Yeah I think unbans are different issues ie unbans would be more to help with white being weak outside of one mainboard card and sideboard hate unless you play Humans. And Green not having the best creature based deck?
the point i was trying to get across is that if you truly think hollow one is broken, unhealthy, toxic, etc there is nothing to be gained by pussyfooting around it - you want the deck gone. bans are how this is best accomplished, and the method that wotc would most likely use based on precedent.
better to understand whether the deck is actually too good or if you just dont like losing to it.
I view it similar to dredge with GGT, the deck concept/idea itself is fine, it just needs one of its more powerful enablers taken away, and of goblin lore and burning inquiry, I feel inquiry is the worse of the 2.
WOTC
Hates: Storm and Lantern...They don't like Combo Wins That Are Spell Based and Don't Interact. They Hate Lantern Causes Its Slow and Boring to Watch.
Loves: Humans...Its Tribal Deck that wins by swinging in. A+.
Conflicted: Hollow One...Sure Its Unfair by getting stronger creatures out cheaply. But the variance makes it entertaining as it wins via Creature Combat.
The thing people don't realize is that Burning Inquiry is not even that good against certain decks, Affinity to name 1. There are some decks that may actually have their hand improved, believe it or not. Now I also realize at the same time that Burning Inquiry can hurt and paralyze certain decks, but to say that the card is stone cold nuts against everything in the format is a blatant lie.
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)
The thing people don't realize is that Burning Inquiry is not even that good against certain decks, Affinity to name 1. There are some decks that may actually have their hand improved, believe it or not. Now I also realize at the same time that Burning Inquiry can hurt and paralyze certain decks, but to say that the card is stone cold nuts against everything in the format is a blatant lie.
Well they could go the easy route...they can kill Hollow One by taking out Hollow One.
Granted WOTC usually likes to make other cards die for the sins of the guilty first.
the point i was trying to get across is that if you truly think hollow one is broken, unhealthy, toxic, etc there is nothing to be gained by pussyfooting around it - you want the deck gone. bans are how this is best accomplished, and the method that wotc would most likely use based on precedent.
better to understand whether the deck is actually too good or if you just dont like losing to it.
I view it similar to dredge with GGT, the deck concept/idea itself is fine, it just needs one of its more powerful enablers taken away, and of goblin lore and burning inquiry, I feel inquiry is the worse of the 2.
if any of the enablers end up getting the axe i believe it will be street wraith. it facilitates some of the most explosive openers, but more importantly its a free effect that generates additional value.
if wotc had a short list of cards they have been keeping an eye on for banning id imagine wraith would be at the top and has been ever since death shadow decks became prevalent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
All Street Wraith does is highlight the problem with Black...Paying Life for Powerful Effects is not a major detriment in the early game. Or late game if the effect is game ending enough. But really is Street Wraith the most guilty offender in Hollow One. Seems like the best method is to ban the most powerful of the unique cards that other major decks dont use.
Weren't you guys having the same discussion about deaths shadow late last year? It's funny how now gds is a "police deck". Maybe you guys should take a step back and let the meta work itself out like it did before instead of getting your banforks out and going nuts on here. Hallow one only had 1 copy in the top 8 so chill and let's see what happens. It was only 1 GP bro's.
If I had to hit a card from Hollow One, it'd probably be Burning Inquiry, but not from a power standpoint - Street Wraith is probably the more powerful card in the deck, etc.
No, it's because I hate keeping a hand because I think it has the tools I need to deal with the matchup and then they turn 1 Inquiry me and discard all of my lands. I get far more frustrated losing to Hollow One because it forcibly mulligan'd the hand I kept than I do to losing to Storm or Lantern.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Well, I can saw a woman in two, but you won't wanna look in the box when I'm through.
I don't like the idea of banning Wraith, that would possibly kill all variations of Shadow. Death Shadow, while powerful, helps fight linear decks.
It's so strange, it's not really 1 card in particular in that deck, the way it operates is strange
You have to worry about the 1/2 that looks awful on paper, reoccurring threats, a 5/5 and a 4/4. The only solid way of beating that deck is with Rest in Peace and Leyline of the Void, and then removal big enough for the big guys.
It really makes playing fair silly, in my opinion. Even I'm having a hard time justifying playing something like Mardu, Abzan or Jund when I can just turn around and play this deck.
