Sam Stoddard wrote an article about the power level of standard on the Mothership. It makes note of some obvious design reasoning in the standard format.
Sam acknowledges that sometimes R&D sometimes makes mistakes about standard power levels and also acknowledges that the absence of cheap, powerful spells -- like Lightning Bolt -- allow for exploration and certain more expensive spells to find their place in the standard format. So basically, certain cards like Swords to Plowshares don't get printed so more flavorful cards like Kolaghan, the Storm's Fury can shine, instead of the same old same old Black Knight.
While there are no epiphanies, I'd like to hear your thoughts about this article.
Some of it makes sense, and some I definitely disagree with. Equally, while he acknowledges that there is a context to some of the more potent things printed, I feel like he is intentionally missing the context under why other cards were as good as they were. Consider the curious case of Mutavault; it was certainly a prominent role-player in its format, but that had much more to do with the type of format it was in. It was a heavily mono-colored format with several 1.5 colored decks, and a small number of 2-colored decks; of course it was heavily played due to it being in that format. Equally, I don't really see how Mutavault made the format *less* fun; if anything it made it a lot more fun. It gave Mono-U the ability to fight through removal and keep playing the game, gave Mono-Black some extra oomph from Rats, and gave U/W control a much needed proactive card. It was easily overpowered or worked around by the decks that didn't run it, such as Burn and Monsters, and was generally a card that was not the problem with the format as a whole (Which, judging by the number of people who consistently showed up to events, was a well-like format as a whole; I know I enjoyed it vastly more than I did with Khans-BFZ prior to OGW). Mutavault was not the reason people played the decks that played Mutavault, nor did it stop people from doing cool things at all. That reasoning is naive and fails to understand that they pushed a mono-colored format extremely heavily; Mutavault was a freebie in that format, but it was under no circumstances hampering what "cool" things you could do by virtue of the fact that you didn't play X or Y deck for the specified purpose of having Mutavault. If there were things being hampered in the format, it had to do with how they designed the format in its entirety Which I don't necessarily agree was a bad format by any stretch.
The other problem I find is his discussion on Lightning Strike; while I can appreciate not wanting the same staple effects all the time due to removing the variety of spells they can try to bring in standard, the issue they have come to now is that by having none of those effects at all, *and* not printing reasonably good variants that serve a purpose in standard. They performed the first half of the equation almost whole-sale; they have yet to actually deliver on the concept that they want to push the "cool" other options at all.
Further, this sort of thinking pushes things into an extremely linear format defined by decks whose sole purpose is to do their own thing and hope it wins. The lack of meaningful interaction created one of the worst standard formats I have *ever* played in (Khans-BFZ), and still has reverberating problems with OGW. It's cool to do your super cool and linear thing the first time. But after a dozen or so matches where it just comes down to who gold-fished better, it gets extremely old. And right now, the top decks are just trying to jam their stuff and hope it's better than the opponent's stuff, with a very small number of interactive pieces. This is cool for a brief period; it's downright boring in the long run. You might as well solitaire a deck in such a case.
I also find the concept that if something is very strong in Modern or Legacy, then it will by default be strong in Standard to be... well, it's just plain wrong. Standard has had numerous cards that have been strong in those formats, but only lightly prevalent in Standard if at all. The formats are entirely different beasts, and this sort of reasoning can lead to development eschewing cards which would be perfectly fine for the format for logically unsound reasons that removes the possibility of actually having cards which *are* cool or fun being played in standard. There is truth to some of this, but it's also an extremely dangerous logic to follow. A card can be ostensibly too good for Standard, either as a whole or in a given format, without ever discussing Legacy or Modern. In fact, those formats should not even be enterred into the equation. A card's potency in Standard should be discussed only in regards to it's relevance in Standard, as the reasons for their presence in other formats is defined by the meta game of those formats. Anything else represents only the barest understanding of formats and meta games.
