The format would come down to who ever could tutor or draw into those one ofs. Thats how powerful those one ofs are.
So you and Sheepz think that Modern should see enough bannings that Standard legal sets shake it up enough that decks change in competitive levels fairly often? So what would the purpose of Modern be at all at that point?
As I mentioned earlier, there is a format out there if you wish to play the same deck for years and play against the same decks for years, is called Legacy.
Standard has 3 actual competitive decks, maybe 5?
Modern has dozens of T1.5-T2 decks that people can find what they enjoy and play it.
Its more than Standard, and should be less then Legacy, different from both. Handled different then both also. <GASP!!!> A format of its own.
And again, banning 1 or 2 cards in not a rotation. All formats have ban lists.
I am perfectly fine with how the format has been handled and from the article posted a few pages back about their desires for the format, I am all on board with it.
Not all formats are for everyone. I dislike Legacy, Vintage, and Standard, do you see me posting in their forums complaining and trying to get Wotc to change those format to something I like? Nope, because I understand not every format is designed for everyone. I dont have the right to try and change something others are enjoying. That is selfish. The entitlement crowd!
Quote from theaxeman »
I'm starting to feel like the few people that actually like these changes... have only been playing Modern for less then 1-2 years.
Nice try. Been playing since the inception of the format. Like I have said before, I dont mind bans. I feel they are a tool to shape the format. Not a big deal really. Some are making more out of it then it really is. We dont get bans every 3 months. We dont get bans every 6 months, or 9 months. I have no problem if Wotc holds bans till January for the PT and we get bans once a year if Wotc seems to feel we need them. Notice I said Wotc, and not the player base.
A) there exists countless tier 2 decks in standard as well. Bant company, Elves, Jeskai Ascendancy, etc. They just don't see play.
B) When the only reason you ban those 1-2 cards (Wild Nicatle, Twin, Bitterblossom, Valakut, etc.) is to "shake up the meta that is a forced rotation.
All I've managed to gather in the last few pages is that people want some sort of extended. Larger than standard and decks change more frequently. Not sure why those same people just don't go play Standard instead of a non-rotating format.
The take away from Wizards' post from yesterday is they are going to periodically ban cards from decks that are good for a long period of time to ensure there isn't too much power creep over time. If they didn't do so, gradually the format would crystallize and fewer new cards would have the opportunity to impact Modern.
That is still non-rotating, but they are telling you the ban list is going to gradually get longer, and they also said its only going to shorten if essentially the format has passed by a card that's banned.
Might as well stop telling people to go play Standard when Wizards is telling you get used to more bans.
Yet legacy is well respected? We shouldn't have to deal with artificial bans at artificial times. They are directly telling you that you will be ****ed for playing modern. How well does that bode for us? Our cost of entry will be directly impacted by the secondary market every year. Why would I not just fork up the cash for legacy at this point? Why should I trust anything wizards has to do with modern anymore?
Overextended was such a better format than this garbage.
Okay lets steer this toward something more productive. I don't want to see the same top eights as we have been for moderns existence. I think it's perfectly fine for a modern deck to rule the roost for 3-4 years, but would not want to see much longer than that. I don't care how this shifts whether it's via bans, unbans, or new printings. I would PREFER to not see the format gradually grow in power with more and more power creep. I think overextended and legacy were/are god awful formats and would like to not see decks ported from either into modern. So in the interest of compromise, what's a REASONABLE period of time for via ANY OF THESE METHODS for a deck to remain top tier? Does it have to be CONSISTENTLY top tier or would you be alright with it being tier 2 for a year of it's 4 year stretch before becoming tier 1 again? I am trying to be reasonable here but recent posts are becoming increasingly toxic.
A) there exists countless tier 2 decks in standard as well. Bant company, Elves, Jeskai Ascendancy, etc. They just don't see play.
Because they are not competitive. Unlike in Modern where a good number of T1.5 and T2 decks can prize on any given weekend. Starting to see the difference?
B) When the only reason you ban those 1-2 cards (Wild Nicatle, Twin, Bitterblossom, Valakut, etc.) is to "shake up the meta that is a forced rotation.
First, Bitterblossom and Valakut were on the original ban list. They were never banned for diversity reasons.
Second, I didnt hear the masses crying over Wild Nacatl being banned for diversity claiming 'artificial' or 'forced' rotation. Only with Twin. Also notice no one mentions Bloom, just Twin.
Quote from Shmanka »
Overextended was such a better format than this garbage.
To each their own, I couldnt stand Overextended, it was a garbage format to me. Glad they went the way they did.
Really? Because I get the same feel when people talk about raising the power level. It's like they want some kind of extended, why don't they go play legacy.
Thank you!! Someone else is finally saying it. Just because Modern and Legacy are both non rotating formats doesnt mean both need to be handled in the same manner.
On the restricted list talk. The format would come down to who ever could tutor or draw into those one ofs. Thats how powerful those one ofs are.
So you and Sheepz think that Modern should see enough bannings that Standard legal sets shake it up enough that decks change in competitive levels fairly often? So what would the purpose of Modern be at all at that point?
I'm not talking bans strictly. I'm saying BETWEEN BANS UNBANS AND NEW PRINTINGS I would like to see a SINGLE tier 1 deck move to tier 2 and a tier 2 rise up to replace it as a tier 1 every YEAR OR SO and maybe see SIX MONTH STRETCHES where tier one decks are TEMPORARILY NOT WELL POSITIONED DUE TO BANS UNBANS OR NEW PRINTINGS ALA TWIN IN THE CRUISE META. This would address MY ISSUE OF LACK OF TIER MOBILITY WITHIN MODERN so we would not see so similar top 8s across modern's history as we do now.
