Maynard was pretty off about his PY Day 1 prediction, and as he doesn't go into a lot of detail about his methods here, I'm not very confident in his predictions. I also don't care about Day 1 #s and most people here shouldn't either. Day 1 -> Day 2 conversion is far more important, as are conversions into the T32. I still predict we'll see the same diversity at this event as we have at every 2018 event so far.
there is always the hope though. that 1 player with his garbage tier control deck who lucks out and gets multiple wins from no-shows, rules infractions, and facing budget players with standard decks.
we got dreams too you know.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
there is always the hope though. that 1 player with his garbage tier control deck who lucks out and gets multiple wins from no-shows, rules infractions, and facing budget players with standard decks.
we got dreams too you know.
lol, just let me beat up on the jank man, let me live my dreams!
Personally my issue with U-based Control doesn't even have to do with win percentages, conversion rates, or representation.
It's the fact that with the exception of Jeskai preying on decks that are weak to 3 damage, the Modern card pool has pretty much forced Control into Ponza Light. I'll suck it up and play RemandMoon or FieldOfSpreadingSeas.dec since they're IMO the best options available, sure. But I'd rather be trading threats for answers, and I have a hunch my opponent would prefer that too.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing UX Mana Denial until Modern gets the answers it needs.
WUBRG Humans BRW Mardu Pyromancer UW UW "Control" UR Blue Moon
Maynard was pretty off about his PY Day 1 prediction, and as he doesn't go into a lot of detail about his methods here, I'm not very confident in his predictions. I also don't care about Day 1 #s and most people here shouldn't either. Day 1 -> Day 2 conversion is far more important, as are conversions into the T32. I still predict we'll see the same diversity at this event as we have at every 2018 event so far.
Question, have you ever been able to adjust numbers for day 2 conversions between players that had 0 bye's and players that had more? That does influence the metagame you need to prepare for pretty significantly.
Maynard was pretty off about his PY Day 1 prediction, and as he doesn't go into a lot of detail about his methods here, I'm not very confident in his predictions. I also don't care about Day 1 #s and most people here shouldn't either. Day 1 -> Day 2 conversion is far more important, as are conversions into the T32. I still predict we'll see the same diversity at this event as we have at every 2018 event so far.
I would say that many people here care about Day 1s in that if you go to this particular GP, Hartford, CT, you can play ALL the rounds on Day 1. This is not so for Day 2. You have to be 6-2 to move on to Day 2. That is why his prediction seems pretty solid in my honest opinion. As to what will Day 2, nobody, including people like myself who have played Modern since 2012, can make that prediction. There are too many variables and variance, along with who has been testing well, to predict that. I actually like that he avoided that prediction because 1 out of 100 people will be right on a prediction like that and it would be dumb luck.
My prediction is this. The top 8 will consist on 1 Pro Player and 7 other players. Twenty or so Pro Players will not make the top 8, although half of them will Day 2. That seems like a "safe" prediction since nearly every GP is like this and 3 Byes is often better than 0-2 Byes. After the GP results, someone here will say, "Pros don't play Modern. I'm so glad a Modern specialist who plays 100 hours per week on MTGO won rather than a Pro Player who has never even heard of the Modern format until a week ago." Lol.
*BTW, my friend is going to GP Hartford and he is playing UW Turns, or "nonsense" as Pascal Maynard called it. I don't take offense. I know it's nonsense. I have been 13-5-1 with UW Turns at small Modern events so far and I know for sure it's nonsense.
**Sorry, it looks like Pascal Maynard put Turns down there right before "nonsense," lol.
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)
Sure, we are going to see the same diversity as always. 800 different linear *****decks, Jund and Mardu.
We will also see a number of totally viable blue decks and a relatively even distribution of aggro, midrange, big mana, control, etc. across the T16 and T8.
Sure, we are going to see the same diversity as always. 800 different linear *****decks, Jund and Mardu.
We will also see a number of totally viable blue decks and a relatively even distribution of aggro, midrange, big mana, control, etc. across the T16 and T8.
You made me laugh out loud. I wonder if you even play this game at times.
He's playing the same game we all are, and he's describing the results of the overwhelming majority of tournament results for most of the year accurately. He's also not being rude or condescending about it which, frankly, you are at this point. Would you please be more constructive with your criticism?
does anyone think hollow one is really strong? maybe not ban worthy but still capable of creating a toxic metagame where you either race it or lose to it?
