RIP MTG Goldfish metagame numbers. MTGO was always a questionable data source, but now it's unusable. A deliberately curated N=5 sample tells us no more about the overall metagame than a small FNM. I know Nexus planned on getting its metagame updates back on track using the larger paper dataset, but we'll have to wait and see what they do.
If this change means more unbans and fewer bans (or even just fewer bans with no unban changes), I'm fine with it. Yes, it's definitely a lazy band-aid Wizards is applying to cover up much more pervasive problems with competitive Magic, but until they fix those actual problems, I'm comfortable with this temporary solution. I do think they are trying to fix the actual problems: the Play Design Team is a step in the right direction. So was the spring 2017 admission that Wizards pushed threats too far ahead at the expense of answers. Assuming those changes are successful over the next 8-12 months, Modern will ultimately benefit. And thankfully, unlike in late 2016, Modern is actually in a really decent place right now.
People will literally say anything about stoneforge. Last week it was a danger if making coco decks tier zero.
No way does any ten build have room for sfm. Maybe as a sb package. Please learn to understand deck construction before making statements of certainty regarding deck building.
Because decks never change to accommodate new more powerful options. This is the same things people said about LotH, about Grim Flayer, about Baral, etc....
I'm not saying that SFM couldn't come off the list, I'm saying that this argument really has no founding in Magic. Newer more powerful options will always find room in a deck at the expense of the less powerful current options that is just a fundamental truth of Mtg. You seem to be advocating a position of non-deck building where lists are set in stone instead of reevaluated consistently and potentially consisting of very different counts and potentially cards included. Is it crazy to say that SFM would make CoCo decks T0? yes, but it isn't crazy to assume a card on the power level of SFM wouldn't find its way into almost every deck with access to W.
What I'm saying is that decks do not often warp to include strategies that don't mesh well with their gameplans and if you understand how decks like twin and company are constructed you won't be worried about them warping to include sfm.
I don't see including SFM in a Jeskai Twin list any different than Grixis "warping" the deck to include Kcommand and Tas, this is always the nature of the game if a more powerful option becomes available it will find its way into a previously established list. You seem to be arguing that innovation will not occur and that decks would remain static.
For CoCo decks I think it would be far easier as they can run a much smaller number of SFM and targets because they can cords it up.
Jeskai Twin could easily find space, cutting back on far less proactive things like Wall of Omens and such. SFM would actually be a great improvement for the deck IMO as SFM would improve the quality of redundant combo creatures when you have get to draw your Splinter Twin as Pestermite/Exarch both carry equipment well enough and SFM's instant speed placement of the equipment allows the deck to maintain its EOT play style. Possibly drop the much more easily disrupted Kiki/Angel side of the deck and instead up the Twin count from 3 to 4 and probably shave some Walls as those tend to be the clunkiest parts of the deck that don't do much.
...
Play the deck you love to play and that you know you can win with and also accept that you have no idea what you are going to face in such a diverse and competitively flat meta.
...
If it was that simple, it would be great, but this (since it has bugger all to do with Modern and everything to do with Standard) plays into the hand of the pro-teams which will be able to create and even larger gap between their available data and the rest of the field.
Look back at Eldrazi. Who broke the deck first, MTGO results or pro's testing and breaking it? The hole will now be even bigger.
Super predictable after all the bans in the spring - I think in May I had already posted that I anticipated MTGO data to disappear entirely. Cutting it in half isn't quite the same, but I was on the right track. Note that WotC repeatedly stated that decks were not winning as much as their popularity would indicate during the ban-heavy spring. Yet the decks continued to become more and more popular despite their win rate being overestimated.
WotC must realize that League data is very low value for predicting Tournament results since they are different event structures. Since League data is very visible, it gives the erroneous impression to the playerbase that the frequency of finishes they post there has a correlation with win rate. It creates a cycle of increased play ----> increased success ----> increased play that isn't really directly tied to the deck's ability to win tournaments. With the change limiting how many times the same cards can appear each day in lists, it sends a clear signal that the data should not be used as a primary source for analysis of the meta - a state of affairs which has always been true of leagues.
Note that the League / Tournament difference I'm referring to is that Leagues are not paired like a Tournament where players are paired against identical records. Instead, leagues are paired 'as available'.