To be MORE clear I am not saying ban something every six months. I am not saying ban something every year. There are two approaches to what I want. Raise the power level of standard, or lower the power level of modern. AS LONG AS MODERN BECOMES MORE IN LINE WITH STANDARD, I DONT CARE. Currently, twin hindered the viability of new cards entering the format competitively, and MOST unbans do not create new decks AND/OR raise the power level higher making it LESS LIKELY that standard printings will have an impact. I don't know how I can be more clear in my reasoning or on what exactly I want. Do you need examples? Because as it stands you are not correctly interpreting what I am saying or are willfully misconstruing it.
So why do you think it was we had 30 or so different archetypes represented in the Top 8s of all GPs/PTs of 2015? Expand that out to major SCG events, and it's closer to 40+. Doesn't that imply a great ebb and flow of tier 2 decks rising and falling with the changes and natural evolution of the format? Why does a top deck need to be artificially banned to induce this shake up when it already happens naturally with new sets? Did everyone seem to forget Twin falling heavily out of favor over the summer, and trending downward most of the last half of the year?
Representation does not mean it is moving between tier 1 and tier 2. It just means it managed to perform. No it does not imply rising and falling really, since they remained solidly tier 2. It doesn't need to be artificially banned, I've said a hundred times I think the twin ban was premature. I think there are other ways to accomplish what I would desire as I mentioned specifically bolded and underlined in the post you just responded to. I even have mentioned in past posts that twin organically falling in and out of favor is actually exactly the kind of thing I want to see. That's a sign of the format working perfectly. I don't know how many times I have to say this doesn't all have to be accomplished with bans. I have repeated that in almost every single recent post I have made. There are other, better ways to accomplish it. It's only when those ways have failed that a ban should be considered. I am not pro banning to force rotation, it's just a necessary measure when all else has failed. Lastly, the twin ban was premature but, I feel, will likely be good for the long term health of the format.
I do not think there should be bans every six months or even every year.
I do not think there should be bans every six months or even every year.
I do not think there should be bans every six months or even every year.
I do not think there should be bans every six months or even every year.
I do not think there should be bans every six months or even every year.
I do not think there should be bans every six months or even every year.
Okay lets steer this toward something more productive. I don't want to see the same top eights as we have been for moderns existence.
Modern saw 30-40 different archetypes across Top 8s in 2015 between GPs, PT, and major SCG events. Lord knows dozens more if we look at local levels, IQs, FNMs, etc.
I think it's perfectly fine for a modern deck to rule the roost for 3-4 years, but would not want to see much longer than that.
I'm perfectly fine seeing a modern deck or series of decks be top tier for as long as they exist, so long as they don't break any rules. Inducing an articial time-based restriction on their rule transforms a "non-rotating format" into essentially a rotation. For them to be dethroned, another deck needs to take its place. It's the job of the Tier 2s to figure out a way to do that. On any given weekend, dozens of Tier 2 decks managed that last year.
A) there exists countless tier 2 decks in standard as well. Bant company, Elves, Jeskai Ascendancy, etc. They just don't see play.
Because they are not competitive. Unlike in Modern where a good number of T1.5 and T2 decks can prize on any given weekend. Starting to see the difference?
B) When the only reason you ban those 1-2 cards (Wild Nicatle, Twin, Bitterblossom, Valakut, etc.) is to "shake up the meta that is a forced rotation.
First, Bitterblossom and Valakut were on the original ban list. They were never banned for diversity reasons.
Second, I didnt hear the masses crying over Wild Nacatl being banned for diversity claiming 'artificial' or 'forced' rotation. Only with Twin. Also notice no one mentions Bloom, just Twin.
Quote from Shmanka »
Overextended was such a better format than this garbage.
To each their own, I couldnt stand Overextended, it was a garbage format to me. Glad they went the way they did.
Valakut and Bitterblossom were on the original ban list due to diversity. They were "huge" decks in standard at the time and Wizard's didn't want them porting over to Modern (not because they were broken). Secondly: You obviously were not on the forums. Alot of people questioned the Wild Nacatle ban. The big difference: not as many people played it. As a result the "questioning" was much smaller.
Okay lets steer this toward something more productive. I don't want to see the same top eights as we have been for moderns existence.
Modern saw 30-40 different archetypes across Top 8s in 2015 between GPs, PT, and major SCG events. Lord knows dozens more if we look at local levels, IQs, FNMs, etc.
I think it's perfectly fine for a modern deck to rule the roost for 3-4 years, but would not want to see much longer than that.
I'm perfectly fine seeing a modern deck or series of decks be top tier for as long as they exist, so long as they don't break any rules. Inducing an articial time-based restriction on their rule transforms a "non-rotating format" into essentially a rotation. For them to be dethroned, another deck needs to take its place. It's the job of the Tier 2s to figure out a way to do that. On any given weekend, dozens of Tier 2 decks managed that last year.
So you would have been fine with twin, pod, affinity, and jund being the only decks to consistently top 8 for 15 years? I agree that it is the job of tier 2 decks to innovate and find a way up, and of course another deck needs to take the deck it's replacing place. So the ONLY tools you find acceptable for this are unbans and new printings WHICH IS IDEAL TO ME, I am just willing to consider a ban when that fails. Had pod remained in the format, I feel it would have been a signicantly worse format. Same with DRS jund. Note these didn't break any rules, were simply oppressive. I don't think this was the case with twin, but were you alright with THOSE bans?
Also top rights don't mean tier mobility. It has to be consistent performance. Tier 1 has remained mostly stagnant for modern's existence.