While I get the reasoning in some of the philosophy, I do find that the reasons he gives are flawed to the point where I have to question how much he actually understands the problems he's discussing, which in turn is a bit worrying to me.
I don't disagree with everything he has to say, however. But I find that his reasonings create a worrying philosophy that I'm not sure I can agree with.
I just love how they admitted that having fetch lands with fetch able duals was a mistake and said it was an Experiment just how effective it would be in standard, when in reality it was a way to sell more packs.
The article seems like it was written in haste to prepare people for the powered down standard is going to be here to stay. Where people though the experiment of a powered down standard was just that an experiment, they are basically confirming that standard will stay at its current power level.
I think my mistake was I started playing with the original Zendikar where the power level was absurd that I now expect every set to meet those standards
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Some call it a Habit, Cardboard Crack Addict
Tried to pull away, but now I'm Back At it
Love is Emphatic, cards need to be played
Hailing from the BA, accumulating CA"
Yea, those are MTG Bars. What can I say, I am a dork
The main thrust of the arguments presented in the article by Stoddard is generally correct; constant reprint of "powerful" staples leads to a more stagnant Standard with less design space to explore. The problem with the article is it reaches too far in what it deems as powerful, warping, or constricting.
Cards like Lightning Bolt, StP, Dark Ritual, or Counterspell are easily understood as format warping and it's difficult to imagine Standard formats in which they were legal and not staple 4-ofs. As such, players can more easily accept their absence for the sake of better, more diverse Standard metagames.
But for other (types of) cards, beyond simple, hyper-efficient utility effects, the argument is a bit more tenuous.
For example, 4CMC wrath effects probably hold somewhat for this argument, but not entirely, and there are likely ulterior motives that Wizards would be reluctant to disclose. They never stifled the design of other cards. And numerous other sweepers, both big (>4CMC) and small (<3CMC), saw play alongside them. The problem was that it was hard to make different 4CMC wraths -- there's not a lot of design space there; it's already such a fair and balanced effect. And that's bad for Wizard's bottom line, because reprinting workhorse staples doesn't crank up pack EV nearly as much as releasing fresh, new ones. And that's part of the reason why Day of Judgment had to go; sweepers are almost always value cards and help sell sets, especially if players can't simply use the same sweeper package every season.
And when Liliana of the Veil is used as an example, oh boy, that's rich. She was never particularly great in Standard* and there's tons of ways to build a format in which she wouldn't be overpowered (e.g. lots of "go-wide" strategies, cards that punish discard, etc). Beyond her edict ability, she's not much of a staple effect -- symmetric discard requires building around -- so she isn't going to be an "obvious" include in decks of her color a la Bolt, StP, etc. I can understand if Wizards doesn't want to use her in a Standard because she doesn't fit into their plans, but trying to disqualify her from Standard reprinting because she's too powerful and warps formats? Get real. This is where the article feels like a spin job for Wizards to justify not reprinting the cards players want in order to make Standard better, somehow.
Also, I can't help but find it funny that Wizards tries to put on an air of authority on power levels and then passes off the huge mistake of printing the BattleTangoSlowDuals into a format with fetches as "an experiment". It completely undermines any faith a skeptical player has in their ability to evaluate potential power levels in Standard formats.
*Nowhere near the representation of Jace, VP in the current Standard, that's for sure.