The most important data for the metagame has always been, and will continue to be GP/Open/Classic data. Nothing about that has changed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
The most important (for us) is probably the first one, which refers specifically to Modern and cites the Pro-Tour's existence as directly causal to card bannings. Posting the others for completeness' sake. I know MaRo isn't the be-all end-all but it's not like we have anybody else to go to for additional info/perspective regarding things.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos-y Johnny. All will be One
Modern - Cheeri0s (building), Belcher (building), Lantern (building), UW Control (building)
RIP Magic Duels. Wizards will regret what they did to you.
...
Play the deck you love to play and that you know you can win with and also accept that you have no idea what you are going to face in such a diverse and competitively flat meta.
...
If it was that simple, it would be great, but this (since it has bugger all to do with Modern and everything to do with Standard) plays into the hand of the pro-teams which will be able to create and even larger gap between their available data and the rest of the field.
Look back at Eldrazi. Who broke the deck first, MTGO results or pro's testing and breaking it? The hole will now be even bigger.
Eldrazi in modern was being played before that pt. I was playing colorless eldrazi aggro and it didn't take a genius to come up with that list. Now the r/u version sure, that I'm sure took a lot of testing. But don't act like regular people can't brew/innovate, hell most of the time pros take regular brewers list tweak them and then they become popular. Look at "blue steel" that wasn't Zac's idea and he'll be the first to tell you that, he just slightly tweaked it and then it went from there.
Wow, I disagree with ever single one of his statements.
Good to have yet more proof that they banned for the sake of shaking up the meta due to the pro tour though. :]
EDIT: There are few more, it seems people disagree with this change.
Apparently this has been on Wizards minds for some time, I highly doubt they back it out without a huge uproar from the player base, as Maro seems pretty firm on his position.
The most important (for us) is probably the first one, which refers specifically to Modern and cites the Pro-Tour's existence as directly causal to card bannings. Posting the others for completeness' sake. I know MaRo isn't the be-all end-all but it's not like we have anybody else to go to for additional info/perspective regarding things.
Thanks for the links and quotes!
The only way I an get behind this move in any way is if it directly leads to unbannings. Otherwise, this still looks like hiding info for appearances sake rather than an actual plan to help/slow down format solving. There has always been a gap between the mtgo and paper meta anyway, either due to some decks just not being as viable online due to interface logistics (combo decks) or grinders wanting something they can plow through a large number of games with in less time.
I'd really like them to prove me wrong come August and actually show a positive change from this move.
The most important (for us) is probably the first one, which refers specifically to Modern and cites the Pro-Tour's existence as directly causal to card bannings. Posting the others for completeness' sake. I know MaRo isn't the be-all end-all but it's not like we have anybody else to go to for additional info/perspective regarding things.
He's really doubling down on flimsy logic. If MTG is really a rock-paper-scissors type of game, there's no metagame to permanently "solve" (ProTour or not). When you notice the field is playing scissors, you play rock. Eventually the tide shifts so that more are on rock; continue ad infinitum. Especially when there are more than 3 archetypes and dozens of viable decks, the metagame will naturally shift over time. Especially when you're printing new cards that introduce new possibilities and raise/lower the viability of certain strategies.
It's the exact thing happening with GDS right now, with D&T elevated to almost Tier 1 and a resurgence in Affinity. I can understand not wanting an over-representation of a single deck even without the corresponding success, but the solution isn't to mask it through obscurity. Give players the information that reinforces the rock-paper-scissors dynamic. Design sets with an emphasis on balancing threats with answers. Don't throw a cloak over the whole thing and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks!".
Very short sighted and likely to fail when players simply move on to copying whichever deck the pros say is best. Speaks a lot to WoTC's lack of confidence in their own ability to regulate formats.
Wow, I disagree with ever single one of his statements.
Good to have yet more proof that they banned for the sake of shaking up the meta due to the pro tour though. :]
EDIT: There are few more, it seems people disagree with this change.
Apparently this has been on Wizards minds for some time, I highly doubt they back it out without a huge uproar from the player base, as Maro seems pretty firm on his position.
Agreed, he is really putting his foot in his mouth here with these statements. They are just further and further admitting to manipulating the format while keeping their "holier than thou" attitude. It's their game, they can do what they want I guess. He sounds like Officer Barbrady from South Park, "move along folks, nothing to see here"
I generally play 3-5 prereleases with every set but I chose to play none this time because it's the best way to voice my infinitely meaningless opinion on the state and future of the game. Only hope others follow suite.