We've had a bunch of discussion on Hollow One in here and the consensus seems to be its one of the best decks but not too good. Personally I'm a bit sick of playing against it due to the randomness/explosiveness factor and that it's so ubiquitous online.
I am curious though, what are the deck's bad matchups? Apparently Humans is favored against it? What else?
We've had a bunch of discussion on Hollow One in here and the consensus seems to be its one of the best decks but not too good. Personally I'm a bit sick of playing against it due to the randomness/explosiveness factor and that it's so ubiquitous online.
I am curious though, what are the deck's bad matchups? Apparently Humans is favored against it? What else?
I feel relic is too slow on the draw, and cage doesn't stop hollow one or gurmag angler. rest in peace is slow. leyline of the void is great but is not something i want in the sideboard. anger of the gods isnt bad but misses parts of it. the deck is still pretty strong mid and late game.
i could see affinity and storm beating it. im assuming that because its a graveyard deck, its pretty good against midrange.
Sure, we are going to see the same diversity as always. 800 different linear *****decks, Jund and Mardu.
We will also see a number of totally viable blue decks and a relatively even distribution of aggro, midrange, big mana, control, etc. across the T16 and T8.
You made me laugh out loud. I wonder if you even play this game at times. Infraction issued for flaming -- CavalryWolfPack
I'm not really sure why you are being so abrasive here. If we look at major paper events since the unban, we see a clear pattern of the exact diversity I am describing. If we look at the big three events since the unbans (2 SCG Opens, 1 GP), we see 1 each of UW Control, Jeskai Control, and Blue Moon in the aggregate T8. No deck has more than two collective T8 showings among those three events. I know some people here don't care about SCGs, so let's just focus on GP Phoenix. That event saw BtL blue-based Scapeshift in the T8 with Blue Moon missing breakers by .1 at 9th followed by UW Control at 10th, and another Moon at 11th.
If we look at more aggregated metagame statistics (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSedG2Mt1SivUMZa1Wpuz9itycmn800iAwBNIF6xgwVfsc9RKI66uSbTKkB-wRr7tjv9lDkPpz3HKKA/pubhtml), we see Blue Moon variants as the 5th most-played deck and UW Control as the 9th. If we look at the top 21 most-played decks (not 20 as there is a tie for 19th-21st), the interactive blue decks collectively make up 18% of those decks (GDS, Jeskai, UW, Blue Moon). That jumps to 22% if we include the uncategorized Scapeshifts, many of which are blue. By contrast, big mana (Amulet, ETron, GTron) are only 11% of that top list. If we add Ponza and Eldrazi as other mana ramping decks, an unfair classification but we can do it here just to prove a point, we still only hit 15%.
I am not necessarily trying to convince people who are constantly and endlessly criticizing the format. I don't know if anything will convince them of a different format view short of a Twin unban and/or a half dozen bannings. Rather, this is to try and show more neutral players (or players who are on the fence about how to feel about Modern) that there is significantly more top-tier diversity than detractors claim. I encourage people to look at these numbers and give preference to data-based conclusions instead of anecdotal and pithy ones. Sensationalist posts are good for article/Twitter/streaming business, but often make for bad format analysis.
not entirely sure tbh. what kept coming to mind were decks that could race back against it. rg eldrazi maybe? bogles?
mardu can gum up the board pretty quick, but even still i dont know if id classify it as a bad matchup. GWx company with worship seems pretty good.
playing against it as jeskai i dont feel like an underdog, but its not something id want to face a bunch like i do with humans. the thing that is annoying about the deck is the diversity of the threat base. cheap creatures, expensive creatures, big, small, artifact, recursion. it makes it very easy to get caught flat footed with cards that just dont work against their board. moreso than usual that is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
the thing that is annoying about the deck is the diversity of the threat base. cheap creatures, expensive creatures, big, small, artifact, recursion. it makes it very easy to get caught flat footed with cards that just dont work against their board. moreso than usual that is.
Yep, this is the big issue as I see it. In theory my 75 has a lot of answers but they only work in some situations.