Second, I didnt hear the masses crying over Wild Nacatl being banned for diversity claiming 'artificial' or 'forced' rotation. Only with Twin. Also notice no one mentions Bloom, just Twin.
People were unhappy with the Nacatl ban, but the volume was much lower because the format was much younger. The playerbase was also smaller. The outcry got progressively louder with each subsequent ban, which is partially par for the course when the format grows, but could also indicate legitimate dissatisfaction.
My gripe with the Twin ban is because Wizards either unintentionally or deliberately misled readers in their ban justification. Forsythe made it extremely clear on unofficial channels that the Pro Tour was a ban factor. The announcement is totally silent to this. The announcement also talks about overall metagame share when Twin's share was significantly lower than other decks that suffered from bans for diversity reasons. If the PT is going to be a big factor, the community needs to know that.
As for Bloom, that ban rocked. The deck was a demonstrable turn four violator and the ban was a great example of format management.
Second, I didnt hear the masses crying over Wild Nacatl being banned for diversity claiming 'artificial' or 'forced' rotation. Only with Twin. Also notice no one mentions Bloom, just Twin.
Seriously, wizards should publish an official document regarding their vision for each format and how they are gonna achieve it.
It was well said before the aim of the B&R list for modern is to stop turn 3-4 kills from happening, and now they are managing the diversity of the format as well, all in a sudden.
It is just a pure mess for players to buy cards for a supposedly "eternal" format, and bam, your cards are useless now.
Please, let us plan well ahead. Players do not have a magical wallet that can print money unlikely your printing machine that can just cough cards out of it.
What is the likelihood of an Affinity ban? The ban mania is starting to get to me and while it isn't currently getting the discussion that Eldrazi is getting, it was still probably the second best performing deck at the Pro Tour and now contains one of the largest meta shares. I've seriously entertained the idea of selling out for a different deck to avoid being banned out.
What is the likelihood of an Affinity ban? The ban mania is starting to get to me and while it isn't currently getting the discussion that Eldrazi is getting, it was still probably the second best performing deck at the Pro Tour and now contains one of the largest meta shares. I've seriously entertained the idea of selling out for a different deck to avoid being banned out.
Well. No affinity in the finals, so draw your conclusions . Now UWR and Grixis are picking up some steam again, do not expect it to be that dominant even with a potential Eldrazi ban.
Second, I didnt hear the masses crying over Wild Nacatl being banned for diversity claiming 'artificial' or 'forced' rotation. Only with Twin. Also notice no one mentions Bloom, just Twin.
Seriously, wizards should publish an official document regarding their vision for each format and how they are gonna achieve it.
It was well said before the aim of the B&R list for modern is to stop turn 3-4 kills from happening, and now they are managing the diversity of the format as well, all in a sudden.
It is just a pure mess for players to buy cards for a supposedly "eternal" format, and bam, your cards are useless now.
Please, let us plan well ahead. Players do not have a magical wallet that can print money unlikely your printing machine that can just cough cards out of it.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Ironically back then I was actually for the banning of wild Nacatl. Because I hated playing against Zoo.
That's why alot of people were happy about the Twin ban. Because they didn't want to play against it, not because it was "too good".
I was wrong about Wild Nacatl. You shouldn't be happy about a ban just because it makes a deck you dislike less popular.
That shouldn't be the point of bannings.
So you would have been fine with twin, pod, affinity, and jund being the only decks to consistently top 8 for 15 years? I agree that it is the job of tier 2 decks to innovate and find a way up, and of course another deck needs to take the deck it's replacing place. So the ONLY tools you find acceptable for this are unbans and new printings WHICH IS IDEAL TO ME, I am just willing to consider a ban when that fails. Had pod remained in the format, I feel it would have been a signicantly worse format. Same with DRS jund. Note these didn't break any rules, were simply oppressive. I don't think this was the case with twin, but were you alright with THOSE bans?
Also top rights don't mean tier mobility. It has to be consistent performance. Tier 1 has remained mostly stagnant for modern's existence.
If the tier 2 decks can't beat the tier 1 decks, that's the fault of janky tier 2, not stability of tier 1. And especially if tier 1 exists in harmony with each other in a rock-paper-scissors environment, then no one of them is dominating all the others. If you remove scissors from the equation, rock no longer has prey and paper takes over the format. We saw this when Jund and Tron more or less fell into obscurity and Affinity/uninteractive linear strategies skyrocketed after the Twin ban.
On top of that, this hypothetical tier 1 parade has ample representation of the color pie (and colorless) in addition to a range of strategies from aggro, beatdown, midrange, combo, and control. Granted Pod did limit design space and held an unhealthy overall metashare (much larger than Twin). The use of tutors is already frowned upon, but infinitely reusable tutors are apparently extra bad. Even without pod, we had an excellent meta all year last year. Lots of tier 2 decks showing success and tier 1 decks floating around. Maybe you remember something differently than I with regards to 2015.
Okay lets steer this toward something more productive. I don't want to see the same top eights as we have been for moderns existence.
Modern saw 30-40 different archetypes across Top 8s in 2015 between GPs, PT, and major SCG events. Lord knows dozens more if we look at local levels, IQs, FNMs, etc.
I think it's perfectly fine for a modern deck to rule the roost for 3-4 years, but would not want to see much longer than that.
I'm perfectly fine seeing a modern deck or series of decks be top tier for as long as they exist, so long as they don't break any rules. Inducing an articial time-based restriction on their rule transforms a "non-rotating format" into essentially a rotation. For them to be dethroned, another deck needs to take its place. It's the job of the Tier 2s to figure out a way to do that. On any given weekend, dozens of Tier 2 decks managed that last year.