I think the whole discussion about power level warping down is kind of funny. They put out theros block and everyone complains about how weak it is. So then they put out khans which is almost the definition of power creep, almost. So while everyone was happy at the time, come a year and half later it has nearly ruined every set since. They made khans TOO GOOD. Look at abzan, especially after we got warden in fate reforged. They made this strategy literally idiot proof. And they literally made the deck/curve for you! Warden into 3/3 warden into anafenza into seige rhino. If you looked they also made a 5/7 5 drop to go after rhino if you wanted that too. They made this strategy so that even the absolute worst mtg player could win at fnm just by inserting the telegraphed deck build for you. So now we have had a year and a half of basically the same deck or two constantly winning because to was too easy to build and win with. I personally can't wait for khans and fate reforged to rotate because all these players who can't build decks on their own will have to feel the disappointment of losing to what they will see as a unfair advantage. Only this time it won't be unfair. Once khans goes so does half the standard tier one decks, which means, we have an influx of new creative ideas and strategies that were simply ignored because they couldn't compete with the most overly push curve I have ever seen. I would love a lightning strike or bolt type cars again, but not if I have to have another year and half of only seeing mantis rider and seige rhino type cards across from me, making the game boring, predictable, and forcing you into one or two strategies. This depowering of standard is the best thing that has happened to it, but that won't be obvious until the rotation. We finally won't have to deal with that abzan player who whines about not drawing the right cards should he have to deal with losing a single game.
I personally can't wait for khans and fate reforged to rotate because all these players who can't build decks on their own will have to feel the disappointment of losing to what they will see as a unfair advantage.
While I see your point, those cards aren't anywhere near as oppressive until you get to reality smasher. In your example you also don't have a 3/3 on turn 2, a 4/4 on turn three, and a 4/5 on turn four. You have a 2/1 or 2/2, a 3/2, and a 4/4 in the same time span and all you are doing is exiling one card. This is significantly less powerful and isn't guaranteeing the most dominant board presence possible in standard by that time. Yes your turn 5 and 6 are better but by that point your opponent hasn't been completely overrun. So in reality you haven't ruined my day, but rather helped prove my point that there will be significantly more options to play with as none of your examples are as close to as pushed as the abzan rares are.
I'd be surprised if there were many people interested by these "interesting new wraths" or other worse versions of lightning bolt/counterspell/whatever. I'm always annoyed when I read that MtG's sets continue outselling themselves because I really would like WotC to go back on basically all its trends.
I think the most important part of the article is where he says the following:
"By comparing our Future Future League decklists to how those decks played out in the real world and how strong they ended up being, we can try to figure out areas where we are repeatedly over- and undervaluing cards and tweak those in upcoming sets."
The Future Future League decklists are usually pretty distant from their "real-world counterparts". See their Future Future League decklists for OGW here. For example, the R/B Eldrazi Aggro deck is just sad. I would never play that deck and expect to win against an Abzan format. There isn't even a single card in the main deck that can kill or trade profitably with Siege Rhino.
Interestingly enough, they did test an Abzan deck also, and it is pretty close to real-world Abzan. I have a hard time seeing how their brewed R/B Eldrazi deck would ever have a chance against their Abzan or Esper Control lists. In this sense, they either failed to understand how bad R/B Eldrazi was, or were ok with it being comparably underpowered.
It's hard to be too critical with what Stoddard wrote as it is mostly logical, but, it does seem like the Future Future League has some serious difficulties with card evaluation and deck-building.
Not for nothing here, because I agree that khans/bfz standard was terrible, but it's because mana fixing was much better for the khans portion and ramp was bad for BFZ. But imagine if they switched them and BFZ came out first. With all the mono devotion decks and nykthos legal, eldrazi would have been in every single deck and people would talk about how amazing the set was. But since you have to play ramp to use the best eldrazi in the real standard it suddenly looks worse than it is. This article talks about perspective and context, which if they just switched those two blocks everyone would have loved both sets equally. But they didn't so I digress
I think the most important part of the article is where he says the following:
"By comparing our Future Future League decklists to how those decks played out in the real world and how strong they ended up being, we can try to figure out areas where we are repeatedly over- and undervaluing cards and tweak those in upcoming sets."
The Future Future League decklists are usually pretty distant from their "real-world counterparts". See their Future Future League decklists for OGW here. For example, the R/B Eldrazi Aggro deck is just sad. I would never play that deck and expect to win against an Abzan format. There isn't even a single card in the main deck that can kill or trade profitably with Siege Rhino.
