This is fair. Again I am biased to a format with more midrange and control i fully admit that lol. Do you think wotc sees the data points the same way and pushes for no bans anyway though? The only reason I say that is all of the comments from wotc employees about modern have been that they dont think modern needs any changes. Again yes no individual stirrings/lootings decks is above 10% but to me green and red having better card filtering than blue just seems weird. Plus wizards has banned cards that haven't preformed above that threshold. Summer bloom comes to mind. Yea you could make the point about the turn 4 rule but amulet still can kill before t4 so their certainly seems to be caveats to their ban decisions.
Wizards has banned Modern cards for a few reasons. The main one is metagame diversity (see Pod, TC, DRS, Twin, etc.). The second most common one has been T4 rule violations (e.g. Bloom, Song, Rite, etc.). There is no inconsistency between Bloom being banned in 2016 and Bloom still being capable of T3 wins now. Decks are allowed to win on T1, T2, or T3 in Modern. They just can't do so "consistently" and while also being "top-tier." Bloom is currently not able to consistently win before T4, so it's fine. KCI, Storm, Infect, and others are also in this category. The only glaring ban contradiction we have positively identified is the Twin ban, which was likely banned for reasons outside of just raw statistical metagame diversity. Everything else fits pretty neatly into existing categories. Given that Wizards has not banned anything since 2017 and the format has continuously cycled through different top decks, I don't expect Wizards is going to look at this extreme diversity and change their ban criteria. They might look to unban cards to help out slower decks, as they have done in both 2016 (Sword, AV) and 2018 (JTMS, BBE). But bans seem extremely unlikely.
Im not a huge fan of everything hoogland says but he put together a decent pie chart about modern's speed after farming some data over some past big events if that's kind of interesting.
Now obv his sample size isn't massive but he makes a decent point about how much the format has sped up. Especially including decks like tron into the "ending the game" by turn 3 category. While yes technically they don't win the game on the spot on turn 3, casting karn/wurmcoil against a fair deck is lights out a massive amount of the time. His point also, wasn't banning a bunch of cards but unbanning cards like pod/twin which again i totally agree with.
This is the kind of non-rigorous analysis which does nothing to advance our understanding of Modern. "Can win the game by T3" is such a vague category. Karn is clearly included even though Karn isn't remotely game over against basically all aggro decks in the format. KCI, Dredge, Storm are included with no attempt to assess how many games they actually win on T3. Did Burn get included too because you can T1 Guide (18), T2 Swifstpear+Bolt/swing (11), T3 Boros Charm/Bolt/Swing (dead)? There are so many ways to actually verify, challenge, and/or audit these numbers. The method also doesn't tell us anything about Modern, and there are better ways to actually assess format speed. Here's an easy one: review all the footage from the GP/PT in the last 5 months and see what turn games ended on. Or just check your own MTGO replays. I guarantee that 66% of games aren't ending on T3, so why is that 66% number of hypothetically threatened T3 wins meaningful in any way? Let's look at actually meaningful numbers, like the turn games are actually ending and the turn decks are actually winning on. That's how we predicted the Bloom ban back in late 2015, and it gave us far more insight into that prediction and the actual strength of Amulet than this kind of analysis in Hoogland's article would have.
I don't look at anything by Hoogland considering his massive biases and trigger happy banning. Everything he does is, "I am right because I am and if you disagree with that I will ban you." In person I imagine he is different, but he is the worst of the MTG pros pandering to extremes in order to get views/donations/sales.
His data is def far from rigorous lol. I think his overall point is modern has sped up and that thing's should be un-banned to accommodate for that. I'm open for anyone doing data driven analysis because I'm not totally convinced wotc even does that when they consider ban list updates outside of gp and pro tour performance.
Hoogland seems to have finally taken a sensible viewpoint about the modern banned list. This is great change from his old days of wanting 15+ cards banned and treasure cruise unbanned.
I agree Stoneforge and Twin are fine to bring back, but I think Green Sun's Zenith is safer than Birthing Pod. Is Pod better than what is currently going on in modern right now? Probably not, but I think they will give cards that were banned a long time ago a chance before Pod/Twin.
Standard+ will likely start at origins and have Marvel and Guardian banned. Or at the very least just Marvel, since Saheeli combo is comparatively easy to disrupt (shock? unsummon? trophy?).
Its easy, if you plan for it. Best of One (if Wizards continues to make it the face of Arena Competitive) will make things like Copy Cat and Marvel wayyyyyyyyy too good, because both are Turn 4 kills.
I honestly hope they don't start with anything banned in Standard+. They already made this mistake in Modern, and here we are 7 years later with some likely innocuous cards from the initial banned list still imprisoned. I would rather they just let the format play itself out, and make changes as they're needed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
Its easy, if you plan for it. Best of One (if Wizards continues to make it the face of Arena Competitive) will make things like Copy Cat and Marvel wayyyyyyyyy too good, because both are Turn 4 kills.
