It's clear that the definition of 'healthy' is so abstract that it's impossible to be objective about a certain format metagame.
WOTC stated what seems to be their definition of healthy when they re-stated their goals for the format. Diversity among top tiers was at the top, speed of the top tier decks was also the other big takeaway.
The problem is that most vocal Modern players DO NOT care about diversity among top Tiers as much as they care about specific gameplay patterns and other factors such as variance, which are OBJECTIVELY very important in Modern. That's why lots of people recall the Twin/Jund/Pod format as being a better one than the post Pod-ban ones. It was a less diverse format from the archetype standpoint, but it was slower, less variance driven, and atop of that, those 3 decks being juggernauts made metagaming and SBoarding more narrow, so less variant.
It's the first time for several months we get to take such impactful data and those SCG Regionals data are looking very healthy.
I disagree. Anything is going to look healthy when players have few datapoints, and therefore can't converge on optimal deck choices. Regionals on it's own doesn't mean anything other than the fact that there's likely not a single deck where it's completely obvious that it's better than anything else.
That doesn't mean that Modern is unhealthy from a diversity standpoint (gameplay is perhaps another matter), I don't think it is. Only that these results don't mean anything on their own.
1) Not enough interactive decks in the top-tier. Not enough format pillars in the top tier.
2) Blue decks are struggling
3) <=4 cmc creatures are struggling. One can't play those unless (@cfusionpm quote) they either win the game on the spot or have massively powerful ETB effects
4) White colour might has a Tier 2 deck in D&T, but I suspect that's mainly due to the Eldrazi splash.
5) There are almost no format pillars. A Grixis Shadow that's been put down from those D&T decks? No Jund, no Infect, no Twin.
6) We might have a turn 4 violator in Storm and an incoming ban.
All those problems are legitimate.
You know, I've long found the "turn 4 violator ban" to be an overly arbitrary method for banning, particularly because no other format seems to suffer from such a thing. Way back when they introduced that, they claimed that they had a similar policy for Legacy, in that they don't want decks that consistently win before turn 3 (with it being changed to turn 4 for Modern). But when was the last time a card was banned in Legacy for this reason? Even if we want to stretch the definition and just say they banned a card that was played in such decks, you have to go back to 2010, when they banned Mystical Tutor. If we want to talk more directly about cards that enable such wins, you'd go back to either 2007 (Flash) or 2008 (Time Vault), depending on how you count Time Vault, as it was technically banned pre-emptively (the removal of power level errata would make the Voltaic Key+Time Vault combo possible again) and thus was not confirmed to be able to win that quickly. Not saying it wasn't almost certainly going to be of problematic power levels, but it's uncertain how consistently it would be able to pull it off before turn 3.
Still, even if we start the clock at Mystical Tutor, that's 7 whole years without any bans that could plausibly be construed to be meant against turn 1-2 combo decks. Since then, all the bans in Legacy have been for other things (for whatever crimes they may have committed, Mental Misstep, Treasure Cruise, Dig Through Time, and Sensei's Divining Top weren't enablers for the fast combo decks). This indicates one of two things. Either they weren't being honest about their supposed approach towards Legacy, or Legacy is simply equipped with the necessary cards to prevent such decks from getting out of hand.
If the former, that calls into question the bannings for this reason. If the latter, that seems to be yet another sign to provide more answer cards. Yes, Fatal Push was a step in the right direction, but it's limited to creatures. Having counterspells better than Mana Leak would further help against fast combo decks (if Force of Will is a problem, then regular old Counterspell would be a nice one to have around).
I feel like blue "control" on some level needs more ways to create tempo advantage against an opponent OR bolster an aggro control philosophy design. some blue white decks find they have trouble closing games in a timely manner and tempo creates a situation of delaying the inevitable in modern with no extra power behind it. Death's shadow capitalizes on and creates tempo naturally, but I'm speaking more cryptic based decks specifically
Decks I have in my bag of tricks- Needless to say, someone who wants to play will probably have a deck UB/x Faeries UR Storm XURWB Affinity G Elves UW control
If the difference in overall "green" decks is around 2%, then that's not a big deal at all. However, here's a few of my feelings. Years ago when a deck became 11% of the meta, players here cried that something needed to get banned because the format is not diverse. Yes, they said this at 11%. I've even seen it before here when a deck was 9%. Those players literally told me that no deck should be more than 5% of the meta, when I told them that 11% is nothing.
Dredge is 2.9%, so it's doing "fine?" By whose standards? Probably only by Wizard's standards, who doesn't want decks like Storm or Dredge (mechanics) to become even 1 out of every 20 decks you face. Dredge is fine because it's 1 out of every 33 decks you will see currently. Storm may not be fine, but we'll see.
At this point, I honestly think some people are splitting hairs over percentage points. Some players like me would rather play in a 25/25/25/all other decks put together at 25 than a format where you will never face the same deck until you've played in the hundreds of matches. Many Modern players just don't have time to play that many matches and prepare for that many different decks. Sorry.
How are you guys feeling about the regional results?
For me, it means nothing. Regionals is pretty much a crapshoot in my opinion. I looked at the opponents from the top 8s of the recent 3 Regionals in my area and have a 9-2-2 record vs. them, yet have failed 6-3, 5-4, and 5-3 (yesterday) in 3 Regionals. The only deck I've faced in every Regionals has been Mono Blue or UW Tron. (yes, I get to lump them together, lol)
Personally I will get more information on the competitive part of the meta next week at the RPTQ. That tells me what players who desire to win are playing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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)
Apparently a regular at my store got 1st place in Jersey regionals with Storm
I'm kind of bothered by it, he's not a bad player, but I don't think he's someone who would get 1st place with 100 plus players. It really feels like a linear deck just getting there. He's not bad, and I'm not trash talking him, it just feels like the power of the combo deck itself.
Foodchains, the meta is diverse, but a lot of it is just different shades of linear decks
I thought 2015 had the best meta with Twin, Jund, Infect and Affinity. I'm less thrilled with this rock paper scissor meta, but it's what WOTC wants
Players can afford to invest in modern and play a cheap powerful deck with diversity like this. I don't like it, but I'm sure there'd be some people who would say, "then go play standard".