I don't think this deck promotes fun gameplay, not usually. I feel like I'm either destroying my opponent in impossible situations to get out of, or my deck just falls apart and I can't do anything about it. The game just feels over when I drop a turn 1 Hollow One paired with either another Hollow one or even Bloodghast.
Humans is a deck I like, even though it's results are fantastic, I think it's because it feels fruitless to play a slow, fair deck in modern that this is seeing such great results (although the deck is pretty damn good in general).
Stoneforge mystic could be a pretty frustrating wall for Human players to deal with.
Anyway, I'm sure Spiegel is spitting out the hyperbole---I just don't see how a reasonable person thinks Hollow One isn't a toxic deck.
Yeah but if you use Rest In Peace you have to play White....seems a high price to play.
As for Leylines, you need to put 4 in your deck. Cause you cannot hard cast not cause of the mana cost but because you could very well be dead or almost dead by the time you get 4 mana and do you really want it in your deck if you are not playing against Hollow One?
But again I don't forsee WOTC taking much action against it because it still wins how they want games won via combat damage.
Lantern Control got lucky it didn't keep winning cause Ensnaring Bridge will absolutely get on the list if it chokes out combat.
I hate tron because they can drop turn 3 karn/wurmcoil turn 3 but you don't hear me crying about it. You guys just sound like sore losers. Sorry twin got banned and now you can't find another over powered deck that gives you free wins. If you spent more time practicing instead of crying you might get better and win sometimes. Modern is going to be inherently linear because we lack force of will and toxic deluge, if you don't like it play legacy or standard. All your crying does is make people lose money they've invested in their decks. Infraction issued for flaming. -- CavalryWolfPack
Judging from your earlier posts you seem to roughly equate a deck being "interactive" to it being "non-linear". This isn't really the "scholarly" type of definition most would agree on. I think that a deck being interactive is simply it being interactive. Nothing more and nothing less. Also what I see people in this thread doing is they think that if Deck = \sum_i Card_i then \sum_i in Deck linear(Card_i) = linear(Deck). This couldn't be further from the truth since linearity is not something you can apply to a single card, especially not in a vacuum, but to a deck itself.
I've actually said the opposite in the past: interactivity and linearity are clearly different. I don't know where you think my recent posts conflate the two and if something I said was unclear I'll say it clearly for the record. Stated simply, interaction is about your cards interacting with an opponent's game state. Linearity is about the number of decision trees in your deck.
Moreover, I'm not even trying to apply either definition in challenging the analysis. I'm simply using your own definitions and applying them to a different time period.
You questioned wether Humans was linear. Read Reid Dukes article on Mothership regarding what makes a deck linear. Also to quote Brian Braun-Duin in his article from yesterday: "Even some of the hyper-linear decks like Humans and Hollow One offer a huge variety in play experience. Cards like Meddling Mage and Phantasmal Image out of Humans can create fun and interesting games and subgames". Not only does he say Humans is linear, he thinks it's even "hyperlinear".
I'm totally fine with Humans being a linear deck. I was simply pointing out your breakdown of linear vs. non-linear decks doesn't make a lot of sense because some decks on one list (e.g. Humans) are at a high level functionally similar to some decks on the other list (e.g. Eldrazi). They both, to quote Reid Duke, "follow a "straight line" from point A to point B." You acknowledge this ("I label some Eldrazi decks as non-linear while Tron is labled as linear. It's not entirely consistent and if I adjusted for that and other decks that are in the grey area like Bant Company, Bant Spirits, Scapeshift among others then the linearity would pull even further towards the linear side. ") but it still is an issue that needs to be fleshed out more because it involves a lot of myths and subjectivity. I believe if we applied some of the proposed methods in here about decision trees in games, we would find that many Modern matchups are much less linear than people claim, and that many Standard midrange slugfests are more linear than people believe.
Many[/b] of the linear decks we see in modern today didn't exist back during the Twin era, simply because the card pool didn't exist back then, that enabled those strategies. Humans, Hollow One, Storm (in the current superior iteration), Dredge, KCI, to just name a few.
Are we counting the number of unique strategies or the percentage of those strategies in the metagame? Your analysis is pretty clearly looking at percentage, as was mine. If we want to count unique strategies we can do that too, but right now, that does not appear to be part of your analysis so I'm not sure why this observation is relevant here.