If we look at more aggregated metagame statistics (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSedG2Mt1SivUMZa1Wpuz9itycmn800iAwBNIF6xgwVfsc9RKI66uSbTKkB-wRr7tjv9lDkPpz3HKKA/pubhtml), we see Blue Moon variants as the 5th most-played deck and UW Control as the 9th. If we look at the top 21 most-played decks (not 20 as there is a tie for 19th-21st), the interactive blue decks collectively make up 18% of those decks (GDS, Jeskai, UW, Blue Moon). That jumps to 22% if we include the uncategorized Scapeshifts, many of which are blue. By contrast, big mana (Amulet, ETron, GTron) are only 11% of that top list. If we add Ponza and Eldrazi as other mana ramping decks, an unfair classification but we can do it here just to prove a point, we still only hit 15%.
If you combine together a mish-mash of a bunch of different decks and call them the same, then sure, I guess you could inflate the numbers to say whatever you want them to say. Nevermind that "Blue Moon" is at least 3 different decks, "Jeskai" is at least two, "UW" is mostly tap-out, "Scapeshift" decks are almost entirely GR, and "GDS" is a black-based, discard-attrition deck. All of these decks look, feel, and play entirely differently from each other, including many of them commonly (and incorrectly) lumped together (like wildly different variants of Blue Moon and Jeskai).
You use "data", but you are using "data" from events in which people are making decisions and choices based on a lack of data. So essentially every event is tainted by people making deck and sideboard choices mostly in the dark. Players are preparing for these events by parsing worthless MTGO data or by aggregating results from paper events weeks or months apart, that also suffer from the same lack of data issues.
The saddest thing of all is this is likely exactly what Wizards wants out of the format: chaos. Chaos to hide whatever may or may not be the true strength of any deck or archetype. They can use this chaos to mask their poor management skills and design mistakes since we don't really know the true standing of any given deck. Some very mediocre decks look better than they really are and some very powerful decks look much more tame than they really are. But as long as we don't know about it, then the illusion of diversity stays reality.
The saddest thing of all is this is likely exactly what Wizards wants out of the format: chaos. Chaos to hide whatever may or may not be the true strength of any deck or archetype. They can use this chaos to mask their poor management skills and design mistakes since we don't really know the true standing of any given deck. Some very mediocre decks look better than they really are and some very powerful decks look much more tame than they really are. But as long as we don't know about it, then the illusion of diversity stays reality.
I also believe it's the truth behind current Modern format.
And that's why this format is worse than the others. Modern is the most chaotic among other formats.
If you combine together a mish-mash of a bunch of different decks and call them the same, then sure, I guess you could inflate the numbers to say whatever you want them to say. Nevermind that "Blue Moon" is at least 3 different decks, "Jeskai" is at least two, "UW" is mostly tap-out, "Scapeshift" decks are almost entirely GR, and "GDS" is a black-based, discard-attrition deck. All of these decks look, feel, and play entirely differently from each other, including many of them commonly (and incorrectly) lumped together (like wildly different variants of Blue Moon and Jeskai).
I'm grouping them that way because they are categorically dismissed in that grouping. There is a small group of extremely vocal and consistent players, especially in this thread but also on Reddit and on certain sites, who have never admitted any success for any of those decks as a group over the past 6-12 months. Either the decks are bad because they aren't performing, or the performances don't count for various reasons and the decks are actually bad. It's a lose-lose with this contingent because they just don't like the decks period no matter what kind of results they do or do not post. Frustratingly, this is the same group of players that wants skill-testing interactive decks in Modern and criticizes Modern for not having them... but then also doesn't want to play lower-MWP blue decks because they don't have as many free wins as other decks and require too much skill.
You use "data", but you are using "data" from events in which people are making decisions and choices based on a lack of data. So essentially every event is tainted by people making deck and sideboard choices mostly in the dark. Players are preparing for these events by parsing worthless MTGO data or by aggregating results from paper events weeks or months apart, that also suffer from the same lack of data issues.
The saddest thing of all is this is likely exactly what Wizards wants out of the format: chaos. Chaos to hide whatever may or may not be the true strength of any deck or archetype. They can use this chaos to mask their poor management skills and design mistakes since we don't really know the true standing of any given deck. Some very mediocre decks look better than they really are and some very powerful decks look much more tame than they really are. But as long as we don't know about it, then the illusion of diversity stays reality.
I literally acknowledged this possibility on the previous page. This very well might be happening and we would not know it. Until we know otherwise, however, I'm just going to describe the Modern we have and not speculate about data we have no access to. The Modern we have is diverse with over two dozen totally viable decks that can take down major events. That's Wizards' vision for the format and that is why it is so extremely popular. If the pros couldn't break it wide open with every incentive to do so and all the top Magic brainpower in the world, I'm pretty confident it wasn't breakable.