Casual fans hate solved metas. I miss the 2015 meta minus the bloom uprising, but it was so fun. I'm not unhappy with the 2017 meta, I just find it more tilted on lottery pairings than the past few previous years.
I played Jund tonight against elves, and honestly he couldn't do anything to win, my deck just left him no outs and he didn't get to play. It sucks when you lose to a deck more than the player, which happens in modern quite a bit
It sucks when you lose to a deck more than the player, which happens in modern quite a bit
I think this is one of the major issues of the current modern meta. Often it seems like individual player skill is less of a factor in deciding the outcome of a match than the deck choice. There are lots of lopsided matches in modern, and even if you're the one of the best pilots of said deck, it doesn't really matter if you get paired against a bad matchup.
For example, I'm a Burn player. If I get paired against Ad Nauseam, I'm pretty sure I'm going to lose, and there is little that I can do to win aside from crafting a sideboard dedicated to beat Ad Nauseam (which probably would make me vulnerable to other matchups). On the other hand, if I get paired against Storm, I'm pretty sure I'm going to win.
I share the feeling that Modern currently is a big game of Rock-Paper-Scissors, and if you decide to play Rock, you'll always lose to Paper (with little that you can do to help you win that matchup), while always winning the Scissors matchups. It is clear that WotC likes this kind of meta. However, it also can be very frustrating to competitive players, because your performance seems to be more dependant on your luck in the pairings than in your skill in the game.
Yup I have to agree modern is the biggest luck format. Better to be lucky than good in modern imo. When you’ve been playing for al of Magic’s existence and you lose to nooby mc nooberson missingtriggers, miscounting damage, skipping phases, and slow rolling/playing because they don’t know any better is extremely frustrating. A guy win our local open last month with affinity and he misses leathal and misplays regularly on casual thursdays. It’s good for those players because they play things like burn, 8wack, affinity (see people misplay the crap out of that and win), and counters coco mostly. Then they try to step up to something like gds and actually have to learn how to be decent players.
In the long run is it good or bad to have modern be such an easy format to get into? It’s great to see more people playing magic and the community growing and modern allows for that much better than standard imo. If prices didn’t matter I think modern would still be the format for those people because it doesn’t have fow like legacy where if you try to play without a clue you can easily get punished extremely hard.
Well, hold on. Modern isn't all luck. We see familiar faces in big tournaments on a regular basis, it's not all luck. Yes, there is a rock, paper, scissor element, but knowledge and skills is still important
I'm far less impressed with the average standard player than modern or legacy on a local level.
One thing I don't quite understand is how adamantly people will say that the problem with the current modern meta is losing to decks, not players, and then reference 2015. Sometimes specifically saying the "twin beats affinity beats tron beats jund beats twin" meta. There's always going to be a degree of rock-paper-scissors action going on, and I think we need to acknowledge it is part of any game's meta. There are some random MU's that will be borderline unwinnable (MFTB's burn vs ad naus. is a great example), but I don't think they are as prominent as some people make it out to seem.
Like Spsiegel said, knowledge and skills are still very much important in modern, especially when you have the potential to run into any one of 30 different decks at a given FNM. Knowing the MU's and how to SB appropriately is what gives a player their edge. But reducing modern to something as simple as "it's all a coin flip" is disingenuous to the format.
I compared the 50 players with the highest format win percentages in Legacy and Modern, seeing where they ranked on a list of 150 players with the highest MTG-wide win percentages. Of those top 150 winningest players, 16 appeared in the Legacy top 50. For Modern, 18 of that top 150 appeared in the Modern top 50. This means that if we look at the winningest 150 players in the game, there is no statistical difference between how many appear in the bracket of top 50 winningest Modern players vs. the bracket of top 50 winningest Legacy players.
Taking it a step further, I checked the overall win percentage across MTG for all of those top 50 players in both Modern and Legacy, averaging the final results. In the end, the average MTG-wide win rate of a top 50 Legacy player is 63%. The average MTG-wide win percentage of a top 50 Modern player is 61%. This is a statistically significant difference, so there is something about Modern which accounts for a 2% lower win-rate than in Legacy.
I took this yet another step further and only looked at top 50 Modern/Legacy players who were also top 150 overall players. In essence, we’re narrowing down the Modern and Legacy lists only to big name top pros. This removes many players who just don’t have a lot of events in their portfolio, and those who aren’t in that elite top 150 overall subset. Looking at those top players (16 in Legacy, 18 in Modern), we find their average MTG-wide win % in all formats is identical: 63.8%. This, despite there being only two elite top 150 players overlapping in the Modern and Legacy subsets (BBD and Royce Walter). But their win rates within those formats are not identical. In Legacy, those players averaged a 71.8% win rate. In Modern, they averaged a 68% win rate. This magnifies the number above, suggesting that for top players, there’s legitimately something about Modern which is translating to a 3.8% lower win rate.
When we look at those players who aren’t top 150, there is a bigger difference between the Modern and Legacy win-rates. In Legacy, it’s 70.4%. In Modern, it’s 67.3%. So for the non-pro players, Modern is also affecting win rates, but less so than for pros: 3.1% for the regular players, 3.8% for the big names.
If we assume the sample is big enough, and if we assume that skill should generally average out to decide matchups over many datapoints, we can conclude that there’s something about Modern which accounts for between a 2% and 4% drop in your win rate that would otherwise be expected in Legacy. I believe this is the variance that people cite as being present in Modern and not in Legacy, but I don’t actually know if variance causes it. I don't know what causes it. I just know it’s a real difference. And, again, it doesn’t actually affect how many top players appear at the top in Modern events.
TLDR: There's no difference between "skill-testing" Legacy and a "high-variance" Modern when it comes to the number of top players winning events. But there is a difference when it comes to the GWP of those players. In Modern, the average GWP is between 2%-4% lower than in Legacy. This suggests there is something about Modern which causes players to lose 2%-4% more games than a similar segment of players would in Legacy.
