I know several of you would like to see a format with only three or four viable decks. Then you can easily meta against one or two, and dedicate your full SB to the rest. PV has written several articles expressing this to my knowledge.
Personally I think that format as a casual player and observer would be boring as hell.
I see a lot of complaining about the SB lottery, but what is your solution? Bring back a combo deck with control elements that TOTALLY wins through lighting bolts and snapcaster way more often than the combo? Print format warping Legacy staples?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
I see a lot of complaining about the SB lottery, but what is your solution? Bring back a combo deck with control elements that TOTALLY wins through lighting bolts and snapcaster way more often than the combo? Print format warping Legacy staples?
I wouldn't consider Force of Will warping, I would consider Brainstorm the culprit warping of Legacy. I personally feel Force of Will would be safer than Daze for example, yet I would never want both.
Salting the earth in Standard, yet again. I never thought we'd see the day when Modern actually felt safe to buy into by comparison. They've nuked half a dozen decks over the past two years alone.
More importantly, there is in depth data analysis across different tournaments that gives us insight on how they approach bannings nowadays. The chart they presented shows why, even if we don't like it, bans had to be made. They stepped up their transparency game regarding bans/unbans. Now if only they would step up their design game!
Also Finally, we will have another banned and restricted announcement next month on February 12. The timing of this announcement makes it ideal to consider changes based on the results of Pro Tour Rivals of Ixalan, and thus will more than likely focus on Modern. However, it also is right before Grand Prix Lyon, which is Modern. As such, the paper effective date of that announcement, if we should change anything, will be February 23, so as not to disrupt anyone traveling to that event.
Shocked they didn't unban at LEAST BBE. BBE is super safe... oh well.
Actually, there's a sentence at the end of the article you may be interested in. They mention that the next update, which is in 2 or 3 weeks is going to focus on Modern after PT data, and that they'll delay that update going live until after the GP. It sounds to me like if Storm does anything it's getting a ban in the next update, and that we're probably getting an unban then too.
More importantly, there is in depth data analysis across different tournaments that gives us insight on how they approach bannings nowadays. The chart they presented shows why, even if we don't like it, bans had to be made. They stepped up their transparency game regarding bans/unbans. Now if only they would step up their design game!
Also Finally, we will have another banned and restricted announcement next month on February 12. The timing of this announcement makes it ideal to consider changes based on the results of Pro Tour Rivals of Ixalan, and thus will more than likely focus on Modern. However, it also is right before Grand Prix Lyon, which is Modern. As such, the paper effective date of that announcement, if we should change anything, will be February 23, so as not to disrupt anyone traveling to that event.
I'm in awe. Wizards recognizing ban timings around events and respecting the playerbase? Is 2018 the year of the player?
Anywho, I completely agree with no bans/unbans for Modern. Plenty of "safe" cards persay, but the reality is that we haven't had a Modern PT in a while, so they want to get some real data from the top level players themselves before taking any action. Makes sense. @WotC thanks for not just banning something to shake things up again.
Before that, there were no standard bans since June 2011 (SFM and JTMS).
8 cards have been banned in Modern within the span of 4 years, 2014-Jan 2018:
DRS, DTT, TC, Pod, Twin, Eye, Probe, GGT
Overall, while we have been saying that modern is unsafe and so on, it really seems that there is a stability. 2 bans a year on avg and most of them very justifiable, if not mandatory (DRS, DTT, TC, Pod, Eye, GGT) and functional (Probe). The only questionable still is Twin, and for that, we've exhausted discussion.
Now, if only we can get the level of transparency they showed in the announcement for the next Modern announcement...
Before that, there were no standard bans since June 2011 (SFM and JTMS).
8 cards have been banned in Modern within the span of 4 years, 2014-Jan 2018:
DRS, DTT, TC, Pod, Twin, Eye, Probe, GGT
Overall, while we have been saying that modern is unsafe and so on, it really seems that there is a stability. 2 bans a year on avg and most of them very justifiable, if not mandatory (DRS, DTT, TC, Pod, Eye, GGT) and functional (Probe). The only questionable still is Twin, and for that, we've exhausted discussion.
