Meanwhile, Cfusion is still unhappy unless it's 2015. If you don't like the format now you never will, the meta is wide open; it doesn't matter if Jeskai did poorly on camera. I'm not trolling you, I just really think maybe modern isn't for you if only one deck (I guess two, counting delver before the probe ban) was keeping you in the format.
I just dislike that all the top decks of the format are based around attacking on a narrow or unconventional axis, forcing opponents to either race them or hope to draw extremely specific, narrow hate cards (or hope to have an excellent matchup). The nature of games and matches is just so much more toxic and polarizing than what I would like. In the meantime, I'm playing a UR Faerie/Delver build (modified from this list). It's not good, but at least it's fun and I don't pull my hair out in games like the miserable on-camera match of GDS vs Martyr of Sands.dec. School is starting soon though, and I will probably stop playing in paper entirely until I get settled into my new classroom. So I guess it's a win-win?
Honestly, this just reads like someone who wants to abolish all their bad matchups. Jeskai Control has an excellent record in the recent big events. That deck seems to fit all your metrics, except it admittedly has some bad matchups (which I know you don't want). GDS is another option that seems to check all the interactive and skill-testing boxes.
The funny thing is that I can't think of ANY Modern deck from any period of time that meets all your criteria. It's like some players got even more restrictive about their Modern preferences the more they identified perceived format issues.
Having bad matchups is not a problem whatsoever. I've repeated myself on this a number of times. The problem comes when the bad matchups are very, very bad, and the good matchups are barely in your favor. Bad matchups should be offset with great matchups, not coin flips. There's a reason every single top deck is where it is, and it's the ability to offset bad matchups with free wins.
The other topic entirely is the "battle of sideboards" which originally was cited for why GGT was banned. Because our top decks most attack from odd and unique angles (and dodge or are irrelevant to many traditional forms of interaction), many games play out based on who has a faster start and who draws their hate card. Not exactly engaging or exciting.
Both jeskai and u/w control were well represented between both GP Sao Paulo and the SCG. I've stated this here many times before, but control decks should 100% be a meta decision, because if you were able to sleeve up the same 75 from tournament to tournament the deck is most likely way too strong. This is because modern is such a wide open format. Do you want to play control and think tron/GDS will be more prevalent, well U/W would probably be the choice. If you expect a lot of go wide decks, go jeskai. We can see people were rewarded for these meta calls between the top 8 and 32.
Let's say you see a lot of u/w control in one tournament, then none in the next but there is jeskai, it doesn't mean that u/w suddenly became unplayable and jeskai is the new go-to control deck, it means that people made a meta call. It could very well switch the very next week. We have examples of very good builds for both decks, the onus is just on the control player to decide which will be better for any given tournament/meta.
UW control typically now is playing serum visions and spreading seas to move through the deck and maybe one jace and rev. They are also more tapout oriented because they run gideon of the trials. Problem is currently that the strategy is great when you can maintain velocity through the deck, but a few key discards and being behind can put that deck way behind compared to other control decks. Jeskai has the burn em out strategy, grixis control has the kolaghan's command shenanigans, esper has charms and think twice, and UB usually is running a 4 of AV and SV.
Jeskai did well at SCG because the pilots were top players on their circuit. I'm not bemoaning the state of blue nor am i thinking one event means the sky is falling or jeskai is now tier 1. I still think their are unbans to be had.
@Holydiva you were a big proponent to uw being good when a lot of us were bashing the deck. I've never felt it was a good choice personally.
Scg imo is just a bigger lgs event. Players there are average with a couple above and a lot below. You can even see it clearly on stream with the amount of misplays that they have compared to most gp streams after day 1. Jtms imo is what will make a control deck playable regularly. 4 cmc isn't too fast and it can actually close a game. I still don't think it's too strong where control just straight sees t.5 status. Sfm imo isn't going to help control because then people's creature removal are turned on. Control needs at least a midrange threat imo and snaps/lands aren't good enough. I'm fully aware people hate the idea of jtms in the format but imo that's what it'll take (or that's the card we're able to discuss anyway).
Personally, I like not having to sit through the full fifty minutes each round playing against control. I've watched legacy enough to see how all but the fastest-thinking miracle pilots really could be a slow strain to play. The format is pretty fast, to the point where control decks really get replaced by midrange at that point on the axis. I'm okay with that. I like blue based control, too. I just know that when a format isn't ideal for a certain strategy that it is better to play something else than to claim the format sucks until UB Control or something is the top dog.
