It's also not really what people mean when they say Temur. RUGShift is a UG combo deck that sometimes runs red disruption since it has to run mountains anyway.
People I believe mean a RUG delver list like some people were playing with shooting Mandrills and Goyf before GitProbe was banned. Or even a Temur midrange list with goyfs and counters and stuff.
Completely other topic, has anyone heard of or seen GoyfShift? I've heard the term thrown around before and I'm curious. Would that be a RUGShift variant with goyfs to clog up the ground and/or attack for the win sometimes? Or a Titanshift list plus goyf?
Edit: just noticed this was post 1,000 for me. That's fun
It's also not really what people mean when they say Temur. RUGShift is a UG combo deck that sometimes runs red disruption since it has to run mountains anyway.
People I believe mean a RUG delver list like some people were playing with shooting Mandrills and Goyf before GitProbe was banned. Or even a Temur midrange list with goyfs and counters and stuff.
Completely other topic, has anyone heard of or seen GoyfShift? I've heard the term thrown around before and I'm curious. Would that be a RUGShift variant with goyfs to clog up the ground and/or attack for the win sometimes? Or a Titanshift list plus goyf?
Edit: just noticed this was post 1,000 for me. That's fun
In Extended, there was a Scapeshift deck with Tarmogoyf. I will try to find a link, but I think it was technically in Jund colors. Gum up the ground, win with Scapeshift. I personally never played it.
It looks like I failed to find any other version, other than the RG Punishing Fire, Bloodbraid Elf, Tarmogoyf, Scapeshift deck. Could have sworn I saw a Jund Shift with Tarmogoyf top 8 a PTQ I went to.
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
The one who must not be named is banned.
Pod is banned.
Tron now runs Eldrazis and is midrange.
Jund was eaten by Eldrazis, and split into many variants.
Valakut dropped blue and is now pure ramp.
But Affinity always stood there through the ages as a pillar of the format.
Midrange vs midrange modern was so cool. I liked when there were only a few format defining decks
Sure, there was less diversity, but most of the games were high quality with very few loopsided matchups (mostly Tron's fault).
The one who must not be named is banned.
Pod is banned.
Tron now runs Eldrazis and is midrange.
Jund was eaten by Eldrazis, and split into many variants.
Valakut dropped blue and is now pure ramp.
But Affinity always stood there through the ages as a pillar of the format.
Midrange vs midrange modern was so cool. I liked when there were only a few format defining decks
Sure, there was less diversity, but most of the games were high quality with very few loopsided matchups (mostly Tron's fault).
I liked Cawblade vs Cawblade standard.
It was cracked wide open with bannings and has surged in popularity since/during that time. The current management philosophy for the format favours diversity over a stable meta with a few top dogs. As much as it baffles me personally, some players like yourself and sisicat want to see a format dominated by (an) overpowered deck(s). This is not likely to happen, and if it does for sure it won't last. The only answer you have is to adjust your expectations for modern because it is purposefully moving away from what you prefer and has been for years. Cawblade era is an often-cited example of a very badly designed block and to hope for it's return is actively hoping that WotC fails at their own goals.
Cawblade era is an often-cited example of a very badly designed block and to hope for it's return is actively hoping that WotC fails at their own goals.
Not only that, Cawblade almost killed a lot of larger Magic play. Even though people have been complaining about Standard the past year, I don't think attendance got even close to how low attendance was for during the Cawblade Era.
That someone is saying that's the kind of format they want Modern to be is...well sad.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Either way we can debate stable top dogs and all that but that doesn't really address the issues at hand. Is a 4 drop 3/2 haste that brings a free card 3 or less at random from your library better than a 4/4 that will for sure look at the opponents hand and most of the time exile a card from it that can also come down turn 2? I think not, and furthermore sfm could also be unbanned as well because there is no Jitte in modern and none of the 3 drop swords are close to as powerful.