Eh, I think that one can be dealt with, Abrade is likely good enough to be in most decks as a 2 of in the main? I dont know 3/3 flying and selection is pretty good in Standard.
On a related note: I once read (can’t remember where) some statistics from a player with an enormous amount of matches on the same deck reporting a ~5% (from memory) winrate decline when comparing Friendly League results with those of Competitive Leagues. In other words, a pilot whose winrate is 60% over the course of many Friendlies could reasonably expect to clock in around 55% in Comps.
Does anyone here have supporting or countervailing data/experiences?
Interesting you should bring that up, as I set out to test that exact thing this month. I recently talked to a Storm grinder a bit who had reported a 68% win rate in Friendly over around 1000 matches, and it really piqued my interest; it seemed almost too good to be true. The vast majority of my recorded games with Tron prior to this month have been played in Comp leagues (around 1900) and my winrate in that sample is right around 60%. In December I've played the deck exclusively in the Friendly room, and over 240 matches so far my winrate is 65.5%. So I can definitely see the ~5% figure being accurate. For me it's closer to 6% as things stand now.
In terms of why it's that much easier, I've noticed a few things:
There's a higher percentage of homebrew/rogue decks. Not tons, but it's maybe 6% in Friendly as opposed to like 3% in Comp. I'm talking about decks like Mono Blue Boomerangs or GW Midrange with Search For Tomorrow and Farseek to "synergize" with Tireless Tracker and Courser of Kruphix, with no disruption of any kind. These are almost always free wins, and there are more of them.
There's a higher occurrence of loose/suboptimal plays. Quite a few times this month I saw my opponents do things like crack fetches main phase getting a tapped shockland, or firing off instant speed burn spells main phase, when they could hold the mana up and represent any number of things. I don't often see things like that in the Comp leagues.
There's also a higher occurrence of people playing meta decks but with some suboptimal card choices for the sake of interest or fun. That's all well and good, but the cards are suboptimal for a reason, and you will be handing your opponents some percentage points as a result.
On the whole though, ~5% is not a massive difference. It's still mostly good players playing good decks.
What about the EV though? Using the Goatbots EV calculator, about 7% is the key number when comparing Comp and Friendly. If your Comp winrate is 58%, and your Friendly winrate is 65%, that's basically the equilibrium point. +3.46 for Comp, and +3.42 for Friendly. If your Comp winrate is 59% and Friendly is 66%, you're better off playing Comp, as it becomes +4.09 vs +3.69, and the gap continues to widen as your winrate increases. On the flipside, if your Comp winrate is only 57% and you get 64% in Friendly, the EV is +2.83 vs +3.15 in favor of Friendly, and the gap continues to widen as your winrate goes down. 7% is a fairly big difference though, and given my experience that would seem hard to sustain. So if you can consistently achieve 59% win in Comp, that's the better EV play.
Wonderful post, man. This is exactly the sort of reply I was looking for. I can certainly accept 6% as an accurate approximation of expected winrate differential for the typical player. Thanks also for bringing up the EV angle; that’s something I hadn’t closely considered.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GB Golgari Midrange GB YouTube Channel, with deck techs, gameplay, analysis, spoiler reviews, and more!
I honestly hope they don't start with anything banned in Standard+. They already made this mistake in Modern, and here we are 7 years later with some likely innocuous cards from the initial banned list still imprisoned. I would rather they just let the format play itself out, and make changes as they're needed.
That something like Skullclamp and Chrome Mox wouldn't be that wise to have in the format (even just for testing purpose) should be obvious, so some form of initial ban list might be a good choice (NOTE: I have no idea about a possible Standard+ format, so no comment on that, was just talking about Modern).
Hoogland seems to have finally taken a sensible viewpoint about the modern banned list. This is great change from his old days of wanting 15+ cards banned and treasure cruise unbanned.
I agree Stoneforge and Twin are fine to bring back, but I think Green Sun's Zenith is safer than Birthing Pod. Is Pod better than what is currently going on in modern right now? Probably not, but I think they will give cards that were banned a long time ago a chance before Pod/Twin.
Standard+ will likely start at origins and have Marvel and Guardian banned. Or at the very least just Marvel, since Saheeli combo is comparatively easy to disrupt (shock? unsummon? trophy?).
Pod is a VERY dangerous card. I would advise against unbanning it (even though I loved to play Pod) because the deck would be a monster in the current format (Angle Pod destroyed probably the best aggro deck we ever had in the format, TC Delver, so Spirits, Humans, Arclight, Dredge and co would be either good or really good match-ups).
GSZ is way more tame and also fills a different role than Pod. Sure, Elves will be the deck which gets the biggest boost of it (cause it makes it more reliable and more grindy), but honestly, it won't be a big problem. On the other hand several different G based decks would want to run GSZ, BGx Rock (mainly the BG version), Zoo (Midrange Zoo), GW Value Town, Eternal Command and more (just on top of my head). It is basically a one shot tutor for a green creature for G and that's it.