I love the knee jerk reactions in here. We get a good weekend of diversity and now everything is great and no need for unbans. The format hasn't changed people and if you repaired all the matches there's a very good chance 2/3's of the top 8 decks would change. The format is the same and unbans are still perfectly fine (and welcome imo). Honestly I'm shocked no one is calling for a ban out of burn or storm with the history of this thread.
I feel that people who don't get much time to play the format really have to judge it based on a few tournaments or even 1 tournament. It's much easier for them to do that, unless they also play a certain number of matches per week (which would make them feel more familiar with the format). I personally trust my own judgment quite a bit because I play 2-3 times per week (FNM and 1-2 PPTQs) and was playing 4-6 times per week as early as 3 weeks ago. But I completely agree with your assessment.
Players think that Stoneforge Mystic can't be unbanned because a guy won the Invitational with Mono White Death and Taxes as 1 of his 2 decks. He metagamed pretty hard and got rewarded for it. It doesn't mean that D and T is Tier 1. I personally think that Stoneforge Mystic is still fine and that there are other multicolor decks that would make better use of it.
The logic is "the format is great why mess with it". I personally dislike this logic. The format could be much better...
How? How could it possibly be better. You can play anything you want and compete. Everything from slivers to martyr to elves can place in the top 32 of a big tournament along with prison, control, midrange, combo, ramp, and agro being viable. The field is so wide open now. If you don't like this modern, you never will.
Hypothesis #1: Advocates of certain decks claim their archetype is "not a valid tournament option." Any results somehow are written off automatically as pure luck. Also, their concept of viable generally means having zero bad matchups.
Ok, yep. I think you're right. Sad, because there's so much goodness going around right now that no one should be on the sidelines sulking. There probably won't ever be a better time to play Modern than right now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WoTC, thank you for finally announcing the Modern format, an eternal format where everyone can participate.
Meanwhile, Cfusion is still unhappy unless it's 2015. If you don't like the format now you never will, the meta is wide open; it doesn't matter if Jeskai did poorly on camera. I'm not trolling you, I just really think maybe modern isn't for you if only one deck (I guess two, counting delver before the probe ban) was keeping you in the format.
I just dislike that all the top decks of the format are based around attacking on a narrow or unconventional axis, forcing opponents to either race them or hope to draw extremely specific, narrow hate cards (or hope to have an excellent matchup). The nature of games and matches is just so much more toxic and polarizing than what I would like. In the meantime, I'm playing a UR Faerie/Delver build (modified from this list). It's not good, but at least it's fun and I don't pull my hair out in games like the miserable on-camera match of GDS vs Martyr of Sands.dec. School is starting soon though, and I will probably stop playing in paper entirely until I get settled into my new classroom. So I guess it's a win-win?
Cfusion, dude, Sheridan is right on the mark, cfusion, you just want a deck that doesn't have too many weaknesses. GBX has some atrocious matchups, with a ton of barely favorable matchups in the 5 to 10 percent favorable zones, along with a bunch of Grindy, hard earned wins. You honestly need to suck it up, don't play a fair deck if you're worried about not having free wins but some really bad blowout matches.
If you're worried about chalice and caverns shutting down your deck, make a meta call and don't play your control deck
Meanwhile, Cfusion is still unhappy unless it's 2015. If you don't like the format now you never will, the meta is wide open; it doesn't matter if Jeskai did poorly on camera. I'm not trolling you, I just really think maybe modern isn't for you if only one deck (I guess two, counting delver before the probe ban) was keeping you in the format.
I just dislike that all the top decks of the format are based around attacking on a narrow or unconventional axis, forcing opponents to either race them or hope to draw extremely specific, narrow hate cards (or hope to have an excellent matchup). The nature of games and matches is just so much more toxic and polarizing than what I would like. In the meantime, I'm playing a UR Faerie/Delver build (modified from this list). It's not good, but at least it's fun and I don't pull my hair out in games like the miserable on-camera match of GDS vs Martyr of Sands.dec. School is starting soon though, and I will probably stop playing in paper entirely until I get settled into my new classroom. So I guess it's a win-win?
Cfusion, dude, Sheridan is right on the mark, cfusion, you just want a deck that doesn't have too many weaknesses. GBX has some atrocious matchups, with a ton of barely favorable matchups in the 5 to 10 percent favorable zones, along with a bunch of Grindy, hard earned wins. You honestly need to suck it up, don't play a fair deck if you're worried about not having free wins but some really bad blowout matches.
