They tried to limit the information to such a small amount it would become much less useful so to slow the solving of the meta. People ran with the limited data and created a community enforced feedback loop which made the standard meta worse than it really should have been so the limited data turned out to be damaging, instead of almost useless (uselessness being their intention.) Now they've made it clear that these numbers don't accurately reflect performance and we shouldn't even try, it's not something they want us to know.
I know the counter-point will be that if we had all the info then standard wouldn't have seemed so bad and everything would be fine. If we had all the info this would only create a different problem: standard metas becoming solved at a much faster rate, making for environments with a small number of playable decks because even the best, most wonderfully well designed meta will be solved and become less innovative and diverse given time. WotC is trying to maximize the time it takes for that to happen to make for longer periods of instability and innovation a.k.a. fun for spikes AND non-spikes, more enjoyment, more sales, more money, more magic, LESS BANS
Ideally their standard meta would have enough diverse strategies designed into the set (and winrate information limited enough upon release) that it would never be fully solved before new cards enter the pool.
p.s. let's not conflate this with net neutrality and personify an abstract concept like information and give it hopes and desires like "freedom." Gimme a break
They tried to limit the information to such a small amount it would become much less useful so to slow the solving of the meta. People ran with the limited data and created a community enforced feedback loop which made the standard meta worse than it really should have been so the limited data turned out to be damaging, instead of almost useless (uselessness being their intention.) Now they've made it clear that these numbers don't accurately reflect performance and we shouldn't even try, it's not something they want us to know.
I know the counter-point will be that if we had all the info then standard wouldn't have seemed so bad and everything would be fine. If we had all the info this would only create a different problem: standard metas becoming solved at a much faster rate, making for environments with a small number of playable decks because even the best, most wonderfully well designed meta will be solved and become less innovative and diverse given time. WotC is trying to maximize the time it takes for that to happen to make for longer periods of instability and innovation a.k.a. fun for spikes AND non-spikes, more enjoyment, more sales, more money, more magic, LESS BANS
Ideally their standard meta would have enough diverse strategies designed into the set (and winrate information limited enough upon release) that it would never be fully solved before new cards enter the pool.
The last standard became solved because there was no way for the other decks to consistently deal with the decks that were being pushed. BG Delirium had 0 yard hate to postpone Emrakul, there were almost no efficient answers to Copter, Cat Combo had almost no outs after it was done smacking you around with a 4C Super Friends shell and Aetherworks Marvel forced the entire meta to try and race it or do everything in their power to stop it from resolving on top of dealing with what turned out to be a T1 shell even without Marvel. Standard being solved as quickly as it has recently has less to do with too much data being available and almost everything to do with pushing threat after threat without pushing efficient means to deal with them. Standard in theory should be the easiest format to keep diverse because of the fact that sets frequently rotate in and out, which means that even if it did become solved, it should only be solved for a month or two before new tools for new decks come out.
It's as you say: Ideally, Standard should have enough strategies designed into the set that by the time it was solved or became close to being solved, the new set comes in to shake up the meta. Eliminating meta share data does nothing to fix the fundamental issues that plagued Standard for so many months, something that we can only hope will be solved in upcoming sets, and because of this players have lost an important tool for brewing new decks and need to now rely more heavily on first-hand experience to figure out what the meta might look like, something that for many of us primarily comes from LGS tournaments that in turn may not even be that useful when you decide to go to larger tourneys depending on who attends your LGS tourneys.
As for those of us in Modern, I think just about everything that could be said has been so I don't want to keep banging the same drums, but I do have one question: how many people care if Modern or Legacy become solved? I can only speak for myself, but I love the fact that I can buy into a solid deck and (assuming it's not broken) ride that same deck into every tournament for years to come. A meta that is constantly unsolved is a meta that's constantly shifting, and when the primary goal of new sets is to create new Standard environments, not eternal format environments, this to me comes off as a conflicting goal. I really don't care if Modern is nearly solved if I can comfortably buy into a deck that I know will be good for at least a few years, and if it does become bad, I want it to be because it was naturally power-creeped or became too due to new cards. I do not want to invest in a format where I have to worry about WotC axing my deck because it decided that the meta's been the same for too long and they're bored of it
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks
Modern: UWUW Control UBRGrixis Shadow URIzzet Phoenix
The big difference between data-choked MTG and data-rich games like DOTA, LoL, Overwatch, etc. is that Wizards can't patch cards the same way the other games patch content to fix emerging issues.
