There's a lot of diversity because this is the first major event since the new banlist came out. But on what basis do you declare it healthy and stable? Of the three decks with at least 5% representation, the #1 deck has extremely good matchups against the other two (63.75% against Twin overall and 71% against Affinity for the non-Snapcaster versions). It's also the only one of the 3 with a >50% win rate against the field.
The only reason things look close is that a lot of people played a crappy Zoo variant, which drags down the numbers for the traditional Zoo decks.
What I find interesting, is that there's 8 different variants all being treated as the same deck for overall representation, yet with very distinct differences in overall results.
I am seriously getting frustrated at the lack of DEs firing on MTGO. There is simply no reason for it other than fear. Well, I am a huge fan of whiffy penguin from PureMTGO.com's Classic series. He has formed a clan, and although they still have problems making stuff fire, at the very least he has a nice community of Classic players in his clan to test with.
What I want to do is to form a Modern Format clan on MTGO. This thread is a probe into this particular community to see if we can gain some momentum.
Hrm.
What is meant by 'dedicated'?
Modern is, by far, the format I'm most interested in but I don't want to be getting nailed down into exclusive arrangements.
(Plus, I don't have much of a collection online atm. OTOH, having a clan to work with would motivate me to do so.)
That doesn't make it right, by any stretch of the imagination. What DrWorm described is absolutely the most mature and responsible way to parent.
It's actually a very controversial debate in it's own right, with credible experts weighing in on both sides - not the ideal analogy to prove a point, unless the point is "opinions will vary, and people will cling very strongly to their opinions." Which is what I meant to convey by my response to the rhetorical question.
But yeah, going further on that would risk a derailment; varying aspects of that debate happen to be among the hottest topics on the more general forums I engage in, with levels of hostility that make this place at it's worst look like Hello Kitty, so I'll just leave it at that.
On topic, I think it would be silly if Zoo tried to run Chrome Mox or Ancestral Visions; however, the same guy wanted Ponder & Preordain back, which were banned specifically to weaken combo, not control. So you would just be making the situation work. I do also think it's rather silly to claim that "Control is dead!" When we haven't even had a major tournament since the last round of bannings. Be patient.
That's actually something of a controversial topic in itself. We are, theoretically, all striving to be capable of competing at the same level as those who'll be playing at the next major tournament. If we can't come up with a control deck that'll work with enough consistency to feel comfortable bringing it to a major event, it's easy to read that as saying either the established pros likely won't be able to either or that we're still not even close to being at that level yet. And nobody really wants to believe the latter.
Also, for what it's worth, I've got a sweet WB Aggro-Control deck that's been testing really well. So I'm unconvinced that control-based strategies are invalid; I think the banlist is fine (though I wouldn't mind seeing Nacatl on there and/or Jace removed and/or Visions removed, since I'm not sure why they were there in the first place).
They were there for being key aspects of decks that were stifling enough to cause massive attendance drops in their respective environments. Nacatl never was, unless you count the current situation.
It's plausible that their presence wouldn't result in a repeat of the problems they (or rather, the decks abusing them) created, but Wizards clearly decided it was better to start on the side of caution this time.
Would ask the same question if there were no traditional aggro decks?
There wouldn't be a need for it.
Historically speaking, traditional aggro decks typically either start to choke and stutter out, or are forced to hybridize (ie. cease being 'traditional' aggro decks) in order to deal with the tuned versions of more 'complex' strategies (also sometimes just to get a leg up on the mirrors or pseudo-mirrors.) Nobody ever complains when that happens, and it's the complaints that beg the question that you're referring to.
That does not mean that I support the ban-list. I still disagree with GSZ, and still feel that the list is bloated with cards that do not belong there- heck, I would not even use some of the cards on the list if they were unbanned, but I think that a ban-list needs to be as lean as possible.
I don't disagree in the long run, but as a process I feel it's better to risk going overboard early and scale things back as the format becomes more established than to do it the other way.
The issue is that it does require some trust that they *will* scale it back eventually, and trust (or even token respect) seems to be in short supply lately. And I have to admit, after the announcements regarding event structures, I can find that lack of trust a little more understandable.