Now, if only we can get the level of transparency they showed in the announcement for the next Modern announcement...
Standard is supposed to have few bans, it should be more stable than Modern by definition. I think it's pretty funny that Modern is actually more stable than Standard in the last 2 years. It goes to show what having actual answer cards does for a format, even if Modern's answers need improved.
Before that, there were no standard bans since June 2011 (SFM and JTMS).
8 cards have been banned in Modern within the span of 4 years, 2014-Jan 2018:
DRS, DTT, TC, Pod, Twin, Eye, Probe, GGT
Overall, while we have been saying that modern is unsafe and so on, it really seems that there is a stability. 2 bans a year on avg and most of them very justifiable, if not mandatory (DRS, DTT, TC, Pod, Eye, GGT) and functional (Probe). The only questionable still is Twin, and for that, we've exhausted discussion.
Now, if only we can get the level of transparency they showed in the announcement for the next Modern announcement...
Standard is supposed to have few bans, it should be more stable than Modern by definition. I think it's pretty funny that Modern is actually more stable than Standard in the last 2 years. It goes to show what having actual answer cards does for a format, even if Modern's answers need improved.
The thing is, energy standard had the BEST answer in the form of Harnessed Lightning. This card, in the energy shell, was the most efficient answer of all. T2 it could deal 5 damage (with Attune T2). It's efficiency was clear by the type of creatures played. You just needed creatures that do something upon entering the battlefield and that would actually not trade down with the two mana removal. Harnessed lightning with Attune was part of the reason why energy decks were so good. Because you couldn't play big creatures in fear of falling way too far behind in your own turn.
I think the situation is a bit more complex than good answers vs good threats. Standard for years lacked a good answer and now that it got it, it became too stagnant. There needs to be a balance, and for that balance to exist you need testing and a robust RnD, something that has been lacking recently in Wizards
Standard is supposed to have few bans, it should be more stable than Modern by definition. I think it's pretty funny that Modern is actually more stable than Standard in the last 2 years. It goes to show what having actual answer cards does for a format, even if Modern's answers need improved.
Well, it's also a result of complete removal of meaningful data, which leads to people "metagaming" for metas that may or may not exist as they think, which lead to huge variance of results from event to event, leading people to "metagame" again for a meta that may or may not actually exist. This is topped off by new sets having almost no meaningful impact on Modern, especially in the past two blocks.
Modern is essentially a chaos pool with nothing drastic being added to it. If two PTs were held back to back, they may have wildly different results from wildly different decks and players, as we've seen from GPs and Opens. The fact that the future of Modern in the short term rests on a single event in a format defined by matchups and variance is at least a little unnerving. Hopefully someone skillful is parsing the data that we don't have access too, but also making judgement calls on what should probably be unbanned to spice things up.
All in all though, Wizards is probably thrilled to see Modern how it currently is. They likely do not see the "problems" we see as problems, because there isn't a clear best deck. Therefore nothing needs to be done in terms of unbans. I hope I am wrong on this.
That's true, I didn't even touch the format data issue (which was mentioned in the update). Wizards has taken the approach that an ignorant playerbase is best, because it keeps things from evolving. Look at their line about Red having the best win percentage of decks with >2% of the metagame. That means there's something in Standard right now, even better than Red but rather than fix the problem Wizards can pretend it doesn't exist because no one knows it's there.
I hope this Standard ban update puts to rest the absurd desires for a 50/50+ deck in Modern. The entire banlist update is a wholesale indictment of this style of deck, just in case you needed another one after all the other examples I and others have cited. The mythical 50/50+ deck will never exist in a competitive format without an eventual ban intervention. People who want this aren't just out of touch with Modern, they are also out of touch with Magic generally.