So you would have been fine with twin, pod, affinity, and jund being the only decks to consistently top 8 for 15 years? I agree that it is the job of tier 2 decks to innovate and find a way up, and of course another deck needs to take the deck it's replacing place. So the ONLY tools you find acceptable for this are unbans and new printings WHICH IS IDEAL TO ME, I am just willing to consider a ban when that fails. Had pod remained in the format, I feel it would have been a signicantly worse format. Same with DRS jund. Note these didn't break any rules, were simply oppressive. I don't think this was the case with twin, but were you alright with THOSE bans?
Also top rights don't mean tier mobility. It has to be consistent performance. Tier 1 has remained mostly stagnant for modern's existence.
I would personally be fine with the same top tier for 15 years, as long as the tier two decks stayed somewhat fluid, which I believe they have. I saw modern as having pillars burn/affinty, tron, twin, and jund that you had to plan for, and then a slew of tier two decks that were hoping to dodge their worst matchup to do well. The draw of modern to me was that it shifted slowly so, even if I could only play once a month I had a deck I could ay with a small amount of tweaking, and I only had to purchase a few cards from each set to stay up to date. It appeared to be the perfect format for someone like me, apparently my vision is different than what wotc now wants. Which would be fine, but now I feel like their isn't a format for me, legacy isn't supported by wotc and even though I live in an area with a large mtg base their is no where to play legacy, or I'd have no problem diving in.
People want different things from modern, the problem is some people want a format that is non rotating but often infused with new life from standard, which doesn't happen with the current power level of modern (eldrazi/tc/dtt as outliers) and others want a format that is more like legacy sans reserved list.
I for one think/hope we can get to a format that suits both groups, however, I fear that the transition will be ugly. Wotc just has done a poor job from the beginning and have not planned nearly well enough. Noone likes bans even if the are healthy for the format. I've been hit 3 or 4 times between storm, pod, tc delver, and twin. The majority I agree were necessary, some where design mistakes others like twin/podaybe should have been banned from the beginning and you wouldn't have the uproar we have now.
My problem with modern is that it's unstable and wotc never seems to have a clear direction for the format.
Not sure where that 12% comes from. In combined MTGO events since 2/6 (10 events total), Eldrazi is at a fairly obscene 44%. Affinity close behind at 19.5%. Merfolk is in third at 4.75% and everything else is lower. Yes, it's early in the post-Eldrazi world, but those are really ugly numbers and even uglier gaps between the numbers.
So you would have been fine with twin, pod, affinity, and jund being the only decks to consistently top 8 for 15 years? I agree that it is the job of tier 2 decks to innovate and find a way up, and of course another deck needs to take the deck it's replacing place. So the ONLY tools you find acceptable for this are unbans and new printings WHICH IS IDEAL TO ME, I am just willing to consider a ban when that fails. Had pod remained in the format, I feel it would have been a signicantly worse format. Same with DRS jund. Note these didn't break any rules, were simply oppressive. I don't think this was the case with twin, but were you alright with THOSE bans?
Also top rights don't mean tier mobility. It has to be consistent performance. Tier 1 has remained mostly stagnant for modern's existence.
If the tier 2 decks can't beat the tier 1 decks, that's the fault of janky tier 2, not stability of tier 1. And especially if tier 1 exists in harmony with each other in a rock-paper-scissors environment, then no one of them is dominating all the others. If you remove scissors from the equation, rock no longer has prey and paper takes over the format. We saw this when Jund and Tron more or less fell into obscurity and Affinity/uninteractive linear strategies skyrocketed after the Twin ban.
On top of that, this hypothetical tier 1 parade has ample representation of the color pie (and colorless) in addition to a range of strategies from aggro, beatdown, midrange, combo, and control. Granted Pod did limit design space and held an unhealthy overall metashare (much larger than Twin). The use of tutors is already frowned upon, but infinitely reusable tutors are apparently extra bad. Even without pod, we had an excellent meta all year last year. Lots of tier 2 decks showing success and tier 1 decks floating around. Maybe you remember something differently than I with regards to 2015.
The only significant tier movement I saw in 2015 was bloom to 1 which was banned out. For color diversity, white continues to struggle, and the same old decks continue to be the top performers. I agree though that this year was certainly better than 2014 or 13, I do think it's a step in the right direction. A lot of that good CAME from Pod's ban though. To clarify, my nightmare meta was the 2014 summer where it was Jund Pod Twin Affinity pretty much shifting around the top spots. I would like to avoid having that happen long term.
2015 was absolutely a step in the right direction, but it could be better is my general feeling. This doesn't mean actively banning out top decks in hopes that diversity will flourish the way it did with pod, but it does mean making sure tier 1 decks do not out pace tier 2 decks so horrifically that they only have to really consider each other within the meta (like it was with twin really)
All I've managed to gather in the last few pages is that people want some sort of extended. Larger than standard and decks change more frequently. Not sure why those same people just don't go play Standard instead of a non-rotating format.
The take away from Wizards' post from yesterday is they are going to periodically ban cards from decks that are good for a long period of time to ensure there isn't too much power creep over time. If they didn't do so, gradually the format would crystallize and fewer new cards would have the opportunity to impact Modern.
That is still non-rotating, but they are telling you the ban list is going to gradually get longer, and they also said its only going to shorten if essentially the format has passed by a card that's banned.
Might as well stop telling people to go play Standard when Wizards is telling you get used to more bans.