Greetings,
Kathal
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What I play or have:
Modern/Legacy
either funpolice (Delver, Deathcloud, UW Control) or the fun decks (especially those ft. Griselbrand)
This is the kind of non-rigorous analysis which does nothing to advance our understanding of Modern.
Is it really that much worse than rigorous analysis of incomplete or actively misleading data? Or analysis of events driven by incomplete or actively misleading data?
It's a mess no matter how you look at it. Meaningful data analysis of the format (or drawing meaningful conclusions/predictions from) died with the change in MTGO data. And it will never be anything more than a "oh, that's neat" tool moving forward.
It also really doesn't matter how rigorous any collection of data is. It's not as if wizards uses data the playerbase comes up with to make ban decisions. It's really all speculation at the end of the day. Especially since wotc stopped publishing entirely accurate data on mtgo. So really i don't think hooglands analysis is any less useful then most.
This is the kind of non-rigorous analysis which does nothing to advance our understanding of Modern.
Is it really that much worse than rigorous analysis of incomplete or actively misleading data? Or analysis of events driven by incomplete or actively misleading data?
It's a mess no matter how you look at it. Meaningful data analysis of the format (or drawing meaningful conclusions/predictions from) died with the change in MTGO data. And it will never be anything more than a "oh, that's neat" tool moving forward.
GP and PT data are mostly complete, and we have been able to make ban predictions and format health assessments by looking at those standings in the past. Notably, those who were not doomsaying were successfully able to diagnose a healthy Modern for 2 years and numerous "no changes" updates in between. I know that some people will counter something to the effect of "Wizards always does no changes, so it's a good default bet," but that doesn't mean the data-driven method that got us there is wrong, especially when so many pros/players called for bans in this period of time. Incidentally, that same method predicted an unban in February, although I don't know anyone who got both JTMS/BBE. Incidentally, whenever we get "full" datasets from tournaments and compare them to the incomplete metagame pictures (e.g. MTG Goldfish), we often find very few differences and most are just a few percentage points. It's really not as bad as you make it out to be. It's not like the full MTGO 5-0 dataset is hiding any significantly different picture than we see in the GP Portland analysis going from Day 1 to Day 2 to the T16/T8.
It also really doesn't matter how rigorous any collection of data is. It's not as if wizards uses data the playerbase comes up with to make ban decisions. It's really all speculation at the end of the day. Especially since wotc stopped publishing entirely accurate data on mtgo. So really i don't think hooglands analysis is any less useful then most.
These points are off-base for a number of reasons.
1. Player-analyzed data has successfully predicted Wizards' actions in the past. This includes bans, lack of bans, and format health assessments. In that regard, accurate data analysis is far more valuable than inaccurate analysis, as the inaccurate analysis does not successfully predict anything.
2. Wizards definitely reads player-generated analysis projects. We have significant circumstantial evidence suggesting this, whether Wizards linking to such projects on the mothership, responding to them in Tweets, or reacting to them in subsequent decisions. Their ear is absolutely on the ground. Although they are unlikely to read a page in this thread, they are much more likely to look at projects that make the way to the top pages of Reddit, or ones where we Tweet them directly to a Wizards employee. When that happens, it's important that the analysis is largely accurate, or it becomes something Wizards dismisses or ignores altogether.
3. Even if we are to agree that player-generated analysis is totally useless for predicting/informing Wizards' decisions (which I absolutely do not agree with), lazy/inaccurate/misleading analyses are still problematic. They create misconceptions in the player base and amplify the echo chamber of negative, uninformed opinions. In such a reality where our analyses don't matter (again, I don't believe that for a second), we would still rather see accurate analyses or no analyses period rather than bad ones.
Compare Hoogland's analysis to the recent effort by Henke: https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/phoenixes-over-portland-massive-modern-metagame-analysis/. It's not even close! Henke clearly put additional time, effort, energy, and thought into his article, and the underlying research, before posting it. It also revealed some really interesting elements of the format that I expect are totally in line with what Wizards is seeing on its end of the data. In no small part because of its higher quality, this has become a top r/modernmagic post that Wizards has undoubtedly seen. That's a great example of data gone right, as opposed to Hoogland's article.
GP and PT data are mostly complete, and we have been able to make ban predictions and format health assessments by looking at those standings in the past.
That is not what I'm talking about. We are mostly incapable of making any meaningful predictions about the format is because, without data, even GPs are eclectic messes of mostly random assortments of decks with massive variations month to month and region to region. If we are solely and specifically talking about "B&R decisions made based on the results of GPs" then sure. But GPs are skewed by our false data, and then used to help compound the calculations of that false data. we also know that MTGO data favors heavily in their decisions because their B&R teams are either unwilling or incapable of making metagame decisions on the backs of a thorough understanding of decks or the format as a whole. They are driven by data that we do not have access to (MTGO) and data (GP results) which are heavily driven by the false and inaccurate data we do have access to, compounded by the variance factor of the inability to prepare for 50+ decks and hoping to get lucky.