This meta will eventually morph into a few top dogs because of printings and other things eventually becoming more powerful, whether that's eldrazi, storm, shadow or another random deck that just needs a little bit. Adding things back that are not more powerful than what is going on. This hayday of diversity will end at some point through printings and allowing things back that are less powerful than whats going on to boost things back is a better solution than banning temple for eldrazitron players, shadow for grixis player, and past in flames for storm.
Either way we can debate stable top dogs and all that but that doesn't really address the issues at hand. Is a 4 drop 3/2 haste that brings a free card 3 or less at random from your library better than a 4/4 that will for sure look at the opponents hand and most of the time exile a card from it that can also come down turn 2? I think not, and furthermore sfm could also be unbanned as well because there is no Jitte in modern and none of the 3 drop swords are close to as powerful.
This meta will eventually morph into a few top dogs because of printings and other things eventually becoming more powerful, whether that's eldrazi, storm, shadow or another random deck that just needs a little bit. Adding things back that are not more powerful than what is going on. This hayday of diversity will end at some point through printings and allowing things back that are less powerful than whats going on to boost things back is a better solution than banning temple for eldrazitron players, shadow for grixis player, and past in flames for storm.
People are worried about SFM because of Batterskull, which btw does a very good job against those TKS's you were mentioning.
Hell the SFM + Batterskull interaction could very well make any SFM deck a true nightmare match up for Eldrazi-Tron unless you hold your TKS's until your opponent plays SFM so you can nab their Batterskull
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
There is no way to predict how the meta will evolve with new printings. Pure speculation with zero evidence is not a good way to predict format health. At least preface those kinds of statements with a clear declaration that it is just a guess. Also, you are forgetting that TKS draws the opponent a card when it dies. That's a big deal when talking about these two in terms of resource advantages.
Your doomsday prediction is based on no other decks getting any kind of support, and no new decks being created from new cards. Two years ago there was no eldrazi deck because the new eldrazi had not even been printed. A year ago death's shadow only saw play in Become Immense-based zoo decks. Storm was hot garbage, so the meta you're talking about is relatively new anyways. To say these will dominate for years to come with any sort of guarantee or confidence is a lackluster statement at best.
There is no way to predict how the meta will evolve with new printings. Pure speculation with zero evidence is not a good way to predict format health. At least preface those kinds of statements with a clear declaration that it is just a guess. Also, you are forgetting that TKS draws the opponent a card when it dies. That's a big deal when talking about these two in terms of resource advantages.
Your doomsday prediction is based on no other decks getting any kind of support, and no new decks being created from new cards. Two years ago there was no eldrazi deck because the new eldrazi had not even been printed. A year ago death's shadow only saw play in Become Immense-based zoo decks. Storm was hot garbage, so the meta you're talking about is relatively new anyways. To say these will dominate for years to come with any sort of guarantee or confidence is a lackluster statement at best.
I don't think he was trying to predict the meta, more just stating a fact about the format.
Your reasoning for not wanting to unban BBE is that you don't want to add a new card to the format that could change the metagame as it currently is, because you like how the metagame currently is.
Well Wizards releases a new set every 3 months, and Trazareth's point (as I understood it anyway) is that you can never know what the future holds. Right now we have a very stable meta where unbanning BBE is a 100% safe call. Face it, there are much more powerful things you can do in Modern than play a Jund deck with 2-3 BBE in it. However should something get printed where BBE is suddenly too strong, it can just be banned again.
His post wasn't a doomsday prediction, it is an assessment of what has happened every time new powerful cards enter the Modern card pool.
New or existing decks rise to take advantage of the new cards. People modify other existing decks to deal with this new or updated super power. This continues down the chain until a new metagame is formed. It's not a doomsday scenario, it's how the format works, and has worked. It's how we have come to our current metagame that a lot of people are praising as the best state Modern has ever been in.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
There is no way to predict how the meta will evolve with new printings. Pure speculation with zero evidence is not a good way to predict format health. At least preface those kinds of statements with a clear declaration that it is just a guess. Also, you are forgetting that TKS draws the opponent a card when it dies. That's a big deal when talking about these two in terms of resource advantages.