Yet legacy is well respected? We shouldn't have to deal with artificial bans at artificial times. They are directly telling you that you will be ****ed for playing modern. How well does that bode for us? Our cost of entry will be directly impacted by the secondary market every year. Why would I not just fork up the cash for legacy at this point? Why should I trust anything wizards has to do with modern anymore?
Overextended was such a better format than this garbage.
You can throw in the ****s to avoid the filter and interpret it however you want.
Regarding cost of entry, if you want to play Magic competitively you have the following options (in paper):
Play Limited and pay nothing upfront, but pay every time you want to play.
Play Standard and not have any upfront cost more than two blocks worth of ongoing costs, but each new set that is released you will incur significant additional cost.
Play Modern with a significant upfront cost but much less ongoing costs than keeping up with Standard. In addition, Wizards has now said that the same deck may not be legal over the course of many years if it is good, so it is likely you will occasionally lose some card value and/or be forced to buy substitute cards or change decks.
Play Legacy with a higher upfront cost, but lower ongoing costs than Modern and lower likelihood of bans.
Honestly, I like to play a lot of different styles of decks and enjoy agonizing over card choices while deck building. So unless I am willing to buy a ton of Legacy staples at a huge upfront cost, Modern has by far the lowest overall cost to play for me, even if the occasional ban takes down the value of a card.
Okay lets steer this toward something more productive. I don't want to see the same top eights as we have been for moderns existence.
Modern saw 30-40 different archetypes across Top 8s in 2015 between GPs, PT, and major SCG events. Lord knows dozens more if we look at local levels, IQs, FNMs, etc.
I think it's perfectly fine for a modern deck to rule the roost for 3-4 years, but would not want to see much longer than that.
I'm perfectly fine seeing a modern deck or series of decks be top tier for as long as they exist, so long as they don't break any rules. Inducing an articial time-based restriction on their rule transforms a "non-rotating format" into essentially a rotation. For them to be dethroned, another deck needs to take its place. It's the job of the Tier 2s to figure out a way to do that. On any given weekend, dozens of Tier 2 decks managed that last year.
So you would have been fine with twin, pod, affinity, and jund being the only decks to consistently top 8 for 15 years? I agree that it is the job of tier 2 decks to innovate and find a way up, and of course another deck needs to take the deck it's replacing place. So the ONLY tools you find acceptable for this are unbans and new printings WHICH IS IDEAL TO ME, I am just willing to consider a ban when that fails. Had pod remained in the format, I feel it would have been a signicantly worse format. Same with DRS jund. Note these didn't break any rules, were simply oppressive. I don't think this was the case with twin, but were you alright with THOSE bans?
Also top rights don't mean tier mobility. It has to be consistent performance. Tier 1 has remained mostly stagnant for modern's existence.
I would personally be fine with the same top tier for 15 years, as long as the tier two decks stayed somewhat fluid, which I believe they have. I saw modern as having pillars burn/affinty, tron, twin, and jund that you had to plan for, and then a slew of tier two decks that were hoping to dodge their worst matchup to do well. The draw of modern to me was that it shifted slowly so, even if I could only play once a month I had a deck I could ay with a small amount of tweaking, and I only had to purchase a few cards from each set to stay up to date. It appeared to be the perfect format for someone like me, apparently my vision is different than what wotc now wants. Which would be fine, but now I feel like their isn't a format for me, legacy isn't supported by wotc and even though I live in an area with a large mtg base their is no where to play legacy, or I'd have no problem diving in.
People want different things from modern, the problem is some people want a format that is non rotating but often infused with new life from standard, which doesn't happen with the current power level of modern (eldrazi/tc/dtt as outliers) and others want a format that is more like legacy sans reserved list.
I for one think/hope we can get to a format that suits both groups, however, I fear that the transition will be ugly. Wotc just has done a poor job from the beginning and have not planned nearly well enough. Noone likes bans even if the are healthy for the format. I've been hit 3 or 4 times between storm, pod, tc delver, and twin. The majority I agree were necessary, some where design mistakes others like twin/podaybe should have been banned from the beginning and you wouldn't have the uproar we have now.
My problem with modern is that it's unstable and wotc never seems to have a clear direction for the format.
Finances aren't really a concern for me, and I felt playing one of the pillars that I could essentially ignore whatever happened in the lower tiers and just focus on the tier 1 meta because the power gap was so wide that they were just trash I could ignore (2014, less so in 15 but still got that vibe with twin). Compromise is exactly what I'm looking for here, if we can get to the point where tier 1 is close enough to tier 2 that tier 1 decks have to actually consider them in the meta rather than relying on their proactive plan to absolutely crush them, I would be happy. We would see more tier 2 decks putting up numbers, although not as consistently as tier 1 decks, still more than today. Being tier 1.5 might actually mean something more than being top of the trash heap.
Okay lets steer this toward something more productive. I don't want to see the same top eights as we have been for moderns existence.
Modern saw 30-40 different archetypes across Top 8s in 2015 between GPs, PT, and major SCG events. Lord knows dozens more if we look at local levels, IQs, FNMs, etc.
I think it's perfectly fine for a modern deck to rule the roost for 3-4 years, but would not want to see much longer than that.
I'm perfectly fine seeing a modern deck or series of decks be top tier for as long as they exist, so long as they don't break any rules. Inducing an articial time-based restriction on their rule transforms a "non-rotating format" into essentially a rotation. For them to be dethroned, another deck needs to take its place. It's the job of the Tier 2s to figure out a way to do that. On any given weekend, dozens of Tier 2 decks managed that last year.