It sucks when you lose to a deck more than the player, which happens in modern quite a bit
I think this is one of the major issues of the current modern meta. Often it seems like individual player skill is less of a factor in deciding the outcome of a match than the deck choice. There are lots of lopsided matches in modern, and even if you're the one of the best pilots of said deck, it doesn't really matter if you get paired against a bad matchup.
...
I share the feeling that Modern currently is a big game of Rock-Paper-Scissors, and if you decide to play Rock, you'll always lose to Paper (with little that you can do to help you win that matchup), while always winning the Scissors matchups. It is clear that WotC likes this kind of meta. However, it also can be very frustrating to competitive players, because your performance seems to be more dependant on your luck in the pairings than in your skill in the game.
This post is quite a bit misinformed and biased.
The only thing we know for sure is that Wizards is fine with the current state of the format and we know that because, well, they said so.
Now, saying that the format is rock paper scissors is just your interpretation of the format. As Spsiegel1987 said, we have quite a number of players who perform consistently well. How do they manage to avoid this element? Do they ALAWYS have the best decks? Heck, Tom Ross has performed consistently well with 8-Rack of all decks!
Getting lucky is always a thing in Magic, in every format and there will be FNMs where your casual player, that you never lose to, will actually go 4-0 once in standard, and (clearly) some people get frustrated by that. The same can happen in modern and actually, there are no data to prove that less skilled players perform consistently better in modern than they do in standard. This is just anecdotal evidence, mostly coming from frustration.
It only makes sense that in a wider format, where you have more match-ups to account for, there will be a wider variety of decks you win/lose to. That doesn't mean that the format is rock paper scissors because there are a ton of decks out there and not just 3-4 that just beat each other. This, as people with data have pointed out several times, is shown by the diverse meta games of each event. It's not like we have 1 week Storm wins, 1 week Eldrazi, 1 week Titanshift. The latter 2 haven't even won a big even recently, they often even miss top8s!
Is it frustrating to lose to specific match-ups and players worse than you? Yes, it is, and it will always be, as it is when you get mana screwed. But that is part of it. The format is wide and there will eventually be a deck that you might lose to. If you know your FNM meta game, tune your deck to win against a known meta game. If you want to perform at a GP, pick a deck that can perform consistently and can put fight against several decks like Jeskai Tempo.
One thing I don't quite understand is how adamantly people will say that the problem with the current modern meta is losing to decks, not players, and then reference 2015. Sometimes specifically saying the "twin beats affinity beats tron beats jund beats twin" meta. There's always going to be a degree of rock-paper-scissors action going on, and I think we need to acknowledge it is part of any game's meta. There are some random MU's that will be borderline unwinnable (MFTB's burn vs ad naus. is a great example), but I don't think they are as prominent as some people make it out to seem.
Like Spsiegel said, knowledge and skills are still very much important in modern, especially when you have the potential to run into any one of 30 different decks at a given FNM. Knowing the MU's and how to SB appropriately is what gives a player their edge. But reducing modern to something as simple as "it's all a coin flip" is disingenuous to the format.
I think the difference, at least for me, between the meta then and the meta now is that during the twin-affinity-tron-jund-twin... meta you described, is that during that time, each match-up felt winnable with the exception of tron (that one felt pretty lopsided in favor of tron vs jund, and against vs twin), but then again, tron has always been a pretty lopsided deck. Aside from that, each of the top decks could take steps in their sideboard to shore up some of their worse match-ups, and you rarely felt like you had a bye (I'm willing to concede rose-tinted glasses on this).
Further, the answers you needed in your sideboard for your bad match-ups had uses outside of those match-ups, with the exception of a few cards here and there. The current rock paper scissor meta feels like you have to gamble on your sideboard, since the top decks require pretty specific answers. There's not enough room in your board to shore up every match-up, and as such you have to take a gamble and hope you don't run in to something too often.
Finally, while deck diversity is strong, I actually think this sort of meta is worse for brewing rogue decks. During the pod/jund/twin/etc meta, you knew what to expect from a meta game, and could brew a deck with those in mind (again because the answers required for a lot of them weren't required to be as narrow). Currently, if you brew a deck, it comes back to the problem I mentioned earlier, that there are too many narrow strategies to prepare for, which makes the process far more difficult. Granted, I'm not a particularly good brewer, but I've been trying to find my twin substitute for some time, since none of the 'viable' decks that pop up really appeal to me. I'll also reiterate the rose tinted glasses, along with anecdotal evidence, but this has how modern has felt to me over the past few years. As much as I would love to return to the 2015 meta, I'm ok with it being gone, but I do prefer that style of meta over what we have now.
edit: In regards to brewing: the 5-c humans deck that has popped up is a good example of this. The most successful brewing seems to be pretty linear, since having answers to all the top decks is asking too much.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWR Breach, UWB Esper control
Legacy: UW RiP/Helm, UR Sneak and Show
I totally get you saying the matches felt more winnable, I just think the current cries that most MU's are 60-40 or worse are overplayed. We're also still using a lot of the same SB cards we were using then (sans torpor orb). GY hate hits dredge, storm, living end. Hand disruption is viable against tons of decks. Stony and kataki still hit any decks using artifacts. Blood moon/fulminator hits ramp/big mana/and greedy manabases. Sure, there aren't enough slots in the SB to hedge against every MU, but that is a feature of the SB, not a bug.
And I personally doubt 2015 was better for brewing than now. Any brew used to be immediately met with "yeah, but twin?" I've seen more people complain about too much deck diversity recently than have complained about less brewing than 2015. But again, this is all anecdotal.
The only deck that is potentially a problem IMO is storm. Due to an abundance of diversity and brewing, sometimes you'll see a deck that hoses you and you never stood a chance, but I believe that happens far less than people like to make it seem.