The point I was trying to make is not wether the linear decks constitute 40, 50 or even 60% but rather that compared to other formats like Standard there is a distinct difference. People talk about modern being about the "ships passing by each other in the night" format. And I'm just showing that numbers support that view. The exact number is not interesting but if I were to do the analysis much more throughly then todays format is much more linear.
I agree with the numbers and agree that the format right now is more linear than it was 3 months ago. I disagree with the statement that "The format is becoming very linear by most standards." By what standards? Within Modern's history? Compared to other formats? Compare to some objective standard of health? I only care about the real historical context, and if we're comparing the current linear share with other linear shares throughout Modern's historical trajectory, we would likely find that Modern ALWAYS goes through upshifts and downshifts in linearity. This has been true at all points. You even admit this when arguing that December 2015 Modern saw more linear decks than it had seen months earlier (e.g. Affinity, Tron, and Amulet being on the rise). I agree! December 2015 may have been more linear than February 2015. But this is just further evidence that shows Modern always goes through these upcycles and downcycles even in times where there are policing decks and interactive Tier 1 pillars like Twin. This is the truth that is totally absent from most of the conversation and conclusion-drawing.
My issue with your analysis is not the numbers. It's the narrative that others are drawing from it. There's no mention of Modern's historic context with respect to linear and non-linear cycles. As a result, there are many users who read the analysis and are assuming Modern has a new, unique, and emergent problem. In reality, many of the most beloved times of Modern history (especially during the Twin era) had similar shares of linear and non-linear decks and went through similar upticks and downticks. This isn't necessarily your fault. It's because people are not putting the numbers in context and are using it to support their own narrative about Modern's health or lack of health.
yeah the way i see it street wraith is a card very similar to probe and thus has likely been on wotcs radar since death shadow, and subsequently delve threats, became more popular. therefore if hollow one ever crosses some line it would be enough confirmation to just deal with it while they can.
as i said before though ask yourself if you really think the deck is too good or if you just dont like losing to it. these veiled comments about it being unhealthy or whatever mean nothing.
i know i personally just dont like the deck. its crap to play against and im salty when i lose against it. there are a ton of decks i put into that category, but none of them has passed some threshold where they need to eat a ban.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
In reality, many of the most beloved times of Modern history (especially during the Twin era) had similar shares of linear and non-linear decks and went through similar upticks and downticks.
The makeup and content of those linear decks though, is massively different. I can tell you I would much rather play against Affinity, Burn, and Infect than Hollow One, Humans, and Bogles.
The makeup and content of those linear decks though, is massively different. I can tell you I would much rather play against Affinity, Burn, and Infect than Hollow One, Humans, and Bogles.
This seems very subjective and I don't know if we can take this anywhere beyond your personal preferences. It's also a new argument I haven't heard before, which suggests to me we are moving goalposts. Normally, the argument is "Modern has become too linear now relative to a different time." But now the argument has shifted to "I don't like the kinds of linear decks in this new metagame but the percentage of linear decks is fine." I'm not sure you are trying to make that shift, and not sure if you are doing it intentionally, but that's how it comes across as. If so, it's very disingenuous.
Incidentally, here's the 2015 linear vs. non-linear breakdown. Notice we see the exact same linear/non-linear trend we're seeing today. Also notice that no one seemed to care as much back then but today the numbers and trends, which are virtually identical, are cause for alarm.
When plotted as an area graph, it's virtually identical to the graph Lejoon posted describing our current metagame:
As you see, 2015 has the same trend as 2018. And yet, when people remember the Twin era, no one seems to care about this linear vs. non-linear breakdown. Similarly, everyone today places significantly more weight on the linear/non-linear breakdown despite the numbers being so similar and showing a similar trend line. This is the kind of disingenuous narrative I am criticizing and illustrates the dangers of a lack of context.
The makeup and content of those linear decks though, is massively different. I can tell you I would much rather play against Affinity, Burn, and Infect than Hollow One, Humans, and Bogles.
This seems very subjective and I don't know if we can take this anywhere beyond your personal preferences. It's also a new argument I haven't heard before, which suggests to me we are moving goalposts. Normally, the argument is "Modern has become too linear now relative to a different time." But now the argument has shifted to "I don't like the kinds of linear decks in this new metagame but the percentage of linear decks is fine." I'm not sure you are trying to make that shift, and not sure if you are doing it intentionally, but that's how it comes across as. If so, it's very disingenuous.