Also, as others have pointed out already, I think we are now in the longest period of banlist "no changes" in Modern history. This suggests the format is currently healthy by Wizards standpoint (they also literally said this in October). In fact, it must be exceptionally healthy given the lack of changes for 12 months, a Modern first. People who don't think it's healthy are either wrong or out of touch with Wizards and/or the format-wide realities.
Also regarding Modern, this upcoming B&R update will be the first update that is almost explicitly connected with the results of one single event. Although I am sure Wizards will consider other sources, the PT is going to be the most important influencer.
Finally, huge props to Wizards for a data-driven and transparent approach to this update, and huge props again for honesty and transparency around the Modern update. This includes Forsythe's Tweets and previous articles that promised no shakeup bans. Wizards delivered. I hope this silences some of the ban mania and conspiracy theorizing across the community and keeps us more firmly grounded in data and official source material.
I hope this Standard ban update puts to rest the absurd desires for a 50/50+ deck in Modern. The entire banlist update is a wholesale indictment of this style of deck, just in case you needed another one after all the other examples I and others have cited. The mythical 50/50+ deck will never exist in a competitive format without an eventual ban intervention. People who want this aren't just out of touch with Modern, they are also out of touch with Magic generally.
I think if Temur/Temur Black Energy and Ramunap Red were 10-12% of the meta, we'd be having very different conversations. There should be nothing, NOTHING inherently wrong with a 50/50-like deck. The problems arise when decks like that become disproportionately oppressive to the metas, like Energy being 50% of the format, or Saheeli decks being 60%. It's a totally different scenario when you have literally half of all players playing a deck, compared to 1 in 10.
I hope this Standard ban update puts to rest the absurd desires for a 50/50+ deck in Modern. The entire banlist update is a wholesale indictment of this style of deck, just in case you needed another one after all the other examples I and others have cited. The mythical 50/50+ deck will never exist in a competitive format without an eventual ban intervention. People who want this aren't just out of touch with Modern, they are also out of touch with Magic generally.
I think if Temur/Temur Black Energy and Ramunap Red were 10-12% of the meta, we'd be having very different conversations. There should be nothing, NOTHING inherently wrong with a 50/50-like deck. The problems arise when decks like that become disproportionately oppressive to the metas, like Energy being 50% of the format, or Saheeli decks being 60%. It's a totally different scenario when you have literally half of all players playing a deck, compared to 1 in 10.
I agree there is nothing inherently or philosophically wrong with this kind of deck. I see their appeal, as a competitive player. Unfortunately, the problem is that if these decks do exist, people slowly flock to them because they become the best choice for a skilled/competitive-minded player. The argument here has never been "50/50+ decks are inherently bad." The argument is "50/50+ decks eventually become the best choice and warp the format." That is what Wizards has said in the past, notably Stoddard, and that is why we don't get to have those decks. Whenever a 50/50+ deck exists in a competitive format and it is discovered, players will gravitate to that deck and its metagame share will be too high. Wizards yet again confirmed this in the current update, where they banned Ranumap Red cards because of its win percentages, not its small metagame share.
I hope this Standard ban update puts to rest the absurd desires for a 50/50+ deck in Modern. The entire banlist update is a wholesale indictment of this style of deck, just in case you needed another one after all the other examples I and others have cited. The mythical 50/50+ deck will never exist in a competitive format without an eventual ban intervention. People who want this aren't just out of touch with Modern, they are also out of touch with Magic generally.
I think if Temur/Temur Black Energy and Ramunap Red were 10-12% of the meta, we'd be having very different conversations. There should be nothing, NOTHING inherently wrong with a 50/50-like deck. The problems arise when decks like that become disproportionately oppressive to the metas, like Energy being 50% of the format, or Saheeli decks being 60%. It's a totally different scenario when you have literally half of all players playing a deck, compared to 1 in 10.