Interestingly enough, they did test an Abzan deck also, and it is pretty close to real-world Abzan. I have a hard time seeing how their brewed R/B Eldrazi deck would ever have a chance against their Abzan or Esper Control lists. In this sense, they either failed to understand how bad R/B Eldrazi was, or were ok with it being comparably underpowered.
It's hard to be too critical with what Stoddard wrote as it is mostly logical, but, it does seem like the Future Future League has some serious difficulties with card evaluation and deck-building.
It's important to remember that a lot of the cards change over the course of the Future Future League. For example, though less relevant for R/B Eldrazi testing, Siege Rhino spent a decent portion of development as a 3/4 for 3 that had the Loxodon Smiter text because they were trying to fit Liliana of the veil in. Perhaps when they built it Immobilizer Eldrazi had a lower activation cost or better stats, making that a good out for siege rhino. Or another card had different stats, making it an effective siegebreaker when equipped with ghostfire blade.
I think the most important part of the article is where he says the following:
"By comparing our Future Future League decklists to how those decks played out in the real world and how strong they ended up being, we can try to figure out areas where we are repeatedly over- and undervaluing cards and tweak those in upcoming sets."
The Future Future League decklists are usually pretty distant from their "real-world counterparts". See their Future Future League decklists for OGW here. For example, the R/B Eldrazi Aggro deck is just sad. I would never play that deck and expect to win against an Abzan format. There isn't even a single card in the main deck that can kill or trade profitably with Siege Rhino.
Interestingly enough, they did test an Abzan deck also, and it is pretty close to real-world Abzan. I have a hard time seeing how their brewed R/B Eldrazi deck would ever have a chance against their Abzan or Esper Control lists. In this sense, they either failed to understand how bad R/B Eldrazi was, or were ok with it being comparably underpowered.
It's hard to be too critical with what Stoddard wrote as it is mostly logical, but, it does seem like the Future Future League has some serious difficulties with card evaluation and deck-building.
It's important to remember that a lot of the cards change over the course of the Future Future League. For example, though less relevant for R/B Eldrazi testing, Siege Rhino spent a decent portion of development as a 3/4 for 3 that had the Loxodon Smiter text because they were trying to fit Liliana of the veil in. Perhaps when they built it Immobilizer Eldrazi had a lower activation cost or better stats, making that a good out for siege rhino. Or another card had different stats, making it an effective siegebreaker when equipped with ghostfire blade.
It seems like almost every "mistake" card they print is due to changes AFTER the FFL tests with it, so why haven't they learned not to mess with the cards at the last minute? What is the point of testing when you just print cards that don't go through testing anyway?
Because sometimes those changes happen because of the testing? Like, that's the point of having testing, after all. And the Siege Rhino change has never been categorized as a "last minute" change, since they made the change shortly after pulling Liliana of the Veil out of M15, so well before the end of Khans development. They only ever show us a snapshot of their FFL decks, not all 15 iterations they went through, including cards that never made it into the set.
His philosophy is fine, if you enjoy playing a weak format with few to no cards that will see play / have any value after they rotate out from Standard. And it also feels like it's just another excuse to put most of the good cards at Rare / Mythic so they can say "look at all the design space there is in Limited now!" when it's really just about turning over boosters.
Nailed it. Name of the game is selling packs. Limited and Casuals are the majority of income for MTG. Majority of these rares would have been common 10+ years ago.
Welcome to SOI Standard. Where if you are not Bant Humans or B/W mindrange then you suck.
One SCG open the week after release does not a format make. White-based humans strategies and B/W midrange are the low-hanging fruit of the current format, and directly obvious. Particularly humans, which has the added benefit of being cheap (at the time) to build with a strong linear strategy. This is what tends to be the case in the first week. Come the Pro Tour, we will have a much better idea of what is going on.
Welcome to SOI Standard. Where if you are not Bant Humans or B/W mindrange then you suck.
One SCG open the week after release does not a format make. White-based humans strategies and B/W midrange are the low-hanging fruit of the current format, and directly obvious. Particularly humans, which has the added benefit of being cheap (at the time) to build with a strong linear strategy. This is what tends to be the case in the first week. Come the Pro Tour, we will have a much better idea of what is going on.