If you're worried about chalice and caverns shutting down your deck, make a meta call and don't play your control deck
That's not what I'm saying at all and I already replied to this multiple times, including specifically to the post you quoted. Regardless, I'm not even playing in paper anymore, as I also mentioned, so what difference does it make what I think of the format?
Meanwhile, Cfusion is still unhappy unless it's 2015. If you don't like the format now you never will, the meta is wide open; it doesn't matter if Jeskai did poorly on camera. I'm not trolling you, I just really think maybe modern isn't for you if only one deck (I guess two, counting delver before the probe ban) was keeping you in the format.
I just dislike that all the top decks of the format are based around attacking on a narrow or unconventional axis, forcing opponents to either race them or hope to draw extremely specific, narrow hate cards (or hope to have an excellent matchup). The nature of games and matches is just so much more toxic and polarizing than what I would like. In the meantime, I'm playing a UR Faerie/Delver build (modified from this list). It's not good, but at least it's fun and I don't pull my hair out in games like the miserable on-camera match of GDS vs Martyr of Sands.dec. School is starting soon though, and I will probably stop playing in paper entirely until I get settled into my new classroom. So I guess it's a win-win?
Cfusion, dude, Sheridan is right on the mark, cfusion, you just want a deck that doesn't have too many weaknesses. GBX has some atrocious matchups, with a ton of barely favorable matchups in the 5 to 10 percent favorable zones, along with a bunch of Grindy, hard earned wins. You honestly need to suck it up, don't play a fair deck if you're worried about not having free wins but some really bad blowout matches.
If you're worried about chalice and caverns shutting down your deck, make a meta call and don't play your control deck
That's not what I'm saying at all and I already replied to this multiple times, including specifically to the post you quoted. Regardless, I'm not even playing in paper anymore, as I also mentioned, so what difference does it make what I think of the format?
Well they do care, mods silence people like me and Hellfire if we say anything bad about the format. I don't find it rewarding enough to work on getting good at the format which is why I dread the 3 months PPTQ season when it's Modern. It's not like Modern has 10x the payout in prizes because it is at least 10x the work to win a sufficient amount of matches to justify the time and money. Modern just doesn't have the type of decks I typically enjoy playing so I dislike it for that reason.
Honestly, the past year of Modern has caused more stress and headaches than it's worth, to me. It's becoming less and less fun as more and more narrow "gotcha" decks keep topping the charts and make us play the sideboard roulette game (or force goldfish racing). It's probably why I spent most of the past year moving towards Commander, other board games/card games, and PC sim racing. More fun, more reward, less needless feelbads. I keep an eye on Modern because I want it to be fun again, but it's just not fun to me as the format is now. With a few rare exceptions, whether I win or lose, the majority of games and matches themselves have been so deeply unsatisfying to actually play.
Meanwhile, Cfusion is still unhappy unless it's 2015. If you don't like the format now you never will, the meta is wide open; it doesn't matter if Jeskai did poorly on camera. I'm not trolling you, I just really think maybe modern isn't for you if only one deck (I guess two, counting delver before the probe ban) was keeping you in the format.
I just dislike that all the top decks of the format are based around attacking on a narrow or unconventional axis, forcing opponents to either race them or hope to draw extremely specific, narrow hate cards (or hope to have an excellent matchup). The nature of games and matches is just so much more toxic and polarizing than what I would like. In the meantime, I'm playing a UR Faerie/Delver build (modified from this list). It's not good, but at least it's fun and I don't pull my hair out in games like the miserable on-camera match of GDS vs Martyr of Sands.dec. School is starting soon though, and I will probably stop playing in paper entirely until I get settled into my new classroom. So I guess it's a win-win?
Cfusion, dude, Sheridan is right on the mark, cfusion, you just want a deck that doesn't have too many weaknesses. GBX has some atrocious matchups, with a ton of barely favorable matchups in the 5 to 10 percent favorable zones, along with a bunch of Grindy, hard earned wins. You honestly need to suck it up, don't play a fair deck if you're worried about not having free wins but some really bad blowout matches.
If you're worried about chalice and caverns shutting down your deck, make a meta call and don't play your control deck
That's not what I'm saying at all and I already replied to this multiple times, including specifically to the post you quoted. Regardless, I'm not even playing in paper anymore, as I also mentioned, so what difference does it make what I think of the format?