Your doomsday prediction is based on no other decks getting any kind of support, and no new decks being created from new cards. Two years ago there was no eldrazi deck because the new eldrazi had not even been printed. A year ago death's shadow only saw play in Become Immense-based zoo decks. Storm was hot garbage, so the meta you're talking about is relatively new anyways. To say these will dominate for years to come with any sort of guarantee or confidence is a lackluster statement at best.
I don't think he was trying to predict the meta, more just stating a fact about the format.
Your reasoning for not wanting to unban BBE is that you don't want to add a new card to the format that could change the metagame as it currently is, because you like how the metagame currently is.
Well Wizards releases a new set every 3 months, and Trazareth's point (as I understood it anyway) is that you can never know what the future holds. Right now we have a very stable meta where unbanning BBE is a 100% safe call. Face it, there are much more powerful things you can do in Modern than play a Jund deck with 2-3 BBE in it. However should something get printed where BBE is suddenly too strong, it can just be banned again.
His post wasn't a doomsday prediction, it is an assessment of what has happened every time new powerful cards enter the Modern card pool.
New or existing decks rise to take advantage of the new cards. People modify other existing decks to deal with this new or updated super power. This continues down the chain until a new metagame is formed. It's not a doomsday scenario, it's how the format works, and has worked. It's how we have come to our current metagame that a lot of people are praising as the best state Modern has ever been in.
^ what he stated was my intent. It doesn't matter who is dominating just that through printings eventually people will be.
There absolutely needs to be a way to inject powerful new cards into the modern format. And if this cannot be accomplished through printing them in standard-legal sets, it needs to be done in another way.
Hopefully the new play design team will help to make this a reality. Modern playable cards not only helps modern but makes standard more interesting as well
The one who must not be named is banned.
Pod is banned.
Tron now runs Eldrazis and is midrange.
Jund was eaten by Eldrazis, and split into many variants.
Valakut dropped blue and is now pure ramp.
But Affinity always stood there through the ages as a pillar of the format.
Midrange vs midrange modern was so cool. I liked when there were only a few format defining decks
Sure, there was less diversity, but most of the games were high quality with very few loopsided matchups (mostly Tron's fault).
I disagree that there was less diversity, as a quick comparison look at Top 8 numbers shows massive diversity among both winners and T8s. What we have instead of "more diversity" is a reduction of meta predictability. Other than Eldrazi Winter, Modern has pretty much ALWAYS been diverse. Random T2 and 3 decks have spiked tournaments and placed well since the beginning. Diversity has never been an issue for Modern. But without a stable and predictable "Tier 1" suite of decks (like the old Jund, Tron, (Redacted), Infect, Affinity, and Burn), then the ability to adequately predict and prepare for events gets significantly harder, sideboards become less and less effective, and you're more likely to get hosed by some random PileOfCards.dec. Does that make a "more diverse" format? Probably. Does that make a "better" format? I don't think so.
I think the bigger problem moving forward isn't as much the chaotic nature of the format as a whole, but the complete lack of meaningful data which the format can be represented with. Paper tournaments are too few, too far between, and too susceptible to random(ish) variance factors to provide meaningful data. By the time you have enough samples to generate an image, things have already shifted, another set has been printed, and all your old data is worthless. Plus, MTGO lists are now completely useless. What's worst of all is this is probably exactly what Wizards wants.
Plus, MTGO lists are now completely useless. What's worst of all is this is probably exactly what Wizards wants.
I don't think it's completely useless. Between the Modern Challenges and PTQs, there is a decent amount of data. It's still a fairly small sample statistically speaking, but you can see some obvious things, like:
UW Control is more popular online than in paper.
Counters Company is less popular online than in paper.
Plus, MTGO lists are now completely useless. What's worst of all is this is probably exactly what Wizards wants.
I don't think it's completely useless. Between the Modern Challenges and PTQs, there is a decent amount of data. It's still a fairly small sample statistically speaking, but you can see some obvious things, like:
UW Control is more popular online than in paper.
Counters Company is less popular online than in paper.