I agree there is nothing inherently or philosophically wrong with this kind of deck. I see their appeal, as a competitive player. Unfortunately, the problem is that if these decks do exist, people slowly flock to them because they become the best choice for a skilled/competitive-minded player. The argument here has never been "50/50+ decks are inherently bad." The argument is "50/50+ decks eventually become the best choice and warp the format." That is what Wizards has said in the past, notably Stoddard, and that is why we don't get to have those decks. Whenever a 50/50+ deck exists in a competitive format and it is discovered, players will gravitate to that deck and its metagame share will be too high. Wizards yet again confirmed this in the current update, where they banned Ranumap Red cards because of its win percentages, not its small metagame share.
I think this is important, and should be pinned somewhere. I know I'll be thinking on it, because I think its got a ring of undeniable truth to it...
Whenever a 50/50+ deck exists in a competitive format and it is discovered, players will gravitate to that deck and its metagame share will be too high. Wizards yet again confirmed this in the current update, where they banned Ranumap Red cards because of its win percentages, not its small metagame share.
That is not always the case, because the most famous 50/50 deck in recent history never actually followed that path, despite being in the format 5 years. And Wizards banned stuff out of Ramunap for the reason they banned DTT and Reflector Mage, they banned the next-best-thing, just in case.
Being a 50/50 deck is like a tack-on charge filed against someone for something much worse. It would be like being pulled over for speeding 30mph over the limit and the officer adding "Missing Front License Plate" to the ticket. Nobody is going to pull you over for lack of front plate in CA (which is law here), but they'd certainly tack it on as some additional justification for raising your ticket cost after they nicked you for speeding.
They only actually care if it has oppressive meta shares, breaks turn 3 rules, or otherwise creates a negative image (or lowers attendance), so they have to make up new reasons to justify. That, or they just need to shake up events. Being a 50/50 deck on its own (without more egregious charges, or assumptions of "next best deck") is no justification for a ban.
I hope this Standard ban update puts to rest the absurd desires for a 50/50+ deck in Modern. The entire banlist update is a wholesale indictment of this style of deck, just in case you needed another one after all the other examples I and others have cited. The mythical 50/50+ deck will never exist in a competitive format without an eventual ban intervention. People who want this aren't just out of touch with Modern, they are also out of touch with Magic generally.
I think if Temur/Temur Black Energy and Ramunap Red were 10-12% of the meta, we'd be having very different conversations. There should be nothing, NOTHING inherently wrong with a 50/50-like deck. The problems arise when decks like that become disproportionately oppressive to the metas, like Energy being 50% of the format, or Saheeli decks being 60%. It's a totally different scenario when you have literally half of all players playing a deck, compared to 1 in 10.
I agree there is nothing inherently or philosophically wrong with this kind of deck. I see their appeal, as a competitive player. Unfortunately, the problem is that if these decks do exist, people slowly flock to them because they become the best choice for a skilled/competitive-minded player. The argument here has never been "50/50+ decks are inherently bad." The argument is "50/50+ decks eventually become the best choice and warp the format." That is what Wizards has said in the past, notably Stoddard, and that is why we don't get to have those decks. Whenever a 50/50+ deck exists in a competitive format and it is discovered, players will gravitate to that deck and its metagame share will be too high. Wizards yet again confirmed this in the current update, where they banned Ranumap Red cards because of its win percentages, not its small metagame share.
I think this is important, and should be pinned somewhere. I know I'll be thinking on it, because I think its got a ring of undeniable truth to it...
good. Because that's what twin was and that's why it went down.
I play blue, because I want to at least 'think' that I always have a shot of pulling one out of the fire.
So yeah, this last ban announcement, and the data they showed, certainly reflects on this. I would KILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL for the old MTGO data on Twin's win rates before ban.
Whenever a 50/50+ deck exists in a competitive format and it is discovered, players will gravitate to that deck and its metagame share will be too high. Wizards yet again confirmed this in the current update, where they banned Ranumap Red cards because of its win percentages, not its small metagame share.