TL;DR - Hoogland's and others' experiential observations and conclusions are probably not completely accurate. The data we have is horrendously not accurate either. So it's a judgement call as to which gives more meaning and value to understanding Modern as a format.
But if you told me that roughly 3/4 of decks are trying to kill you, or create insurmountable game states on or before turn 4 (as Hoogland is claiming), I have a hard time seeing anything to lead me to believe otherwise.
Lastly, its another thing to consider that perhaps we have seen "No Changes" for so long because they have put no thought into Modern. Without a Pro Tour to drive attention, and with having to deal with 2 1/2 years of their Standard dumpster fire, they have no reason to pay any thought to Modern. As long as we don't have an Eldrazi Winter/Linear Summer level of unruly dissatisfaction, they will continue to ignore the format. The format is far from "healthy" but it's chaotic enough to give the appearance on paper of "health" and keep WOTC from being motivated to do anything about it.
It isn't so much that I care so much about the data, it's that people put way too much faith into the data we have. Data which is purposely misleading, chaotic, and non-representative. Data which then drives players to make choices for events that then create equally chaotic results. None of the numbers we have mean anything if we don't have underlying MTGO data sets, because WOTC has shown us time and time again that those are the core numbers they use to drive any meaningful decisions they make. GP numbers are a close second, but those are arguably a horrible metric to use (that's another discussion entirely).
Basically, when it comes to either making predictions about the meta or predicting what WOTC might do with B&R announcements, we are guessing with one arm tied behind out back.
And as a result, the best strategy for Modern is not to bother trying to understand or prepare for a "meta" that doesn't exist, but to play a proactive, fast deck, usually that is difficult to interact with. Then, hope that you either dodge your bad matchups or that your opponents aren't prepared for what you're doing. I do not feel this makes for a "healthy" format.
It isn't so much that I care so much about the data, it's that people put way too much faith into the data we have. Data which is purposely misleading, chaotic, and non-representative. Data which then drives players to make choices for events that then create equally chaotic results. None of the numbers we have mean anything if we don't have underlying MTGO data sets, because WOTC has shown us time and time again that those are the core numbers they use to drive any meaningful decisions they make. GP numbers are a close second, but those are arguably a horrible metric to use (that's another discussion entirely).
Basically, when it comes to either making predictions about the meta or predicting what WOTC might do with B&R announcements, we are guessing with one arm tied behind out back.
And as a result, the best strategy for Modern is not to bother trying to understand or prepare for a "meta" that doesn't exist, but to play a proactive, fast deck, usually that is difficult to interact with. Then, hope that you either dodge your bad matchups or that your opponents aren't prepared for what you're doing. I do not feel this makes for a "healthy" format.
Your positions, both here and in the previous post, are just too overstated to be persuasive. At the very least, you need to attempt some kind of proof to make the allegation that a lack of MTGO data leads to "chaotic" results at the GP level, a "meta that doesn't exist," and that "none of the numbers we have mean anything." That's a string of significant allegation with basically no supporting evidence. It's particularly questionable because we already know from over two dozen of my posts by now that this has no impact on top or average player MWP between Standard, Legacy, and Modern. The floors/ceilings/averages/spreads are almost identical between formats. If Modern was this chaotic and unpredictable mess like you are alleging, we would not see this consistency between performances. There would be significant variance that, in fact, we don't see at all.
I'm 100% on board with the criticism that Wizards should release more MTGO data. But I have no clue how the lack of this data completely invalidates all our numbers to the point where "none of the numbers we have mean anything," which I assume to mean literally all of the GP/PTQ/MOCS/Challenge/SCG/other events we do have. This makes so many assumptions about the relationship between MTGO data and literally every player/tournament in the format, and we simply have no clear information about that relationship.
Ultimately, I think players like you, Hoogland, PVDDR, and others who are vocal critics of the current state of Modern are correct in identifying a Modern issue. That issue appears to be that the format is not as interactive as you would like it to be. Or, more credibly, that late 2018 Modern is less interactive than it was in previous eras, and that makes it less enjoyable. Those might be legitimate cases to make with the right supporting evidence. But bundling that criticism in with an allegation that our numbers are meaningless, the results are chaotic, and that we are preparing for "a meta that doesn't exist," is ineffective and misleading. Just as it is ineffective to say that 3/4 of decks are trying to win or establish an insurmountable game state by T3. *****, Twin was trying to do that. BGx still tries to do that. UW Control would be happy countering everything from T2 onwards. Let's clarify and refine our definitions before making these kinds of wild claims.
I'm not even saying the evidence isn't there. I'm sure it is! I was throwing some stats together earlier today comparing interactivity in GP T8s between years and finding some interesting things. There is a way to make this case, and I'm sure my way is not even remotely the only way. But the pure subjective rhetoric you are using is also not the way. Nor is the bad analysis Hoogland was doing in his article or the constant sound-bite storm on Reddit/Twitch/Twitter.