Accelerated ban cycles, and it's not like mtgo data has broken the format.
Eye of Ugin and some pros in a room did that.
I'm not 100% sure what you mean here. If you are suggesting that accelerate ban cycles and stuff like the Eye ban are Wizards version of patching, then I agree. Bans are the only way to patch a problematic strategy by "nerfing" instead of "buffing." "Buffs" in MTG parlance would be reprints, new cards, or unbans. But as you can see, those options are much more limited and drastic than those we see in digital games. They also take longer to implement.
Pages back, I speculated that Wizards will eventually try to move towards a more patch-oriented MTG model in the future. I have no idea what this would look like, but it would definitely alleviate some of the game's current issues (likely replacing them with new ones, but hey, can't bat 100%). If digital games are any indication, people are generally happier with nerfs than bans, and it gives Wizards much more maneuvering room. For example, imagine if they could errata Exarch to be a 1/3. Or switch Eye of Ugin to be a 1 cast reduction instead of 2. These changes give Wizards limitless new balancing options, but none are currently possible.
Until Wizards can use data to such a granular and fine-tuning approach, I understand that they don't want players to have as much. If that means fewer bans, I'm fine with that. If we still see the same rate of bans, however, then that's ridiculous. In that case, just give us all the data.
Does anybody really believe their previously posted results were "random"?
No company like WotC/Hasbro gives out information at random. It is all carefully selected for a purpose before it is released to the wilds.
The random MTGO metagame distribution was very similar to the larger paper metagame. Statistically, it would be very unlikely that Wizards was curating results. We also saw a number of Leagues that looked horrible, which a curated approach would probably weed out. Overall, these baseless conspiracy theories are generally unhelpful and inaccurate.
Yes, that is what I was saying, bans and unbans (ha) are the 'hotfix' mechanic that Wizards has available to it on the short term, while new cards are patching, on release cycles.
My other point is that Eye of Ugin (and a pushed 'version patch' of Eldrazi) was what broken Modern before, broken like it had never been to my knowledge. That was NOT a result of MTGO data, it was a few distinct teams of pro's, who broke it off line, and then spiked an event hard.
IF we had MTGO did showing that result however...well hey, maybe Wizards would have done something about it before it ruined a PT event and several events after.
This whole situation really sucks, online data is now mostly useless. I can already imagine all those months without GP action... Ughh.
This has been mentioned on Reddit, but haven't seen it here. I think we should start crowdsourcing lists with the help of players, grinders and streamers.
*Maybe this is not the thread to do that though. A new metagame thread perhaps? We can request evidence that easily checks out with the league's leaderboard, so that's a good start. Would the site get a C&D as well though?
Nothing baseless. People lie. More money, more lies. Human nature. Human history.
Again, this kind of unsupported conspiracy-mongering is almost always inaccurate and unhelpful. If you have some actual evidence other than the usual "wake up sheeple" accusations, go for it. Otherwise, these theories just get us further away from having rational, evidence-based discussions about the facts. As I said, it would be statistically improbable (very improbable) for Wizards to be curating MTGO data given the similarities to paper data.
I think it's a little odd that WOTC seems perfectly fine with pro players breaking the game for Pro Tours, but the rest of us who don't have the time to grind out thousands of games are the ones who are the problem. Good lord, isn't a rotating metagame that rewards people who pick a good counterdeck exactly what they want? We saw the anemic modern version of DnT do really well because Shadow was over present. They are never ever going to get a format where every deck is 10% metashare or less, especially if they don't want to hire any professional number crunchers. I mean, I don't think that this is actually going to change the way bans happen very much, but if wizards is being more this opaque about their metagame data, then bans might feel a lot worse if the decision is based on MTGO data that we cant see.
Modern is in a pretty good state right now, I would agree, but trying to put blinders on a community that is very invested and enthusiastic? Doesn't seem right to me. It's your job to balance and design the format Wizards, don't blame a networked community of people who are good at game theory and stats for breaking it, or at least hire some of them.
I'm also little confused about the potential for CnD. Is it the collection of data, or the publication of said data that's problematic? I don't use MODO, and am just wondering here.
And, I can very much understand something like that being in the TOS for a digital game, but can they do something related for a website that just tracks the paper meta? Is there a TOS equivalent for paper magic as well?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy
Death and Taxes Pauper
UB Teachings
Tortured Existence
Murasa Tron Modern
Pod (RIP)
Bloom(RIP)
Merfolk
I still can't see what in the world the big deal is with this change.