Well they do care, mods silence people like me and Hellfire if we say anything bad about the format. I don't find it rewarding enough to work on getting good at the format which is why I dread the 3 months PPTQ season when it's Modern. It's not like Modern has 10x the payout in prizes because it is at least 10x the work to win a sufficient amount of matches to justify the time and money. Modern just doesn't have the type of decks I typically enjoy playing so I dislike it for that reason.
Technically, the mods repeatedly ban you for breaking several of the forum rules in every post, including but not limited to:
Flaming, off topic personal grievances w/o constructive feedback, and the big one - format bashing. Hurry up and list which wildly exaggerated scenario/ game of chance you'd have better success with than modern and move on.
Public Mod Note
(Xaricore):
Warning issued for trolling.
Meanwhile, Cfusion is still unhappy unless it's 2015. If you don't like the format now you never will, the meta is wide open; it doesn't matter if Jeskai did poorly on camera. I'm not trolling you, I just really think maybe modern isn't for you if only one deck (I guess two, counting delver before the probe ban) was keeping you in the format.
I just dislike that all the top decks of the format are based around attacking on a narrow or unconventional axis, forcing opponents to either race them or hope to draw extremely specific, narrow hate cards (or hope to have an excellent matchup). The nature of games and matches is just so much more toxic and polarizing than what I would like. In the meantime, I'm playing a UR Faerie/Delver build (modified from this list). It's not good, but at least it's fun and I don't pull my hair out in games like the miserable on-camera match of GDS vs Martyr of Sands.dec. School is starting soon though, and I will probably stop playing in paper entirely until I get settled into my new classroom. So I guess it's a win-win?
Cfusion, dude, Sheridan is right on the mark, cfusion, you just want a deck that doesn't have too many weaknesses. GBX has some atrocious matchups, with a ton of barely favorable matchups in the 5 to 10 percent favorable zones, along with a bunch of Grindy, hard earned wins. You honestly need to suck it up, don't play a fair deck if you're worried about not having free wins but some really bad blowout matches.
If you're worried about chalice and caverns shutting down your deck, make a meta call and don't play your control deck
That's not what I'm saying at all and I already replied to this multiple times, including specifically to the post you quoted. Regardless, I'm not even playing in paper anymore, as I also mentioned, so what difference does it make what I think of the format?
Well they do care, mods silence people like me and Hellfire if we say anything bad about the format. I don't find it rewarding enough to work on getting good at the format which is why I dread the 3 months PPTQ season when it's Modern. It's not like Modern has 10x the payout in prizes because it is at least 10x the work to win a sufficient amount of matches to justify the time and money. Modern just doesn't have the type of decks I typically enjoy playing so I dislike it for that reason.
So you don't want to have to put in any work, and expect wins to just be given to you when you play against other opponents that are willing to invest the money it takes to enter a PPTQ? And you don't see anything wrong with this?
EDIT: To be clear, you don't have a "type of deck". That refers to play style preference. You just want a deck that is so obviously broken there isn't a point in playing anything else so you can study the mirror and only the mirror. Go play chess.
Meanwhile, Cfusion is still unhappy unless it's 2015. If you don't like the format now you never will, the meta is wide open; it doesn't matter if Jeskai did poorly on camera. I'm not trolling you, I just really think maybe modern isn't for you if only one deck (I guess two, counting delver before the probe ban) was keeping you in the format.
I just dislike that all the top decks of the format are based around attacking on a narrow or unconventional axis, forcing opponents to either race them or hope to draw extremely specific, narrow hate cards (or hope to have an excellent matchup). The nature of games and matches is just so much more toxic and polarizing than what I would like. In the meantime, I'm playing a UR Faerie/Delver build (modified from this list). It's not good, but at least it's fun and I don't pull my hair out in games like the miserable on-camera match of GDS vs Martyr of Sands.dec. School is starting soon though, and I will probably stop playing in paper entirely until I get settled into my new classroom. So I guess it's a win-win?
Cfusion, dude, Sheridan is right on the mark, cfusion, you just want a deck that doesn't have too many weaknesses. GBX has some atrocious matchups, with a ton of barely favorable matchups in the 5 to 10 percent favorable zones, along with a bunch of Grindy, hard earned wins. You honestly need to suck it up, don't play a fair deck if you're worried about not having free wins but some really bad blowout matches.