That is not always the case, because the most famous 50/50 deck in recent history never actually followed that path, despite being in the format 5 years. And Wizards banned stuff out of Ramunap for the reason they banned DTT and Reflector Mage, they banned the next-best-thing, just in case.
Being a 50/50 deck is like a tack-on charge filed against someone for something much worse. It would be like being pulled over for speeding 30mph over the limit and the officer adding "Missing Front License Plate" to the ticket. Nobody is going to pull you over for lack of front plate in CA (which is law here), but they'd certainly tack it on as some additional justification for raising your ticket cost after they nicked you for speeding.
They only actually care if it has oppressive meta shares, breaks turn 3 rules, or otherwise creates a negative image (or lowers attendance), so they have to make up new reasons to justify. That, or they just need to shake up events.
Obviously Wizards won't ban a deck until it becomes an issue beyond just MWP. 50/50+ MWPs alone doesn't get to a ban and no one is really saying it does. I can't think of any deck in recent bans outside of maybe Eldrazi that got banned for one single reason.
Here's what we are saying and what Wizards is saying. IF a deck is TRULY a 50/50+ deck, then over time players will identify it, gravitate towards it, and it will become a high-share metagame problem. If a deck doesn't do this over time, either players haven't figured it out OR it's not really a 50/50+ deck and has enough bad matchups to keep it down. But a true 50/50+ deck does not just stay a 10% share secret for long. That is, unless it's not a truly 50/50+ deck. It's possible you don't want this deck and actually would be happy with a deck that has no matchup worse than 40/60 with some 50/50s, 60/40s, and even better. That deck would probably not be a 50/50+ deck because it has some matchups that are worse. But that deck is also imaginary and purely theoretical. We can't just sculpt a deck's MWP spectrum in a vacuum.
You clearly want this kind of 50/50+ deck in Modern. It's basically the focal point of most of your posts in this thread and related macro-Modern threads. I think this earnest desire has blinded you to the reality that Wizards is not going to let it happen and you will throw up counter-arguments to any post made against the 50/50+ deck. That's fine because I don't know if people are trying to convince you personally that this deck isn't happening. We are just describing a state of affairs.
I'ts likely true no deck would be banned solely based on having even match-ups, but trivial. KTK's positing that a true 50/50 deck will inevitably garner too much of the meta. If you know A --> B --> C, disputing whether the cause is really A or B is best left to the pedants (like me!). Pragmatically speaking, everyone else would see the connection and react accordingly regardless of direct causation.
I'ts likely true no deck would be banned solely based on having even match-ups, but trivial. KTK's positing that a true 50/50 deck will inevitably garner too much of the meta. If you know A --> B --> C, disputing whether the cause is really A or B is best left to the pedants (like me!). Pragmatically speaking, everyone else would see the connection and react accordingly regardless of direct causation.
That's a huge key portion though, because you do not necessarily jump to A --> C or B --> C, it has to be A AND B --> C.
In the case of importance of meta, these were their exact words on Temur Energy today: "Temur Energy and its Temur-Black variants together make up a significantly larger portion of the Standard metagame than any other deck. Historically, the most-played deck at the beginning of a Standard season occupies about 10% of the metagame, with other decks vying for this top spot."
The catalyst is always either meta share, attendance, or turn 3. Everything else is just pulled out of a hat to help justify one of those three.
I'ts likely true no deck would be banned solely based on having even match-ups, but trivial. KTK's positing that a true 50/50 deck will inevitably garner too much of the meta. If you know A --> B --> C, disputing whether the cause is really A or B is best left to the pedants (like me!). Pragmatically speaking, everyone else would see the connection and react accordingly regardless of direct causation.
That's a huge key portion though, because you do not necessarily jump to A --> C or B --> C, it has to be A AND B --> C.
In the case of importance of meta, these were their exact words on Temur Energy today: "Temur Energy and its Temur-Black variants together make up a significantly larger portion of the Standard metagame than any other deck. Historically, the most-played deck at the beginning of a Standard season occupies about 10% of the metagame, with other decks vying for this top spot."
