This thread was automatically marked as Locked.
Quote from Darkest_before_dawn »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.
Together these two archetypes represent more than 40% of the competitive metagame, and both boast significantly positive records against the rest of the field (in terms of non-mirror-match win percentage). This is despite the best efforts of the metagame to adapt and counter these decks.
Quote from Earthbound21 »
I will not be replying to rebuttals that are not at least as fleshed out as my assertion. If you're grown up enough to use the internet, you are grown up enough to understand that posturing, nit picking, and corner cases are not enough to constitute a rebuttal to an argument. You will attack my argument in full or you will not be getting a response from me.
Quote from cfusionpm »Quote from Darkest_before_dawn »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.
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.
Quote from ktkenshinx » 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.
Quote from Aazadan »Quote from ktkenshinx » 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.
While Temur Energy was the most played deck in Standard, Ramunap Red was the most winning deck (with a metagame share above 2%)
Quote from gkourou »
Because if yes, that does not mean that there absolutely is a deck with a metagame share above 2% that wins more.
Only that they measured decks with share >2%, because under 2%, the data the N sample is too low to matter or mean something at all.
Quote from ktkenshinx »I guess this is a positive-ish consequence of Wizards' data embargo?
Quote from cfusionpm »According to the data given to us in the announcement, Ramunap Red held an average of 60-70% against literally the entire field of decks except for Temur Energy. That's very different from 50/50 and probably shouldn't be used as an example of 50/50. I would love nothing more than to see similar data for 2015. If for no other reason than peace of mind. Because Ramunap Red's numbers do look particularly alarming as it was presented.
Quote from Aazadan »
I wouldn't go as far as calling it a positive consequence. Without the data embargo, cards could more easily rise and present themselves as viable answers, which in turn would lead to less need for bannings. It would also more accurately identify when and which cards rightfully need bans.