I know you never have enough sb room for any meta, but it felt (emphasis on felt) like the answers you needed in 2015 were more universal or had utility beyond the deck you had them for. Since this was pre delve threats, decay was just a good answer to most things, not just twin. As far as brewing is concerned, with twin you had to worry about twin: splash a color for decay, run that red uncounterable spell (I'm blanking on the name) things like that. Now the question is, "what about scapeshift? and tron? and dredge? and storm?" This seems way tougher to go rogue than simply 'what about twin?'
I think we're saying the same thing, but representing the opposite sides of the coin. And as you say, this is all anecdotal. I just know that for me I haven't been psyched on modern for some time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWR Breach, UWB Esper control
Legacy: UW RiP/Helm, UR Sneak and Show
I know you never have enough sb room for any meta, but it felt (emphasis on felt) like the answers you needed in 2015 were more universal or had utility beyond the deck you had them for. Since this was pre delve threats, decay was just a good answer to most things, not just twin. As far as brewing is concerned, with twin you had to worry about twin: splash a color for decay, run that red uncounterable spell (I'm blanking on the name) things like that. Now the question is, "what about scapeshift? and tron? and dredge? and storm?" This seems way tougher to go rogue than simply 'what about twin?'
I think we're saying the same thing, but representing the opposite sides of the coin. And as you say, this is all anecdotal. I just know that for me I haven't been psyched on modern for some time.
Haha, the gool ol' "play a terrible rending volley for exactly one deck" game.
But as far as your examples, people should by and large be playing both land interaction and graveyard interaction in their boards at all times. Rest in peace/grafdigger's/relic of progenitus hit both dredge and storm. Blood moon hurts scapeshift and tron. Sure, sticking any of those cards doesn't guarantee you a win, but I don't think they should.
I think it's totally fine to not enjoy the current modern landscape. Even if you love MTG, certain prominent decks just aren't going to be for everyone. My only issue/concern is when people use misleading or false arguments to justify their disdain for the format (not you! just a comment in general).
There is only one thing that's eliminating(not fully, but up to a certain point) the skill factor in my eyes in Modern(outside of usual suspects like flod/screw which are some general Magic concerns and not about Modern): the absence of a card (or a Tier 1 fair deck) that keep big mana decks in check.
Big mana decks provide lopsided matchups: they tend to do great vs fair strategies and bad vs unfair strategies. Modern does not have to get a card like Wasteland and GQ/TE/FoR are mediocre cards and this is making the Modern format less skilltesting than the Legacy one(this, and other reasons, like Brainstorm, Ponder, etc).
We are not getting a much better Ghost Quarter, so it's an unsolved issue. We have to accept that Modern has great problems that keep it back from becoming a great format. It has the potential, but sadly, it wont ever meet it.
A tier 1 "fair" deck that answers big mana would most likely be overpowered, as fair decks are commonly preyed upon by big mana. That's also ignoring decks like death and taxes which can definitely keep ramp in check.
Is big mana really strangling the format? A cursory look at the results of the past few major events would say otherwise. I think the majority of the complaints stem from people just disliking ramp/big mana, specifically in regards to their fair decks.
There is only one thing that's eliminating(not fully, but up to a certain point) the skill factor in my eyes in Modern(outside of usual suspects like flod/screw which are some general Magic concerns and not about Modern): the absence of a card (or a Tier 1 fair deck) that keep big mana decks in check.
Big mana decks provide lopsided matchups: they tend to do great vs fair strategies and bad vs unfair strategies. Modern does not have to get a card like Wasteland and GQ/TE/FoR are mediocre cards and this is making the Modern format less skilltesting than the Legacy one(this, and other reasons, like Brainstorm, Ponder, etc).
We are not getting a much better Ghost Quarter, so it's an unsolved issue. We have to accept that Modern has great problems that keep it back from becoming a great format. It has the potential, but sadly, it wont ever meet it.
A tier 1 "fair" deck that answers big mana would most likely be overpowered, as fair decks are commonly preyed upon by big mana. That's also ignoring decks like death and taxes which can definitely keep ramp in check.
Is big mana really strangling the format? A cursory look at the results of the past few major events would say otherwise. I think the majority of the complaints stem from people just disliking ramp/big mana, specifically in regards to their fair decks.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
I know you never have enough sb room for any meta, but it felt (emphasis on felt) like the answers you needed in 2015 were more universal or had utility beyond the deck you had them for. Since this was pre delve threats, decay was just a good answer to most things, not just twin. As far as brewing is concerned, with twin you had to worry about twin: splash a color for decay, run that red uncounterable spell (I'm blanking on the name) things like that. Now the question is, "what about scapeshift? and tron? and dredge? and storm?" This seems way tougher to go rogue than simply 'what about twin?'
I think we're saying the same thing, but representing the opposite sides of the coin. And as you say, this is all anecdotal. I just know that for me I haven't been psyched on modern for some time.
Haha, the gool ol' "play a terrible rending volley for exactly one deck" game.
That's not really true, though. Rending Volley was also good against Merfolk, which was a pretty notable deck at the time (heck, I went up to three Rending Volleys precisely because of Merfolk). If Merfolk right now was as popular as it was back then, you'd probably still see some Rending Volleys being played, as it's pretty effective against both Merfolk and Storm.
Modern has the reputation(not saying I believe it) that it's a format where:
1) If you want to win, you should be playing a combo or a linear, proactive deck because while threats are super strong, the answers are simply good.
2) A simply good player stands a big chance of winning the (slightly) stronger player, because there are many lopsided matchups, where the matchup itself matters as much as the skill(or maybe more).
The first one bothers me so much, because even if I had my fair share of linear combo decks(Bloom, Infect), I always enjoyed fair decks more. And it's a fact that, even if UWx did well in those SCG regionals, we don't see as fair decks as we would want in the top notch events(GP's). But when people claim it(and they claim it A LOT), I have to agree. But it bothers me.
The second one is the reason why pros despise the format(granted, they dont want to spend much time predicting Modern's trends and metagame changes as well and that's on them).
@KTK: You spoke about some commmon misconceptions/myths/oveereactions in here. Those two segments are the most common claims about Modern as exemplified by recent SCG, CFB(and other) posters, MTGO Grinders, reddit/mtgs users. Those claims is where we want to focus on if we really want to speak about Modern's health.