I have to agree with KTK here, yes we could use more details specifically on MTGO but that does not invalidate all other sources of data from Online Challenges to the numerous paper events of note. Does lack of data increase variance sure but I seriously doubt more data would prove all current trends wrong and tell us vastly different things
Modern is diverse, Modern is chaotic, and Modern is a mostly fast and proactive format. Much of that is the result of lack of data, which helps solidify the picture of "the meta" (if one exists), and much of that is because many players "play what they own," whether it's good or not. Is that what we consider to be a "healthy" format? Meh.
I consider it a healthy and diverse format when the major archetypes all have multiple viable decks and take up a good share of the meta around 20% and all have a good chance of making Top 8 and Winning.
Modern is the kind of format where someone like me can be 16-16 in his last 32 matches until last FNM's 4-0. It is the format that I played 8 times in the last 2 weeks, including a 54 person Staples and a 42 person 1K.
Meanwhile I played UR Phoenix for the first time in Standard. I haven't played Standard since RB Aggro 1 time at a Store Showdown. I played in a PPTQ today with 54 players. Went 4-1-1 in the Swiss, losing to Jeskai. Then lost to Jeskai in the top 4 after beating the same GB player from the Swiss. I went 2-0 in all my matches in the Swiss, except 1-2 in the loss. My list was missing 2 Fiery Cannonade and a Banefire because no one had them. Not sure what to make of this, as this always happens whenever I play Standard for the first time since rotation.
P.S. - I play Aggro and Burn like trash. I'm pretty adept at Combo though. This sums up Modern, even as mad as I am to lose in the top 4 of today's PPTQ.
P.S. 2 - And yes, I missed about 4 out of 24 Niv-Mizzet triggers. I sided those 2 in like crazy today. Now I know why people say you can main board it.
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)
Much of that is the result of lack of data, which helps solidify the picture of "the meta" (if one exists), and much of that is because many players "play what they own," whether it's good or not.
Hmm, can't do much about that. All my decks are tier 2 or weaker right now, but they are what I have. Not much funds left after spendings during this holiday season. Probably not enough to compete in a GP. But they're good enough for playing at the stores that I go to for fun time playing.
Missed the chance to buy phoenix, so can't join in on the new hotness which are the phoenix decks.
Modern is diverse, Modern is chaotic, and Modern is a mostly fast and proactive format. Much of that is the result of lack of data, which helps solidify the picture of "the meta" (if one exists),
Again, you can't just claim this as a fact without proof. Modern might be fast and proactive and chaotic with the full MTGO data. Maybe faster! Or slower? We simply do not know. Why does a lack of MTGO results directly lead to a faster format? How many players actually follow MTGO results? How does full access to MTGO data inform tournament choices? Moreover, if as you say that players only play what they have, how would more data change that? There are just so many assumed relationships and mechanisms in your statement that it can't possibly be credible without additional supporting evidence.
In fact, there is already strong reason to believe your argument is largely false. We had basically full MTGO data in 2015 and people still picked decks that did not align with the MTGO data! Karsten and MTG Goldfish literally published MWP data so accurate Wizards asked at least Goldfish to take it down. Despite that data being posted and publicly available, not even enfranchised and informed players followed it, let alone average players. Hundreds of players still played decks with subpar MWPs at major events, to say nothing of smaller ones. Paper metagames continued to differ from MTGO ones throughout the year, despite unprecedented data access. Even when this data existed, the majority of players weren't following it. Unless you are also arguing that the average Modern player profile has also changed in that time period (again, source/proof?), there is little reason to believe they would behave any differently if suddenly flooded with data.
Overall, I sincerely doubt there is any significant connection between the speed/linear issues of Modern and a lack of MTGO data. There are simply no proven relationships or mechanisms to suggest that, and a strong 2015 case study to suggest the exact opposite. It is far more likely that Modern players have always played what they wanted to and will continue to do so even if evidence suggests they shouldn't. Another case that largely disproves your claim: Eldrazi Winter. This was a period of time with an undisputed best deck and it wasn't even close. About 60% of players actually chose to play something else!! At the GP level, no less!! Many players do not make deck selections in Modern based on data. They simply play what they want and\or are good at. That's not a fake meta if the trend has persisted for years. That simply is the meta. A sudden influx of MTGO data won't change that.
I've repeated myself on this topic a dozen times over, so let's just look at one simple scenario: you're planning to attend some competitive event in Modern. There is no meaningful or discernible way of determining what you might face. Why would you ever consider anything other than a fast proactive strategy? Unless you are participating in a small, or self-contained, predictable meta? Or you simply don't care about giving yourself the best odds, and just want to cross your fingers for good matchups?