If I came into this conversation, or the various ones on Twitter or Reddit, without first knowing what the change was, I would think that WOTC somehow scrubbed all data of all MTG deck threads, articles, theories, tournament reports, paper, online, etc. - every single data point of the entire game - from the entire internet. The level of vitriol and hyperbole being bandied about certainly suggests such a proportionate level of change.
Instead, they took a horrible metric and made is slightly less valuable. Sure, they halved it. But when something only provides a 2% value and they change it to 1% value, that's still a slight change. You still have literally every single other data point out there, including everything you've had all along for paper. League data has always been a lousy view into any meta.
It's far too comical how people are reacting to this. I've lost a TON of respect for a lot of pros on Twitter for reacting so strongly to this.
Making a leap here that you're not a statistics fan? The biggest issue here isn't really the changing in the number of data sets it's the fact that they will be selected. If data is random on a long enough timeline it begins to reflect the true meta and therefore has value to those who wish to interact with the game on that level. When you select the decks this isn't possible.
If WotC wanted to slow down the rate of solving a format they're keep the selection process random. They're not stupid people, in fact I'd bet there a disproportionately high number of maths and science degrees floating around that building. They know they're totally preventing data from being analysed and saying anything else is an outright lie.
The big thing to keep in mind here is what Sheridan described: If this band-aid reduces the number bannings(highly possible) and increases the number of unbannings(not very possible, but more possible than before) in an artifical, virtual way it's fine by me too.
It isn't a hugely democratic approach, but hey, we will see.
Bans:
Diversity: could change, decks will still get hit for Top8'ing too much, but we could see more pros with "secret" decks (like GP Vancouver)
Turn 4 rule: could change, if hiding data somehow leads to Turn 3 decks not reaching "top tier" level (like fewer players jumping in)
Sideboard overload: could change, now it's harder to metagame so I guess players will favor utility over dedicated hate
Unbans:
Serious hat: They still have the real data (which we never had) to inform their risk analysis, so risky unbans are still risky
Tinfoil hat: "With less data people won't realize how broken the cards we just unbanned actually are. Open the floodgates!"
At least that's the way I see it right now. Could be wrong though. I hope I'm wrong, because I would love more unbans. I just don't expect any change.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:WU WU Control | WBG Abzan Company Frontier:UBR Grixis Control | BRG Jund Delirium
I think it's important for people who may be reading the thread so understand that some people here use strong words and present their opinions as facts while posting the same thing over and over again and think that makes them right and others wrong. The fact is these folks are a very tiny but very vocal minority of the Magic community, and I don't fault WotC for not catering to them.
The big thing to keep in mind here is what Sheridan described: If this band-aid reduces the number bannings(highly possible) and increases the number of unbannings(not very possible, but more possible than before) in an artifical, virtual way it's fine by me too.
It isn't a hugely democratic approach, but hey, we will see.
You are much more optimistic about their intentions than the rest of us. Nothing in their past actions or statements leads me to believe whatsoever that this will reduce bans or increase unbans. Information was NOT the problem. Poorly designed sets and poorly managed formats for the last several years were.
Of course people on this forum are a minority, everyone here is in the minority of the MTG player base, most players are not playing Modern, dont have the desire to engage with the format as we do, and are not nearly as invested as most of us here.
Just by being on this forum, you are part of that minority. Most are happy to throw money into the pit that is Limited and Standard and wouldnt know a broken card from a worthless one.
That said, please have my thanks for saving the poor people who are reading this thread from the horror of mistaking conflicting view points as the only real ones!
The big thing to keep in mind here is what Sheridan described: If this band-aid reduces the number bannings(highly possible) and increases the number of unbannings(not very possible, but more possible than before) in an artifical, virtual way it's fine by me too.
It isn't a hugely democratic approach, but hey, we will see.
You are much more optimistic about their intentions than the rest of us. Nothing in their past actions or statements leads me to believe whatsoever that this will reduce bans or increase unbans. Information was NOT the problem. Poorly designed sets and poorly managed formats for the last several years were.
You could at least add an IMHO here and there, my gosh ...
People in the real world I talk to frequently love the design of recent sets, love Modern.
The big thing to keep in mind here is what Sheridan described: If this band-aid reduces the number bannings(highly possible) and increases the number of unbannings(not very possible, but more possible than before) in an artifical, virtual way it's fine by me too.
It isn't a hugely democratic approach, but hey, we will see.