This is actually the same argument I have made for years, that the makeup of the decks is significantly more miserable to play against. I'd go find past quotes, but MTGS search functions are really really bad (as I learned when trying to find my old quotes about how if Jace unbanned, he would accomplish next to nothing). It's extremely consistent with my own views, though not necessarily those making the specific argument of increased linearity (which I also believe, but, as you said, is a separate topic).
The makeup and content of those linear decks though, is massively different. I can tell you I would much rather play against Affinity, Burn, and Infect than Hollow One, Humans, and Bogles.
This seems very subjective and I don't know if we can take this anywhere beyond your personal preferences. It's also a new argument I haven't heard before, which suggests to me we are moving goalposts. Normally, the argument is "Modern has become too linear now relative to a different time." But now the argument has shifted to "I don't like the kinds of linear decks in this new metagame but the percentage of linear decks is fine." I'm not sure you are trying to make that shift, and not sure if you are doing it intentionally, but that's how it comes across as. If so, it's very disingenuous.
I agree that it's moving the goal post of this specific conversation, but this is a very real concern that deserves discussion. Before the Probe banning, the linear decks were by and large soft to interaction. That meant there were multiple axes regulating them. What we've seen since the Jace and BBE unbannings is the linear decks largely coalescing into those that actually shut down or laugh at interaction*. That greatly weakens the format's primary methods of self-regulation.
I don't have hard numbers for this, but if you look at the top linear decks of each era, I think it holds up. We're talking Kiln Fiend, DS Zoo, and Infect vs. Humans, Hollow One, and Bogles with maindeck Leyline of Sanctity.
*For the most part, those decks were already on the up-and-up when the unbans came through. My hunch is that BBE and Jace just sped up that trend.
(Also note how neatly Stoneforge Mystic buffers the format against this trend.)
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
I'm gonna say to the people advocating for stoneforge mystic as if it is the hidden panacea that modern is missing: while I agree that the card itself is probably fine, it will do NOTHING to stop the onslaugh of linear decks. If it somehow becomes too prevalent (since not only control, but also death and taxes can use it effectively), then people will maindeck artifact hate and that will be that.
People who claim that stoneforge mystic is going to fix whatever they think is wrong with modern are, in my view, 100% wrong and their expectations are way too high. I think what people really want is a meta where control and midrange decks are mostly viable in high-level competitive play, which is simply not gonna happen. There are simply too many angles of attack that the linear decks are coming from for the control decks to be able to handle them. Counterspells like daze and force spike are also not gonna help. I think people ignore that humans play cavern of souls and hollow one play cards that recurr from the graveyard. Counterspells are not particularly effective against those decks.
The only real good suggestion I saw here to make control decks more viables is printing more modal spells with better modes in them. Like, izzet charm is good, but it is not there yet. Abrade seems pretty solid, especially in the current meta, and people should play it more. The issue with modal spells is that they're usually overcosted for the effects to compensate for their versatility, so realistically it is hard to imagine that wizards is going to start printing powerful AND cheap modal spells to help the control decks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
.
Would you like to read Commander stories? Check my latest stories, coming from Lorwyn and Innistrad: Ghoulcaller Gisa and Doran, The Siege Tower! If you like my writing, ask me to write something for your commander as well!
I'm gonna say to the people advocating for stoneforge mystic as if it is the hidden panacea that modern is missing: while I agree that the card itself is probably fine, it will do NOTHING to stop the onslaugh of linear decks.
Wild Nacatl was unbanned and did... little to nothing. Bitterblossom was unbanned and did... little to nothing. Golgari Grave-Troll was unbanned and did... little to nothing (until multiplenewcards were printed) Ancestral Vision was unbanned and did... little to nothing. Sword of the Meek was unbanned and did... literally nothing.
And now Jace, the Mind Sculptor and Bloodbraid Elf have been unbanned and accomplished... well... little to nothing outside of their initial splash. I can say that I have personally been slowly trimming Jaces OUT of my decks and will likely cut him entirely. He's so bad against most decks in the format. And while I don't run BBE myself, it seems the decks having the most success with her are the ones like Ponza and other miserable decks (IE not Jund).
To assume that Stoneforge Mystic is going to be unbanned and accomplish anything more than Jace and BBE is laughable.
