Acknowledging flaws in the creation of a data sample doesn't mean you ignore the data. You just acknowledge that it isn't perfect and look for ways to improve it.
Yeah well, I've also been trying to say that but it seems like when people don't like the results of data they just ignore the validity of the data.
Acknowledging flaws in the creation of a data sample doesn't mean you ignore the data. You just acknowledge that it isn't perfect and look for ways to improve it.
As for BBE...I hate jund. I get that the deck is expensive, but hell the idea that jund needs a boost because the format needs jund for some reason is so asinine to me. And yes, I'm going ahead and making the declaration that temur will be garbage and gruul zoo won't touch a four mana card.
To the second point, BBE was banned because of Jund, not because of its intrinsic power level. Most arguments about the unbanning of BBE include discussions of Jund because of this, not because Jund deserves to be a tier one deck or because Jund is the elusive hero the format needs right now. The fact remains that BBE is an underpowered card in relation to the rest of the ban list, so it should come off. Jund will see a bump because of this, but BBE shouldn't be unbanned for that specific purpose.
If we don't use results from people like Duke or Burkheart where do we draw the line. Do we have a list of players that we don't use results from if they succeed and if they scrub out should we count the result as double or something. The idea that in a tournament filled with the best players in the world we are going to ignore results because the player is good is just bonkers to me.
If we don't use results from people like Duke or Burkheart where do we draw the line. Do we have a list of players that we don't use results from if they succeed and if they scrub out should we count the result as double or something. The idea that in a tournament filled with the best players in the world we are going to ignore results because the player is good is just bonkers to me.
There are some critics that will never be satisfied with any level of results. Unless the data matches their experience and views, they will find reasons to ignore and undermine it. An excellent example of this was the recent GP. It immediately validated to many Modern critics all the problems they had with the format. Never mind that it was a single event over an otherwise super healthy stretch of the format. That one event was all they needed. But all the other evidence was easy to throw out. MTGO? "Incomplete picture, still linear." SCG? "Glorified FNM, not representative." Smaller regional and local events? "Not competitive enough, not representative." The PT? "Too few rounds, too influenced by draft." We do not see the same criticisms and skepticism for events that support the "Modern too linear/bad/unfun" narrative.
It's the same annoying dissonance we see when players say "I want high-skill decks to win in this format" and then say later "This deck takes too much skill to win with and isn't viable." Again, the issue is not the format. It's a vocal subset of critics who readily discount evidence against their views but eagerly support any cases that validate their views.
I think there are legitimate issues we can talk about with Modern. It's by no means a perfect format. But the way some of the critics talk, we would think it was back in September 2016 again. The lack of measured criticism of the current format shows that some people will just never be happy until they get a very specific wish fulfilled, whether that's a ban, an unban, a deck being viable, a deck no longer being viable, etc. Thankfully, as I am sure we will see next Monday, those highly specific criticisms don't matter because Wizards is clearly not on board with them. That was the case in October 2017 and we'll see if it's the case Monday.
By the way, although it's from a little while ago, I did want to note something interesting in regards to the "people don't like to watch Lantern Control" claim. Cedric Phillips made an interesting argument in his Fact or Fiction article. It's Premium so I'm not sure I should directly quote it, even if it's a small part, but he argues the claim that people hate watching Lantern is false, or at least overblown, because it's actually what people vote to watch in SCG events if it Top 8's, and that they actually get a spike in viewership when it's on camera.
Have to agree with gkourou here. Grixis Control, from the PT results alone, very clearly isn't "unadulterated garbage." Even if there were a way to 100% accurately measure win percentages in each matchup, and we compared the spread for Grixis Control to, say, the spread for Grixis Shadow, and Shadow had a higher overall percentage: that still wouldn't make Grixis Control bad, at least by my standards. Modern is a wide-open format, which means you're likely to run into other "garbage" decks that you may have a slight edge over in terms of positioning compared to the "better" decks. For instance, Humans was the most represented deck at the PT, and Grixis Control > Shadow against Humans.
Modern is a format of niches. Grixis Control seems to have found a niche. And even if it didn't, it would continue to attract certain players who would run it regardless, thus forcing the niche.
Also h0ly, I don't mean to tell you to act any kind of way, but I will say that the constant hyperbole and aggressive language definitely don't do anything for your arguments 🤷🏻♂️
EDIT --- I just received this PM (user will remain anonymous):
You did just put a male sign in a post while referring to a known transwoman and transgender activist.
That's kind of a massive jerk move, and it might get you reported...
I've attached an image of how the post reads on my computer. Everyone: make sure to update your iOS!
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.