The saddest thing of all is this is likely exactly what Wizards wants out of the format: chaos. Chaos to hide whatever may or may not be the true strength of any deck or archetype. They can use this chaos to mask their poor management skills and design mistakes since we don't really know the true standing of any given deck. Some very mediocre decks look better than they really are and some very powerful decks look much more tame than they really are. But as long as we don't know about it, then the illusion of diversity stays reality.
I also believe it's the truth behind current Modern format.
And that's why this format is worse than the others. Modern is the most chaotic among other formats.
And yet, the same top players consistently have as much success in Modern as a different group of the same players have success in Legacy (a format no one describes as "chaotic.") If Modern was as chaotic, unpredictable, and skill-less as the detractors would have us believe, we would not see a consistent group of succeeding players in Modern enjoying the same performance ceiling as the top Legacy players. We would see a much lower ceiling with a much more random group of players. Instead, the top echelons of Modern players have the same Modern success as the top Legacy players do in Legacy.
None of this is to say that Modern is perfect. It is simply to fight back against these ungrounded and unprovable complaints about Modern. People need to take a more middle-of-the-road approach to these issues. It doesn't need to be such an all-or-nothing "this deck is the best, this deck totally sucks" approach. This is particularly true in Modern. Here, we see a large subset of playable, viable, competitive decks, a few decks that maybe are the best but just as well might not be, and an even greater number of decks that are more niche but still decent.
The saddest thing of all is this is likely exactly what Wizards wants out of the format: chaos. Chaos to hide whatever may or may not be the true strength of any deck or archetype. They can use this chaos to mask their poor management skills and design mistakes since we don't really know the true standing of any given deck. Some very mediocre decks look better than they really are and some very powerful decks look much more tame than they really are. But as long as we don't know about it, then the illusion of diversity stays reality.
I also believe it's the truth behind current Modern format.
And that's why this format is worse than the others. Modern is the most chaotic among other formats.
And yet, the same top players consistently have as much success in Modern as a different group of the same players have success in Legacy (a format no one describes as "chaotic.") If Modern was as chaotic, unpredictable, and skill-less as the detractors would have us believe, we would not see a consistent group of succeeding players in Modern enjoying the same performance ceiling as the top Legacy players. We would see a much lower ceiling with a much more random group of players. Instead, the top echelons of Modern players have the same Modern success as the top Legacy players do in Legacy.
Do you have statistics with what kind of decks they consistently have success? Are they 'strong' decks @cfusionp was talking about or metagame luck? Or it could be something else?
We've had a bunch of discussion on Hollow One in here and the consensus seems to be its one of the best decks but not too good. Personally I'm a bit sick of playing against it due to the randomness/explosiveness factor and that it's so ubiquitous online.
I am curious though, what are the deck's bad matchups? Apparently Humans is favored against it? What else?
Its worst matchup is losing to variance/itself.
This is really not the case, having played against it a lot myself. This is a quote from BBD's recent article:
"I'm going to make a ridiculous statement and say that in many aspects, Hollow One is the lowest variance deck in the format. With a low land count and Faithless Looting and Street Wraith to churn through the deck to find relevant cards and a high density of both creatures that come out of the graveyard and creatures that are big enough to bring back Flamewake Phoenix, Hollow One is basically a dredge deck without all the horrible hands that Dredge has to offer. It rarely screws or floods and presents a turn four goldfish with creatures that are hard to interact with."
Before I say anything else, I have a real problem with people who try to force their opinions on what constitutes a (insert-color-here) deck and use that for the basis of an argument as though it's fact. What the heck makes Jeskai more 'blue' than GDS? Vice versa? Or what makes Humans not a 'white' deck? It all depends on what definition you're using for how decks are described based on color. It seems insane to me to try and say a deck can't be described as X color because it's doing Y instead of Z. To say any one color isn't doing well or is doing well just based on your own view of what defines each piece of the color pie seems ludicrous. However, it doesn't get offensive until someone starts pushing that viewpoint on to others, even going so far as to say what they're saying should lose merit because it doesn't match your definitions. That just really grinds my gears. /rant
What I really want to talk about is Hollow One, specifically in paper since that's my experience against it. It doesnt lose to itself nearly as often as you'd think, and it's very resilient to typical removal suites. Since it started showing up at my LGS, I've had to make some changes to my deck and sideboard to keep up, but I don't mind that. It reminds me a bit of my Tron matchups, just in the sense that if they get the god hand, I've got almost zero chance of winning, but outside of that, it's how I play that will really determine how the games go.