Do the mtgs users find those two claims to be true or not? And if yes or no, why do you think is that?
I think number 1 might be more accurate if it was tweaked to say easier to win. You can win with 'fair' decks, it's just harder and takes more work than with combo and speedy linear decks.
Number 2 has been the case for as long as I can remember, and that's just the nature of the game. You can't expect to play in a format with such a large cardpool and not encounter decks/cards that completely hose what you're trying to do. It's just unrealistic. You can mitigate that lopsided matchup with sideboard and being good at Mulligans and cantrip decisions to an extent, but sometimes it's not enough. Personally, I don't really have a problem with that. My pet deck is Faeries, and while it kicks the crap out of most combo and linear decks, it folds like paper to aggro and go wide creature-based decks. I knew it would end up that way pretty early on brewing it, but I'm ok with that. Decks should have weaknesses that can be exploited.
Number 2 has been the case for as long as I can remember, and that's just the nature of the game. You can't expect to play in a format with such a large cardpool and not encounter decks/cards that completely hose what you're trying to do. It's just unrealistic. You can mitigate that lopsided matchup with sideboard and being good at Mulligans and cantrip decisions to an extent, but sometimes it's not enough. Personally, I don't really have a problem with that. My pet deck is Faeries, and while it kicks the crap out of most combo and linear decks, it folds like paper to aggro and go wide creature-based decks. I knew it would end up that way pretty early on brewing it, but I'm ok with that. Decks should have weaknesses that can be exploited.
I wholeheartedly agree with that point. Bogles will always be my pet deck in Modern, despite the fact that it gets completely hosed by any SB carrying Fracturing Gust, Aura Barbs, etc. It's not something I can play week in and week out at FNM b/c eventually my opponents will adjust and blow me out of the water, so I've learned to pilot a number of different Modern decks. However, if the overall meta game looks like something Bogles can take advantage of, it's the deck I'll pilot in a tourney. The deck scoops to a number of silver bullets, but in a large tourney, most side boards are focused on packing hate for the big dogs of the format.
Modern has the reputation(not saying I believe it) that it's a format where:
1) If you want to win It's easier to win if you are playing a combo or a linear, proactive deck because while threats are super strong, the answers are simply good.
2) A simply good player stands a big chance of winning the (slightly) stronger player, because there are many lopsided matchups, where the matchup itself matters as much as the skill(or maybe more).
I have some issues with both statements.
So for statement 1:
I think this is a known non-issue across all formats in all games. Because linear proactive decks have games where they get to execute their plan flawlessly and win in a seemingly unstoppable way, it is perceived that these decks are easier to play. This is true for all sorts of aggro decks where people think you just dump your hand and win. The same goes for linear combo decks with easy to execute combos. Sometimes you just get to do it and there is nothing the other player can do. With fair decks, usually you have to adapt your gamestyle, which in turns seems more skill intensive.
Now, I believe we are more mature than saying "oh you play the easy decks, l2p noob". BUT, I think this reaction has sort of gotten into the modern mindset because the linear combo decks are indeed very good. Yes, answers are slightly worse than threats in modern, but saying it is simply easier to win because you play a linear deck I think it is untrue. I think the correct argument would be that SOME linear combo/aggro decks have a lower floor in terms of skill level and thus easier for newer players to get into the habit of winning similarly skilled players with fair decks which have a higher floor. The ceiling, however, is equally high for both.
For statement 2:
A big chance? No. There are lopsided matchups, sure and it is often the case that variance will play a bigger role in modern, but again, as ktk has said repeatedly, a lot of these are anectodal evidence and we don't really have the data to back it up. If we are talking on that level, yeah there is a kid at my LGS which is not particularly good but he is learning. He often plays Zoo and once or twice I have lost because he just got out of the gates too early and I couldn't do much. But in the long run, I don't constantly lose to him. Was it annoying when I lost because I feel I am better? Yes. But in magic you never have 100% WR. You will some times lose to players worse than you, it is what it is.
The main differences between legacy and modern are (aside from the size of the card pool):
Greater card selection in legacy, making decks more consistent.
Better and more universal answers in legacy, keeping any potential rogue deck of the day in check.
This is something that has been on my mind for a while; Wizards balancing cards causes meta imbalance. Cards get balanced by tacking on draw-backs, but in the case of answers, these drawbacks have second-order repercussion. And the better the answer, the more accentuated the drawback effect becomes. When a card is at the peak of power on multiple angles, it becomes ubiquitous and deck prey on its drawback. Typical peak power is exemplified by lightning bolt and fatal push: instant, costing single mana. They displace other answers in their color. When bolt is prevalent it makes 4 toughness the key criteria. Push favors higher mana cost, helping gurmag angler, Tasigur or reality smasher be more prevalent and resilient.
In theory, it would be a pendulum. People would move away from Push. Unfortunately its inherent efficiency makes it hard to do without losing match-up points to other decks and threats.
We need better universal answers. I'm in favor of Force of Will in modern.
The main differences between legacy and modern are (aside from the size of the card pool):
Greater card selection in legacy, making decks more consistent.
Better and more universal answers in legacy, keeping any potential rogue deck of the day in check.
This is something that has been on my mind for a while; Wizards balancing cards causes meta imbalance. Cards get balanced by tacking on draw-backs, but in the case of answers, these drawbacks have second-order repercussion. And the better the answer, the more accentuated the drawback effect becomes. When a card is at the peak of power on multiple angles, it becomes ubiquitous and deck prey on its drawback. Typical peak power is exemplified by lightning bolt and fatal push: instant, costing single mana. They displace other answers in their color. When bolt is prevalent it makes 4 toughness the key criteria. Push favors higher mana cost, helping gurmag angler, Tasigur or reality smasher be more prevalent and resilient.
In theory, it would be a pendulum. People would move away from Push. Unfortunately its inherent efficiency makes it hard to do without losing match-up points to other decks and threats.
We need better universal answers. I'm in favor of Force of Will in modern.