Seen and heard quite a few opinions of the modern protour (specifically coverage) and they are surpringly in a strong pattern of agreement:
People are rating this recent protour amongst the best they've watched, if not the best.
I personally loved it! But I recognise that I'm not representative of the wider majority in all aspects. I was keyed into the wider appreciation by the mtggoldfish podcast where both hosts ranked the tournament as possibly the most enjoyable they've watched.
This has been corroborated in a small sample size by my friends and colleagues who represent a very diverse audience for MTG. Everyone loved it. Furthermore I've seen many faceless commenters online sharing this positivity as well. Instead of moaning there's appreciation. That's not to say there isn't the usual torrent of complaints and banmania but cancelling that out as "the usual noise" there's a real positive picture being painted.
Whether or not you care too much about the actual finals match, the tournament as a whole was very well received, and modern has shown itself to be a vibrant and exciting format. Maybe even the best format? That's not for me to decide.
Props to Wizards and the team who make the protour happen. Here's to a bright future of high profile modern events with decent coverage.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: G Tron, Vannifar, Jund, Druid/Vizier combo, Humans, Eldrazi Stompy (Serum Powder), Amulet, Grishoalbrand, Breach Titan, Turns, Eternal Command, As Foretold Living End, Elves, Cheerios, RUG Scapeshift
We're here to have a friendly discussion about a game we love, in company that should harbour no judgment on a personal level.
Looking back through the thread I see examples of people laying out ideas and opinions and backing them up or explaining them. I also see rather intense examples of you using overly-exaggerated language and insulting people on a personal level because of their ideas.
That's not acceptable man. You're treating people here like they are sworn enemies to your very ideologies and lifestyle. I'd kindly remind you that we are debating a card game here, not life-or-death politics.
I definitely take issue with suggesting someone has compromised mental health just for sharing an opinion about a deck in a fantasy card game. I'm a professional who works with mental health on a daily basis and find your tone unpleasant and without empathy for people suffering with legitimate mental health issues. If you and I were at a bar together somewhere and you said something similar to what you posted above to gkourou, I'd get up, leave and let you pick up the bill. I hope that puts some context to how unacceptable those sorts of insults are.
We are stronger together and when we are friendly to each other. Stop being the bad guy and join us. If you can't find it in yourself to chill out and be a nicer dude, I won't have any qualms reporting any further nasty comments to the mods.
@holydiva, could the insulting response be because of your prediction that Jeskai Control will not be played that much and of the outcome that showed us the third best conversion sate from Day 1 to Day 2?
Jeskai looked good day 1, but significantly fell off unexpectedly day 2.
The field looks like it should have been good playing bolt v small creatures. I really don't understand what happened to that deck day 2.
I'm not sure it's good enough right now, but cannot work out why.(opinions?)
On the other hand grixis control looked sweet if it had just been Corey Burkhart then I might have shrugged and moved on, but Cuneo also did really well. The deck is sweet against creature decks and field of ruin might be the hero we need v Tron and Eldrazi lands.
I hope for another strong grixis control showing this weekend.
These types of posts are fairly easy to fake so I'd rather see a more definitive screenshot than the one posted. For reference: https://i.imgur.com/mJFjRFg.png
These types of posts are fairly easy to fake so I'd rather see a more definitive screenshot than the one posted. For reference: https://i.imgur.com/mJFjRFg.png
I strongly suspect this is fake. The right image is from the real MTGO client, the left is from the OP's alleged evidence. This seems like clear evidence that this was doctored. I posted to Reddit (which I haven't done in ages) to hopefully quell this rumor.
Honestly don't feel like Jace is a safe unban at the moment though, especially when his perfect home is already strong (UW Control). He does legit everything that deck wants on a planeswalker.
Not to mention BBE seems way safer and a more obvious unban.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UWUW ControlUW UGWSpiritsUGW GHardened ScalesG WGRUKiki PodWGRU [RIP]
Jund, Junk and GB Rock would absolutely become fringe decks is Jace was unbanned with nothing given to those decks.
Midrange would probably be consolidated into BUG
I don't think any of the bad matchups would be solved though
I would probably feel obligated to spend hundreds while Jace ruins the format from 6 to 12 months before selling the playset off after a reban.
They would hardly become fringe decks; they already are fringe decks. Not that I disagree with the rest of your assessment, but you can't lose what you already don't have.
Jund, Junk and GB Rock would absolutely become fringe decks is Jace was unbanned with nothing given to those decks.
Midrange would probably be consolidated into BUG
I don't think any of the bad matchups would be solved though
I would probably feel obligated to spend hundreds while Jace ruins the format from 6 to 12 months before selling the playset off after a reban.
They would hardly become fringe decks; they already are fringe decks. Not that I disagree with the rest of your assessment, but you can't lose what you already don't have.