It seems increasingly clear to me that modern is thriving in spite of WotC's management of it, not because of it.
If there would be such a thing as a single best deck in modern, it would simply means that answers are too weak. The problem is not knowing the meta game but not having good answers. Standard tend to suck because answers are generally not good enough. MaRo's logic is flawed.
It's that time of the year again when we reveal cards from the upcoming set. This time, it's Hour of Devastation's turn. We will be doing things a little differently though.
First, we will not be revealing the full set, only a select number of cards. We will also be removing collector numbers. We have found that when we reveal the whole set, everyone gets a better idea of the overall power level of the set, which cards are good or bad, etc. We don't want this to happen, we want to keep people in the dark. If they buy more packs to figure out what's in the set, good for us.
Secondly, we will be removing all rarity symbols. We have found that when we make a card rare or mythic, this automatically increases its worth in the eyes of players. Even if it's Archangel's Light. Because you guys love playing nothing but 75rares.dec (we thank you for giving us money, but god damn are you boring), we hope that removing rarity symbols will actually make you try something different.
Without further ado, here is the full, official Hour of Devastation spoiler:
Steward of Solidarity 1W
Creature - Human Warrior
, Exert Steward of Solidarity: Create a 1/1 white Warrior creature token with vigilance.
2/2
Countervailing Winds 2U
Instant
Counter target spell unless its controller pays 1 for each card in your graveyard.
Cycling 2
Torment of Hailfire XBB
Sorcery
Repeat the following process X times. Each opponent loses 3 life unless that player sacrifices a nonland permanent or discards a card.
Firebrand Archer 1R
Creature - Human Archer
Whenever you cast a noncreature spell, Firebrand Archer deals 1 damage to each opponent.
2/1
Uncage the Menagerie XGG
Sorcery
Search your library for up to X creature cards with different names that each have converted mana cost X, reveal them, put them into your hand, then shuffle your library.
P.S. we will send you a C&D if you try to compile a list of every card in the set and share it on the internet.
The most important (for us) is probably the first one, which refers specifically to Modern and cites the Pro-Tour's existence as directly causal to card bannings. Posting the others for completeness' sake. I know MaRo isn't the be-all end-all but it's not like we have anybody else to go to for additional info/perspective regarding things.
If what Maro said was true, GDS would dominate Modern to a ridiculous extent and would need a ban soon because data suggested that it was the best deck and according to him that means that everyone would play it. But that didn't happen. Why? Because not everyone is simply playing the best deck there are also many people that try to counter the best deck, which in the case of GDS seems to be working out so far. If that's not possible and there is no deck to counter the best deck then R&D is to blame and not too much data.
The whole thing is just a cheap excuse to distract from their own failures.
It really is, there is no logical path to their resolution that is anything but 'please dont look back here, its a mess'.
WITH DATA
1. A deck becomes good. Wins a lot.
2. Others notice the deck, and iterate on that deck making it better.
3. We reach a break point.
EITHER
A: The deck is too good, wins against all comers and warps the meta considerably. (Eldrazi Winter)
B: Others find weakness within the deck, and build decks to counter it. (JDS/GDS)
WITHOUT DATA
1. A deck is found by pro's to be good, they iterate on it.
2. They storm an event with it, and stomp face on anyone who is not a pro. (JDS on first sighting)
3. The online community slowly catches up, ready for the next event to try and counter it.
Its really just slowing things down, and hides the imperfections at Wizards.
I work in data, I'm a data guy. Its offensive to me actually this path they have taken.
It really is, there is no logical path to their resolution that is anything but 'please dont look back here, its a mess'.
WITH DATA
1. A deck becomes good. Wins a lot.
2. Others notice the deck, and iterate on that deck making it better.
3. We reach a break point.
EITHER
A: The deck is too good, wins against all comers and warps the meta considerably. (Eldrazi Winter)
B: Others find weakness within the deck, and build decks to counter it. (JDS/GDS)
WITHOUT DATA
1. A deck is found by pro's to be good, they iterate on it.
2. They storm an event with it, and stomp face on anyone who is not a pro. (JDS on first sighting)
3. The online community slowly catches up, ready for the next event to try and counter it.
Its really just slowing things down, and hides the imperfections at Wizards.