If you're worried about chalice and caverns shutting down your deck, make a meta call and don't play your control deck
That's not what I'm saying at all and I already replied to this multiple times, including specifically to the post you quoted. Regardless, I'm not even playing in paper anymore, as I also mentioned, so what difference does it make what I think of the format?
Well they do care, mods silence people like me and Hellfire if we say anything bad about the format. I don't find it rewarding enough to work on getting good at the format which is why I dread the 3 months PPTQ season when it's Modern. It's not like Modern has 10x the payout in prizes because it is at least 10x the work to win a sufficient amount of matches to justify the time and money. Modern just doesn't have the type of decks I typically enjoy playing so I dislike it for that reason.
There's plenty of negative talk about the format that's allowed in this forum. It's only when it's consistently unhelpful to the discussion that it becomes a problem. I think everyone here agrees that Modern has some problems and could be improved, despite what their current feelings are for the format. It's the constant complaining about the perceived "roulette" nature of Modern and repeated shouting of how winning die rolls contributes more to victory than actual choices. This is just broken record complaining without progressing the conversation in any meaningful way. It's not constructive and it doesn't present solutions to the perceived problems of the format.
I doubt anyone will shed a tear for those getting banned for breaking the forum rules around here, because it's mostly people who have been spewing this same viewpoint over and over. If you think you're getting banned because you're "speaking the truth" and the forum mods are just "out to get you" for being negative, then I suggest you reread much of this forum. It has plenty of people complaining about different aspects of the format, yet there are few that actually get silenced. Perhaps you should reevaluate why that is.
I love the argument "Oh you have a complaint about modern, you just want zero bad matchups" we have some pretty strong circle jerking on both ends of the spectrum but this is just kinda par for the course. The modern player base is interesting to say the least
On the topic of U/W control seeing much more play online then in paper, I think a big factor here is the length of games. I have played U/W control in paper for a while and it can be very frustrating when the opponent plays slowly. You can call a judge to watch for slow play, but if the opponent takes a full minute to ponder every decision (which they are entitled to do) you will invariably go to time in the round. The chess clock concept on MTGO causes your opponent to lose in this scenario, but in paper events you likely just got a draw for the round. To play paper events, control decks need a faster way to close out games, and this is why I think we see more results from Jeskai control with burn spells to end games. This is unfortunate in my mind as the deck has enough challenges without having to worry about the pace of play of your opponent.
There's a big different between having a complaint about modern and hyperbole to suit your needs. When Cfusion says things like "I just dislike that all the top decks of the format are based around attacking on a narrow or unconventional axis, forcing opponents to either race them or hope to draw extremely specific, narrow hate cards", it is purposefully clouding reality while hurting legitimate complaints about the format.
Look at some of the top decks. GDS is a tempo/control deck attacking from the same axis that jund did - not exactly narrow or unconventional. The only thing unconventional about it is how aggressively they attack their own life, immediately putting them in a dangerous position. Affinity can be answered with every piece of removal in the game as well as the biggest SB hosers in modern. UW/jeskai control are control decks, generally the exact type of deck that those complaining about control/color parity in modern ask for, the latter of which has a fantastic affinity MU. The other top decks represent big mana, midrange, combo, and aggro - AKA *every modern archetype represented in top tier decks*
So yes, it definitely comes off as wanting 0 bad MU's when you take what people say and actually evaluate it against the meta.
Personally, I like not having to sit through the full fifty minutes each round playing against control. I've watched legacy enough to see how all but the fastest-thinking miracle pilots really could be a slow strain to play. The format is pretty fast, to the point where control decks really get replaced by midrange at that point on the axis. I'm okay with that. I like blue based control, too. I just know that when a format isn't ideal for a certain strategy that it is better to play something else than to claim the format sucks until UB Control or something is the top dog.
Legacy is different because the existence of Wasteland means you have to think more carefully about fetches/basics. Stifle also gets maindecked and is a consideration, and obviously FOW/Daze, and even Surgical extraction can be used to wreck a Brainstorm or Tutor, Tutoring existing itself the existence of a lot of "I win" combos all tend to make turns, especially early turns, take longer, that much is true. But there is often a lot of Mtg going on. On the turns that seem to take a while you probably have a huge number of options too, it is the nature of that format. In Modern I find the relative lack of "gotcha" plays make turns go quicker, but that is because there feels like there is less to think about without tutoring and free spells.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People with belligerent signatures are trying to compensate for something....
Isn't that the 70% guy? I wouldn't even bother responding to him.