Sigh. Yeah.
Regardless, midrange players would have to be prepared to buy into BUG.
I don't think Jace would be as scary as some are thinking. There are far more answers to planeswalkers than there were when Jace ruled the world, and Modern lacks the tools to protect him that Legacy has. He would be strong, but a 4 CMC card that either Brainstorms or Unsummons when it comes out in a format with fairly lackluster counter tools and a fast clock doesn't seem that overwhelming.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
I don't think Jace would be as scary as some are thinking. There are far more answers to planeswalkers than there were when Jace ruled the world, and Modern lacks the tools to protect him that Legacy has. He would be strong, but a 4 CMC card that either Brainstorms or Unsummons when it comes out in a format with fairly lackluster counter tools and a fast clock doesn't seem that overwhelming.
I agree.
Recently though, saffron olive at mtggoldfish posted a GOAT video (greatest of all time) in which a Jace/stoneforge deck faced off against a bloodbraid/deathrite deck.
Quite apart from it being a rough matchup for jund anyway, the jund player kept awful opening hands and played badly. They made Jace look way better than he really is. It was a casual match so they didn't care much and hey, it was fun. But! Lots of people I know who've seen the video are using it as anecdotal evidence for Jace being too good.
Unfortunately this kind of rhetoric spreads fast among social groups and people parrot the sentiment even if they haven't seen the video. Standard human behaviour.
So yes. I agree. Jace would be fine. What's a bit tricky is that a good chunk of people now feel like they have a fluffy factual basis for saying he isn't fine.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: G Tron, Vannifar, Jund, Druid/Vizier combo, Humans, Eldrazi Stompy (Serum Powder), Amulet, Grishoalbrand, Breach Titan, Turns, Eternal Command, As Foretold Living End, Elves, Cheerios, RUG Scapeshift
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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
To the second point, BBE was banned because of Jund, not because of its intrinsic power level. Most arguments about the unbanning of BBE include discussions of Jund because of this, not because Jund deserves to be a tier one deck or because Jund is the elusive hero the format needs right now. The fact remains that BBE is an underpowered card in relation to the rest of the ban list, so it should come off. Jund will see a bump because of this, but BBE shouldn't be unbanned for that specific purpose.
CG
Spirits
There are some critics that will never be satisfied with any level of results. Unless the data matches their experience and views, they will find reasons to ignore and undermine it. An excellent example of this was the recent GP. It immediately validated to many Modern critics all the problems they had with the format. Never mind that it was a single event over an otherwise super healthy stretch of the format. That one event was all they needed. But all the other evidence was easy to throw out. MTGO? "Incomplete picture, still linear." SCG? "Glorified FNM, not representative." Smaller regional and local events? "Not competitive enough, not representative." The PT? "Too few rounds, too influenced by draft." We do not see the same criticisms and skepticism for events that support the "Modern too linear/bad/unfun" narrative.
It's the same annoying dissonance we see when players say "I want high-skill decks to win in this format" and then say later "This deck takes too much skill to win with and isn't viable." Again, the issue is not the format. It's a vocal subset of critics who readily discount evidence against their views but eagerly support any cases that validate their views.
I think there are legitimate issues we can talk about with Modern. It's by no means a perfect format. But the way some of the critics talk, we would think it was back in September 2016 again. The lack of measured criticism of the current format shows that some people will just never be happy until they get a very specific wish fulfilled, whether that's a ban, an unban, a deck being viable, a deck no longer being viable, etc. Thankfully, as I am sure we will see next Monday, those highly specific criticisms don't matter because Wizards is clearly not on board with them. That was the case in October 2017 and we'll see if it's the case Monday.
Modern is a format of niches. Grixis Control seems to have found a niche. And even if it didn't, it would continue to attract certain players who would run it regardless, thus forcing the niche.
Also h0ly, I don't mean to tell you to act any kind of way, but I will say that the constant hyperbole and aggressive language definitely don't do anything for your arguments 🤷🏻♂️
EDIT --- I just received this PM (user will remain anonymous): I've attached an image of how the post reads on my computer. Everyone: make sure to update your iOS!
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
People are rating this recent protour amongst the best they've watched, if not the best.
I personally loved it! But I recognise that I'm not representative of the wider majority in all aspects. I was keyed into the wider appreciation by the mtggoldfish podcast where both hosts ranked the tournament as possibly the most enjoyable they've watched.
This has been corroborated in a small sample size by my friends and colleagues who represent a very diverse audience for MTG. Everyone loved it. Furthermore I've seen many faceless commenters online sharing this positivity as well. Instead of moaning there's appreciation. That's not to say there isn't the usual torrent of complaints and banmania but cancelling that out as "the usual noise" there's a real positive picture being painted.