I work in data, I'm a data guy. Its offensive to me actually this path they have taken.
You skipped the part in the Without Data section at stage 2.5 where, as a result of the pro storm, it takes 4+ slots of the Top 8 at multiple GPs in a single weekend (because that's the brilliant structure they have), and is banned at the next B&R announcement before the community has a chance to react.
Maro also answered that. For some reason they felt that they had to shake up the format before every Pro Tour via often unjustified bans because they feared that people wouldn't be interested in it otherwise. There is no evidence that the viewers wanted those bans, it was just speculation on their part.
Yes. They clearly 'manage Modern so well' when they have next to zero grasp on the format, its strengths, or its appeal (which is higher by far than standard!) to the average player who bothers to watch Twitch.
He actually said they feared people would be uninterested?
Like, gross man, just gross! Its ignorance bordering on negligence.
I may be extra salty because of a MTGO game (Natural Tron into land into Ugin? SEEMS LEGIT)
Yes. They clearly 'manage Modern so well' when they have next to zero grasp on the format, its strengths, or its appeal (which is higher by far than standard!) to the average player who bothers to watch Twitch.
He actually said they feared people would be uninterested?
Like, gross man, just gross! Its ignorance bordering on negligence.
I may be extra salty because of a MTGO game (Natural Tron into land into Ugin? SEEMS LEGIT)
Oh man, I feel your pain. I've never had a problem with tron, but last night I'm fairly certain I experienced the most brutal All is Dust since the creation of the card - bar none.
On the one hand, I really do feel for the delicate balancing act wizards has to go through in regards to standard and modern. For financial reasons, they have to focus on limited/standard. Modern is priority #2 to them, as it should be. On the other hand, they have a format their community loves, is passionate about, and very active. They show up in droves to events and follow the company's moves closely, and in spite of all that, it's almost as if WotC is trying to spite the modern community at times. Don't get me wrong, they've done some great things with MM17 and certain printings and acknowledging mistakes, but at a certain point you should move past acknowledgement and towards action. And "action" isn't "hide possible deficiencies and data via MTGO", it's card design, communication during ban/unban announcements (not a single sentence or worse yet - nothing at all), and more effective answers being printed.
WotC has managed the Modern format excellently the last two years by cleaning out problematic cards (Twin, Bloom, Probe, Troll) that enabled broken or overly-restrictive decks and printed an excellent card in Fatal Push that is now the most played card in Modern.
What are you looking for exactly, Surge, and what are you doing for 3-4 turns whilst your opponent assembles Urzatron and Ugins you?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
FREE MODERN. Break the Standard link.
I play Magic: the Gathering, not Magic: the Commandering.
They havent done a thing, other than ban probe and troll, of any worth whatsoever.
These kinds of comments come across as hypocritical. If Wizards is being hands-off, you're stating the format is great despite them. If they are taking frequent action (i.e. bannings), you complain about that even more.
The arguments in this thread are getting considerably weaker, which is a strong sign things are good.
Even the blue complainers are silent now that UW is tier 1 and Jeskai is tier 2 ... and if you lump UWx together, it would be the #2 deck right now behind GDS, which is also a strongly Blue deck.
WotC has managed the Modern format excellently the last two years by cleaning out problematic cards (Twin, Bloom, Probe, Troll) that enabled broken or overly-restrictive decks and printed an excellent card in Fatal Push that is now the most played card in Modern.
What are you looking for exactly, Surge, and what are you doing for 3-4 turns whilst your opponent assembles Urzatron and Ugins you?
Twin is not on the same level as those other cards, to claim otherwise is disingenuous at best.
As to what I was doing, I was playing jank, in the 'just for fun' lobby, where a lot of Tron players like to come in and derp their way to a win by playing 3 lands and dropping fatties.
And no Ceaseless Hunger, its not hypocritcal at all.
Bans that are good? Are good.
Bans that are not required, or the lack of aggressive unbans? Not good.
Bloom was good.
Eye of Ugin was good.
Troll was good.
Probe even, as much as it hurts me, was good.
Those dont take 'good management choices' to make, though again the Probe one is arguably well done in a subtle way but I was taking a break during the whole UR Prowess is a thing, period.
Those are brain dead easy choices to make, when the PUBLIC NUMBERS AND VIDEO demonstrated a need to make a ban.
I'm not going to give them credit when they have just done the easy things.