Compared to the data that exists (thousands and thousands of matches, possibly hundreds of 5-0 Leagues), the data we have access to is minuscule and difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from. What we are using now are glorified FNM results, which in of itself would be useful if we had hundreds of them, but the N value we have is too small to give us really meaningful results. Even the old method of 10 5-0 lists per day gave us ~300 additional lists per month. Paper tournaments MOCS give us... maybe 1/4 of that?
Basically, the smaller the N (or number of sources we have to pull from) the more susceptible the results are to being skewed by outliers. Having next to nothing is almost worst than having nothing at all because of the misleading results we might draw from non-representative data. If the sample size and makeup doesn't represent the whole, it can't really be used to represent or predict the whole.
Plus, MTGO lists are now completely useless. What's worst of all is this is probably exactly what Wizards wants.
I don't think it's completely useless. Between the Modern Challenges and PTQs, there is a decent amount of data. It's still a fairly small sample statistically speaking, but you can see some obvious things, like:
UW Control is more popular online than in paper.
Counters Company is less popular online than in paper.
Compared to the data that exists (thousands and thousands of matches, possibly hundreds of 5-0 Leagues), the data we have access to is minuscule and difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from. What we are using now are glorified FNM results, which in of itself would be useful if we had hundreds of them, but the N value we have is too small to give us really meaningful results. Even the old method of 10 5-0 lists per day gave us ~300 additional lists per month. Paper tournaments MOCS give us... maybe 1/4 of that?
Basically, the smaller the N (or number of sources we have to pull from) the more susceptible the results are to being skewed by outliers. Having next to nothing is almost worst than having nothing at all because of the misleading results we might draw from non-representative data. If the sample size and makeup doesn't represent the whole, it can't really be used to represent or predict the whole.
Yet the data that is available does describe a meta that experienced Modern players would look at and agree that it matches their intuitive understanding of the meta. I wouldn't dwell too much on just online, but instead look at the combined online/paper meta over a 3-month period. While I agree it's not ideal, it is IMHO the best view we can get.
Sure it's the best we can get, but I'm honestly pissed that it's what we have to settle for. Data helps a format evolve. Keeping data from the players effectively stifles and chokes out innovation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Sure it's the best we can get, but I'm honestly pissed that it's what we have to settle for. Data helps a format evolve. Keeping data from the players effectively stifles and chokes out innovation.
We could make our own data. I've had a bit of a side project for about 1.5 years now, where I'm attempting to recreate data through simulations. The decks don't get played with the nuance of a high level pro, but quantity makes up for quality. I haven't really targeted formats with my simulation approach, just decks that interest me instead in order to get a proof of concept working.
However, decks that I have used my system on have had good results. For example, it was able to correctly predict the optimal deck skeleton for Knightfall when the deck was brand new. The predicted skeletons now match the numbers/types of cards people are playing in the deck. It has also been able to evaluate new cards for specific decks. Not every deck is prone to being simulated (multi function cards and tutors are very difficult) but a bunch of them are.
Another method I've tried, which would be a bit more accessible is to rate cards based on how they perform against each other. Essentially, each card carries a ranking against each other card in a matrix. It scores a 1 if it trades or better against any given card, and a 0 if it doesn't. From there, associations can be built as to which cards are best against the meta, and naturally fit into cores against each other. This whole system can be done in a couple spreadsheets with associations built using some social networking prinicples. The plus, is that it's quicker to build and doesn't require much in the way of programming skills or game insight. All it requires is some basic card evaluation (and the rules for that can be written out ahead of time). The downside is that this system has exponential growth, and I've never been able to prove it works.
I had always wanted to prove this system in a block PT and make some called shots to test it, but by the time I figured it out, they had canceled block PT's which would have been the perfect format for such a system as block is about 800 cards which means only 640,000 pieces of data would be needed. Modern was the format I wanted to try after that, because the card pool at the time was pretty tiny... maybe 600 cards total seeing play. In the past couple years though, the number of cards seeing play in Modern has drastically increased, and I think this system might be prohibitive now. If the format is effectively 1000 cards large, that's 1,000,000 pieces of data needed. In theory that would still be doable, but only through a community effort.
At what point does the mtgo data become too flawed?
When postings of 5-0 lists changed from 10 random lists (which can be very useful representation after enough days) to 5 lists that are actively chosen to showcase artificial diversity (no list can share a certain number of cards with another posted list). This change happened about a month ago? And has been met with nearly universal disapproval.
At what point does the mtgo data become too flawed?
When postings of 5-0 lists changed from 10 random lists (which can be very useful representation after enough days) to 5 lists that are actively chosen to showcase artificial diversity (no list can share a certain number of cards with another posted list). This change happened about a month ago? And has been met with nearly universal disapproval.
I agree with CF here. The data is basically useless at this point. You could theoretically look for repeat lists to try and make some conclusions about the format, but even then, we have no idea how Wizards is curating the data in the first place. Knowing they are curating it, and knowing they are doing so to deliberately prevent metagame solving, I would be very hesitant to use any of that data at all. It's good for brewers, list shoppers, and spikes looking for tech ideas, but that's about it.
Yeah, WotC cutting the data like they have is kind of like the Emperor's new clothes ending with the Emperor realizing he's naked and blinding his entire kingdom so they can't comment on it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Well, I can saw a woman in two, but you won't wanna look in the box when I'm through.
First off, reducing the ban list does not automatically make the format better. The fact that there are cards virtually everyone agrees should stay banned is proof of this. The whole "keep the list as short as possible" really isn't grounded in any empirical data. It just is a feel-good thing.
That "Feel Good thing" you speak about, it has a name; Consumer Confidence. Without that, we don't play this game much at all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
RGTron
UGInfect
URStorm
WUBRAd Nauseam
BRGrishoalbrand
URGScapeshift
WBGAbzan Company
WUBRGAmulet Titan
BRGLiving End
WGBogles
That deck hasn't been viable in forever
People I believe mean a RUG delver list like some people were playing with shooting Mandrills and Goyf before GitProbe was banned. Or even a Temur midrange list with goyfs and counters and stuff.
Completely other topic, has anyone heard of or seen GoyfShift? I've heard the term thrown around before and I'm curious. Would that be a RUGShift variant with goyfs to clog up the ground and/or attack for the win sometimes? Or a Titanshift list plus goyf?
Edit: just noticed this was post 1,000 for me. That's fun
Marath, Will of the Wild Tokens!! / Karrthus, Tyrant of Jund Dragons! / Muzzio, Visionary Architect / Brago, King Eternal / Daretti, Scrap Savant / Narset, Enlightened Master / Alesha, Who Smiles at Death / Bruna, Light of Alabaster / Marchesa, the Black Rose / Iroas, God of Victory / Freyalise, Llanowar's Fury / Omnath, Locus of rage / Titania, Protector of Argoth / Kozilek, the Great Distortion
Modern
Elves / Titanshift / Merfolk
Frontier: UBR Grixis Control | BRG Jund Delirium
In Extended, there was a Scapeshift deck with Tarmogoyf. I will try to find a link, but I think it was technically in Jund colors. Gum up the ground, win with Scapeshift. I personally never played it.
It looks like I failed to find any other version, other than the RG Punishing Fire, Bloodbraid Elf, Tarmogoyf, Scapeshift deck. Could have sworn I saw a Jund Shift with Tarmogoyf top 8 a PTQ I went to.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)The one who must not be named is banned.
Pod is banned.
Tron now runs Eldrazis and is midrange.
Jund was eaten by Eldrazis, and split into many variants.
Valakut dropped blue and is now pure ramp.
But Affinity always stood there through the ages as a pillar of the format.
Midrange vs midrange modern was so cool. I liked when there were only a few format defining decks
Sure, there was less diversity, but most of the games were high quality with very few loopsided matchups (mostly Tron's fault).
I liked Cawblade vs Cawblade standard.
It was cracked wide open with bannings and has surged in popularity since/during that time. The current management philosophy for the format favours diversity over a stable meta with a few top dogs. As much as it baffles me personally, some players like yourself and sisicat want to see a format dominated by (an) overpowered deck(s). This is not likely to happen, and if it does for sure it won't last. The only answer you have is to adjust your expectations for modern because it is purposefully moving away from what you prefer and has been for years. Cawblade era is an often-cited example of a very badly designed block and to hope for it's return is actively hoping that WotC fails at their own goals.
U Merfolk
UB Tezzerator
UB Mill
Not only that, Cawblade almost killed a lot of larger Magic play. Even though people have been complaining about Standard the past year, I don't think attendance got even close to how low attendance was for during the Cawblade Era.
That someone is saying that's the kind of format they want Modern to be is...well sad.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
This meta will eventually morph into a few top dogs because of printings and other things eventually becoming more powerful, whether that's eldrazi, storm, shadow or another random deck that just needs a little bit. Adding things back that are not more powerful than what is going on. This hayday of diversity will end at some point through printings and allowing things back that are less powerful than whats going on to boost things back is a better solution than banning temple for eldrazitron players, shadow for grixis player, and past in flames for storm.
People are worried about SFM because of Batterskull, which btw does a very good job against those TKS's you were mentioning.
Hell the SFM + Batterskull interaction could very well make any SFM deck a true nightmare match up for Eldrazi-Tron unless you hold your TKS's until your opponent plays SFM so you can nab their Batterskull
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
There is no way to predict how the meta will evolve with new printings. Pure speculation with zero evidence is not a good way to predict format health. At least preface those kinds of statements with a clear declaration that it is just a guess. Also, you are forgetting that TKS draws the opponent a card when it dies. That's a big deal when talking about these two in terms of resource advantages.
Your doomsday prediction is based on no other decks getting any kind of support, and no new decks being created from new cards. Two years ago there was no eldrazi deck because the new eldrazi had not even been printed. A year ago death's shadow only saw play in Become Immense-based zoo decks. Storm was hot garbage, so the meta you're talking about is relatively new anyways. To say these will dominate for years to come with any sort of guarantee or confidence is a lackluster statement at best.
I don't think he was trying to predict the meta, more just stating a fact about the format.
Your reasoning for not wanting to unban BBE is that you don't want to add a new card to the format that could change the metagame as it currently is, because you like how the metagame currently is.
Well Wizards releases a new set every 3 months, and Trazareth's point (as I understood it anyway) is that you can never know what the future holds. Right now we have a very stable meta where unbanning BBE is a 100% safe call. Face it, there are much more powerful things you can do in Modern than play a Jund deck with 2-3 BBE in it. However should something get printed where BBE is suddenly too strong, it can just be banned again.
His post wasn't a doomsday prediction, it is an assessment of what has happened every time new powerful cards enter the Modern card pool.
New or existing decks rise to take advantage of the new cards. People modify other existing decks to deal with this new or updated super power. This continues down the chain until a new metagame is formed. It's not a doomsday scenario, it's how the format works, and has worked. It's how we have come to our current metagame that a lot of people are praising as the best state Modern has ever been in.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
^ what he stated was my intent. It doesn't matter who is dominating just that through printings eventually people will be.
Hopefully the new play design team will help to make this a reality. Modern playable cards not only helps modern but makes standard more interesting as well
I disagree that there was less diversity, as a quick comparison look at Top 8 numbers shows massive diversity among both winners and T8s. What we have instead of "more diversity" is a reduction of meta predictability. Other than Eldrazi Winter, Modern has pretty much ALWAYS been diverse. Random T2 and 3 decks have spiked tournaments and placed well since the beginning. Diversity has never been an issue for Modern. But without a stable and predictable "Tier 1" suite of decks (like the old Jund, Tron, (Redacted), Infect, Affinity, and Burn), then the ability to adequately predict and prepare for events gets significantly harder, sideboards become less and less effective, and you're more likely to get hosed by some random PileOfCards.dec. Does that make a "more diverse" format? Probably. Does that make a "better" format? I don't think so.
I think the bigger problem moving forward isn't as much the chaotic nature of the format as a whole, but the complete lack of meaningful data which the format can be represented with. Paper tournaments are too few, too far between, and too susceptible to random(ish) variance factors to provide meaningful data. By the time you have enough samples to generate an image, things have already shifted, another set has been printed, and all your old data is worthless. Plus, MTGO lists are now completely useless. What's worst of all is this is probably exactly what Wizards wants.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I don't think it's completely useless. Between the Modern Challenges and PTQs, there is a decent amount of data. It's still a fairly small sample statistically speaking, but you can see some obvious things, like:
Compared to the data that exists (thousands and thousands of matches, possibly hundreds of 5-0 Leagues), the data we have access to is minuscule and difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from. What we are using now are glorified FNM results, which in of itself would be useful if we had hundreds of them, but the N value we have is too small to give us really meaningful results. Even the old method of 10 5-0 lists per day gave us ~300 additional lists per month. Paper tournaments MOCS give us... maybe 1/4 of that?
Basically, the smaller the N (or number of sources we have to pull from) the more susceptible the results are to being skewed by outliers. Having next to nothing is almost worst than having nothing at all because of the misleading results we might draw from non-representative data. If the sample size and makeup doesn't represent the whole, it can't really be used to represent or predict the whole.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Yet the data that is available does describe a meta that experienced Modern players would look at and agree that it matches their intuitive understanding of the meta. I wouldn't dwell too much on just online, but instead look at the combined online/paper meta over a 3-month period. While I agree it's not ideal, it is IMHO the best view we can get.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
We could make our own data. I've had a bit of a side project for about 1.5 years now, where I'm attempting to recreate data through simulations. The decks don't get played with the nuance of a high level pro, but quantity makes up for quality. I haven't really targeted formats with my simulation approach, just decks that interest me instead in order to get a proof of concept working.
However, decks that I have used my system on have had good results. For example, it was able to correctly predict the optimal deck skeleton for Knightfall when the deck was brand new. The predicted skeletons now match the numbers/types of cards people are playing in the deck. It has also been able to evaluate new cards for specific decks. Not every deck is prone to being simulated (multi function cards and tutors are very difficult) but a bunch of them are.
Another method I've tried, which would be a bit more accessible is to rate cards based on how they perform against each other. Essentially, each card carries a ranking against each other card in a matrix. It scores a 1 if it trades or better against any given card, and a 0 if it doesn't. From there, associations can be built as to which cards are best against the meta, and naturally fit into cores against each other. This whole system can be done in a couple spreadsheets with associations built using some social networking prinicples. The plus, is that it's quicker to build and doesn't require much in the way of programming skills or game insight. All it requires is some basic card evaluation (and the rules for that can be written out ahead of time). The downside is that this system has exponential growth, and I've never been able to prove it works.
I had always wanted to prove this system in a block PT and make some called shots to test it, but by the time I figured it out, they had canceled block PT's which would have been the perfect format for such a system as block is about 800 cards which means only 640,000 pieces of data would be needed. Modern was the format I wanted to try after that, because the card pool at the time was pretty tiny... maybe 600 cards total seeing play. In the past couple years though, the number of cards seeing play in Modern has drastically increased, and I think this system might be prohibitive now. If the format is effectively 1000 cards large, that's 1,000,000 pieces of data needed. In theory that would still be doable, but only through a community effort.
An absolutely amazing in depth break down of the change can be read about here: https://www.mtggoldfish.com/articles/wizards-data-insanity
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I agree with CF here. The data is basically useless at this point. You could theoretically look for repeat lists to try and make some conclusions about the format, but even then, we have no idea how Wizards is curating the data in the first place. Knowing they are curating it, and knowing they are doing so to deliberately prevent metagame solving, I would be very hesitant to use any of that data at all. It's good for brewers, list shoppers, and spikes looking for tech ideas, but that's about it.
That "Feel Good thing" you speak about, it has a name; Consumer Confidence. Without that, we don't play this game much at all.