You are much more optimistic about their intentions than the rest of us. Nothing in their past actions or statements leads me to believe whatsoever that this will reduce bans or increase unbans. Information was NOT the problem. Poorly designed sets and poorly managed formats for the last several years were.
You could at least add an IMHO here and there, my gosh ...
People in the real world I talk to frequently love the design of recent sets, love Modern.
I'm not going to get into depth, but it's EXACTLY the design of recent sets which have led to some of the worst times in recent history. As as super brief overview:
Standard:
- Perfect mana with no downside produced and homogenized 4-5c piles in KTK/BFZ.
- Combos had no meaningful disruption since Rally the Ancestors and lasted through the multiple bannings of this year.
-- As an example, several things required untouched graveyards to function (Rally, Delirium, Emrakul, etc), zero GY hate.
- Hugely inconsistent power levels in Standard, resulting in only a few decks being viable.
- Incredibly pushed cards with no answer in order to promote story or mechanics caused massive problems.
- Blatant and flagrant whiff on the part of R&D, completely missing a two card combo that Standard has zero means to meaningfully interact with and was spotted within minutes of spoilers posting.
- Sets seem to be DESIGNED to not interact with each other outside of the battlefield. Little meaningful removal, answers, or reactive cards, parasitic mechanics that literally can't be interacted with (Energy), and spells being reduced in power or forcefully stapled onto creatures (that could be cheated into play at instant speed).
Modern:
- Printing utterly, stupidly broken creatures, knowing full well ahead of time that they would be abused with multiple Sol lands. Ruined the PT, three different GPs, and several months of local Modern events because they did not enact an emergency ban.
- Made ham-fisted and lazy ban decisions (including re-banning an unbanned card) in order to fix mistakes that they themselves created through newly printed cards and previous ban decisions.
- Complete and utter lack of any sort of reactive or control support. Meager attempts are overcosted and underpowered. Fatal Push the only success, but works best in proactive decks anyway (no tiered control/reactive decks actually playing Push).
But sure, if you only pick out a few cards from recent sets, and they manage to make your deck busted or vastly improved, I could see why one would love the design of recent sets. Wizards has done a LOT of harm to themselves through their own design choices and printings. Public access to information was never the issue.
Well, it's clear to me this thread has degnerated to the point that it's not even possible for people who want to talk about the state of Modern to do so here. Not sure what the solution is, but this thread probably needs to just die and be replaced by a new more inclusive on-topic thread and create a separate thread for the ad infinitum WotC bashers to go nuts.
I don't know why you're intent on defending Wizards CeaselessHunger.
They publicly apologized for resent sets and the state of standard, have backed out of a complete format change, have implemented and enacted on an accelerated ban cycle, and moaning about Standard has been none stop since BFZ.
These are not the actions of a company whose product is successful, they are efforts to correct mistakes.
Standard doesn't fire around here, it's Modern, or EDH now.
The big thing to keep in mind here is what Sheridan described: If this band-aid reduces the number bannings(highly possible) and increases the number of unbannings(not very possible, but more possible than before) in an artifical, virtual way it's fine by me too.
It isn't a hugely democratic approach, but hey, we will see.
You are much more optimistic about their intentions than the rest of us. Nothing in their past actions or statements leads me to believe whatsoever that this will reduce bans or increase unbans. Information was NOT the problem. Poorly designed sets and poorly managed formats for the last several years were.
You could at least add an IMHO here and there, my gosh ...
People in the real world I talk to frequently love the design of recent sets, love Modern.
The post you are quoting as pretending to be fact literally says "nothing leads me to believe...". Plus, you should never need to state, "in my opinion" about anything. It is an unnecessary introduction to a thought that any English teacher would tell you to simply leave out because if you are writing it then it is clearly your opinion.
Fusions posts are passionate, sometimes insightful, sometimes overly dramatic or prone to hyperbole, but the biggest flaw I could see you accusing him of is occasionally cherry picking data to fit his narrative. It's clear that his passionate, macro level posts about the health of the format are not factual statements, true or otherwise.
If a reader needs to have every opinion prefaced with "in my opinion" to discern them from factual claims then I think their is a bigger issue of understanding going on that won't be fixed just by letting them know they are reading an opinion.
Well, it's clear to me this thread has degnerated to the point that it's not even possible for people who want to talk about the state of Modern to do so here. Not sure what the solution is, but this thread probably needs to just die and be replaced by a new more inclusive on-topic thread and create a separate thread for the ad infinitum WotC bashers to go nuts.