I don't know why people think this when the Pro Tour is a completely inbred format.
Welcome to SOI Standard. Where if you are not Bant Humans or B/W mindrange then you suck.
One SCG open the week after release does not a format make. White-based humans strategies and B/W midrange are the low-hanging fruit of the current format, and directly obvious. Particularly humans, which has the added benefit of being cheap (at the time) to build with a strong linear strategy. This is what tends to be the case in the first week. Come the Pro Tour, we will have a much better idea of what is going on.
I don't know why people think this when the Pro Tour is a completely inbred format.
While somewhat true, the Pro Tour more often than not brings in new ideas that take over standard. Historically, we had Devotion to Black which was all but unseen prior to the pro tour, which later became the dominant archetype of the format. Rabblemaster was a card pretty much on *nobody's* radar prior to Pro Tour M15, at which point it became a format staple in red (Due in no small part to almost every red deck playing it as a 4-of). U/R artifacts, while short-lived in standard due to rotation killing the deck after three months, was born out of Pro Tour Origins and became a very prominent deck in Standard. This list goes on and on with various standard formats being heavily influenced by Pro Tours. While the specific decks played, and specific lists, are rarely followed going through the format, the first Post-Rotation Pro Tour is more often than not far more influential than any other tournament.
In fact, aside from usually have 1-2 decks in the top 8 that *actually* find relevance in standard, most week 1 SCG opens are absolutely horrendous indicators of the eventual post-rotation meta game. SCG New Jersey (September 27, 2014) had a near complete absence of Abzan, yet this deck proved to be the dominant archetype for nearly the entirety of Khans' run in standard. SCC Indianapolis had only Atarka Red as the actual "correct" prediction, with the single four-color list being the precursor to Jeskai Black (However having marked difference). It had Esper Dragons as the strongest top-8 performing deck, which is a deck that was largely unplayable in the very near future (Even before OGW came out it proved to not be very good). It was also the "break-out" of 5-color Bring to Light, which almost everyone agreed was a bad deck masquerading a playable archetype.
To be blunt, the first week of SCG opens have always been horrendous indicators of the format. Standard formats many times have far more resemblence to what comes out of the Pro Tour post-rotation than anything that comes out of the first handful of SCG opens leading up to the Pro Tour.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sam acknowledges that sometimes R&D sometimes makes mistakes about standard power levels and also acknowledges that the absence of cheap, powerful spells -- like Lightning Bolt -- allow for exploration and certain more expensive spells to find their place in the standard format. So basically, certain cards like Swords to Plowshares don't get printed so more flavorful cards like Kolaghan, the Storm's Fury can shine, instead of the same old same old Black Knight.
While there are no epiphanies, I'd like to hear your thoughts about this article.
Debate is encouraged but please be civil.
Youtube Channel
The other problem I find is his discussion on Lightning Strike; while I can appreciate not wanting the same staple effects all the time due to removing the variety of spells they can try to bring in standard, the issue they have come to now is that by having none of those effects at all, *and* not printing reasonably good variants that serve a purpose in standard. They performed the first half of the equation almost whole-sale; they have yet to actually deliver on the concept that they want to push the "cool" other options at all.
Further, this sort of thinking pushes things into an extremely linear format defined by decks whose sole purpose is to do their own thing and hope it wins. The lack of meaningful interaction created one of the worst standard formats I have *ever* played in (Khans-BFZ), and still has reverberating problems with OGW. It's cool to do your super cool and linear thing the first time. But after a dozen or so matches where it just comes down to who gold-fished better, it gets extremely old. And right now, the top decks are just trying to jam their stuff and hope it's better than the opponent's stuff, with a very small number of interactive pieces. This is cool for a brief period; it's downright boring in the long run. You might as well solitaire a deck in such a case.