Wizards has banned Modern cards for a few reasons. The main one is metagame diversity (see Pod, TC, DRS, Twin, etc.). The second most common one has been T4 rule violations (e.g. Bloom, Song, Rite, etc.). There is no inconsistency between Bloom being banned in 2016 and Bloom still being capable of T3 wins now. Decks are allowed to win on T1, T2, or T3 in Modern. They just can't do so "consistently" and while also being "top-tier." Bloom is currently not able to consistently win before T4, so it's fine. KCI, Storm, Infect, and others are also in this category. The only glaring ban contradiction we have positively identified is the Twin ban, which was likely banned for reasons outside of just raw statistical metagame diversity. Everything else fits pretty neatly into existing categories. Given that Wizards has not banned anything since 2017 and the format has continuously cycled through different top decks, I don't expect Wizards is going to look at this extreme diversity and change their ban criteria. They might look to unban cards to help out slower decks, as they have done in both 2016 (Sword, AV) and 2018 (JTMS, BBE). But bans seem extremely unlikely.
This is the kind of non-rigorous analysis which does nothing to advance our understanding of Modern. "Can win the game by T3" is such a vague category. Karn is clearly included even though Karn isn't remotely game over against basically all aggro decks in the format. KCI, Dredge, Storm are included with no attempt to assess how many games they actually win on T3. Did Burn get included too because you can T1 Guide (18), T2 Swifstpear+Bolt/swing (11), T3 Boros Charm/Bolt/Swing (dead)? There are so many ways to actually verify, challenge, and/or audit these numbers. The method also doesn't tell us anything about Modern, and there are better ways to actually assess format speed. Here's an easy one: review all the footage from the GP/PT in the last 5 months and see what turn games ended on. Or just check your own MTGO replays. I guarantee that 66% of games aren't ending on T3, so why is that 66% number of hypothetically threatened T3 wins meaningful in any way? Let's look at actually meaningful numbers, like the turn games are actually ending and the turn decks are actually winning on. That's how we predicted the Bloom ban back in late 2015, and it gave us far more insight into that prediction and the actual strength of Amulet than this kind of analysis in Hoogland's article would have.
Well I assume any tournament circuit will be best of three or best of five.
Though no sideboard does changes things...they might let you switch between decks.
But yeah Copy Cat and Marvel will probably be banned day one.
I do wonder how fast Standard Plus would be.
I agree Stoneforge and Twin are fine to bring back, but I think Green Sun's Zenith is safer than Birthing Pod. Is Pod better than what is currently going on in modern right now? Probably not, but I think they will give cards that were banned a long time ago a chance before Pod/Twin.
Standard+ will likely start at origins and have Marvel and Guardian banned. Or at the very least just Marvel, since Saheeli combo is comparatively easy to disrupt (shock? unsummon? trophy?).
Spirits
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
Don't forget roflcopter.
Spirits
Wonderful post, man. This is exactly the sort of reply I was looking for. I can certainly accept 6% as an accurate approximation of expected winrate differential for the typical player. Thanks also for bringing up the EV angle; that’s something I hadn’t closely considered.
YouTube Channel, with deck techs, gameplay, analysis, spoiler reviews, and more!
That something like Skullclamp and Chrome Mox wouldn't be that wise to have in the format (even just for testing purpose) should be obvious, so some form of initial ban list might be a good choice (NOTE: I have no idea about a possible Standard+ format, so no comment on that, was just talking about Modern).
Pod is a VERY dangerous card. I would advise against unbanning it (even though I loved to play Pod) because the deck would be a monster in the current format (Angle Pod destroyed probably the best aggro deck we ever had in the format, TC Delver, so Spirits, Humans, Arclight, Dredge and co would be either good or really good match-ups).
GSZ is way more tame and also fills a different role than Pod. Sure, Elves will be the deck which gets the biggest boost of it (cause it makes it more reliable and more grindy), but honestly, it won't be a big problem. On the other hand several different G based decks would want to run GSZ, BGx Rock (mainly the BG version), Zoo (Midrange Zoo), GW Value Town, Eternal Command and more (just on top of my head). It is basically a one shot tutor for a green creature for G and that's it.
Greetings,
Kathal
Modern/Legacy
either funpolice (Delver, Deathcloud, UW Control) or the fun decks (especially those ft. Griselbrand)
Is it really that much worse than rigorous analysis of incomplete or actively misleading data? Or analysis of events driven by incomplete or actively misleading data?
It's a mess no matter how you look at it. Meaningful data analysis of the format (or drawing meaningful conclusions/predictions from) died with the change in MTGO data. And it will never be anything more than a "oh, that's neat" tool moving forward.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
GP and PT data are mostly complete, and we have been able to make ban predictions and format health assessments by looking at those standings in the past. Notably, those who were not doomsaying were successfully able to diagnose a healthy Modern for 2 years and numerous "no changes" updates in between. I know that some people will counter something to the effect of "Wizards always does no changes, so it's a good default bet," but that doesn't mean the data-driven method that got us there is wrong, especially when so many pros/players called for bans in this period of time. Incidentally, that same method predicted an unban in February, although I don't know anyone who got both JTMS/BBE. Incidentally, whenever we get "full" datasets from tournaments and compare them to the incomplete metagame pictures (e.g. MTG Goldfish), we often find very few differences and most are just a few percentage points. It's really not as bad as you make it out to be. It's not like the full MTGO 5-0 dataset is hiding any significantly different picture than we see in the GP Portland analysis going from Day 1 to Day 2 to the T16/T8.