So you would have been fine with twin, pod, affinity, and jund being the only decks to consistently top 8 for 15 years? I agree that it is the job of tier 2 decks to innovate and find a way up, and of course another deck needs to take the deck it's replacing place. So the ONLY tools you find acceptable for this are unbans and new printings WHICH IS IDEAL TO ME, I am just willing to consider a ban when that fails. Had pod remained in the format, I feel it would have been a signicantly worse format. Same with DRS jund. Note these didn't break any rules, were simply oppressive. I don't think this was the case with twin, but were you alright with THOSE bans?
Also top rights don't mean tier mobility. It has to be consistent performance. Tier 1 has remained mostly stagnant for modern's existence.
I would personally be fine with the same top tier for 15 years, as long as the tier two decks stayed somewhat fluid, which I believe they have. I saw modern as having pillars burn/affinty, tron, twin, and jund that you had to plan for, and then a slew of tier two decks that were hoping to dodge their worst matchup to do well. The draw of modern to me was that it shifted slowly so, even if I could only play once a month I had a deck I could ay with a small amount of tweaking, and I only had to purchase a few cards from each set to stay up to date. It appeared to be the perfect format for someone like me, apparently my vision is different than what wotc now wants. Which would be fine, but now I feel like their isn't a format for me, legacy isn't supported by wotc and even though I live in an area with a large mtg base their is no where to play legacy, or I'd have no problem diving in.
People want different things from modern, the problem is some people want a format that is non rotating but often infused with new life from standard, which doesn't happen with the current power level of modern (eldrazi/tc/dtt as outliers) and others want a format that is more like legacy sans reserved list.
I for one think/hope we can get to a format that suits both groups, however, I fear that the transition will be ugly. Wotc just has done a poor job from the beginning and have not planned nearly well enough. Noone likes bans even if the are healthy for the format. I've been hit 3 or 4 times between storm, pod, tc delver, and twin. The majority I agree were necessary, some where design mistakes others like twin/podaybe should have been banned from the beginning and you wouldn't have the uproar we have now.
My problem with modern is that it's unstable and wotc never seems to have a clear direction for the format.
Finances aren't really a concern for me, and I felt playing one of the pillars that I could essentially ignore whatever happened in the lower tiers and just focus on the tier 1 meta because the power gap was so wide that they were just trash I could ignore (2014, less so in 15 but still got that vibe with twin). Compromise is exactly what I'm looking for here, if we can get to the point where tier 1 is close enough to tier 2 that tier 1 decks have to actually consider them in the meta rather than relying on their proactive plan to absolutely crush them, I would be happy. We would see more tier 2 decks putting up numbers, although not as consistently as tier 1 decks, still more than today. Being tier 1.5 might actually mean something more than being top of the trash heap.
Prior to the Twin ban... there was nearly always a tier 2 deck in the top 8.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Technically... by banning the top deck every year you are indeed forcing an "artificial" rotation.
No way around that.
As I mentioned earlier, there is a format out there if you wish to play the same deck for years and play against the same decks for years, is called Legacy.
Standard has 3 actual competitive decks, maybe 5?
Modern has dozens of T1.5-T2 decks that people can find what they enjoy and play it.
Its more than Standard, and should be less then Legacy, different from both. Handled different then both also. <GASP!!!> A format of its own.
And again, banning 1 or 2 cards in not a rotation. All formats have ban lists.
I am perfectly fine with how the format has been handled and from the article posted a few pages back about their desires for the format, I am all on board with it.
Not all formats are for everyone. I dislike Legacy, Vintage, and Standard, do you see me posting in their forums complaining and trying to get Wotc to change those format to something I like? Nope, because I understand not every format is designed for everyone. I dont have the right to try and change something others are enjoying. That is selfish. The entitlement crowd!
I will tell you another thing, if Wotc decides you go another way that I dont agree with for Modern, I am not going to have a tantrum and complain for 2 weeks , I will walk away and find something else to spend my money on.
Nice try. Been playing since the inception of the format. Like I have said before, I dont mind bans. I feel they are a tool to shape the format. Not a big deal really. Some are making more out of it then it really is. We dont get bans every 3 months. We dont get bans every 6 months, or 9 months. I have no problem if Wotc holds bans till January for the PT and we get bans once a year if Wotc seems to feel we need them. Notice I said Wotc, and not the player base.
Stop with the 'artificial' rotation crap. Its 1 or 2 cards. Its not a rotation.
I wonder if you complained as much when Wotc banned survival or mental misstep or treasure cruise from Legacy. Because you know, Legacy is a non-rotating format and how dare they ban cards to fix a format they feel is top heavy or not diverse enough.
Yet legacy is well respected? We shouldn't have to deal with artificial bans at artificial times. They are directly telling you that you will be ****ed for playing modern. How well does that bode for us? Our cost of entry will be directly impacted by the secondary market every year. Why would I not just fork up the cash for legacy at this point? Why should I trust anything wizards has to do with modern anymore?
Overextended was such a better format than this garbage.
So why do you think it was we had 30 or so different archetypes represented in the Top 8s of all GPs/PTs of 2015? Expand that out to major SCG events, and it's closer to 40+. Doesn't that imply a great ebb and flow of tier 2 decks rising and falling with the changes and natural evolution of the format? Why does a top deck need to be artificially banned to induce this shake up when it already happens naturally with new sets? Did everyone seem to forget Twin falling heavily out of favor over the summer, and trending downward most of the last half of the year?
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
A) there exists countless tier 2 decks in standard as well. Bant company, Elves, Jeskai Ascendancy, etc. They just don't see play.
B) When the only reason you ban those 1-2 cards (Wild Nicatle, Twin, Bitterblossom, Valakut, etc.) is to "shake up the meta that is a forced rotation.