If I were trying to highlight Nacatl as some specific format warping problem, and touting Misstep as the one and only solution to that problem, then you would be right. But I'm not; that's an argument you've completely hallucinated.
Wow. That's really funny, because it looks like you've done exactly what you're accusing me of doing in order to accuse me of having done it.
You could not be more wrong. Pro Tour Paris was held from February 12 - 13, 2011. Any guesses when Besieged was released on MTGO? February 21, a full week later. Considering that it would have been missing one of the key cards (Sword of Feast and Famine), I highly doubt it saw any play in MTGO Dailies before Paris.
Perhaps he meant the Caw-Go deck that Caw-blade evolved out of (once the blade showed up.)
The problem with the ban list is, not one card woul help only 1 archtype if taken off. Of course you have people who want to believe otherwise.
I've been saying similar for a fair amount of time. I'm now modifying that, though, with the notion that it's fine to let that happen for trial-runs once things have settled somewhat; and being able to do that - especially with cards that were speculatively banned for 'potential problems' rather than because of demonstrated issues - serves as a useful tool for renewing flagging interest once you've hit a point where there's not much left that can be reasonably banned.
Unban Mental Misstep, and every deck has a viable way to improve percentages against Storm, even if you unban 1-2 of the following: ponder, preordain, rite of flame.
Ban Wild Nacatl, and we don't actually need MM in the current format.
More than that.
Ban Wild Nacatl, and there's less reason not to play some kind of aggro other than Zoo. In terms of curve-breaking, a 3/3 for 1 is a bigger scale than Goyf's average break (4/5 or even the occasional 5/6 for 2,) and unlike Goyf the Nacatl only fits in Zoo (or Naya, but Naya aggro is more or less just Zoo with less disruption and a less greedy manabase.) Nacatl trumps most 1-drops any other aggro could be playing, and a lot of 2-drops as well - exceptions being guys that work off a noticably different angle (Signal Pest, Lavamancer) simply because that different angle makes them less comparable.
Throwing MM back in the mix wouldn't really change this. Zoo would still play Nacatls if it could, it would still be correct to throw out the first-turn Nacatl if you've got it and risk running into the Misstep, because your odds of winning if he doesn't have it are just so much better than trying to play around it, and other aggro - or even aggro-control - strategies would still be made obsolete by Zoo just doing the same thing better. Lose Nacatl, and that still might be true - but not by as much of a margin.
I somehow doubt Zoo would be "unplayable," without Nacatl. It would be more stable than Affinity (still), but wouldn't be as fast as Affinity any more. That means there's actually a choice between Aggro decks.
All of this, I agree with.
Actually, most of this post I don't really disagree with. I'm less certain that bringing MM back would change anything for the better, and only post against it in opposition to the apparent (and IMO unfounded) certainty tossed around by others.
Sure, Brian wrote that article, and got flames by the vintage community. Hard. Even his friend and teammate and vintage champion Steve Menendian wrote a counter article essentially tearing Brian to pieces. http://www.eternal-central.com/?p=2333
If, by 'tearing him apart,' you mean tilting off to the side at a strawman that bears only a token resemblance to what Brian was actually saying.
Much like you are doing with everything I've said. I'm done with you.
Its hard to keep the masses turning out if 1 deck or archtype becomes oppressive. Its what happened with caw-blade and I expect it to happen more often in the future since Hasbro has their thumb on the pulse (profit margin) of Wotc.
Indeed. But as we're seeing now, there's also an issue with being too aggressive in keeping those decks in check. People are just as turned off by fear of having their deck obliviated by bannings as they are of having it obliviated by oppressive powerhouses. Even if everything currently on the banlist legitimately belongs there, I think it's still reasonable to feel a bit of trepidation over how fast some of it got there.
There's more than a few cards on it that I strongly suspect would be problematic and deserve to be there, but would still be fine with seeing pulled off the list for a trial-run. But at the same time, that just perpetuates the instability if they do have to go back on the list afterwards.
Blame the player base, not the company. If people are not coming out and playing they have to do something to draw new intrest. Bannings is the only way they have to change up any format.