There is only one card on the banned list and would actually have a positive impact on this linear, non-interactive format (which shouldn't have been put there in the first place). And if they aren't going to print new, reliable, or resilient answers and win conditions for reactive/control/tempo decks, then it should be released back to the format.
*Edit: I would like to add that I do not believe SFM should remain banned; she should definitely be freed (just as Jace and BBE were freed), but I don't want to see them "waste" another unban announcement on a card that does nothing for the format (which I predicted multiple times would happen with Jace).
It's so sad to see Modern being so healthy, then see it becoming problematic, just because of one print that breaks it apart in a month's time! It's been happening regularly, too easily, too many times. That means we need better tools, some unbans, some new good prints.
The issue here, is that since 2015, it has actually NOT been healthy.
People may have liked spikes in certain decks. When GDS spiked, when UW spiked in response, when UWR/UW/Jund had a spike.
However those are all temporary blips, because THE deck, which said 'dont interact? you lose'. Has been unnaturally removed.
You all can throw whatever names you want at me, its 100% irrelevant, but Twin had an impact on the meta, and it was a healthier one.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
UW Spirits
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I view it similar to dredge with GGT, the deck concept/idea itself is fine, it just needs one of its more powerful enablers taken away, and of goblin lore and burning inquiry, I feel inquiry is the worse of the 2.
WAbzan B CompanyG
Hates: Storm and Lantern...They don't like Combo Wins That Are Spell Based and Don't Interact. They Hate Lantern Causes Its Slow and Boring to Watch.
Loves: Humans...Its Tribal Deck that wins by swinging in. A+.
Conflicted: Hollow One...Sure Its Unfair by getting stronger creatures out cheaply. But the variance makes it entertaining as it wins via Creature Combat.
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)Well they could go the easy route...they can kill Hollow One by taking out Hollow One.
Granted WOTC usually likes to make other cards die for the sins of the guilty first.
if any of the enablers end up getting the axe i believe it will be street wraith. it facilitates some of the most explosive openers, but more importantly its a free effect that generates additional value.
if wotc had a short list of cards they have been keeping an eye on for banning id imagine wraith would be at the top and has been ever since death shadow decks became prevalent.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)No, it's because I hate keeping a hand because I think it has the tools I need to deal with the matchup and then they turn 1 Inquiry me and discard all of my lands. I get far more frustrated losing to Hollow One because it forcibly mulligan'd the hand I kept than I do to losing to Storm or Lantern.
It's so strange, it's not really 1 card in particular in that deck, the way it operates is strange
You have to worry about the 1/2 that looks awful on paper, reoccurring threats, a 5/5 and a 4/4. The only solid way of beating that deck is with Rest in Peace and Leyline of the Void, and then removal big enough for the big guys.
It really makes playing fair silly, in my opinion. Even I'm having a hard time justifying playing something like Mardu, Abzan or Jund when I can just turn around and play this deck.
I don't think this deck promotes fun gameplay, not usually. I feel like I'm either destroying my opponent in impossible situations to get out of, or my deck just falls apart and I can't do anything about it. The game just feels over when I drop a turn 1 Hollow One paired with either another Hollow one or even Bloodghast.
Humans is a deck I like, even though it's results are fantastic, I think it's because it feels fruitless to play a slow, fair deck in modern that this is seeing such great results (although the deck is pretty damn good in general).
Stoneforge mystic could be a pretty frustrating wall for Human players to deal with.
Anyway, I'm sure Spiegel is spitting out the hyperbole---I just don't see how a reasonable person thinks Hollow One isn't a toxic deck.
As for Leylines, you need to put 4 in your deck. Cause you cannot hard cast not cause of the mana cost but because you could very well be dead or almost dead by the time you get 4 mana and do you really want it in your deck if you are not playing against Hollow One?
But again I don't forsee WOTC taking much action against it because it still wins how they want games won via combat damage.
Lantern Control got lucky it didn't keep winning cause Ensnaring Bridge will absolutely get on the list if it chokes out combat.
Infraction issued for flaming. -- CavalryWolfPack
It wouldn't be the first time they specifically targeted a card that had collateral damage on fair, interactive decks.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I've actually said the opposite in the past: interactivity and linearity are clearly different. I don't know where you think my recent posts conflate the two and if something I said was unclear I'll say it clearly for the record. Stated simply, interaction is about your cards interacting with an opponent's game state. Linearity is about the number of decision trees in your deck.