These points are off-base for a number of reasons.
1. Player-analyzed data has successfully predicted Wizards' actions in the past. This includes bans, lack of bans, and format health assessments. In that regard, accurate data analysis is far more valuable than inaccurate analysis, as the inaccurate analysis does not successfully predict anything.
2. Wizards definitely reads player-generated analysis projects. We have significant circumstantial evidence suggesting this, whether Wizards linking to such projects on the mothership, responding to them in Tweets, or reacting to them in subsequent decisions. Their ear is absolutely on the ground. Although they are unlikely to read a page in this thread, they are much more likely to look at projects that make the way to the top pages of Reddit, or ones where we Tweet them directly to a Wizards employee. When that happens, it's important that the analysis is largely accurate, or it becomes something Wizards dismisses or ignores altogether.
3. Even if we are to agree that player-generated analysis is totally useless for predicting/informing Wizards' decisions (which I absolutely do not agree with), lazy/inaccurate/misleading analyses are still problematic. They create misconceptions in the player base and amplify the echo chamber of negative, uninformed opinions. In such a reality where our analyses don't matter (again, I don't believe that for a second), we would still rather see accurate analyses or no analyses period rather than bad ones.
Compare Hoogland's analysis to the recent effort by Henke: https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/phoenixes-over-portland-massive-modern-metagame-analysis/. It's not even close! Henke clearly put additional time, effort, energy, and thought into his article, and the underlying research, before posting it. It also revealed some really interesting elements of the format that I expect are totally in line with what Wizards is seeing on its end of the data. In no small part because of its higher quality, this has become a top r/modernmagic post that Wizards has undoubtedly seen. That's a great example of data gone right, as opposed to Hoogland's article.
That is not what I'm talking about. We are mostly incapable of making any meaningful predictions about the format is because, without data, even GPs are eclectic messes of mostly random assortments of decks with massive variations month to month and region to region. If we are solely and specifically talking about "B&R decisions made based on the results of GPs" then sure. But GPs are skewed by our false data, and then used to help compound the calculations of that false data. we also know that MTGO data favors heavily in their decisions because their B&R teams are either unwilling or incapable of making metagame decisions on the backs of a thorough understanding of decks or the format as a whole. They are driven by data that we do not have access to (MTGO) and data (GP results) which are heavily driven by the false and inaccurate data we do have access to, compounded by the variance factor of the inability to prepare for 50+ decks and hoping to get lucky.
TL;DR - Hoogland's and others' experiential observations and conclusions are probably not completely accurate. The data we have is horrendously not accurate either. So it's a judgement call as to which gives more meaning and value to understanding Modern as a format.
But if you told me that roughly 3/4 of decks are trying to kill you, or create insurmountable game states on or before turn 4 (as Hoogland is claiming), I have a hard time seeing anything to lead me to believe otherwise.
Lastly, its another thing to consider that perhaps we have seen "No Changes" for so long because they have put no thought into Modern. Without a Pro Tour to drive attention, and with having to deal with 2 1/2 years of their Standard dumpster fire, they have no reason to pay any thought to Modern. As long as we don't have an Eldrazi Winter/Linear Summer level of unruly dissatisfaction, they will continue to ignore the format. The format is far from "healthy" but it's chaotic enough to give the appearance on paper of "health" and keep WOTC from being motivated to do anything about it.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Basically, when it comes to either making predictions about the meta or predicting what WOTC might do with B&R announcements, we are guessing with one arm tied behind out back.
And as a result, the best strategy for Modern is not to bother trying to understand or prepare for a "meta" that doesn't exist, but to play a proactive, fast deck, usually that is difficult to interact with. Then, hope that you either dodge your bad matchups or that your opponents aren't prepared for what you're doing. I do not feel this makes for a "healthy" format.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Your positions, both here and in the previous post, are just too overstated to be persuasive. At the very least, you need to attempt some kind of proof to make the allegation that a lack of MTGO data leads to "chaotic" results at the GP level, a "meta that doesn't exist," and that "none of the numbers we have mean anything." That's a string of significant allegation with basically no supporting evidence. It's particularly questionable because we already know from over two dozen of my posts by now that this has no impact on top or average player MWP between Standard, Legacy, and Modern. The floors/ceilings/averages/spreads are almost identical between formats. If Modern was this chaotic and unpredictable mess like you are alleging, we would not see this consistency between performances. There would be significant variance that, in fact, we don't see at all.