Try some unbans. Back out some questionable choices made for PR and 'shake up' purposes.
Manage the format with a genuine desire and understanding, and not lip service.
Maybe then I'll give some credit, when its due.
EDIT: And no, GDS is not STRONGLY BLUE. Its Strongly black, please.
Granted, if UW and Jeskai are pulling in real numbers, great. You'll note I'm not saying blue is doomed, and has no place anymore.
I WILL however cry for a long time about them hiding data. I hate it, way more than I even thought I would, because the idea behind it, the premise, is false and they are being dishonest about it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
UW Spirits
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If this change means more unbans and fewer bans (or even just fewer bans with no unban changes), I'm fine with it. Yes, it's definitely a lazy band-aid Wizards is applying to cover up much more pervasive problems with competitive Magic, but until they fix those actual problems, I'm comfortable with this temporary solution. I do think they are trying to fix the actual problems: the Play Design Team is a step in the right direction. So was the spring 2017 admission that Wizards pushed threats too far ahead at the expense of answers. Assuming those changes are successful over the next 8-12 months, Modern will ultimately benefit. And thankfully, unlike in late 2016, Modern is actually in a really decent place right now.
I don't see including SFM in a Jeskai Twin list any different than Grixis "warping" the deck to include Kcommand and Tas, this is always the nature of the game if a more powerful option becomes available it will find its way into a previously established list. You seem to be arguing that innovation will not occur and that decks would remain static.
For CoCo decks I think it would be far easier as they can run a much smaller number of SFM and targets because they can cords it up.
Jeskai Twin could easily find space, cutting back on far less proactive things like Wall of Omens and such. SFM would actually be a great improvement for the deck IMO as SFM would improve the quality of redundant combo creatures when you have get to draw your Splinter Twin as Pestermite/Exarch both carry equipment well enough and SFM's instant speed placement of the equipment allows the deck to maintain its EOT play style. Possibly drop the much more easily disrupted Kiki/Angel side of the deck and instead up the Twin count from 3 to 4 and probably shave some Walls as those tend to be the clunkiest parts of the deck that don't do much.
If it was that simple, it would be great, but this (since it has bugger all to do with Modern and everything to do with Standard) plays into the hand of the pro-teams which will be able to create and even larger gap between their available data and the rest of the field.
Look back at Eldrazi. Who broke the deck first, MTGO results or pro's testing and breaking it? The hole will now be even bigger.
WotC must realize that League data is very low value for predicting Tournament results since they are different event structures. Since League data is very visible, it gives the erroneous impression to the playerbase that the frequency of finishes they post there has a correlation with win rate. It creates a cycle of increased play ----> increased success ----> increased play that isn't really directly tied to the deck's ability to win tournaments. With the change limiting how many times the same cards can appear each day in lists, it sends a clear signal that the data should not be used as a primary source for analysis of the meta - a state of affairs which has always been true of leagues.
Note that the League / Tournament difference I'm referring to is that Leagues are not paired like a Tournament where players are paired against identical records. Instead, leagues are paired 'as available'.
The most important data for the metagame has always been, and will continue to be GP/Open/Classic data. Nothing about that has changed.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
The most important (for us) is probably the first one, which refers specifically to Modern and cites the Pro-Tour's existence as directly causal to card bannings. Posting the others for completeness' sake. I know MaRo isn't the be-all end-all but it's not like we have anybody else to go to for additional info/perspective regarding things.
Modern - Cheeri0s (building), Belcher (building), Lantern (building), UW Control (building)
RIP Magic Duels. Wizards will regret what they did to you.
Eldrazi in modern was being played before that pt. I was playing colorless eldrazi aggro and it didn't take a genius to come up with that list. Now the r/u version sure, that I'm sure took a lot of testing. But don't act like regular people can't brew/innovate, hell most of the time pros take regular brewers list tweak them and then they become popular. Look at "blue steel" that wasn't Zac's idea and he'll be the first to tell you that, he just slightly tweaked it and then it went from there.
Good to have yet more proof that they banned for the sake of shaking up the meta due to the pro tour though. :]
EDIT: There are few more, it seems people disagree with this change.
Apparently this has been on Wizards minds for some time, I highly doubt they back it out without a huge uproar from the player base, as Maro seems pretty firm on his position.
Spirits
Thanks for the links and quotes!