The catalyst is always either meta share, attendance, or turn 3. Everything else is just pulled out of a hat to help justify one of those three.
We already acknowledge that. What you are not acknowledging is that true 50/50+ decks do exactly what you just described. Wizards knows it. Most of us know it.
The first, most obvious thing to look for is whether or not any deck has a positive matchup against every other major deck in the field. When your worst matchup is the mirror, chances are you are going to get banned. Even if, in the real world, the deck hasn't won a lot of tournaments, this is a clear sign that it is poised to take over at some point, and we should probably act sooner rather than later.
Wizards does not want this deck around. Now, if you have a deck that "feels" 50/50+ but isn't actually 50/50+, that's probably fine. For instance, GDS is pretty much in this category. It has a lot of 50/50+ matchups but it also has a few that are in the 40/60 and 45/55 range. This means it's not a true 50/50+ deck because it has top-tier bad matchups. If that is the kind of deck you want then that's both reasonable and realistic. But if you genuinely want a deck that is 50/50+ across the board with no top-tier matchups that are truly unfavorable, then that is not happening and it is neither reasonable nor realistic.
But a true 50/50+ deck does not just stay a 10% share secret for long. That is, unless it's not a truly 50/50+ deck.
I'm not so sure about that. Wizards implied there's a deck in standard right now that's under 2% of the metagame with better matchups than Ramunap Red, but they weren't going to take action against an unknown deck. If memory serves, Bloom Titan went under the radar for a long time as well and these days the playerbase has even less information to identify a deck like that, than we did back then.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I know several of you would like to see a format with only three or four viable decks. Then you can easily meta against one or two, and dedicate your full SB to the rest. PV has written several articles expressing this to my knowledge.
Personally I think that format as a casual player and observer would be boring as hell.
I see a lot of complaining about the SB lottery, but what is your solution? Bring back a combo deck with control elements that TOTALLY wins through lighting bolts and snapcaster way more often than the combo? Print format warping Legacy staples?
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
I wouldn't consider Force of Will warping, I would consider Brainstorm the culprit warping of Legacy. I personally feel Force of Will would be safer than Daze for example, yet I would never want both.
Salting the earth in Standard, yet again. I never thought we'd see the day when Modern actually felt safe to buy into by comparison. They've nuked half a dozen decks over the past two years alone.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Also
Finally, we will have another banned and restricted announcement next month on February 12. The timing of this announcement makes it ideal to consider changes based on the results of Pro Tour Rivals of Ixalan, and thus will more than likely focus on Modern. However, it also is right before Grand Prix Lyon, which is Modern. As such, the paper effective date of that announcement, if we should change anything, will be February 23, so as not to disrupt anyone traveling to that event.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
Actually, there's a sentence at the end of the article you may be interested in. They mention that the next update, which is in 2 or 3 weeks is going to focus on Modern after PT data, and that they'll delay that update going live until after the GP. It sounds to me like if Storm does anything it's getting a ban in the next update, and that we're probably getting an unban then too.
I'm in awe. Wizards recognizing ban timings around events and respecting the playerbase? Is 2018 the year of the player?
Anywho, I completely agree with no bans/unbans for Modern. Plenty of "safe" cards persay, but the reality is that we haven't had a Modern PT in a while, so they want to get some real data from the top level players themselves before taking any action. Makes sense. @WotC thanks for not just banning something to shake things up again.
Spirits
They have banned 9 cards in standard in 1 year time exactly: Jan 2017-Jan 2018
Emrakul, the Promised End, Smuggler's Copter, Reflector Mage, Felidar Guardian, Aetherworks Marvel, Attune with Aether, Rogue Refiner, Rampaging Ferocidon, Ramunap Ruins
Before that, there were no standard bans since June 2011 (SFM and JTMS).