We are talking about the state of Modern, maybe you need to step back and gain some perspective that not everyone has to agree with your world view?
I still can't see what in the world the big deal is with this change.
If I came into this conversation, or the various ones on Twitter or Reddit, without first knowing what the change was, I would think that WOTC somehow scrubbed all data of all MTG deck threads, articles, theories, tournament reports, paper, online, etc. - every single data point of the entire game - from the entire internet. The level of vitriol and hyperbole being bandied about certainly suggests such a proportionate level of change.
Instead, they took a horrible metric and made is slightly less valuable. Sure, they halved it. But when something only provides a 2% value and they change it to 1% value, that's still a slight change. You still have literally every single other data point out there, including everything you've had all along for paper. League data has always been a lousy view into any meta.
It's far too comical how people are reacting to this. I've lost a TON of respect for a lot of pros on Twitter for reacting so strongly to this.
Making a leap here that you're not a statistics fan? The biggest issue here isn't really the changing in the number of data sets it's the fact that they will be selected. If data is random on a long enough timeline it begins to reflect the true meta and therefore has value to those who wish to interact with the game on that level. When you select the decks this isn't possible.
If WotC wanted to slow down the rate of solving a format they're keep the selection process random. They're not stupid people, in fact I'd bet there a disproportionately high number of maths and science degrees floating around that building. They know they're totally preventing data from being analysed and saying anything else is an outright lie.
Edit - sorry others explained this already
I am a statistics fan. I'm a lawyer, not a numbers guy, but I have a healthy appreciation for stats and sit near our corporate controller (not that that's an indicator of understanding, but I do get an earful all day). I work for an IT company and most of my work relates to corporate governance, contracts, and data privacy laws, so I completely understand idSurge's points earlier about releasing information.
I understand both facets of this change, and how that impacts our understanding of the meta. I simply don't care about the change, and my above post was focused on only the first aspect, not the second.
I don't think our view of the online meta, however complete, ever predicted the paper meta the way others have espoused. For various reasons, people simply play different decks online. Even full league data would never be able to predict the paper meta for those reasons as well as the fact that it's much easier to go 5-0 than it is to go 13-2. And although I do play online occasionally, I've never had much respect for the online version of the game, whether due to meta, player rudeness, the program's multiple bugs, or simply the fact that nothing can replace the feeling of the cards in your hands.
So for those reasons I still feel this is actually a positive change. I think it has the potential to accomplish these 3 things:
1. Reduce the iteration of "solved" metas, leading to fewer bans and/or some upcoming unbans;
2. Allow players with under-represented decks to feel represented while being listed, giving them warm fuzzies and the community an understanding that multiple decks and builds are viable enough to 5-0; and
3. Force people to finally realize that online data is trash, and always has been (regardless of whether it accurately demonstrated the online meta).
But sure, if you only pick out a few cards from recent sets, and they manage to make your deck busted or vastly improved, I could see why one would love the design of recent sets. Wizards has done a LOT of harm to themselves through their own design choices and printings.
Looking at just the recent, blocks - Kaladesh and Amonkhet, I think they were beautifully designed. The art and overall flavor has been amazing, WotC best work ever IMHO. Cool new mechanics like Vehicles, Revolt, Aftermath, Embalm/Eternalize, Afflict, etc. Kaladesh Inventions were awesome reprints.
As far as applicability to Modern (to keep this on topic), there have been some great cards, especially from Aether Revolt like Fatal Push, Walking Ballista, Chandra ToD, Gideon, Saheeli, Rhonas, Baral, As Foretold, Claim/Fame, Disallow, Smuggler's Copter, Heart of Kiran, "fast land" duals, Solemnity.
It's not realistic for Modern players to expect multiple format-jarring cards in every set. The power creep would be crazy.
It's not realistic for Modern players to expect multiple format-jarring cards in every set. The power creep would be crazy.
That wasn't the point of my post at all. It's that their design philosophy was doing broken or powerful things with no answers. And in fact, other than Fatal Push, basically everything you listed is either a powerful/broken thing or a thing that enables broken things (or doesn't actually see play). And that has been the core of their design philosophy for the last few years; a philosophy that has utterly destroyed Standard and done few favors to Modern. Power creep already exists and does so on the backs of enablers like these (and also recently, Prized Amalgam/Cathartic Reunion).
Looking at just the recent, blocks - Kaladesh and Amonkhet, I think they were beautifully designed. The art and overall flavor has been amazing, WotC best work ever IMHO. Cool new mechanics like Vehicles...