Well, they do also have unbannings. And the advantage of having a few items on the banlist that were thrown there pre-emptively, is that you can come back to them later and say 'now that things have settled, we'll give this card another shot.'
I would except wizards is having the bad habit lately of banning whatever comes up on top.
I predict that'll last two years, *at most.* Less pessimistically, I figure there's a fair chance that the next update will be the last of the major changes.
What happens after that, depends on the willingness of the general player-base to weather the storm.
U/R Landstill is one of the top decks in the format right now, thanks to Mental Misstep. If that's speeding up a format, show me what slowing down is.
And that's walking into what I call the Illusion of Slow. Or to quote Brian specifically:
"The other problem that I have with judging the speed of a format with how many turns a game lasts is that such a determiner presumes that all of the turns were meaningful or equally productive for both players. For instance, what if I cast turn one Trinisphere,and win on turn ten? Assume my opponent never actually cast a spell, but took five turns. Did he really take five turns? Would my deck be faster if I had Tendrils of Agony'd him to death on one?"
Also quoting from Josh Potuceck, regarding his Vintage landstill deck:
"This deck can get sketchy starting hands, which to most people look pretty bad, but from experience I know what the outcome normally is and those hands can turn around in a hurry"
Perhaps it's not what he intends to say, but that parses out as a claim he knows the outcome of the game off the opening hand. That is beyond merely 'blazingly fast,' even if the final blow doesn't come for another 20 turns. The rest of the article that quote comes from goes on to completely ignore that point, focusing on how blatantly-fast decks that boast T1 or T2 wins can be easily beaten if you put the work in, but that's addressing only superficial appearances. If all your win-cons have been nullified by the second turn, you've already lost. The game isn't genuinely slower if the opponent then takes his time finishing you, it just looks like it is on the surface while you go through the motions of playing it out.
Misstep also slows down the format by giving players cheap and effective answers to early Preordains and Ancestral Recalls, thus lengthening the game.
Longer games aren't necessarily slower games, but that's an idea that every alleged rebuttal to Brian has outright ignored without even a token attempt to dismiss it. Just like the ideas I put forth got ignored - not even dismissed, just outright ignored - in favor of "lol @ people talking about vintage when they don't play it."
It doesn't matter if it takes you 10 turns to win; if the outcome has been effectively decided before the third turn (unwinnable matchups that are effectively decided during the pairing notwithstanding) the format should still be considered 'blazingly fast.'
That said, I wouldn't be bothered by Misstep coming off the list (on a probationary basis) either. Because despite my awareness of ways in which it might speed things up or simply 'tread water,' I don't have certainty that this would happen and I'd be happy to go through the process of actually seeing what would happen. Though I could say that for most of the other cards people are begging for unbannings on either; I don't have certainty on any of them, just suspicions and a strong dose of doubt in the certainty displayed by those who argue that they would be just fine.
(Also, a little bit of disdain for those who think they absolutely need them in order to be viable.)
Wizards is already banning all of the fast one drops. Rite of Flame, Ponder, Preordain, Glimpse - I gave you a fuller list already, as well as other one drops that are up for consideration, including Nacatl.
Wizards has a stated goal of slowing down the format. They are trying to accomplish this goal - right now - by banning every card they can think of that makes the format fast. Even if those cards are otherwise fair and balanced.
My argument is that this is a bad strategy. If they want to have a slower format, they should accomplish that by allowing answers to the fast decks to exist. Not by banning every card that makes them function.
The trouble is that when your answer to fast decks can also function as a response to opposing fast answers, you sometimes wind up just treading water or worse by introducing/keeping them. Misstep actually speeds up Vintage rather than slowing it down by allowing the degenerate decks to go all-in with more impunity or ramming through the back-breaking CA plays that don't necessarily end the game this turn but effectively put you far enough to have the game effectively decided anyway.
I'm not saying that this would happen to Modern, just that it's something that actually needs to be considered in the discussion about bringing Misstep back. Especially if it's going to be followed up by unbanning some or all of the cards that it's supposedly an answer to. And so far, I'm not even seeing an offhand dismissal of the idea, let alone a considered response to it. All anyone is concerned with is whether or not Misstep would be a step too far in helping control.