I don't feel that you dismiss what someone says just because of this. My win percentage is 3.8% less than that and I certainly want to improve. I had a personal goal of getting to 65%, which took a few months playing good decks. Now I am aiming at 70%. There's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't make me a bad person. I still have too much fun with this format (currently having fun with Knightfall and Humans). But I also have an urge to do super well.
If we start having goal posts like this, then where does it start? Someone may want to have a 40% win rate in Modern. Someone may want to have an 80% win rate. Honestly, everyone has different goals and that's fine. (It's also part of what makes it so tough for anyone to agree on anything in Modern.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
I love the argument "Oh you have a complaint about modern, you just want zero bad matchups" we have some pretty strong circle jerking on both ends of the spectrum but this is just kinda par for the course. The modern player base is interesting to say the least
That IS their complaint though. At least sisicat admits it; other Modern critics just beat around the bush. People don't want to play decks like Ux Control ans BGx because they perceive the bad matchups are too bad and the good matchups aren't good enough, and their proposed solution is almost always to ban bad matchup cards or unban cards that disrupt format balance. They also routinely ignore the performance of these allegedly sub-optimal decks in big events. Jeskai and Abzan did great this weekend. But instead of celebrating that success or looking to build from it, many critics just dismiss it, ignore it, or doubt it.
For example, Abzan had a great performance all weekend despite numerous people saying it sucked due to unwinnable big mana matchups. And yet, Abzan did well in a field with tons of E-Tron Titanshift. Evidently, these matchups aren't as decisive and problematic as many critics claim. So when the critics say their fair decks have unwinnable matchups that make the deck unplayable, I compare those claims to results such as last weekend's and find the claims unsupportable. Either the claimants aren't looking at the results or are looking at the results and still want their bad matchups eliminated. Either way, it's hard to take those criticisms seriously.
I love the argument "Oh you have a complaint about modern, you just want zero bad matchups" we have some pretty strong circle jerking on both ends of the spectrum but this is just kinda par for the course. The modern player base is interesting to say the least
That IS their complaint though. At least sisicat admits it; other Modern critics just beat around the bush. People don't want to play decks like Ux Control ans BGx because they perceive the bad matchups are too bad and the good matchups aren't good enough, and their proposed solution is almost always to ban bad matchup cards or unban cards that disrupt format balance. They also routinely ignore the performance of these allegedly sub-optimal decks in big events. Jeskai and Abzan did great this weekend. But instead of celebrating that success or looking to build from it, many critics just dismiss it, ignore it, or doubt it.
For example, Abzan had a great performance all weekend despite numerous people saying it sucked due to unwinnable big mana matchups. And yet, Abzan did well in a field with tons of E-Tron Titanshift. Evidently, these matchups aren't as decisive and problematic as many critics claim. So when the critics say their fair decks have unwinnable matchups that make the deck unplayable, I compare those claims to results such as last weekend's and find the claims unsupportable. Either the claimants aren't looking at the results or are looking at the results and still want their bad matchups eliminated. Either way, it's hard to take those criticisms seriously.
Then how do you explain people like me who wouldn't be caught dead playing BBE or SFM, arguing for it's unbanning, and getting shouted down like I'm some jund apologist for suggesting that I think we could have some cool cards off the list. I'm fine being tier 2 as a control player right now because it's alot better than it was. I'd like to add fun cards back into the format, cards that make my job TOUGHER as a control mage, yet my suggestions of unbans fall into me secretly wanting to play jund or stoneblade?
I love the argument "Oh you have a complaint about modern, you just want zero bad matchups" we have some pretty strong circle jerking on both ends of the spectrum but this is just kinda par for the course. The modern player base is interesting to say the least
That IS their complaint though. At least sisicat admits it; other Modern critics just beat around the bush. People don't want to play decks like Ux Control ans BGx because they perceive the bad matchups are too bad and the good matchups aren't good enough, and their proposed solution is almost always to ban bad matchup cards or unban cards that disrupt format balance. They also routinely ignore the performance of these allegedly sub-optimal decks in big events. Jeskai and Abzan did great this weekend. But instead of celebrating that success or looking to build from it, many critics just dismiss it, ignore it, or doubt it.
For example, Abzan had a great performance all weekend despite numerous people saying it sucked due to unwinnable big mana matchups. And yet, Abzan did well in a field with tons of E-Tron Titanshift. Evidently, these matchups aren't as decisive and problematic as many critics claim. So when the critics say their fair decks have unwinnable matchups that make the deck unplayable, I compare those claims to results such as last weekend's and find the claims unsupportable. Either the claimants aren't looking at the results or are looking at the results and still want their bad matchups eliminated. Either way, it's hard to take those criticisms seriously.