@ktkenshinx - i'm glad somebody mentioned this. this is the lantern deck that doesnt lose to tron because of the ghost quarter effects. it even mainboards chalice. i mentioned this deck a couple months back. i thought it was very good and was hoping they'd axe ensnaring bridge in the last ban announcement.
i think people tend to forget that variance goes both ways.
hollow one may not be losing to itself, but the difference between its average draw and is best is substantial; which means chance still plays a considerable role in its overall success.
i believe this lies at the heart of the discontent that some feel about the format. there is a certain class of decks that enjoy the benefits gained from the better end of variance while others do not. at least not to the same extent.
people expect chance to be involved when they play mtg. both you and your opponents draw fall on some quality spectrum, and how those match up is a determining factor in how games play out. for instance:
bad - poor - average - good - great
when the difference is substantial enough games become lopsided, which is just a normal part of the game. however with modern specifically the difference required for unfair/linear decks to reach this state is less than it is for fair/nonlinear decks.
categorize it as 'free wins' or whatever you like, but for the most part i think people arent wishing for more free wins of their own but rather wish it wasnt so easy for opponents to get free wins off of them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Do you have statistics with what kind of decks they consistently have success? Are they 'strong' decks @cfusionp was talking about or metagame luck? Or it could be something else?
It's not luck, unless Legacy success is also luck-based. There is too much consistent performance across too many events for it to be luck. But I don't know what decks they are playing. Let me crowdsource it to you guys! Here's the list of Modern players with performance records greater than 2 standard deviations over the average Modern player performance, AND those with at least 3 or more Modern events under their belts:
Carpenter, Brad [US]
Check, Matthew [US]
Davis, Derrick [US]
De Leon, Santiago [US]
Donegan, Dylan [US]
Faulkner, Andrew [US]
Firer, Harlan [US]
Friedman, Ben [US]
Henry, Jeremy [US]
Jessup, Andrew [US]
Jones, Kevin [US]
Knieser, Harrison [US]
McDuffie, Korey [US]
Medrano, Adonnys [US]
Merriam, Ross [US]
Michaels, Lucas [US]
Mullen, Collins [US]
Musser, Dan [US]
Nelson, Brad [US]
Nikolich, Benjamin [US]
Ragan, Ben [US]
Rosum, Jonathan [US]
Russell, Maddie [US]
Scherer, Caleb [US]
Shields, Josh [US]
Simmons, Scott [US]
Spicklemire, Clay [US]
Stanton, Mark [US]
Steckhan, Mark [US]
Syed, Zan [US]
Thorson, Ricky [US]
Trevathan, Rio [US]
Tubergen, Pieter [US]
Wisenberg, David [US]
Wood, Ricky [US]
Here's a similar list with the same parameters, but for Legacy:
Abrams, Cory [US]
Ben-Sasson, Eetai [US]
Cali, Rich [US]
Carpenter, Brad [US]
Davis, Jim [US]
Demicco, Ed [US]
Firer, Harlan [US]
Jessup, Andrew [US]
Kassis, Eli [US]
Kuranda, Matthew [US]
Long, David [US]
Lossett, Joe [US]
Magalhaes, Edgar [US]
Marshall, Bob [US]
Morawski, Jonathan [US]
Ross, Tom [US]
Roukas, Sam [US]
Stagno, Chris [US]
Walker, Noah [US]
Witten, Eliot [US]
Wray, James [US]
Yu, Jarvis [US]
All data is post-GGT/Probe ban SCG Opens. Let me know what all of you find!
That said, H1 clearly has some major weaknesses, hence its horrible conversion rates from Day 2 to T32 at some recent events. Between GP Phx and the recent SCG Opens, H1 sent 22 pilots to Day 2 and only 3 to the T32. Yuck. Clearly something is holding it back, but I don't think that "something" is its internal inconsistency. I think it's more of a matchup issue. Historically, decks that placed lots of copies into Day 2 but failed to convert to T32 had problems beating the other Day 2 decks. This is likely what is happening here if previous stats are any indication.