What I find interesting, is that there's 8 different variants all being treated as the same deck for overall representation, yet with very distinct differences in overall results.
Hrm.
What is meant by 'dedicated'?
Modern is, by far, the format I'm most interested in but I don't want to be getting nailed down into exclusive arrangements.
(Plus, I don't have much of a collection online atm. OTOH, having a clan to work with would motivate me to do so.)
It's actually a very controversial debate in it's own right, with credible experts weighing in on both sides - not the ideal analogy to prove a point, unless the point is "opinions will vary, and people will cling very strongly to their opinions." Which is what I meant to convey by my response to the rhetorical question.
But yeah, going further on that would risk a derailment; varying aspects of that debate happen to be among the hottest topics on the more general forums I engage in, with levels of hostility that make this place at it's worst look like Hello Kitty, so I'll just leave it at that.
That's actually something of a controversial topic in itself. We are, theoretically, all striving to be capable of competing at the same level as those who'll be playing at the next major tournament. If we can't come up with a control deck that'll work with enough consistency to feel comfortable bringing it to a major event, it's easy to read that as saying either the established pros likely won't be able to either or that we're still not even close to being at that level yet. And nobody really wants to believe the latter.
They were there for being key aspects of decks that were stifling enough to cause massive attendance drops in their respective environments. Nacatl never was, unless you count the current situation.
It's plausible that their presence wouldn't result in a repeat of the problems they (or rather, the decks abusing them) created, but Wizards clearly decided it was better to start on the side of caution this time.
There wouldn't be a need for it.
Historically speaking, traditional aggro decks typically either start to choke and stutter out, or are forced to hybridize (ie. cease being 'traditional' aggro decks) in order to deal with the tuned versions of more 'complex' strategies (also sometimes just to get a leg up on the mirrors or pseudo-mirrors.) Nobody ever complains when that happens, and it's the complaints that beg the question that you're referring to.
Er... that is pretty much the standard pattern for child-raising, at least in North America.
I don't disagree in the long run, but as a process I feel it's better to risk going overboard early and scale things back as the format becomes more established than to do it the other way.
The issue is that it does require some trust that they *will* scale it back eventually, and trust (or even token respect) seems to be in short supply lately. And I have to admit, after the announcements regarding event structures, I can find that lack of trust a little more understandable.
Wow. That's really funny, because it looks like you've done exactly what you're accusing me of doing in order to accuse me of having done it.
**** it. I'm done with this whole board.
Perhaps he meant the Caw-Go deck that Caw-blade evolved out of (once the blade showed up.)
I've been saying similar for a fair amount of time. I'm now modifying that, though, with the notion that it's fine to let that happen for trial-runs once things have settled somewhat; and being able to do that - especially with cards that were speculatively banned for 'potential problems' rather than because of demonstrated issues - serves as a useful tool for renewing flagging interest once you've hit a point where there's not much left that can be reasonably banned.
More than that.
Ban Wild Nacatl, and there's less reason not to play some kind of aggro other than Zoo. In terms of curve-breaking, a 3/3 for 1 is a bigger scale than Goyf's average break (4/5 or even the occasional 5/6 for 2,) and unlike Goyf the Nacatl only fits in Zoo (or Naya, but Naya aggro is more or less just Zoo with less disruption and a less greedy manabase.) Nacatl trumps most 1-drops any other aggro could be playing, and a lot of 2-drops as well - exceptions being guys that work off a noticably different angle (Signal Pest, Lavamancer) simply because that different angle makes them less comparable.
Throwing MM back in the mix wouldn't really change this. Zoo would still play Nacatls if it could, it would still be correct to throw out the first-turn Nacatl if you've got it and risk running into the Misstep, because your odds of winning if he doesn't have it are just so much better than trying to play around it, and other aggro - or even aggro-control - strategies would still be made obsolete by Zoo just doing the same thing better. Lose Nacatl, and that still might be true - but not by as much of a margin.
All of this, I agree with.
Actually, most of this post I don't really disagree with. I'm less certain that bringing MM back would change anything for the better, and only post against it in opposition to the apparent (and IMO unfounded) certainty tossed around by others.