Well, we don't know if the Abzan players dodged the Big Mana matchups in swiss or not. WOTC doesn't release matchup data because of reasons. For all we know, they made top 8 because they dodged those decks, not because they beat Big mana decks in swiss. But of course we cannot access that data because WOTC doesn't want us to solve the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Having bad matchups is not a problem whatsoever. I've repeated myself on this a number of times. The problem comes when the bad matchups are very, very bad, and the good matchups are barely in your favor. Bad matchups should be offset with great matchups, not coin flips. There's a reason every single top deck is where it is, and it's the ability to offset bad matchups with free wins.
The other topic entirely is the "battle of sideboards" which originally was cited for why GGT was banned. Because our top decks most attack from odd and unique angles (and dodge or are irrelevant to many traditional forms of interaction), many games play out based on who has a faster start and who draws their hate card. Not exactly engaging or exciting.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Let's say you see a lot of u/w control in one tournament, then none in the next but there is jeskai, it doesn't mean that u/w suddenly became unplayable and jeskai is the new go-to control deck, it means that people made a meta call. It could very well switch the very next week. We have examples of very good builds for both decks, the onus is just on the control player to decide which will be better for any given tournament/meta.
Affinity
Death & Taxes
Mardu Nahiri
Forcing people to merge with twitch is stupid
Jeskai did well at SCG because the pilots were top players on their circuit. I'm not bemoaning the state of blue nor am i thinking one event means the sky is falling or jeskai is now tier 1. I still think their are unbans to be had.
Scg imo is just a bigger lgs event. Players there are average with a couple above and a lot below. You can even see it clearly on stream with the amount of misplays that they have compared to most gp streams after day 1. Jtms imo is what will make a control deck playable regularly. 4 cmc isn't too fast and it can actually close a game. I still don't think it's too strong where control just straight sees t.5 status. Sfm imo isn't going to help control because then people's creature removal are turned on. Control needs at least a midrange threat imo and snaps/lands aren't good enough. I'm fully aware people hate the idea of jtms in the format but imo that's what it'll take (or that's the card we're able to discuss anyway).
Ok, yep. I think you're right. Sad, because there's so much goodness going around right now that no one should be on the sidelines sulking. There probably won't ever be a better time to play Modern than right now.
Cfusion, dude, Sheridan is right on the mark, cfusion, you just want a deck that doesn't have too many weaknesses. GBX has some atrocious matchups, with a ton of barely favorable matchups in the 5 to 10 percent favorable zones, along with a bunch of Grindy, hard earned wins. You honestly need to suck it up, don't play a fair deck if you're worried about not having free wins but some really bad blowout matches.
If you're worried about chalice and caverns shutting down your deck, make a meta call and don't play your control deck
That's not what I'm saying at all and I already replied to this multiple times, including specifically to the post you quoted. Regardless, I'm not even playing in paper anymore, as I also mentioned, so what difference does it make what I think of the format?
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Well they do care, mods silence people like me and Hellfire if we say anything bad about the format. I don't find it rewarding enough to work on getting good at the format which is why I dread the 3 months PPTQ season when it's Modern. It's not like Modern has 10x the payout in prizes because it is at least 10x the work to win a sufficient amount of matches to justify the time and money. Modern just doesn't have the type of decks I typically enjoy playing so I dislike it for that reason.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Technically, the mods repeatedly ban you for breaking several of the forum rules in every post, including but not limited to:
Flaming, off topic personal grievances w/o constructive feedback, and the big one - format bashing. Hurry up and list which wildly exaggerated scenario/ game of chance you'd have better success with than modern and move on.
Affinity
Death & Taxes
Mardu Nahiri
Forcing people to merge with twitch is stupid
So you don't want to have to put in any work, and expect wins to just be given to you when you play against other opponents that are willing to invest the money it takes to enter a PPTQ? And you don't see anything wrong with this?
EDIT: To be clear, you don't have a "type of deck". That refers to play style preference. You just want a deck that is so obviously broken there isn't a point in playing anything else so you can study the mirror and only the mirror. Go play chess.