I know you are being serious from reading your previous posts, but I could've posted this exact text as a clearly sarcastic comment and I think most people would've gotten it.
They pushed colorless cards like crazy resulting in formats completed homogenized around those cards, these sets continued to push their ridiculous super hero group schtick, and they literally missed an obvious 2 card combo from within the same block in a format they actually test for. I enjoyed the flavor of some of the mechanics but most were played way too safe to ever be relevant, even in standard. Then the Amonkhet invocations were completely illegible. I don't think you could find a person that works for WotC that would even claim they were their best work ever; although I understand it may appear that way after the dumpster fire that was BFZ block.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
I know the counter-point will be that if we had all the info then standard wouldn't have seemed so bad and everything would be fine. If we had all the info this would only create a different problem: standard metas becoming solved at a much faster rate, making for environments with a small number of playable decks because even the best, most wonderfully well designed meta will be solved and become less innovative and diverse given time. WotC is trying to maximize the time it takes for that to happen to make for longer periods of instability and innovation a.k.a. fun for spikes AND non-spikes, more enjoyment, more sales, more money, more magic, LESS BANS
Ideally their standard meta would have enough diverse strategies designed into the set (and winrate information limited enough upon release) that it would never be fully solved before new cards enter the pool.
p.s. let's not conflate this with net neutrality and personify an abstract concept like information and give it hopes and desires like "freedom." Gimme a break
U Merfolk
UB Tezzerator
UB Mill
Spirits
It's as you say: Ideally, Standard should have enough strategies designed into the set that by the time it was solved or became close to being solved, the new set comes in to shake up the meta. Eliminating meta share data does nothing to fix the fundamental issues that plagued Standard for so many months, something that we can only hope will be solved in upcoming sets, and because of this players have lost an important tool for brewing new decks and need to now rely more heavily on first-hand experience to figure out what the meta might look like, something that for many of us primarily comes from LGS tournaments that in turn may not even be that useful when you decide to go to larger tourneys depending on who attends your LGS tourneys.
As for those of us in Modern, I think just about everything that could be said has been so I don't want to keep banging the same drums, but I do have one question: how many people care if Modern or Legacy become solved? I can only speak for myself, but I love the fact that I can buy into a solid deck and (assuming it's not broken) ride that same deck into every tournament for years to come. A meta that is constantly unsolved is a meta that's constantly shifting, and when the primary goal of new sets is to create new Standard environments, not eternal format environments, this to me comes off as a conflicting goal. I really don't care if Modern is nearly solved if I can comfortably buy into a deck that I know will be good for at least a few years, and if it does become bad, I want it to be because it was naturally power-creeped or became too due to new cards. I do not want to invest in a format where I have to worry about WotC axing my deck because it decided that the meta's been the same for too long and they're bored of it
Modern:
UWUW Control
UBRGrixis Shadow
URIzzet Phoenix
I'm not 100% sure what you mean here. If you are suggesting that accelerate ban cycles and stuff like the Eye ban are Wizards version of patching, then I agree. Bans are the only way to patch a problematic strategy by "nerfing" instead of "buffing." "Buffs" in MTG parlance would be reprints, new cards, or unbans. But as you can see, those options are much more limited and drastic than those we see in digital games. They also take longer to implement.
Pages back, I speculated that Wizards will eventually try to move towards a more patch-oriented MTG model in the future. I have no idea what this would look like, but it would definitely alleviate some of the game's current issues (likely replacing them with new ones, but hey, can't bat 100%). If digital games are any indication, people are generally happier with nerfs than bans, and it gives Wizards much more maneuvering room. For example, imagine if they could errata Exarch to be a 1/3. Or switch Eye of Ugin to be a 1 cast reduction instead of 2. These changes give Wizards limitless new balancing options, but none are currently possible.
Until Wizards can use data to such a granular and fine-tuning approach, I understand that they don't want players to have as much. If that means fewer bans, I'm fine with that. If we still see the same rate of bans, however, then that's ridiculous. In that case, just give us all the data.
The random MTGO metagame distribution was very similar to the larger paper metagame. Statistically, it would be very unlikely that Wizards was curating results. We also saw a number of Leagues that looked horrible, which a curated approach would probably weed out. Overall, these baseless conspiracy theories are generally unhelpful and inaccurate.
My other point is that Eye of Ugin (and a pushed 'version patch' of Eldrazi) was what broken Modern before, broken like it had never been to my knowledge. That was NOT a result of MTGO data, it was a few distinct teams of pro's, who broke it off line, and then spiked an event hard.