If, by 'tearing him apart,' you mean tilting off to the side at a strawman that bears only a token resemblance to what Brian was actually saying.
Much like you are doing with everything I've said. I'm done with you.
Indeed. But as we're seeing now, there's also an issue with being too aggressive in keeping those decks in check. People are just as turned off by fear of having their deck obliviated by bannings as they are of having it obliviated by oppressive powerhouses. Even if everything currently on the banlist legitimately belongs there, I think it's still reasonable to feel a bit of trepidation over how fast some of it got there.
There's more than a few cards on it that I strongly suspect would be problematic and deserve to be there, but would still be fine with seeing pulled off the list for a trial-run. But at the same time, that just perpetuates the instability if they do have to go back on the list afterwards.
Well, they do also have unbannings. And the advantage of having a few items on the banlist that were thrown there pre-emptively, is that you can come back to them later and say 'now that things have settled, we'll give this card another shot.'
I predict that'll last two years, *at most.* Less pessimistically, I figure there's a fair chance that the next update will be the last of the major changes.
What happens after that, depends on the willingness of the general player-base to weather the storm.
Actually, I'm paraphrasing some of those who do play Vintage. Specifically Brian DeMars.
And that's walking into what I call the Illusion of Slow. Or to quote Brian specifically:
"The other problem that I have with judging the speed of a format with how many turns a game lasts is that such a determiner presumes that all of the turns were meaningful or equally productive for both players. For instance, what if I cast turn one Trinisphere,and win on turn ten? Assume my opponent never actually cast a spell, but took five turns. Did he really take five turns? Would my deck be faster if I had Tendrils of Agony'd him to death on one?"
Also quoting from Josh Potuceck, regarding his Vintage landstill deck:
"This deck can get sketchy starting hands, which to most people look pretty bad, but from experience I know what the outcome normally is and those hands can turn around in a hurry"
Perhaps it's not what he intends to say, but that parses out as a claim he knows the outcome of the game off the opening hand. That is beyond merely 'blazingly fast,' even if the final blow doesn't come for another 20 turns. The rest of the article that quote comes from goes on to completely ignore that point, focusing on how blatantly-fast decks that boast T1 or T2 wins can be easily beaten if you put the work in, but that's addressing only superficial appearances. If all your win-cons have been nullified by the second turn, you've already lost. The game isn't genuinely slower if the opponent then takes his time finishing you, it just looks like it is on the surface while you go through the motions of playing it out.
Longer games aren't necessarily slower games, but that's an idea that every alleged rebuttal to Brian has outright ignored without even a token attempt to dismiss it. Just like the ideas I put forth got ignored - not even dismissed, just outright ignored - in favor of "lol @ people talking about vintage when they don't play it."
It doesn't matter if it takes you 10 turns to win; if the outcome has been effectively decided before the third turn (unwinnable matchups that are effectively decided during the pairing notwithstanding) the format should still be considered 'blazingly fast.'
That said, I wouldn't be bothered by Misstep coming off the list (on a probationary basis) either. Because despite my awareness of ways in which it might speed things up or simply 'tread water,' I don't have certainty that this would happen and I'd be happy to go through the process of actually seeing what would happen. Though I could say that for most of the other cards people are begging for unbannings on either; I don't have certainty on any of them, just suspicions and a strong dose of doubt in the certainty displayed by those who argue that they would be just fine.
(Also, a little bit of disdain for those who think they absolutely need them in order to be viable.)
The trouble is that when your answer to fast decks can also function as a response to opposing fast answers, you sometimes wind up just treading water or worse by introducing/keeping them. Misstep actually speeds up Vintage rather than slowing it down by allowing the degenerate decks to go all-in with more impunity or ramming through the back-breaking CA plays that don't necessarily end the game this turn but effectively put you far enough to have the game effectively decided anyway.
I'm not saying that this would happen to Modern, just that it's something that actually needs to be considered in the discussion about bringing Misstep back. Especially if it's going to be followed up by unbanning some or all of the cards that it's supposedly an answer to. And so far, I'm not even seeing an offhand dismissal of the idea, let alone a considered response to it. All anyone is concerned with is whether or not Misstep would be a step too far in helping control.