Moreover, I'm not even trying to apply either definition in challenging the analysis. I'm simply using your own definitions and applying them to a different time period.
I'm totally fine with Humans being a linear deck. I was simply pointing out your breakdown of linear vs. non-linear decks doesn't make a lot of sense because some decks on one list (e.g. Humans) are at a high level functionally similar to some decks on the other list (e.g. Eldrazi). They both, to quote Reid Duke, "follow a "straight line" from point A to point B." You acknowledge this ("I label some Eldrazi decks as non-linear while Tron is labled as linear. It's not entirely consistent and if I adjusted for that and other decks that are in the grey area like Bant Company, Bant Spirits, Scapeshift among others then the linearity would pull even further towards the linear side. ") but it still is an issue that needs to be fleshed out more because it involves a lot of myths and subjectivity. I believe if we applied some of the proposed methods in here about decision trees in games, we would find that many Modern matchups are much less linear than people claim, and that many Standard midrange slugfests are more linear than people believe.
Are we counting the number of unique strategies or the percentage of those strategies in the metagame? Your analysis is pretty clearly looking at percentage, as was mine. If we want to count unique strategies we can do that too, but right now, that does not appear to be part of your analysis so I'm not sure why this observation is relevant here.
I agree with the numbers and agree that the format right now is more linear than it was 3 months ago. I disagree with the statement that "The format is becoming very linear by most standards." By what standards? Within Modern's history? Compared to other formats? Compare to some objective standard of health? I only care about the real historical context, and if we're comparing the current linear share with other linear shares throughout Modern's historical trajectory, we would likely find that Modern ALWAYS goes through upshifts and downshifts in linearity. This has been true at all points. You even admit this when arguing that December 2015 Modern saw more linear decks than it had seen months earlier (e.g. Affinity, Tron, and Amulet being on the rise). I agree! December 2015 may have been more linear than February 2015. But this is just further evidence that shows Modern always goes through these upcycles and downcycles even in times where there are policing decks and interactive Tier 1 pillars like Twin. This is the truth that is totally absent from most of the conversation and conclusion-drawing.
My issue with your analysis is not the numbers. It's the narrative that others are drawing from it. There's no mention of Modern's historic context with respect to linear and non-linear cycles. As a result, there are many users who read the analysis and are assuming Modern has a new, unique, and emergent problem. In reality, many of the most beloved times of Modern history (especially during the Twin era) had similar shares of linear and non-linear decks and went through similar upticks and downticks. This isn't necessarily your fault. It's because people are not putting the numbers in context and are using it to support their own narrative about Modern's health or lack of health.
as i said before though ask yourself if you really think the deck is too good or if you just dont like losing to it. these veiled comments about it being unhealthy or whatever mean nothing.
i know i personally just dont like the deck. its crap to play against and im salty when i lose against it. there are a ton of decks i put into that category, but none of them has passed some threshold where they need to eat a ban.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)The makeup and content of those linear decks though, is massively different. I can tell you I would much rather play against Affinity, Burn, and Infect than Hollow One, Humans, and Bogles.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
This seems very subjective and I don't know if we can take this anywhere beyond your personal preferences. It's also a new argument I haven't heard before, which suggests to me we are moving goalposts. Normally, the argument is "Modern has become too linear now relative to a different time." But now the argument has shifted to "I don't like the kinds of linear decks in this new metagame but the percentage of linear decks is fine." I'm not sure you are trying to make that shift, and not sure if you are doing it intentionally, but that's how it comes across as. If so, it's very disingenuous.
Incidentally, here's the 2015 linear vs. non-linear breakdown. Notice we see the exact same linear/non-linear trend we're seeing today. Also notice that no one seemed to care as much back then but today the numbers and trends, which are virtually identical, are cause for alarm.
March: 46.7% / 53.3%
April: 44% / 56%
May: 42.8% / 57.2%
June: 52.3% / 47.7%
July: 50.3% / 49.7%
August: 51.8% / 48.2%
September: 60% / 40%
October: 59% / 41%
November: 60.4% / 39.6%
December: 55.7% / 44.3%
And in graphical form:
When plotted as an area graph, it's virtually identical to the graph Lejoon posted describing our current metagame:
As you see, 2015 has the same trend as 2018. And yet, when people remember the Twin era, no one seems to care about this linear vs. non-linear breakdown. Similarly, everyone today places significantly more weight on the linear/non-linear breakdown despite the numbers being so similar and showing a similar trend line. This is the kind of disingenuous narrative I am criticizing and illustrates the dangers of a lack of context.