IF we had MTGO did showing that result however...well hey, maybe Wizards would have done something about it before it ruined a PT event and several events after.
Spirits
I play Magic: the Gathering, not Magic: the Commandering.
This has been mentioned on Reddit, but haven't seen it here. I think we should start crowdsourcing lists with the help of players, grinders and streamers.
*Maybe this is not the thread to do that though. A new metagame thread perhaps? We can request evidence that easily checks out with the league's leaderboard, so that's a good start. Would the site get a C&D as well though?
Frontier: UBR Grixis Control | BRG Jund Delirium
Again, this kind of unsupported conspiracy-mongering is almost always inaccurate and unhelpful. If you have some actual evidence other than the usual "wake up sheeple" accusations, go for it. Otherwise, these theories just get us further away from having rational, evidence-based discussions about the facts. As I said, it would be statistically improbable (very improbable) for Wizards to be curating MTGO data given the similarities to paper data.
Modern is in a pretty good state right now, I would agree, but trying to put blinders on a community that is very invested and enthusiastic? Doesn't seem right to me. It's your job to balance and design the format Wizards, don't blame a networked community of people who are good at game theory and stats for breaking it, or at least hire some of them.
I'm also little confused about the potential for CnD. Is it the collection of data, or the publication of said data that's problematic? I don't use MODO, and am just wondering here.
And, I can very much understand something like that being in the TOS for a digital game, but can they do something related for a website that just tracks the paper meta? Is there a TOS equivalent for paper magic as well?
Death and Taxes
Pauper
UB Teachings
Tortured Existence
Murasa Tron
Modern
Pod (RIP)
Bloom(RIP)
Merfolk
Making a leap here that you're not a statistics fan? The biggest issue here isn't really the changing in the number of data sets it's the fact that they will be selected. If data is random on a long enough timeline it begins to reflect the true meta and therefore has value to those who wish to interact with the game on that level. When you select the decks this isn't possible.
If WotC wanted to slow down the rate of solving a format they're keep the selection process random. They're not stupid people, in fact I'd bet there a disproportionately high number of maths and science degrees floating around that building. They know they're totally preventing data from being analysed and saying anything else is an outright lie.
Edit - sorry others explained this already
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT
Frontier: UBR Grixis Control | BRG Jund Delirium
You are much more optimistic about their intentions than the rest of us. Nothing in their past actions or statements leads me to believe whatsoever that this will reduce bans or increase unbans. Information was NOT the problem. Poorly designed sets and poorly managed formats for the last several years were.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Just by being on this forum, you are part of that minority. Most are happy to throw money into the pit that is Limited and Standard and wouldnt know a broken card from a worthless one.
That said, please have my thanks for saving the poor people who are reading this thread from the horror of mistaking conflicting view points as the only real ones!
Spirits
You could at least add an IMHO here and there, my gosh ...
People in the real world I talk to frequently love the design of recent sets, love Modern.
I'm not going to get into depth, but it's EXACTLY the design of recent sets which have led to some of the worst times in recent history. As as super brief overview:
Standard:
- Perfect mana with no downside produced and homogenized 4-5c piles in KTK/BFZ.
- Combos had no meaningful disruption since Rally the Ancestors and lasted through the multiple bannings of this year.
-- As an example, several things required untouched graveyards to function (Rally, Delirium, Emrakul, etc), zero GY hate.
- Hugely inconsistent power levels in Standard, resulting in only a few decks being viable.
- Incredibly pushed cards with no answer in order to promote story or mechanics caused massive problems.
- Blatant and flagrant whiff on the part of R&D, completely missing a two card combo that Standard has zero means to meaningfully interact with and was spotted within minutes of spoilers posting.
- Sets seem to be DESIGNED to not interact with each other outside of the battlefield. Little meaningful removal, answers, or reactive cards, parasitic mechanics that literally can't be interacted with (Energy), and spells being reduced in power or forcefully stapled onto creatures (that could be cheated into play at instant speed).
Modern:
- Printing utterly, stupidly broken creatures, knowing full well ahead of time that they would be abused with multiple Sol lands. Ruined the PT, three different GPs, and several months of local Modern events because they did not enact an emergency ban.
- Made ham-fisted and lazy ban decisions (including re-banning an unbanned card) in order to fix mistakes that they themselves created through newly printed cards and previous ban decisions.