I also find the concept that if something is very strong in Modern or Legacy, then it will by default be strong in Standard to be... well, it's just plain wrong. Standard has had numerous cards that have been strong in those formats, but only lightly prevalent in Standard if at all. The formats are entirely different beasts, and this sort of reasoning can lead to development eschewing cards which would be perfectly fine for the format for logically unsound reasons that removes the possibility of actually having cards which *are* cool or fun being played in standard. There is truth to some of this, but it's also an extremely dangerous logic to follow. A card can be ostensibly too good for Standard, either as a whole or in a given format, without ever discussing Legacy or Modern. In fact, those formats should not even be enterred into the equation. A card's potency in Standard should be discussed only in regards to it's relevance in Standard, as the reasons for their presence in other formats is defined by the meta game of those formats. Anything else represents only the barest understanding of formats and meta games.
While I get the reasoning in some of the philosophy, I do find that the reasons he gives are flawed to the point where I have to question how much he actually understands the problems he's discussing, which in turn is a bit worrying to me.
I don't disagree with everything he has to say, however. But I find that his reasonings create a worrying philosophy that I'm not sure I can agree with.
The article seems like it was written in haste to prepare people for the powered down standard is going to be here to stay. Where people though the experiment of a powered down standard was just that an experiment, they are basically confirming that standard will stay at its current power level.
I think my mistake was I started playing with the original Zendikar where the power level was absurd that I now expect every set to meet those standards
Tried to pull away, but now I'm Back At it
Love is Emphatic, cards need to be played
Hailing from the BA, accumulating CA"
Cards like Lightning Bolt, StP, Dark Ritual, or Counterspell are easily understood as format warping and it's difficult to imagine Standard formats in which they were legal and not staple 4-ofs. As such, players can more easily accept their absence for the sake of better, more diverse Standard metagames.
But for other (types of) cards, beyond simple, hyper-efficient utility effects, the argument is a bit more tenuous.
For example, 4CMC wrath effects probably hold somewhat for this argument, but not entirely, and there are likely ulterior motives that Wizards would be reluctant to disclose. They never stifled the design of other cards. And numerous other sweepers, both big (>4CMC) and small (<3CMC), saw play alongside them. The problem was that it was hard to make different 4CMC wraths -- there's not a lot of design space there; it's already such a fair and balanced effect. And that's bad for Wizard's bottom line, because reprinting workhorse staples doesn't crank up pack EV nearly as much as releasing fresh, new ones. And that's part of the reason why Day of Judgment had to go; sweepers are almost always value cards and help sell sets, especially if players can't simply use the same sweeper package every season.
And when Liliana of the Veil is used as an example, oh boy, that's rich. She was never particularly great in Standard* and there's tons of ways to build a format in which she wouldn't be overpowered (e.g. lots of "go-wide" strategies, cards that punish discard, etc). Beyond her edict ability, she's not much of a staple effect -- symmetric discard requires building around -- so she isn't going to be an "obvious" include in decks of her color a la Bolt, StP, etc. I can understand if Wizards doesn't want to use her in a Standard because she doesn't fit into their plans, but trying to disqualify her from Standard reprinting because she's too powerful and warps formats? Get real. This is where the article feels like a spin job for Wizards to justify not reprinting the cards players want in order to make Standard better, somehow.
Also, I can't help but find it funny that Wizards tries to put on an air of authority on power levels and then passes off the huge mistake of printing the BattleTangoSlowDuals into a format with fetches as "an experiment". It completely undermines any faith a skeptical player has in their ability to evaluate potential power levels in Standard formats.
*Nowhere near the representation of Jace, VP in the current Standard, that's for sure.
Not to ruin your day but,
Eldrazi Mimic/Endless One into Wasteland Strangler into Thought-Knot Seer into Reality Smasher into Oblivion Sower isn't going to be much of a change to those that just want a deck that pukes out cards onto the board one after the next.
Granted no Eye, but Temple is fast enough for Standard.