This is actually the same argument I have made for years, that the makeup of the decks is significantly more miserable to play against. I'd go find past quotes, but MTGS search functions are really really bad (as I learned when trying to find my old quotes about how if Jace unbanned, he would accomplish next to nothing). It's extremely consistent with my own views, though not necessarily those making the specific argument of increased linearity (which I also believe, but, as you said, is a separate topic).
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I agree that it's moving the goal post of this specific conversation, but this is a very real concern that deserves discussion. Before the Probe banning, the linear decks were by and large soft to interaction. That meant there were multiple axes regulating them. What we've seen since the Jace and BBE unbannings is the linear decks largely coalescing into those that actually shut down or laugh at interaction*. That greatly weakens the format's primary methods of self-regulation.
I don't have hard numbers for this, but if you look at the top linear decks of each era, I think it holds up. We're talking Kiln Fiend, DS Zoo, and Infect vs. Humans, Hollow One, and Bogles with maindeck Leyline of Sanctity.
*For the most part, those decks were already on the up-and-up when the unbans came through. My hunch is that BBE and Jace just sped up that trend.
(Also note how neatly Stoneforge Mystic buffers the format against this trend.)
WUBRG Humans
BRW Mardu Pyromancer
UW UW "Control"
UR Blue Moon
People who claim that stoneforge mystic is going to fix whatever they think is wrong with modern are, in my view, 100% wrong and their expectations are way too high. I think what people really want is a meta where control and midrange decks are mostly viable in high-level competitive play, which is simply not gonna happen. There are simply too many angles of attack that the linear decks are coming from for the control decks to be able to handle them. Counterspells like daze and force spike are also not gonna help. I think people ignore that humans play cavern of souls and hollow one play cards that recurr from the graveyard. Counterspells are not particularly effective against those decks.
The only real good suggestion I saw here to make control decks more viables is printing more modal spells with better modes in them. Like, izzet charm is good, but it is not there yet. Abrade seems pretty solid, especially in the current meta, and people should play it more. The issue with modal spells is that they're usually overcosted for the effects to compensate for their versatility, so realistically it is hard to imagine that wizards is going to start printing powerful AND cheap modal spells to help the control decks.
Read my other stories as well (some ongoing):
Reaper King (a horror story), Kaalia of the Vast (an origin story), Sequels for Innistrad (Alternative sequels for Inn), Grey Areas (Odric's fanfic), Royal Succession (goblins),The Tracker's Message (eldrazi on Innistrad) and Ugin and his Eye (the end of OGW).
Bitterblossom was unbanned and did... little to nothing.
Golgari Grave-Troll was unbanned and did... little to nothing (until multiple new cards were printed)
Ancestral Vision was unbanned and did... little to nothing.
Sword of the Meek was unbanned and did... literally nothing.
And now Jace, the Mind Sculptor and Bloodbraid Elf have been unbanned and accomplished... well... little to nothing outside of their initial splash. I can say that I have personally been slowly trimming Jaces OUT of my decks and will likely cut him entirely. He's so bad against most decks in the format. And while I don't run BBE myself, it seems the decks having the most success with her are the ones like Ponza and other miserable decks (IE not Jund).
To assume that Stoneforge Mystic is going to be unbanned and accomplish anything more than Jace and BBE is laughable.
There is only one card on the banned list and would actually have a positive impact on this linear, non-interactive format (which shouldn't have been put there in the first place). And if they aren't going to print new, reliable, or resilient answers and win conditions for reactive/control/tempo decks, then it should be released back to the format.
*Edit: I would like to add that I do not believe SFM should remain banned; she should definitely be freed (just as Jace and BBE were freed), but I don't want to see them "waste" another unban announcement on a card that does nothing for the format (which I predicted multiple times would happen with Jace).
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
The issue here, is that since 2015, it has actually NOT been healthy.
People may have liked spikes in certain decks. When GDS spiked, when UW spiked in response, when UWR/UW/Jund had a spike.
However those are all temporary blips, because THE deck, which said 'dont interact? you lose'. Has been unnaturally removed.
You all can throw whatever names you want at me, its 100% irrelevant, but Twin had an impact on the meta, and it was a healthier one.
Spirits