Maynard was pretty off about his PY Day 1 prediction, and as he doesn't go into a lot of detail about his methods here, I'm not very confident in his predictions. I also don't care about Day 1 #s and most people here shouldn't either. Day 1 -> Day 2 conversion is far more important, as are conversions into the T32. I still predict we'll see the same diversity at this event as we have at every 2018 event so far.
we got dreams too you know.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)lol, just let me beat up on the jank man, let me live my dreams!
Spirits
It's the fact that with the exception of Jeskai preying on decks that are weak to 3 damage, the Modern card pool has pretty much forced Control into Ponza Light. I'll suck it up and play RemandMoon or FieldOfSpreadingSeas.dec since they're IMO the best options available, sure. But I'd rather be trading threats for answers, and I have a hunch my opponent would prefer that too.
WUBRG Humans
BRW Mardu Pyromancer
UW UW "Control"
UR Blue Moon
Question, have you ever been able to adjust numbers for day 2 conversions between players that had 0 bye's and players that had more? That does influence the metagame you need to prepare for pretty significantly.
I would say that many people here care about Day 1s in that if you go to this particular GP, Hartford, CT, you can play ALL the rounds on Day 1. This is not so for Day 2. You have to be 6-2 to move on to Day 2. That is why his prediction seems pretty solid in my honest opinion. As to what will Day 2, nobody, including people like myself who have played Modern since 2012, can make that prediction. There are too many variables and variance, along with who has been testing well, to predict that. I actually like that he avoided that prediction because 1 out of 100 people will be right on a prediction like that and it would be dumb luck.
My prediction is this. The top 8 will consist on 1 Pro Player and 7 other players. Twenty or so Pro Players will not make the top 8, although half of them will Day 2. That seems like a "safe" prediction since nearly every GP is like this and 3 Byes is often better than 0-2 Byes. After the GP results, someone here will say, "Pros don't play Modern. I'm so glad a Modern specialist who plays 100 hours per week on MTGO won rather than a Pro Player who has never even heard of the Modern format until a week ago." Lol.
*BTW, my friend is going to GP Hartford and he is playing UW Turns, or "nonsense" as Pascal Maynard called it. I don't take offense. I know it's nonsense. I have been 13-5-1 with UW Turns at small Modern events so far and I know for sure it's nonsense.
**Sorry, it looks like Pascal Maynard put Turns down there right before "nonsense," lol.
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)We will also see a number of totally viable blue decks and a relatively even distribution of aggro, midrange, big mana, control, etc. across the T16 and T8.
Spirits
I am curious though, what are the deck's bad matchups? Apparently Humans is favored against it? What else?
Its worst matchup is losing to variance/itself.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
i could see affinity and storm beating it. im assuming that because its a graveyard deck, its pretty good against midrange.
I'm not really sure why you are being so abrasive here. If we look at major paper events since the unban, we see a clear pattern of the exact diversity I am describing. If we look at the big three events since the unbans (2 SCG Opens, 1 GP), we see 1 each of UW Control, Jeskai Control, and Blue Moon in the aggregate T8. No deck has more than two collective T8 showings among those three events. I know some people here don't care about SCGs, so let's just focus on GP Phoenix. That event saw BtL blue-based Scapeshift in the T8 with Blue Moon missing breakers by .1 at 9th followed by UW Control at 10th, and another Moon at 11th.
If we look at more aggregated metagame statistics (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSedG2Mt1SivUMZa1Wpuz9itycmn800iAwBNIF6xgwVfsc9RKI66uSbTKkB-wRr7tjv9lDkPpz3HKKA/pubhtml), we see Blue Moon variants as the 5th most-played deck and UW Control as the 9th. If we look at the top 21 most-played decks (not 20 as there is a tie for 19th-21st), the interactive blue decks collectively make up 18% of those decks (GDS, Jeskai, UW, Blue Moon). That jumps to 22% if we include the uncategorized Scapeshifts, many of which are blue. By contrast, big mana (Amulet, ETron, GTron) are only 11% of that top list. If we add Ponza and Eldrazi as other mana ramping decks, an unfair classification but we can do it here just to prove a point, we still only hit 15%.