8 cards have been banned in Modern within the span of 4 years, 2014-Jan 2018:
DRS, DTT, TC, Pod, Twin, Eye, Probe, GGT
Overall, while we have been saying that modern is unsafe and so on, it really seems that there is a stability. 2 bans a year on avg and most of them very justifiable, if not mandatory (DRS, DTT, TC, Pod, Eye, GGT) and functional (Probe). The only questionable still is Twin, and for that, we've exhausted discussion.
Now, if only we can get the level of transparency they showed in the announcement for the next Modern announcement...
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
Standard is supposed to have few bans, it should be more stable than Modern by definition. I think it's pretty funny that Modern is actually more stable than Standard in the last 2 years. It goes to show what having actual answer cards does for a format, even if Modern's answers need improved.
I think the situation is a bit more complex than good answers vs good threats. Standard for years lacked a good answer and now that it got it, it became too stagnant. There needs to be a balance, and for that balance to exist you need testing and a robust RnD, something that has been lacking recently in Wizards
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
Well, it's also a result of complete removal of meaningful data, which leads to people "metagaming" for metas that may or may not exist as they think, which lead to huge variance of results from event to event, leading people to "metagame" again for a meta that may or may not actually exist. This is topped off by new sets having almost no meaningful impact on Modern, especially in the past two blocks.
Modern is essentially a chaos pool with nothing drastic being added to it. If two PTs were held back to back, they may have wildly different results from wildly different decks and players, as we've seen from GPs and Opens. The fact that the future of Modern in the short term rests on a single event in a format defined by matchups and variance is at least a little unnerving. Hopefully someone skillful is parsing the data that we don't have access too, but also making judgement calls on what should probably be unbanned to spice things up.
All in all though, Wizards is probably thrilled to see Modern how it currently is. They likely do not see the "problems" we see as problems, because there isn't a clear best deck. Therefore nothing needs to be done in terms of unbans. I hope I am wrong on this.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Also, as others have pointed out already, I think we are now in the longest period of banlist "no changes" in Modern history. This suggests the format is currently healthy by Wizards standpoint (they also literally said this in October). In fact, it must be exceptionally healthy given the lack of changes for 12 months, a Modern first. People who don't think it's healthy are either wrong or out of touch with Wizards and/or the format-wide realities.
Also regarding Modern, this upcoming B&R update will be the first update that is almost explicitly connected with the results of one single event. Although I am sure Wizards will consider other sources, the PT is going to be the most important influencer.
Finally, huge props to Wizards for a data-driven and transparent approach to this update, and huge props again for honesty and transparency around the Modern update. This includes Forsythe's Tweets and previous articles that promised no shakeup bans. Wizards delivered. I hope this silences some of the ban mania and conspiracy theorizing across the community and keeps us more firmly grounded in data and official source material.
I think if Temur/Temur Black Energy and Ramunap Red were 10-12% of the meta, we'd be having very different conversations. There should be nothing, NOTHING inherently wrong with a 50/50-like deck. The problems arise when decks like that become disproportionately oppressive to the metas, like Energy being 50% of the format, or Saheeli decks being 60%. It's a totally different scenario when you have literally half of all players playing a deck, compared to 1 in 10.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I agree there is nothing inherently or philosophically wrong with this kind of deck. I see their appeal, as a competitive player. Unfortunately, the problem is that if these decks do exist, people slowly flock to them because they become the best choice for a skilled/competitive-minded player. The argument here has never been "50/50+ decks are inherently bad." The argument is "50/50+ decks eventually become the best choice and warp the format." That is what Wizards has said in the past, notably Stoddard, and that is why we don't get to have those decks. Whenever a 50/50+ deck exists in a competitive format and it is discovered, players will gravitate to that deck and its metagame share will be too high. Wizards yet again confirmed this in the current update, where they banned Ranumap Red cards because of its win percentages, not its small metagame share.
I think this is important, and should be pinned somewhere. I know I'll be thinking on it, because I think its got a ring of undeniable truth to it...
Spirits
That is not always the case, because the most famous 50/50 deck in recent history never actually followed that path, despite being in the format 5 years. And Wizards banned stuff out of Ramunap for the reason they banned DTT and Reflector Mage, they banned the next-best-thing, just in case.