I'm 100% on board with the criticism that Wizards should release more MTGO data. But I have no clue how the lack of this data completely invalidates all our numbers to the point where "none of the numbers we have mean anything," which I assume to mean literally all of the GP/PTQ/MOCS/Challenge/SCG/other events we do have. This makes so many assumptions about the relationship between MTGO data and literally every player/tournament in the format, and we simply have no clear information about that relationship.
Ultimately, I think players like you, Hoogland, PVDDR, and others who are vocal critics of the current state of Modern are correct in identifying a Modern issue. That issue appears to be that the format is not as interactive as you would like it to be. Or, more credibly, that late 2018 Modern is less interactive than it was in previous eras, and that makes it less enjoyable. Those might be legitimate cases to make with the right supporting evidence. But bundling that criticism in with an allegation that our numbers are meaningless, the results are chaotic, and that we are preparing for "a meta that doesn't exist," is ineffective and misleading. Just as it is ineffective to say that 3/4 of decks are trying to win or establish an insurmountable game state by T3. *****, Twin was trying to do that. BGx still tries to do that. UW Control would be happy countering everything from T2 onwards. Let's clarify and refine our definitions before making these kinds of wild claims.
I'm not even saying the evidence isn't there. I'm sure it is! I was throwing some stats together earlier today comparing interactivity in GP T8s between years and finding some interesting things. There is a way to make this case, and I'm sure my way is not even remotely the only way. But the pure subjective rhetoric you are using is also not the way. Nor is the bad analysis Hoogland was doing in his article or the constant sound-bite storm on Reddit/Twitch/Twitter.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
How do you define it?
Meanwhile I played UR Phoenix for the first time in Standard. I haven't played Standard since RB Aggro 1 time at a Store Showdown. I played in a PPTQ today with 54 players. Went 4-1-1 in the Swiss, losing to Jeskai. Then lost to Jeskai in the top 4 after beating the same GB player from the Swiss. I went 2-0 in all my matches in the Swiss, except 1-2 in the loss. My list was missing 2 Fiery Cannonade and a Banefire because no one had them. Not sure what to make of this, as this always happens whenever I play Standard for the first time since rotation.
P.S. - I play Aggro and Burn like trash. I'm pretty adept at Combo though. This sums up Modern, even as mad as I am to lose in the top 4 of today's PPTQ.
P.S. 2 - And yes, I missed about 4 out of 24 Niv-Mizzet triggers. I sided those 2 in like crazy today. Now I know why people say you can main board it.
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)Hmm, can't do much about that. All my decks are tier 2 or weaker right now, but they are what I have. Not much funds left after spendings during this holiday season. Probably not enough to compete in a GP. But they're good enough for playing at the stores that I go to for fun time playing.
Missed the chance to buy phoenix, so can't join in on the new hotness which are the phoenix decks.
Nexus MTG News // Nexus - Magic Art Gallery // MTG Dual Land Color Ratios Analyzer // MTG Card Drawing Odds Calculator
Want to play a UW control deck in modern, but don't have jace or snaps?
Please come visit us at the Emeria Titan control thread
Again, you can't just claim this as a fact without proof. Modern might be fast and proactive and chaotic with the full MTGO data. Maybe faster! Or slower? We simply do not know. Why does a lack of MTGO results directly lead to a faster format? How many players actually follow MTGO results? How does full access to MTGO data inform tournament choices? Moreover, if as you say that players only play what they have, how would more data change that? There are just so many assumed relationships and mechanisms in your statement that it can't possibly be credible without additional supporting evidence.
In fact, there is already strong reason to believe your argument is largely false. We had basically full MTGO data in 2015 and people still picked decks that did not align with the MTGO data! Karsten and MTG Goldfish literally published MWP data so accurate Wizards asked at least Goldfish to take it down. Despite that data being posted and publicly available, not even enfranchised and informed players followed it, let alone average players. Hundreds of players still played decks with subpar MWPs at major events, to say nothing of smaller ones. Paper metagames continued to differ from MTGO ones throughout the year, despite unprecedented data access. Even when this data existed, the majority of players weren't following it. Unless you are also arguing that the average Modern player profile has also changed in that time period (again, source/proof?), there is little reason to believe they would behave any differently if suddenly flooded with data.
Overall, I sincerely doubt there is any significant connection between the speed/linear issues of Modern and a lack of MTGO data. There are simply no proven relationships or mechanisms to suggest that, and a strong 2015 case study to suggest the exact opposite. It is far more likely that Modern players have always played what they wanted to and will continue to do so even if evidence suggests they shouldn't. Another case that largely disproves your claim: Eldrazi Winter. This was a period of time with an undisputed best deck and it wasn't even close. About 60% of players actually chose to play something else!! At the GP level, no less!! Many players do not make deck selections in Modern based on data. They simply play what they want and\or are good at. That's not a fake meta if the trend has persisted for years. That simply is the meta. A sudden influx of MTGO data won't change that.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate