Quote from thnkr »So, back onto the productive topic, I think after some consideration, I may be incorrect as far as the purest definition of "linear" with regards to decks. I'll also restate some things as well to ensure cohesiveness. I would not be surprised if there may be some more accurate adjustments as well.
A deck can be best classified by the following characteristics:
- How many branches are designed into a deck's decision tree? The more branches, the better it will be able to adapt to variable changes in the gamestate, as even as some number of branches are pruned, the remaining branches may be relied upon to reach the end node(s) - The designed win condition(s).
- How healthy (or, unique) are the branches designed into a deck's decision tree? The more unique those branches are, the less likely that a single card, or series of cards, can prune or wither multiple branches at once. For example, if a large number of nodes on connecting branches rely on casting 1cmc spells, then a single Chalice of the Void can prune/wither multiple branches simultaneously. Another example would be if a large number of nodes on connecting branches rely on chaining spells together to reach the end node (i.e. - the storm mechanic), then cards like Rule of Law or Ethersworn Canonist may be able to prune or wither those branches.
- How effective is the deck at pruning and/or withering multiple branches on an opposing deck's decision tree?
The first two characteristics might help define how linear a deck is, combined with the number of end nodes. Sometimes, if all end nodes are cut off with a single characteristic from an opposing deck (maybe a single card or restrictive effect), then there is a single dimension by which the deck is weak to: The single effect that is pruning those end nodes from being possible. Sometimes that characteristic is a card, sometimes it is sheer acceleration through branches and intermediate nodes. I think it is important to recognize that the term "linear" is probably best used as comparative: Simply stating that a deck is "linear" isn't enough. It is more or less linear than another specific deck.
The last characteristic defines how interactive it is. Again, we have to be aware, and wary, when we are inclined to define interaction in a self-centered fashion. If we choose to define interaction as "how does a deck interact with me", then that is a self-centered definition. A better definition is "how does the deck interact with the gamestate?" If a deck effectively interacts with a gamestate in such a way as to prune or wither branches from an opposing deck's decision tree, then it is interacting with the opponent - by pruning and/or withering branches from the opponent's decision tree. Sometimes it is more subtle than we are willing to observe and understand. This seems to stem from that sense of entitlement, in which many players may feel that opponents should only be able to interact in terms that allow those players further (significant) interaction. Of course, this is exactly the opposite of what an effective deck is designed to do. The first two characteristics listed explain exactly this point.
I've seen claims about how Modern is a "turn X format". I think that this kind of misses the point about how decks are designed to work as well, when used as a reason to criticize the format without considering the alternate argument(s). An effective deck is designed to attempt to prune/wither opponents' branches on their decision tree before they are available, while protecting their own decision tree branches. If a deck is designed to simply durdle, and not effectively prune branches, then the designer and pilot is essentially begging to lose.
It would be as if two competing forces in chess, or war, or a fight, were to meet, and one starts to deliver a strike or move and the other simply sits there without a block and/or counter, then are we really to resort to complaining about the defender "not being ready"? Is there any valid reason why the defender couldn't be ready? In Magic the Gathering, how ready the defender is relies on the cards chosen in the deck designed to deal with an early attack. If it simply isn't designed to defend its branches and nodes, then we have to ask ourselves some questions. For example, are there any other decks able to defend against early attacks? Is this problem unique to a majority of the metagame? In some cases this is true (i.e. - Eldrazi Winter). In other cases, it's just the accepted design of that particular deck, an accepted weakness built in.
Another complaint that I've seen is that "games are decided by sideboards". Sideboards are part of the game for the very reason as to shore up matchups, so they aren't entirely lopsided. If we did not accept the purpose of sideboards, what are the repercussions of sideboards being ineffective? Why even have a sideboard if they're designed to be ineffective? And if we increase the sizes of sideboards, how balanced would matchups then be? When we make these complaints, it might benefit us to first consider the alternatives, before simply posting an opinion to a forum. Otherwise, we're not really having a constructive conversation. And if a deck is designed with decision trees that are not unique enough, then yes, that deck is designed to lose to potential sideboard cards. That is the risk that the designer and pilot must be willing to accept. Complaining about this isn't acceptance of risk.
And there's the complaint about the "metagame is too wide open". Again, it might serve us to consider the alternative. For this one, I would even say that it might serve us to use some introspective study. Do we really want a metagame that is defined by a small number of viable decks? What about the people who enjoy playing their own decks? Just because they don't enjoy playing the game the same way as some of us doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to. This wide open metagame allows for a healthy metagame, with plenty of diversity. This also helps the game itself, as it becomes appealing to a larger audience. The more players we have, the more likely the game will survive. There may be some interesting reasoning for making the argument that the metagame is too wide. As far as considering the alternative, I rarely find these same people are willing to explain what decks (by specific name and lists, not vague archtype) should be allowed in their imagined perfect metagame, and at what percentages those decks should be. This is very revealing of the motivations behind their arguments.
There are some people who feel entitled to winning more than they are. Do they deserve those wins, though? Have they put in the reps, or the work to study the metagame, or the work to study the underlying principles and concepts of the game to earn those wins? Are they able to pilot their deck well enough to adapt to a diverse number of opposing decks? What, exactly, entitles these people to winning more? Can they even state the answer, without realizing how ridiculous and selfish the answer might sound?
It's easy to say, "yeah, I've put in the reps", or, "yeah, I studied the crap out of the game". Anyone can make the claim. Anyone can state their opinion in a forum and feel that their opinion is entitled to homage and respect. But what qualifies that opinion? Can another person come in and use the same arguments for the opposing opinion (the "nuh-uh" effect")?
Something that I've come to appreciate about studying the concepts behind this game is understanding human behavior as well. I feel that it's taught me how to understand the motivations of some people, through their methods of argument and expression of opinion.
I'd generally agree with most of what you've stated here. I'd be amiss though if I didn't point out that there's a certain condescension that surfaces at times in your responses. I'm not trying to knock you down a peg, just share how it comes across. And I feel pretty comfortable identifying that tone since it's one I'm prone to myself.
Obviously several posters appreciate the intellectual bent you bring to the conversation (and it's sparked a interesting train of replies). But you have to understand that asking an anonymous internet poster to outline his preferred meta by deck and percentages is more than a little silly. Some players don't want intellectual rigor or theory, they want a fun game (with "fun" often defined in an ambiguous, personal way). Calling those players "selfish" is a conversational dead-end. Like a counter war on the stack, pick the exchanges where there's a chance of something productive.
Splinter Twin had the main plan of tempo kill your opponent (by scaring them with your threat of combo to not to play anything big on their turn). But it is also a fact that on storm's combo turn outside of their library they actually just cast a single spell to win which is Gifts. It creates a big illusion like there is something opponent can do or choose during that very turn. 
1
Enjoy legacy man its a great format, I wish I had the coin to join.
And thanks for being open minded and seeing both sides of the argument.
It's rare to find that in a person it seems on this inbred forum,Ruled by a few.
Suspension issued for spamming the forum. -- CavalryWolfPack
1
I too feel like legacy is way better than modern(not because it's blue dominated)
But because with the top decks I can, with skill, have a game against anyone, And so can they.
Unfortunately legacy is dead in attendance in my region,and unfortunately it's also way to expensive.
2
Yea I want jund to be exactly 8 percent of the meta and burn 6 affinity 7.
No one cannot answer that. Noone can. I've provided you with my answer. I can't make it any clearer.
1
I have no doubt in my mind that temple should be banned, but if its hit without death shadow wouldn't death shadow dominate even more?
I almost feel like they would both have to go.
1
A temple Ban alongside an SFM unban would do wonders for this format Imo.
1
Some have Thier qualms while others think it's amazing.
And either side will argue why the other is wrong, Both with good points.
1
1
Really?
With the things I'm asking modern would not be legacy. It would be a better modern...
If that's what you disagree with that than good for you. We will never agree on this.
1
He wants games to have less matchup variance like legacy has, minus the blue dominance. Which is possible with a plethora of positives this format could use.
1
we need fair cards unbanned. this format already has enough linear/unfair decks.