Whether or not you care too much about the actual finals match, the tournament as a whole was very well received, and modern has shown itself to be a vibrant and exciting format. Maybe even the best format? That's not for me to decide.
Props to Wizards and the team who make the protour happen. Here's to a bright future of high profile modern events with decent coverage.
We're here to have a friendly discussion about a game we love, in company that should harbour no judgment on a personal level.
Looking back through the thread I see examples of people laying out ideas and opinions and backing them up or explaining them. I also see rather intense examples of you using overly-exaggerated language and insulting people on a personal level because of their ideas.
That's not acceptable man. You're treating people here like they are sworn enemies to your very ideologies and lifestyle. I'd kindly remind you that we are debating a card game here, not life-or-death politics.
I definitely take issue with suggesting someone has compromised mental health just for sharing an opinion about a deck in a fantasy card game. I'm a professional who works with mental health on a daily basis and find your tone unpleasant and without empathy for people suffering with legitimate mental health issues. If you and I were at a bar together somewhere and you said something similar to what you posted above to gkourou, I'd get up, leave and let you pick up the bill. I hope that puts some context to how unacceptable those sorts of insults are.
We are stronger together and when we are friendly to each other. Stop being the bad guy and join us. If you can't find it in yourself to chill out and be a nicer dude, I won't have any qualms reporting any further nasty comments to the mods.
Jeskai looked good day 1, but significantly fell off unexpectedly day 2.
The field looks like it should have been good playing bolt v small creatures. I really don't understand what happened to that deck day 2.
I'm not sure it's good enough right now, but cannot work out why.(opinions?)
On the other hand grixis control looked sweet if it had just been Corey Burkhart then I might have shrugged and moved on, but Cuneo also did really well. The deck is sweet against creature decks and field of ruin might be the hero we need v Tron and Eldrazi lands.
I hope for another strong grixis control showing this weekend.
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT
These types of posts are fairly easy to fake so I'd rather see a more definitive screenshot than the one posted. For reference:
https://i.imgur.com/mJFjRFg.png
The posted account also has no history:
https://www.reddit.com/user/BrothersYamazaki
This in and of itself isn't necessarily a reason to dismiss the post, but it does make me skeptical.
I'd want to go into the beta and verify it myself before I put any serious stock into it, but I figured it'd be worth posting here.
If this is legit, I really hope they don't do these bans/unbans. Jace is ridiculous.
Bridge doesn't deserve a banning either
I just have trouble believing they'd turn around and ban bridge after Forscythe tweeted what he did about Lantern when people called for a ban
https://i.imgur.com/DSU0nmk.png
I strongly suspect this is fake. The right image is from the real MTGO client, the left is from the OP's alleged evidence. This seems like clear evidence that this was doctored. I posted to Reddit (which I haven't done in ages) to hopefully quell this rumor.
EDIT: And per popular request, here is the white-bordered comparison.
https://imgur.com/a/7mPf5
Unless the Beta changed that visual cue, that Reddit poster doctored the image and lied.
Pretty awful if it's fake.
I think Jace could have been a possible consideration in early 2017, it's definitely out of the conversation now.
Not to mention BBE seems way safer and a more obvious unban.
UWUW ControlUW
UGWSpiritsUGW
GHardened ScalesG
WGRUKiki PodWGRU [RIP]
Midrange would probably be consolidated into BUG
I don't think any of the bad matchups would be solved though
I would probably feel obligated to spend hundreds while Jace ruins the format from 6 to 12 months before selling the playset off after a reban.
They would hardly become fringe decks; they already are fringe decks. Not that I disagree with the rest of your assessment, but you can't lose what you already don't have.
Sigh. Yeah.
Regardless, midrange players would have to be prepared to buy into BUG.
Spirits
No, because a Jace is stronger than Visions has ever been
Midrange decks will consolidate into BUG.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
I agree.
Recently though, saffron olive at mtggoldfish posted a GOAT video (greatest of all time) in which a Jace/stoneforge deck faced off against a bloodbraid/deathrite deck.
Quite apart from it being a rough matchup for jund anyway, the jund player kept awful opening hands and played badly. They made Jace look way better than he really is. It was a casual match so they didn't care much and hey, it was fun. But! Lots of people I know who've seen the video are using it as anecdotal evidence for Jace being too good.
Unfortunately this kind of rhetoric spreads fast among social groups and people parrot the sentiment even if they haven't seen the video. Standard human behaviour.
So yes. I agree. Jace would be fine. What's a bit tricky is that a good chunk of people now feel like they have a fluffy factual basis for saying he isn't fine.