I am not necessarily trying to convince people who are constantly and endlessly criticizing the format. I don't know if anything will convince them of a different format view short of a Twin unban and/or a half dozen bannings. Rather, this is to try and show more neutral players (or players who are on the fence about how to feel about Modern) that there is significantly more top-tier diversity than detractors claim. I encourage people to look at these numbers and give preference to data-based conclusions instead of anecdotal and pithy ones. Sensationalist posts are good for article/Twitter/streaming business, but often make for bad format analysis.
mardu can gum up the board pretty quick, but even still i dont know if id classify it as a bad matchup. GWx company with worship seems pretty good.
playing against it as jeskai i dont feel like an underdog, but its not something id want to face a bunch like i do with humans. the thing that is annoying about the deck is the diversity of the threat base. cheap creatures, expensive creatures, big, small, artifact, recursion. it makes it very easy to get caught flat footed with cards that just dont work against their board. moreso than usual that is.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Yep, this is the big issue as I see it. In theory my 75 has a lot of answers but they only work in some situations.
If you combine together a mish-mash of a bunch of different decks and call them the same, then sure, I guess you could inflate the numbers to say whatever you want them to say. Nevermind that "Blue Moon" is at least 3 different decks, "Jeskai" is at least two, "UW" is mostly tap-out, "Scapeshift" decks are almost entirely GR, and "GDS" is a black-based, discard-attrition deck. All of these decks look, feel, and play entirely differently from each other, including many of them commonly (and incorrectly) lumped together (like wildly different variants of Blue Moon and Jeskai).
You use "data", but you are using "data" from events in which people are making decisions and choices based on a lack of data. So essentially every event is tainted by people making deck and sideboard choices mostly in the dark. Players are preparing for these events by parsing worthless MTGO data or by aggregating results from paper events weeks or months apart, that also suffer from the same lack of data issues.
The saddest thing of all is this is likely exactly what Wizards wants out of the format: chaos. Chaos to hide whatever may or may not be the true strength of any deck or archetype. They can use this chaos to mask their poor management skills and design mistakes since we don't really know the true standing of any given deck. Some very mediocre decks look better than they really are and some very powerful decks look much more tame than they really are. But as long as we don't know about it, then the illusion of diversity stays reality.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I also believe it's the truth behind current Modern format.
And that's why this format is worse than the others. Modern is the most chaotic among other formats.
I'm grouping them that way because they are categorically dismissed in that grouping. There is a small group of extremely vocal and consistent players, especially in this thread but also on Reddit and on certain sites, who have never admitted any success for any of those decks as a group over the past 6-12 months. Either the decks are bad because they aren't performing, or the performances don't count for various reasons and the decks are actually bad. It's a lose-lose with this contingent because they just don't like the decks period no matter what kind of results they do or do not post. Frustratingly, this is the same group of players that wants skill-testing interactive decks in Modern and criticizes Modern for not having them... but then also doesn't want to play lower-MWP blue decks because they don't have as many free wins as other decks and require too much skill.
I literally acknowledged this possibility on the previous page. This very well might be happening and we would not know it. Until we know otherwise, however, I'm just going to describe the Modern we have and not speculate about data we have no access to. The Modern we have is diverse with over two dozen totally viable decks that can take down major events. That's Wizards' vision for the format and that is why it is so extremely popular. If the pros couldn't break it wide open with every incentive to do so and all the top Magic brainpower in the world, I'm pretty confident it wasn't breakable.
And yet, the same top players consistently have as much success in Modern as a different group of the same players have success in Legacy (a format no one describes as "chaotic.") If Modern was as chaotic, unpredictable, and skill-less as the detractors would have us believe, we would not see a consistent group of succeeding players in Modern enjoying the same performance ceiling as the top Legacy players. We would see a much lower ceiling with a much more random group of players. Instead, the top echelons of Modern players have the same Modern success as the top Legacy players do in Legacy.
None of this is to say that Modern is perfect. It is simply to fight back against these ungrounded and unprovable complaints about Modern. People need to take a more middle-of-the-road approach to these issues. It doesn't need to be such an all-or-nothing "this deck is the best, this deck totally sucks" approach. This is particularly true in Modern. Here, we see a large subset of playable, viable, competitive decks, a few decks that maybe are the best but just as well might not be, and an even greater number of decks that are more niche but still decent.
Do you have statistics with what kind of decks they consistently have success? Are they 'strong' decks @cfusionp was talking about or metagame luck? Or it could be something else?
"I'm going to make a ridiculous statement and say that in many aspects, Hollow One is the lowest variance deck in the format. With a low land count and Faithless Looting and Street Wraith to churn through the deck to find relevant cards and a high density of both creatures that come out of the graveyard and creatures that are big enough to bring back Flamewake Phoenix, Hollow One is basically a dredge deck without all the horrible hands that Dredge has to offer. It rarely screws or floods and presents a turn four goldfish with creatures that are hard to interact with."