Okay lets steer this toward something more productive. I don't want to see the same top eights as we have been for moderns existence. I think it's perfectly fine for a modern deck to rule the roost for 3-4 years, but would not want to see much longer than that. I don't care how this shifts whether it's via bans, unbans, or new printings. I would PREFER to not see the format gradually grow in power with more and more power creep. I think overextended and legacy were/are god awful formats and would like to not see decks ported from either into modern. So in the interest of compromise, what's a REASONABLE period of time for via ANY OF THESE METHODS for a deck to remain top tier? Does it have to be CONSISTENTLY top tier or would you be alright with it being tier 2 for a year of it's 4 year stretch before becoming tier 1 again? I am trying to be reasonable here but recent posts are becoming increasingly toxic.
Because they are not competitive. Unlike in Modern where a good number of T1.5 and T2 decks can prize on any given weekend. Starting to see the difference?
First, Bitterblossom and Valakut were on the original ban list. They were never banned for diversity reasons.
Second, I didnt hear the masses crying over Wild Nacatl being banned for diversity claiming 'artificial' or 'forced' rotation. Only with Twin. Also notice no one mentions Bloom, just Twin.
To each their own, I couldnt stand Overextended, it was a garbage format to me. Glad they went the way they did.
Representation does not mean it is moving between tier 1 and tier 2. It just means it managed to perform. No it does not imply rising and falling really, since they remained solidly tier 2. It doesn't need to be artificially banned, I've said a hundred times I think the twin ban was premature. I think there are other ways to accomplish what I would desire as I mentioned specifically bolded and underlined in the post you just responded to. I even have mentioned in past posts that twin organically falling in and out of favor is actually exactly the kind of thing I want to see. That's a sign of the format working perfectly. I don't know how many times I have to say this doesn't all have to be accomplished with bans. I have repeated that in almost every single recent post I have made. There are other, better ways to accomplish it. It's only when those ways have failed that a ban should be considered. I am not pro banning to force rotation, it's just a necessary measure when all else has failed. Lastly, the twin ban was premature but, I feel, will likely be good for the long term health of the format.
I do not think there should be bans every six months or even every year.
I do not think there should be bans every six months or even every year.
I do not think there should be bans every six months or even every year.
I do not think there should be bans every six months or even every year.
I do not think there should be bans every six months or even every year.
I do not think there should be bans every six months or even every year.
Modern saw 30-40 different archetypes across Top 8s in 2015 between GPs, PT, and major SCG events. Lord knows dozens more if we look at local levels, IQs, FNMs, etc.
I'm perfectly fine seeing a modern deck or series of decks be top tier for as long as they exist, so long as they don't break any rules. Inducing an articial time-based restriction on their rule transforms a "non-rotating format" into essentially a rotation. For them to be dethroned, another deck needs to take its place. It's the job of the Tier 2s to figure out a way to do that. On any given weekend, dozens of Tier 2 decks managed that last year.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Valakut and Bitterblossom were on the original ban list due to diversity. They were "huge" decks in standard at the time and Wizard's didn't want them porting over to Modern (not because they were broken). Secondly: You obviously were not on the forums. Alot of people questioned the Wild Nacatle ban. The big difference: not as many people played it. As a result the "questioning" was much smaller.
So you would have been fine with twin, pod, affinity, and jund being the only decks to consistently top 8 for 15 years? I agree that it is the job of tier 2 decks to innovate and find a way up, and of course another deck needs to take the deck it's replacing place. So the ONLY tools you find acceptable for this are unbans and new printings WHICH IS IDEAL TO ME, I am just willing to consider a ban when that fails. Had pod remained in the format, I feel it would have been a signicantly worse format. Same with DRS jund. Note these didn't break any rules, were simply oppressive. I don't think this was the case with twin, but were you alright with THOSE bans?
Also top rights don't mean tier mobility. It has to be consistent performance. Tier 1 has remained mostly stagnant for modern's existence.
People were unhappy with the Nacatl ban, but the volume was much lower because the format was much younger. The playerbase was also smaller. The outcry got progressively louder with each subsequent ban, which is partially par for the course when the format grows, but could also indicate legitimate dissatisfaction.
My gripe with the Twin ban is because Wizards either unintentionally or deliberately misled readers in their ban justification. Forsythe made it extremely clear on unofficial channels that the Pro Tour was a ban factor. The announcement is totally silent to this. The announcement also talks about overall metagame share when Twin's share was significantly lower than other decks that suffered from bans for diversity reasons. If the PT is going to be a big factor, the community needs to know that.
As for Bloom, that ban rocked. The deck was a demonstrable turn four violator and the ban was a great example of format management.
To quote someone from the original thread:
Banning Necatl was stupid and unnecessary, but it also didn't fundamentally dismantle the deck. Very different circumstances.
However, the exact same train of thought was present in 2011:
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Modern:
Death's Shadow Jund
Death's Shadow Grixis
Junk
Legacy:
Grixis Delver
Well. No affinity in the finals, so draw your conclusions . Now UWR and Grixis are picking up some steam again, do not expect it to be that dominant even with a potential Eldrazi ban.
DECKS:
UB Faeries [Midrange/Tempo]
RWUGB Affinity[Aggro]
FAERIES TOO STRONK!!!1111
- Fae Prophecy, 201
5678Ironically back then I was actually for the banning of wild Nacatl. Because I hated playing against Zoo.
That's why alot of people were happy about the Twin ban. Because they didn't want to play against it, not because it was "too good".
I was wrong about Wild Nacatl. You shouldn't be happy about a ban just because it makes a deck you dislike less popular.