There's plenty of negative talk about the format that's allowed in this forum. It's only when it's consistently unhelpful to the discussion that it becomes a problem. I think everyone here agrees that Modern has some problems and could be improved, despite what their current feelings are for the format. It's the constant complaining about the perceived "roulette" nature of Modern and repeated shouting of how winning die rolls contributes more to victory than actual choices. This is just broken record complaining without progressing the conversation in any meaningful way. It's not constructive and it doesn't present solutions to the perceived problems of the format.
I doubt anyone will shed a tear for those getting banned for breaking the forum rules around here, because it's mostly people who have been spewing this same viewpoint over and over. If you think you're getting banned because you're "speaking the truth" and the forum mods are just "out to get you" for being negative, then I suggest you reread much of this forum. It has plenty of people complaining about different aspects of the format, yet there are few that actually get silenced. Perhaps you should reevaluate why that is.
Look at some of the top decks. GDS is a tempo/control deck attacking from the same axis that jund did - not exactly narrow or unconventional. The only thing unconventional about it is how aggressively they attack their own life, immediately putting them in a dangerous position. Affinity can be answered with every piece of removal in the game as well as the biggest SB hosers in modern. UW/jeskai control are control decks, generally the exact type of deck that those complaining about control/color parity in modern ask for, the latter of which has a fantastic affinity MU. The other top decks represent big mana, midrange, combo, and aggro - AKA *every modern archetype represented in top tier decks*
So yes, it definitely comes off as wanting 0 bad MU's when you take what people say and actually evaluate it against the meta.
Affinity
Death & Taxes
Mardu Nahiri
Forcing people to merge with twitch is stupid
Legacy is different because the existence of Wasteland means you have to think more carefully about fetches/basics. Stifle also gets maindecked and is a consideration, and obviously FOW/Daze, and even Surgical extraction can be used to wreck a Brainstorm or Tutor, Tutoring existing itself the existence of a lot of "I win" combos all tend to make turns, especially early turns, take longer, that much is true. But there is often a lot of Mtg going on. On the turns that seem to take a while you probably have a huge number of options too, it is the nature of that format. In Modern I find the relative lack of "gotcha" plays make turns go quicker, but that is because there feels like there is less to think about without tutoring and free spells.
One deck, nice job
Affinity.
I don't feel that you dismiss what someone says just because of this. My win percentage is 3.8% less than that and I certainly want to improve. I had a personal goal of getting to 65%, which took a few months playing good decks. Now I am aiming at 70%. There's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't make me a bad person. I still have too much fun with this format (currently having fun with Knightfall and Humans). But I also have an urge to do super well.
If we start having goal posts like this, then where does it start? Someone may want to have a 40% win rate in Modern. Someone may want to have an 80% win rate. Honestly, everyone has different goals and that's fine. (It's also part of what makes it so tough for anyone to agree on anything in Modern.)
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)That IS their complaint though. At least sisicat admits it; other Modern critics just beat around the bush. People don't want to play decks like Ux Control ans BGx because they perceive the bad matchups are too bad and the good matchups aren't good enough, and their proposed solution is almost always to ban bad matchup cards or unban cards that disrupt format balance. They also routinely ignore the performance of these allegedly sub-optimal decks in big events. Jeskai and Abzan did great this weekend. But instead of celebrating that success or looking to build from it, many critics just dismiss it, ignore it, or doubt it.
For example, Abzan had a great performance all weekend despite numerous people saying it sucked due to unwinnable big mana matchups. And yet, Abzan did well in a field with tons of E-Tron Titanshift. Evidently, these matchups aren't as decisive and problematic as many critics claim. So when the critics say their fair decks have unwinnable matchups that make the deck unplayable, I compare those claims to results such as last weekend's and find the claims unsupportable. Either the claimants aren't looking at the results or are looking at the results and still want their bad matchups eliminated. Either way, it's hard to take those criticisms seriously.
Then how do you explain people like me who wouldn't be caught dead playing BBE or SFM, arguing for it's unbanning, and getting shouted down like I'm some jund apologist for suggesting that I think we could have some cool cards off the list. I'm fine being tier 2 as a control player right now because it's alot better than it was. I'd like to add fun cards back into the format, cards that make my job TOUGHER as a control mage, yet my suggestions of unbans fall into me secretly wanting to play jund or stoneblade?
Well, we don't know if the Abzan players dodged the Big Mana matchups in swiss or not. WOTC doesn't release matchup data because of reasons. For all we know, they made top 8 because they dodged those decks, not because they beat Big mana decks in swiss. But of course we cannot access that data because WOTC doesn't want us to solve the format.