The only way I an get behind this move in any way is if it directly leads to unbannings. Otherwise, this still looks like hiding info for appearances sake rather than an actual plan to help/slow down format solving. There has always been a gap between the mtgo and paper meta anyway, either due to some decks just not being as viable online due to interface logistics (combo decks) or grinders wanting something they can plow through a large number of games with in less time.
I'd really like them to prove me wrong come August and actually show a positive change from this move.
Affinity
Death & Taxes
Mardu Nahiri
Forcing people to merge with twitch is stupid
He's really doubling down on flimsy logic. If MTG is really a rock-paper-scissors type of game, there's no metagame to permanently "solve" (ProTour or not). When you notice the field is playing scissors, you play rock. Eventually the tide shifts so that more are on rock; continue ad infinitum. Especially when there are more than 3 archetypes and dozens of viable decks, the metagame will naturally shift over time. Especially when you're printing new cards that introduce new possibilities and raise/lower the viability of certain strategies.
It's the exact thing happening with GDS right now, with D&T elevated to almost Tier 1 and a resurgence in Affinity. I can understand not wanting an over-representation of a single deck even without the corresponding success, but the solution isn't to mask it through obscurity. Give players the information that reinforces the rock-paper-scissors dynamic. Design sets with an emphasis on balancing threats with answers. Don't throw a cloak over the whole thing and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks!".
Very short sighted and likely to fail when players simply move on to copying whichever deck the pros say is best. Speaks a lot to WoTC's lack of confidence in their own ability to regulate formats.
Agreed, he is really putting his foot in his mouth here with these statements. They are just further and further admitting to manipulating the format while keeping their "holier than thou" attitude. It's their game, they can do what they want I guess. He sounds like Officer Barbrady from South Park, "move along folks, nothing to see here"
I generally play 3-5 prereleases with every set but I chose to play none this time because it's the best way to voice my infinitely meaningless opinion on the state and future of the game. Only hope others follow suite.
It seems increasingly clear to me that modern is thriving in spite of WotC's management of it, not because of it.
Dear friends,
It's that time of the year again when we reveal cards from the upcoming set. This time, it's Hour of Devastation's turn. We will be doing things a little differently though.
First, we will not be revealing the full set, only a select number of cards. We will also be removing collector numbers. We have found that when we reveal the whole set, everyone gets a better idea of the overall power level of the set, which cards are good or bad, etc. We don't want this to happen, we want to keep people in the dark. If they buy more packs to figure out what's in the set, good for us.
Secondly, we will be removing all rarity symbols. We have found that when we make a card rare or mythic, this automatically increases its worth in the eyes of players. Even if it's Archangel's Light. Because you guys love playing nothing but 75rares.dec (we thank you for giving us money, but god damn are you boring), we hope that removing rarity symbols will actually make you try something different.
Without further ado, here is the full, official Hour of Devastation spoiler:
Creature - Human Warrior
, Exert Steward of Solidarity: Create a 1/1 white Warrior creature token with vigilance.
2/2
Countervailing Winds 2U
Instant
Counter target spell unless its controller pays 1 for each card in your graveyard.
Cycling 2
Torment of Hailfire XBB
Sorcery
Repeat the following process X times. Each opponent loses 3 life unless that player sacrifices a nonland permanent or discards a card.
Firebrand Archer 1R
Creature - Human Archer
Whenever you cast a noncreature spell, Firebrand Archer deals 1 damage to each opponent.
2/1
Uncage the Menagerie XGG
Sorcery
Search your library for up to X creature cards with different names that each have converted mana cost X, reveal them, put them into your hand, then shuffle your library.
Thanks,
Wizards
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
I applaud the change in regard to Modern, however.
Thanks, Wizards
I play Magic: the Gathering, not Magic: the Commandering.
I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Modern is in a great place at the moment and it's in that place b/c of WotC's management of it the last two years.
I play Magic: the Gathering, not Magic: the Commandering.
lol what management?
They havent done a thing, other than ban probe and troll, of any worth whatsoever.
Spirits
If what Maro said was true, GDS would dominate Modern to a ridiculous extent and would need a ban soon because data suggested that it was the best deck and according to him that means that everyone would play it. But that didn't happen. Why? Because not everyone is simply playing the best deck there are also many people that try to counter the best deck, which in the case of GDS seems to be working out so far. If that's not possible and there is no deck to counter the best deck then R&D is to blame and not too much data.