Unfortunately WotC will always have linear decks, be it by design or lack thereof.
http://www.cubetutor.com/visualspoiler/20765
I'd be surprised if there were many people interested by these "interesting new wraths" or other worse versions of lightning bolt/counterspell/whatever. I'm always annoyed when I read that MtG's sets continue outselling themselves because I really would like WotC to go back on basically all its trends.
"By comparing our Future Future League decklists to how those decks played out in the real world and how strong they ended up being, we can try to figure out areas where we are repeatedly over- and undervaluing cards and tweak those in upcoming sets."
The Future Future League decklists are usually pretty distant from their "real-world counterparts". See their Future Future League decklists for OGW here. For example, the R/B Eldrazi Aggro deck is just sad. I would never play that deck and expect to win against an Abzan format. There isn't even a single card in the main deck that can kill or trade profitably with Siege Rhino.
Interestingly enough, they did test an Abzan deck also, and it is pretty close to real-world Abzan. I have a hard time seeing how their brewed R/B Eldrazi deck would ever have a chance against their Abzan or Esper Control lists. In this sense, they either failed to understand how bad R/B Eldrazi was, or were ok with it being comparably underpowered.
It's hard to be too critical with what Stoddard wrote as it is mostly logical, but, it does seem like the Future Future League has some serious difficulties with card evaluation and deck-building.
EDH: UBRJeleva | GURSurrak
WUU/W ControlUW
Modern
WGVoltronGW
RWUJeskai Ascendancy ComboUWR
BRUGrixis ControlURB
EDH
BWGAbzan TokensGWB
C Long Live Eldrazi C
WW, WG, and WU humans, UR control, GR ramp would contest that statement.
C Long Live Eldrazi C
Nailed it. Name of the game is selling packs. Limited and Casuals are the majority of income for MTG. Majority of these rares would have been common 10+ years ago.
One SCG open the week after release does not a format make. White-based humans strategies and B/W midrange are the low-hanging fruit of the current format, and directly obvious. Particularly humans, which has the added benefit of being cheap (at the time) to build with a strong linear strategy. This is what tends to be the case in the first week. Come the Pro Tour, we will have a much better idea of what is going on.
I don't know why people think this when the Pro Tour is a completely inbred format.
While somewhat true, the Pro Tour more often than not brings in new ideas that take over standard. Historically, we had Devotion to Black which was all but unseen prior to the pro tour, which later became the dominant archetype of the format. Rabblemaster was a card pretty much on *nobody's* radar prior to Pro Tour M15, at which point it became a format staple in red (Due in no small part to almost every red deck playing it as a 4-of). U/R artifacts, while short-lived in standard due to rotation killing the deck after three months, was born out of Pro Tour Origins and became a very prominent deck in Standard. This list goes on and on with various standard formats being heavily influenced by Pro Tours. While the specific decks played, and specific lists, are rarely followed going through the format, the first Post-Rotation Pro Tour is more often than not far more influential than any other tournament.
In fact, aside from usually have 1-2 decks in the top 8 that *actually* find relevance in standard, most week 1 SCG opens are absolutely horrendous indicators of the eventual post-rotation meta game. SCG New Jersey (September 27, 2014) had a near complete absence of Abzan, yet this deck proved to be the dominant archetype for nearly the entirety of Khans' run in standard. SCC Indianapolis had only Atarka Red as the actual "correct" prediction, with the single four-color list being the precursor to Jeskai Black (However having marked difference). It had Esper Dragons as the strongest top-8 performing deck, which is a deck that was largely unplayable in the very near future (Even before OGW came out it proved to not be very good). It was also the "break-out" of 5-color Bring to Light, which almost everyone agreed was a bad deck masquerading a playable archetype.
To be blunt, the first week of SCG opens have always been horrendous indicators of the format. Standard formats many times have far more resemblence to what comes out of the Pro Tour post-rotation than anything that comes out of the first handful of SCG opens leading up to the Pro Tour.