So we need better answers because one of the newer answers is too good? That...what?!
Modern plays different than legacy, deal with it. If you don't like modern, play legacy or standard. The current format lines up with WOTC's mission. Different formats have different appeals, this one's appeal is diversity in order to keep newer card prices from falling into the toilet.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
WOTC stated what seems to be their definition of healthy when they re-stated their goals for the format. Diversity among top tiers was at the top, speed of the top tier decks was also the other big takeaway.
The problem is that most vocal Modern players DO NOT care about diversity among top Tiers as much as they care about specific gameplay patterns and other factors such as variance, which are OBJECTIVELY very important in Modern. That's why lots of people recall the Twin/Jund/Pod format as being a better one than the post Pod-ban ones. It was a less diverse format from the archetype standpoint, but it was slower, less variance driven, and atop of that, those 3 decks being juggernauts made metagaming and SBoarding more narrow, so less variant.
I disagree. Anything is going to look healthy when players have few datapoints, and therefore can't converge on optimal deck choices. Regionals on it's own doesn't mean anything other than the fact that there's likely not a single deck where it's completely obvious that it's better than anything else.
That doesn't mean that Modern is unhealthy from a diversity standpoint (gameplay is perhaps another matter), I don't think it is. Only that these results don't mean anything on their own.
Still, even if we start the clock at Mystical Tutor, that's 7 whole years without any bans that could plausibly be construed to be meant against turn 1-2 combo decks. Since then, all the bans in Legacy have been for other things (for whatever crimes they may have committed, Mental Misstep, Treasure Cruise, Dig Through Time, and Sensei's Divining Top weren't enablers for the fast combo decks). This indicates one of two things. Either they weren't being honest about their supposed approach towards Legacy, or Legacy is simply equipped with the necessary cards to prevent such decks from getting out of hand.
If the former, that calls into question the bannings for this reason. If the latter, that seems to be yet another sign to provide more answer cards. Yes, Fatal Push was a step in the right direction, but it's limited to creatures. Having counterspells better than Mana Leak would further help against fast combo decks (if Force of Will is a problem, then regular old Counterspell would be a nice one to have around).
UB/x Faeries
UR Storm
XURWB Affinity
G Elves
UW control
Dredge is 2.9%, so it's doing "fine?" By whose standards? Probably only by Wizard's standards, who doesn't want decks like Storm or Dredge (mechanics) to become even 1 out of every 20 decks you face. Dredge is fine because it's 1 out of every 33 decks you will see currently. Storm may not be fine, but we'll see.
At this point, I honestly think some people are splitting hairs over percentage points. Some players like me would rather play in a 25/25/25/all other decks put together at 25 than a format where you will never face the same deck until you've played in the hundreds of matches. Many Modern players just don't have time to play that many matches and prepare for that many different decks. Sorry.
For me, it means nothing. Regionals is pretty much a crapshoot in my opinion. I looked at the opponents from the top 8s of the recent 3 Regionals in my area and have a 9-2-2 record vs. them, yet have failed 6-3, 5-4, and 5-3 (yesterday) in 3 Regionals. The only deck I've faced in every Regionals has been Mono Blue or UW Tron. (yes, I get to lump them together, lol)
Personally I will get more information on the competitive part of the meta next week at the RPTQ. That tells me what players who desire to win are playing.
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)I'm kind of bothered by it, he's not a bad player, but I don't think he's someone who would get 1st place with 100 plus players. It really feels like a linear deck just getting there. He's not bad, and I'm not trash talking him, it just feels like the power of the combo deck itself.
Foodchains, the meta is diverse, but a lot of it is just different shades of linear decks
I thought 2015 had the best meta with Twin, Jund, Infect and Affinity. I'm less thrilled with this rock paper scissor meta, but it's what WOTC wants
Players can afford to invest in modern and play a cheap powerful deck with diversity like this. I don't like it, but I'm sure there'd be some people who would say, "then go play standard".
Casual fans hate solved metas. I miss the 2015 meta minus the bloom uprising, but it was so fun. I'm not unhappy with the 2017 meta, I just find it more tilted on lottery pairings than the past few previous years.
I played Jund tonight against elves, and honestly he couldn't do anything to win, my deck just left him no outs and he didn't get to play. It sucks when you lose to a deck more than the player, which happens in modern quite a bit
I think this is one of the major issues of the current modern meta. Often it seems like individual player skill is less of a factor in deciding the outcome of a match than the deck choice. There are lots of lopsided matches in modern, and even if you're the one of the best pilots of said deck, it doesn't really matter if you get paired against a bad matchup.
For example, I'm a Burn player. If I get paired against Ad Nauseam, I'm pretty sure I'm going to lose, and there is little that I can do to win aside from crafting a sideboard dedicated to beat Ad Nauseam (which probably would make me vulnerable to other matchups). On the other hand, if I get paired against Storm, I'm pretty sure I'm going to win.
I share the feeling that Modern currently is a big game of Rock-Paper-Scissors, and if you decide to play Rock, you'll always lose to Paper (with little that you can do to help you win that matchup), while always winning the Scissors matchups. It is clear that WotC likes this kind of meta. However, it also can be very frustrating to competitive players, because your performance seems to be more dependant on your luck in the pairings than in your skill in the game.
In the long run is it good or bad to have modern be such an easy format to get into? It’s great to see more people playing magic and the community growing and modern allows for that much better than standard imo. If prices didn’t matter I think modern would still be the format for those people because it doesn’t have fow like legacy where if you try to play without a clue you can easily get punished extremely hard.
I'm far less impressed with the average standard player than modern or legacy on a local level.
Like Spsiegel said, knowledge and skills are still very much important in modern, especially when you have the potential to run into any one of 30 different decks at a given FNM. Knowing the MU's and how to SB appropriately is what gives a player their edge. But reducing modern to something as simple as "it's all a coin flip" is disingenuous to the format.
Affinity
Death & Taxes
Mardu Nahiri
Forcing people to merge with twitch is stupid
Just going to quote/summarize an analysis I did on this in July 217.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/779266-how-much-luck-is-involved-in-magic?page=3#c70
-----------------------------------------------------------
I compared the 50 players with the highest format win percentages in Legacy and Modern, seeing where they ranked on a list of 150 players with the highest MTG-wide win percentages. Of those top 150 winningest players, 16 appeared in the Legacy top 50. For Modern, 18 of that top 150 appeared in the Modern top 50. This means that if we look at the winningest 150 players in the game, there is no statistical difference between how many appear in the bracket of top 50 winningest Modern players vs. the bracket of top 50 winningest Legacy players.
Taking it a step further, I checked the overall win percentage across MTG for all of those top 50 players in both Modern and Legacy, averaging the final results. In the end, the average MTG-wide win rate of a top 50 Legacy player is 63%. The average MTG-wide win percentage of a top 50 Modern player is 61%. This is a statistically significant difference, so there is something about Modern which accounts for a 2% lower win-rate than in Legacy.
I took this yet another step further and only looked at top 50 Modern/Legacy players who were also top 150 overall players. In essence, we’re narrowing down the Modern and Legacy lists only to big name top pros. This removes many players who just don’t have a lot of events in their portfolio, and those who aren’t in that elite top 150 overall subset. Looking at those top players (16 in Legacy, 18 in Modern), we find their average MTG-wide win % in all formats is identical: 63.8%. This, despite there being only two elite top 150 players overlapping in the Modern and Legacy subsets (BBD and Royce Walter). But their win rates within those formats are not identical. In Legacy, those players averaged a 71.8% win rate. In Modern, they averaged a 68% win rate. This magnifies the number above, suggesting that for top players, there’s legitimately something about Modern which is translating to a 3.8% lower win rate.
When we look at those players who aren’t top 150, there is a bigger difference between the Modern and Legacy win-rates. In Legacy, it’s 70.4%. In Modern, it’s 67.3%. So for the non-pro players, Modern is also affecting win rates, but less so than for pros: 3.1% for the regular players, 3.8% for the big names.
If we assume the sample is big enough, and if we assume that skill should generally average out to decide matchups over many datapoints, we can conclude that there’s something about Modern which accounts for between a 2% and 4% drop in your win rate that would otherwise be expected in Legacy. I believe this is the variance that people cite as being present in Modern and not in Legacy, but I don’t actually know if variance causes it. I don't know what causes it. I just know it’s a real difference. And, again, it doesn’t actually affect how many top players appear at the top in Modern events.
TLDR: There's no difference between "skill-testing" Legacy and a "high-variance" Modern when it comes to the number of top players winning events. But there is a difference when it comes to the GWP of those players. In Modern, the average GWP is between 2%-4% lower than in Legacy. This suggests there is something about Modern which causes players to lose 2%-4% more games than a similar segment of players would in Legacy.
The only thing we know for sure is that Wizards is fine with the current state of the format and we know that because, well, they said so.
Now, saying that the format is rock paper scissors is just your interpretation of the format. As Spsiegel1987 said, we have quite a number of players who perform consistently well. How do they manage to avoid this element? Do they ALAWYS have the best decks? Heck, Tom Ross has performed consistently well with 8-Rack of all decks!
Getting lucky is always a thing in Magic, in every format and there will be FNMs where your casual player, that you never lose to, will actually go 4-0 once in standard, and (clearly) some people get frustrated by that. The same can happen in modern and actually, there are no data to prove that less skilled players perform consistently better in modern than they do in standard. This is just anecdotal evidence, mostly coming from frustration.
It only makes sense that in a wider format, where you have more match-ups to account for, there will be a wider variety of decks you win/lose to. That doesn't mean that the format is rock paper scissors because there are a ton of decks out there and not just 3-4 that just beat each other. This, as people with data have pointed out several times, is shown by the diverse meta games of each event. It's not like we have 1 week Storm wins, 1 week Eldrazi, 1 week Titanshift. The latter 2 haven't even won a big even recently, they often even miss top8s!
Is it frustrating to lose to specific match-ups and players worse than you? Yes, it is, and it will always be, as it is when you get mana screwed. But that is part of it. The format is wide and there will eventually be a deck that you might lose to. If you know your FNM meta game, tune your deck to win against a known meta game. If you want to perform at a GP, pick a deck that can perform consistently and can put fight against several decks like Jeskai Tempo.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
I think the difference, at least for me, between the meta then and the meta now is that during the twin-affinity-tron-jund-twin... meta you described, is that during that time, each match-up felt winnable with the exception of tron (that one felt pretty lopsided in favor of tron vs jund, and against vs twin), but then again, tron has always been a pretty lopsided deck. Aside from that, each of the top decks could take steps in their sideboard to shore up some of their worse match-ups, and you rarely felt like you had a bye (I'm willing to concede rose-tinted glasses on this).
Further, the answers you needed in your sideboard for your bad match-ups had uses outside of those match-ups, with the exception of a few cards here and there. The current rock paper scissor meta feels like you have to gamble on your sideboard, since the top decks require pretty specific answers. There's not enough room in your board to shore up every match-up, and as such you have to take a gamble and hope you don't run in to something too often.
Finally, while deck diversity is strong, I actually think this sort of meta is worse for brewing rogue decks. During the pod/jund/twin/etc meta, you knew what to expect from a meta game, and could brew a deck with those in mind (again because the answers required for a lot of them weren't required to be as narrow). Currently, if you brew a deck, it comes back to the problem I mentioned earlier, that there are too many narrow strategies to prepare for, which makes the process far more difficult. Granted, I'm not a particularly good brewer, but I've been trying to find my twin substitute for some time, since none of the 'viable' decks that pop up really appeal to me. I'll also reiterate the rose tinted glasses, along with anecdotal evidence, but this has how modern has felt to me over the past few years. As much as I would love to return to the 2015 meta, I'm ok with it being gone, but I do prefer that style of meta over what we have now.
edit: In regards to brewing: the 5-c humans deck that has popped up is a good example of this. The most successful brewing seems to be pretty linear, since having answers to all the top decks is asking too much.