The whole thing is just a cheap excuse to distract from their own failures.
WITH DATA
1. A deck becomes good. Wins a lot.
2. Others notice the deck, and iterate on that deck making it better.
3. We reach a break point.
EITHER
A: The deck is too good, wins against all comers and warps the meta considerably. (Eldrazi Winter)
B: Others find weakness within the deck, and build decks to counter it. (JDS/GDS)
WITHOUT DATA
1. A deck is found by pro's to be good, they iterate on it.
2. They storm an event with it, and stomp face on anyone who is not a pro. (JDS on first sighting)
3. The online community slowly catches up, ready for the next event to try and counter it.
Its really just slowing things down, and hides the imperfections at Wizards.
I work in data, I'm a data guy. Its offensive to me actually this path they have taken.
Spirits
You skipped the part in the Without Data section at stage 2.5 where, as a result of the pro storm, it takes 4+ slots of the Top 8 at multiple GPs in a single weekend (because that's the brilliant structure they have), and is banned at the next B&R announcement before the community has a chance to react.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
He actually said they feared people would be uninterested?
Like, gross man, just gross! Its ignorance bordering on negligence.
I may be extra salty because of a MTGO game (Natural Tron into land into Ugin? SEEMS LEGIT)
Spirits
Oh man, I feel your pain. I've never had a problem with tron, but last night I'm fairly certain I experienced the most brutal All is Dust since the creation of the card - bar none.
On the one hand, I really do feel for the delicate balancing act wizards has to go through in regards to standard and modern. For financial reasons, they have to focus on limited/standard. Modern is priority #2 to them, as it should be. On the other hand, they have a format their community loves, is passionate about, and very active. They show up in droves to events and follow the company's moves closely, and in spite of all that, it's almost as if WotC is trying to spite the modern community at times. Don't get me wrong, they've done some great things with MM17 and certain printings and acknowledging mistakes, but at a certain point you should move past acknowledgement and towards action. And "action" isn't "hide possible deficiencies and data via MTGO", it's card design, communication during ban/unban announcements (not a single sentence or worse yet - nothing at all), and more effective answers being printed.
Affinity
Death & Taxes
Mardu Nahiri
Forcing people to merge with twitch is stupid
What are you looking for exactly, Surge, and what are you doing for 3-4 turns whilst your opponent assembles Urzatron and Ugins you?
I play Magic: the Gathering, not Magic: the Commandering.
These kinds of comments come across as hypocritical. If Wizards is being hands-off, you're stating the format is great despite them. If they are taking frequent action (i.e. bannings), you complain about that even more.
The arguments in this thread are getting considerably weaker, which is a strong sign things are good.
Even the blue complainers are silent now that UW is tier 1 and Jeskai is tier 2 ... and if you lump UWx together, it would be the #2 deck right now behind GDS, which is also a strongly Blue deck.
Twin is not on the same level as those other cards, to claim otherwise is disingenuous at best.
As to what I was doing, I was playing jank, in the 'just for fun' lobby, where a lot of Tron players like to come in and derp their way to a win by playing 3 lands and dropping fatties.
And no Ceaseless Hunger, its not hypocritcal at all.
Bans that are good? Are good.
Bans that are not required, or the lack of aggressive unbans? Not good.
Bloom was good.
Eye of Ugin was good.
Troll was good.
Probe even, as much as it hurts me, was good.
Those dont take 'good management choices' to make, though again the Probe one is arguably well done in a subtle way but I was taking a break during the whole UR Prowess is a thing, period.
Those are brain dead easy choices to make, when the PUBLIC NUMBERS AND VIDEO demonstrated a need to make a ban.
I'm not going to give them credit when they have just done the easy things.
Try some unbans. Back out some questionable choices made for PR and 'shake up' purposes.
Manage the format with a genuine desire and understanding, and not lip service.
Maybe then I'll give some credit, when its due.
EDIT: And no, GDS is not STRONGLY BLUE. Its Strongly black, please.
Granted, if UW and Jeskai are pulling in real numbers, great. You'll note I'm not saying blue is doomed, and has no place anymore.
I WILL however cry for a long time about them hiding data. I hate it, way more than I even thought I would, because the idea behind it, the premise, is false and they are being dishonest about it.
Spirits