That shouldn't be the point of bannings.
If the tier 2 decks can't beat the tier 1 decks, that's the fault of janky tier 2, not stability of tier 1. And especially if tier 1 exists in harmony with each other in a rock-paper-scissors environment, then no one of them is dominating all the others. If you remove scissors from the equation, rock no longer has prey and paper takes over the format. We saw this when Jund and Tron more or less fell into obscurity and Affinity/uninteractive linear strategies skyrocketed after the Twin ban.
On top of that, this hypothetical tier 1 parade has ample representation of the color pie (and colorless) in addition to a range of strategies from aggro, beatdown, midrange, combo, and control. Granted Pod did limit design space and held an unhealthy overall metashare (much larger than Twin). The use of tutors is already frowned upon, but infinitely reusable tutors are apparently extra bad. Even without pod, we had an excellent meta all year last year. Lots of tier 2 decks showing success and tier 1 decks floating around. Maybe you remember something differently than I with regards to 2015.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
URW PillowFort Stasis (costruction)
modern:
U
pauper:
UB Servitor Control
xenob8 : you know you are going to have a bad time when opponent starts with snow covered island
Modern League http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/modern-constructed-league-2016-02-12
Big Zoo, 5 Eldrazi, Infect, 2 Affinity, WR Prowess.
Modern Daily http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/modern-daily-2016-02-12
Eldrazi, 2 Affinity, UWR Control, Abzan Chord.
I would personally be fine with the same top tier for 15 years, as long as the tier two decks stayed somewhat fluid, which I believe they have. I saw modern as having pillars burn/affinty, tron, twin, and jund that you had to plan for, and then a slew of tier two decks that were hoping to dodge their worst matchup to do well. The draw of modern to me was that it shifted slowly so, even if I could only play once a month I had a deck I could ay with a small amount of tweaking, and I only had to purchase a few cards from each set to stay up to date. It appeared to be the perfect format for someone like me, apparently my vision is different than what wotc now wants. Which would be fine, but now I feel like their isn't a format for me, legacy isn't supported by wotc and even though I live in an area with a large mtg base their is no where to play legacy, or I'd have no problem diving in.
People want different things from modern, the problem is some people want a format that is non rotating but often infused with new life from standard, which doesn't happen with the current power level of modern (eldrazi/tc/dtt as outliers) and others want a format that is more like legacy sans reserved list.
I for one think/hope we can get to a format that suits both groups, however, I fear that the transition will be ugly. Wotc just has done a poor job from the beginning and have not planned nearly well enough. Noone likes bans even if the are healthy for the format. I've been hit 3 or 4 times between storm, pod, tc delver, and twin. The majority I agree were necessary, some where design mistakes others like twin/podaybe should have been banned from the beginning and you wouldn't have the uproar we have now.
My problem with modern is that it's unstable and wotc never seems to have a clear direction for the format.
What doesn't? Just want to make sure we're talking about the same decks.
Not sure where that 12% comes from. In combined MTGO events since 2/6 (10 events total), Eldrazi is at a fairly obscene 44%. Affinity close behind at 19.5%. Merfolk is in third at 4.75% and everything else is lower. Yes, it's early in the post-Eldrazi world, but those are really ugly numbers and even uglier gaps between the numbers.
The only significant tier movement I saw in 2015 was bloom to 1 which was banned out. For color diversity, white continues to struggle, and the same old decks continue to be the top performers. I agree though that this year was certainly better than 2014 or 13, I do think it's a step in the right direction. A lot of that good CAME from Pod's ban though. To clarify, my nightmare meta was the 2014 summer where it was Jund Pod Twin Affinity pretty much shifting around the top spots. I would like to avoid having that happen long term.
2015 was absolutely a step in the right direction, but it could be better is my general feeling. This doesn't mean actively banning out top decks in hopes that diversity will flourish the way it did with pod, but it does mean making sure tier 1 decks do not out pace tier 2 decks so horrifically that they only have to really consider each other within the meta (like it was with twin really)
You can throw in the ****s to avoid the filter and interpret it however you want.
Regarding cost of entry, if you want to play Magic competitively you have the following options (in paper):
Play Limited and pay nothing upfront, but pay every time you want to play.
Play Standard and not have any upfront cost more than two blocks worth of ongoing costs, but each new set that is released you will incur significant additional cost.
Play Modern with a significant upfront cost but much less ongoing costs than keeping up with Standard. In addition, Wizards has now said that the same deck may not be legal over the course of many years if it is good, so it is likely you will occasionally lose some card value and/or be forced to buy substitute cards or change decks.
Play Legacy with a higher upfront cost, but lower ongoing costs than Modern and lower likelihood of bans.
Honestly, I like to play a lot of different styles of decks and enjoy agonizing over card choices while deck building. So unless I am willing to buy a ton of Legacy staples at a huge upfront cost, Modern has by far the lowest overall cost to play for me, even if the occasional ban takes down the value of a card.
Finances aren't really a concern for me, and I felt playing one of the pillars that I could essentially ignore whatever happened in the lower tiers and just focus on the tier 1 meta because the power gap was so wide that they were just trash I could ignore (2014, less so in 15 but still got that vibe with twin). Compromise is exactly what I'm looking for here, if we can get to the point where tier 1 is close enough to tier 2 that tier 1 decks have to actually consider them in the meta rather than relying on their proactive plan to absolutely crush them, I would be happy. We would see more tier 2 decks putting up numbers, although not as consistently as tier 1 decks, still more than today. Being tier 1.5 might actually mean something more than being top of the trash heap.
Prior to the Twin ban... there was nearly always a tier 2 deck in the top 8.