- Complete and utter lack of any sort of reactive or control support. Meager attempts are overcosted and underpowered. Fatal Push the only success, but works best in proactive decks anyway (no tiered control/reactive decks actually playing Push).
But sure, if you only pick out a few cards from recent sets, and they manage to make your deck busted or vastly improved, I could see why one would love the design of recent sets. Wizards has done a LOT of harm to themselves through their own design choices and printings. Public access to information was never the issue.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
They publicly apologized for resent sets and the state of standard, have backed out of a complete format change, have implemented and enacted on an accelerated ban cycle, and moaning about Standard has been none stop since BFZ.
These are not the actions of a company whose product is successful, they are efforts to correct mistakes.
Standard doesn't fire around here, it's Modern, or EDH now.
Spirits
The post you are quoting as pretending to be fact literally says "nothing leads me to believe...". Plus, you should never need to state, "in my opinion" about anything. It is an unnecessary introduction to a thought that any English teacher would tell you to simply leave out because if you are writing it then it is clearly your opinion.
Fusions posts are passionate, sometimes insightful, sometimes overly dramatic or prone to hyperbole, but the biggest flaw I could see you accusing him of is occasionally cherry picking data to fit his narrative. It's clear that his passionate, macro level posts about the health of the format are not factual statements, true or otherwise.
If a reader needs to have every opinion prefaced with "in my opinion" to discern them from factual claims then I think their is a bigger issue of understanding going on that won't be fixed just by letting them know they are reading an opinion.
We are talking about the state of Modern, maybe you need to step back and gain some perspective that not everyone has to agree with your world view?
Spirits
I understand both facets of this change, and how that impacts our understanding of the meta. I simply don't care about the change, and my above post was focused on only the first aspect, not the second.
I don't think our view of the online meta, however complete, ever predicted the paper meta the way others have espoused. For various reasons, people simply play different decks online. Even full league data would never be able to predict the paper meta for those reasons as well as the fact that it's much easier to go 5-0 than it is to go 13-2. And although I do play online occasionally, I've never had much respect for the online version of the game, whether due to meta, player rudeness, the program's multiple bugs, or simply the fact that nothing can replace the feeling of the cards in your hands.
So for those reasons I still feel this is actually a positive change. I think it has the potential to accomplish these 3 things:
1. Reduce the iteration of "solved" metas, leading to fewer bans and/or some upcoming unbans;
2. Allow players with under-represented decks to feel represented while being listed, giving them warm fuzzies and the community an understanding that multiple decks and builds are viable enough to 5-0; and
3. Force people to finally realize that online data is trash, and always has been (regardless of whether it accurately demonstrated the online meta).
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
Looking at just the recent, blocks - Kaladesh and Amonkhet, I think they were beautifully designed. The art and overall flavor has been amazing, WotC best work ever IMHO. Cool new mechanics like Vehicles, Revolt, Aftermath, Embalm/Eternalize, Afflict, etc. Kaladesh Inventions were awesome reprints.
As far as applicability to Modern (to keep this on topic), there have been some great cards, especially from Aether Revolt like Fatal Push, Walking Ballista, Chandra ToD, Gideon, Saheeli, Rhonas, Baral, As Foretold, Claim/Fame, Disallow, Smuggler's Copter, Heart of Kiran, "fast land" duals, Solemnity.
It's not realistic for Modern players to expect multiple format-jarring cards in every set. The power creep would be crazy.
That wasn't the point of my post at all. It's that their design philosophy was doing broken or powerful things with no answers. And in fact, other than Fatal Push, basically everything you listed is either a powerful/broken thing or a thing that enables broken things (or doesn't actually see play). And that has been the core of their design philosophy for the last few years; a philosophy that has utterly destroyed Standard and done few favors to Modern. Power creep already exists and does so on the backs of enablers like these (and also recently, Prized Amalgam/Cathartic Reunion).
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I know you are being serious from reading your previous posts, but I could've posted this exact text as a clearly sarcastic comment and I think most people would've gotten it.
They pushed colorless cards like crazy resulting in formats completed homogenized around those cards, these sets continued to push their ridiculous super hero group schtick, and they literally missed an obvious 2 card combo from within the same block in a format they actually test for. I enjoyed the flavor of some of the mechanics but most were played way too safe to ever be relevant, even in standard. Then the Amonkhet invocations were completely illegible. I don't think you could find a person that works for WotC that would even claim they were their best work ever; although I understand it may appear that way after the dumpster fire that was BFZ block.