What I really want to talk about is Hollow One, specifically in paper since that's my experience against it. It doesnt lose to itself nearly as often as you'd think, and it's very resilient to typical removal suites. Since it started showing up at my LGS, I've had to make some changes to my deck and sideboard to keep up, but I don't mind that. It reminds me a bit of my Tron matchups, just in the sense that if they get the god hand, I've got almost zero chance of winning, but outside of that, it's how I play that will really determine how the games go.
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/1019085#paper
hollow one may not be losing to itself, but the difference between its average draw and is best is substantial; which means chance still plays a considerable role in its overall success.
i believe this lies at the heart of the discontent that some feel about the format. there is a certain class of decks that enjoy the benefits gained from the better end of variance while others do not. at least not to the same extent.
people expect chance to be involved when they play mtg. both you and your opponents draw fall on some quality spectrum, and how those match up is a determining factor in how games play out. for instance:
bad - poor - average - good - great
when the difference is substantial enough games become lopsided, which is just a normal part of the game. however with modern specifically the difference required for unfair/linear decks to reach this state is less than it is for fair/nonlinear decks.
categorize it as 'free wins' or whatever you like, but for the most part i think people arent wishing for more free wins of their own but rather wish it wasnt so easy for opponents to get free wins off of them.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)It's not luck, unless Legacy success is also luck-based. There is too much consistent performance across too many events for it to be luck. But I don't know what decks they are playing. Let me crowdsource it to you guys! Here's the list of Modern players with performance records greater than 2 standard deviations over the average Modern player performance, AND those with at least 3 or more Modern events under their belts:
Carpenter, Brad [US]
Check, Matthew [US]
Davis, Derrick [US]
De Leon, Santiago [US]
Donegan, Dylan [US]
Faulkner, Andrew [US]
Firer, Harlan [US]
Friedman, Ben [US]
Henry, Jeremy [US]
Jessup, Andrew [US]
Jones, Kevin [US]
Knieser, Harrison [US]
McDuffie, Korey [US]
Medrano, Adonnys [US]
Merriam, Ross [US]
Michaels, Lucas [US]
Mullen, Collins [US]
Musser, Dan [US]
Nelson, Brad [US]
Nikolich, Benjamin [US]
Ragan, Ben [US]
Rosum, Jonathan [US]
Russell, Maddie [US]
Scherer, Caleb [US]
Shields, Josh [US]
Simmons, Scott [US]
Spicklemire, Clay [US]
Stanton, Mark [US]
Steckhan, Mark [US]
Syed, Zan [US]
Thorson, Ricky [US]
Trevathan, Rio [US]
Tubergen, Pieter [US]
Wisenberg, David [US]
Wood, Ricky [US]
Here's a similar list with the same parameters, but for Legacy:
Abrams, Cory [US]
Ben-Sasson, Eetai [US]
Cali, Rich [US]
Carpenter, Brad [US]
Davis, Jim [US]
Demicco, Ed [US]
Firer, Harlan [US]
Jessup, Andrew [US]
Kassis, Eli [US]
Kuranda, Matthew [US]
Long, David [US]
Lossett, Joe [US]
Magalhaes, Edgar [US]
Marshall, Bob [US]
Morawski, Jonathan [US]
Ross, Tom [US]
Roukas, Sam [US]
Stagno, Chris [US]
Walker, Noah [US]
Witten, Eliot [US]
Wray, James [US]
Yu, Jarvis [US]
All data is post-GGT/Probe ban SCG Opens. Let me know what all of you find!
Re: Hollow One
If H1 has any weaknesses, inconsistency is not one of them. See many of the posts made on Reddit about this, the testing records of many top players, or this article by Karsten: https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/how-reliable-is-hollow-one/
That said, H1 clearly has some major weaknesses, hence its horrible conversion rates from Day 2 to T32 at some recent events. Between GP Phx and the recent SCG Opens, H1 sent 22 pilots to Day 2 and only 3 to the T32. Yuck. Clearly something is holding it back, but I don't think that "something" is its internal inconsistency. I think it's more of a matchup issue. Historically, decks that placed lots of copies into Day 2 but failed to convert to T32 had problems beating the other Day 2 decks. This is likely what is happening here if previous stats are any indication.