Legacy: UW RiP/Helm, UR Sneak and Show
And I personally doubt 2015 was better for brewing than now. Any brew used to be immediately met with "yeah, but twin?" I've seen more people complain about too much deck diversity recently than have complained about less brewing than 2015. But again, this is all anecdotal.
The only deck that is potentially a problem IMO is storm. Due to an abundance of diversity and brewing, sometimes you'll see a deck that hoses you and you never stood a chance, but I believe that happens far less than people like to make it seem.
Affinity
Death & Taxes
Mardu Nahiri
Forcing people to merge with twitch is stupid
I think we're saying the same thing, but representing the opposite sides of the coin. And as you say, this is all anecdotal. I just know that for me I haven't been psyched on modern for some time.
Legacy: UW RiP/Helm, UR Sneak and Show
Haha, the gool ol' "play a terrible rending volley for exactly one deck" game.
But as far as your examples, people should by and large be playing both land interaction and graveyard interaction in their boards at all times. Rest in peace/grafdigger's/relic of progenitus hit both dredge and storm. Blood moon hurts scapeshift and tron. Sure, sticking any of those cards doesn't guarantee you a win, but I don't think they should.
I think it's totally fine to not enjoy the current modern landscape. Even if you love MTG, certain prominent decks just aren't going to be for everyone. My only issue/concern is when people use misleading or false arguments to justify their disdain for the format (not you! just a comment in general).
Obligatory "release more 5-0's" comment.
Affinity
Death & Taxes
Mardu Nahiri
Forcing people to merge with twitch is stupid
A tier 1 "fair" deck that answers big mana would most likely be overpowered, as fair decks are commonly preyed upon by big mana. That's also ignoring decks like death and taxes which can definitely keep ramp in check.
Is big mana really strangling the format? A cursory look at the results of the past few major events would say otherwise. I think the majority of the complaints stem from people just disliking ramp/big mana, specifically in regards to their fair decks.
Affinity
Death & Taxes
Mardu Nahiri
Forcing people to merge with twitch is stupid
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
I think number 1 might be more accurate if it was tweaked to say easier to win. You can win with 'fair' decks, it's just harder and takes more work than with combo and speedy linear decks.
Number 2 has been the case for as long as I can remember, and that's just the nature of the game. You can't expect to play in a format with such a large cardpool and not encounter decks/cards that completely hose what you're trying to do. It's just unrealistic. You can mitigate that lopsided matchup with sideboard and being good at Mulligans and cantrip decisions to an extent, but sometimes it's not enough. Personally, I don't really have a problem with that. My pet deck is Faeries, and while it kicks the crap out of most combo and linear decks, it folds like paper to aggro and go wide creature-based decks. I knew it would end up that way pretty early on brewing it, but I'm ok with that. Decks should have weaknesses that can be exploited.
I wholeheartedly agree with that point. Bogles will always be my pet deck in Modern, despite the fact that it gets completely hosed by any SB carrying Fracturing Gust, Aura Barbs, etc. It's not something I can play week in and week out at FNM b/c eventually my opponents will adjust and blow me out of the water, so I've learned to pilot a number of different Modern decks. However, if the overall meta game looks like something Bogles can take advantage of, it's the deck I'll pilot in a tourney. The deck scoops to a number of silver bullets, but in a large tourney, most side boards are focused on packing hate for the big dogs of the format.
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
So for statement 1:
I think this is a known non-issue across all formats in all games. Because linear proactive decks have games where they get to execute their plan flawlessly and win in a seemingly unstoppable way, it is perceived that these decks are easier to play. This is true for all sorts of aggro decks where people think you just dump your hand and win. The same goes for linear combo decks with easy to execute combos. Sometimes you just get to do it and there is nothing the other player can do. With fair decks, usually you have to adapt your gamestyle, which in turns seems more skill intensive.
Now, I believe we are more mature than saying "oh you play the easy decks, l2p noob". BUT, I think this reaction has sort of gotten into the modern mindset because the linear combo decks are indeed very good. Yes, answers are slightly worse than threats in modern, but saying it is simply easier to win because you play a linear deck I think it is untrue. I think the correct argument would be that SOME linear combo/aggro decks have a lower floor in terms of skill level and thus easier for newer players to get into the habit of winning similarly skilled players with fair decks which have a higher floor. The ceiling, however, is equally high for both.
For statement 2:
A big chance? No. There are lopsided matchups, sure and it is often the case that variance will play a bigger role in modern, but again, as ktk has said repeatedly, a lot of these are anectodal evidence and we don't really have the data to back it up. If we are talking on that level, yeah there is a kid at my LGS which is not particularly good but he is learning. He often plays Zoo and once or twice I have lost because he just got out of the gates too early and I couldn't do much. But in the long run, I don't constantly lose to him. Was it annoying when I lost because I feel I am better? Yes. But in magic you never have 100% WR. You will some times lose to players worse than you, it is what it is.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
This is something that has been on my mind for a while; Wizards balancing cards causes meta imbalance. Cards get balanced by tacking on draw-backs, but in the case of answers, these drawbacks have second-order repercussion. And the better the answer, the more accentuated the drawback effect becomes. When a card is at the peak of power on multiple angles, it becomes ubiquitous and deck prey on its drawback. Typical peak power is exemplified by lightning bolt and fatal push: instant, costing single mana. They displace other answers in their color. When bolt is prevalent it makes 4 toughness the key criteria. Push favors higher mana cost, helping gurmag angler, Tasigur or reality smasher be more prevalent and resilient.
In theory, it would be a pendulum. People would move away from Push. Unfortunately its inherent efficiency makes it hard to do without losing match-up points to other decks and threats.
We need better universal answers. I'm in favor of Force of Will in modern.
So we need better answers because one of the newer answers is too good? That...what?!
Modern plays different than legacy, deal with it. If you don't like modern, play legacy or standard. The current format lines up with WOTC's mission. Different formats have different appeals, this one's appeal is diversity in order to keep newer card prices from falling into the toilet.