Being a 50/50 deck is like a tack-on charge filed against someone for something much worse. It would be like being pulled over for speeding 30mph over the limit and the officer adding "Missing Front License Plate" to the ticket. Nobody is going to pull you over for lack of front plate in CA (which is law here), but they'd certainly tack it on as some additional justification for raising your ticket cost after they nicked you for speeding.
They only actually care if it has oppressive meta shares, breaks turn 3 rules, or otherwise creates a negative image (or lowers attendance), so they have to make up new reasons to justify. That, or they just need to shake up events. Being a 50/50 deck on its own (without more egregious charges, or assumptions of "next best deck") is no justification for a ban.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
I play blue, because I want to at least 'think' that I always have a shot of pulling one out of the fire.
So yeah, this last ban announcement, and the data they showed, certainly reflects on this. I would KILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL for the old MTGO data on Twin's win rates before ban.
Spirits
Obviously Wizards won't ban a deck until it becomes an issue beyond just MWP. 50/50+ MWPs alone doesn't get to a ban and no one is really saying it does. I can't think of any deck in recent bans outside of maybe Eldrazi that got banned for one single reason.
Here's what we are saying and what Wizards is saying. IF a deck is TRULY a 50/50+ deck, then over time players will identify it, gravitate towards it, and it will become a high-share metagame problem. If a deck doesn't do this over time, either players haven't figured it out OR it's not really a 50/50+ deck and has enough bad matchups to keep it down. But a true 50/50+ deck does not just stay a 10% share secret for long. That is, unless it's not a truly 50/50+ deck. It's possible you don't want this deck and actually would be happy with a deck that has no matchup worse than 40/60 with some 50/50s, 60/40s, and even better. That deck would probably not be a 50/50+ deck because it has some matchups that are worse. But that deck is also imaginary and purely theoretical. We can't just sculpt a deck's MWP spectrum in a vacuum.
You clearly want this kind of 50/50+ deck in Modern. It's basically the focal point of most of your posts in this thread and related macro-Modern threads. I think this earnest desire has blinded you to the reality that Wizards is not going to let it happen and you will throw up counter-arguments to any post made against the 50/50+ deck. That's fine because I don't know if people are trying to convince you personally that this deck isn't happening. We are just describing a state of affairs.
That's a huge key portion though, because you do not necessarily jump to A --> C or B --> C, it has to be A AND B --> C.
In the case of importance of meta, these were their exact words on Temur Energy today:
"Temur Energy and its Temur-Black variants together make up a significantly larger portion of the Standard metagame than any other deck. Historically, the most-played deck at the beginning of a Standard season occupies about 10% of the metagame, with other decks vying for this top spot."
The catalyst is always either meta share, attendance, or turn 3. Everything else is just pulled out of a hat to help justify one of those three.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
We already acknowledge that. What you are not acknowledging is that true 50/50+ decks do exactly what you just described. Wizards knows it. Most of us know it.
As Stoddard said:
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/using-real-world-data-2016-02-11
Wizards does not want this deck around. Now, if you have a deck that "feels" 50/50+ but isn't actually 50/50+, that's probably fine. For instance, GDS is pretty much in this category. It has a lot of 50/50+ matchups but it also has a few that are in the 40/60 and 45/55 range. This means it's not a true 50/50+ deck because it has top-tier bad matchups. If that is the kind of deck you want then that's both reasonable and realistic. But if you genuinely want a deck that is 50/50+ across the board with no top-tier matchups that are truly unfavorable, then that is not happening and it is neither reasonable nor realistic.
I'm not so sure about that. Wizards implied there's a deck in standard right now that's under 2% of the metagame with better matchups than Ramunap Red, but they weren't going to take action against an unknown deck. If memory serves, Bloom Titan went under the radar for a long time as well and these days the playerbase has even less information to identify a deck like that, than we did back then.