The fair and unfair motifs have come to the point they can only enact utter disdain. Thrown out there expecting them to make the whole argument for people. What you can substitute when someone starts using them:
"Hey I'm paper, please nerf scissors because I'm fair, neither sharp edges nor hard surfaces here. Rock and scissors are unfair, it doesn't matter if the meta becomes 100 % me because I'm fair, I'm entitled to it".
The more these two comes in vogue the more reason to ignore them and use metagame percentages, matchups and win rates as the sole measure to judge whether a deck deserve banning or not. Care for balance, and the rest will follow.
I find the "there is not enough metric evidence"-argument rather irritating. Some posters don't seem to get the difference between a situation where something desperately needs to be done and a situation where the format would be more enjoyable to play and watch on stream for various people. Just because you don't agree with an opinion, doesn't mean that you are right and the others are wrong. Why do people here always have to be so intolerant in discussions? It can't be so hard to accept that there are players out there who are tired of seeing the same lines of play again and again from decks that have become highly redundant over time. You don't have to agree, but this opinion is not that far fetched, IMHO.
Whatever is happening in Modern that stops it from looking like this Standard PT is just fine with me. If that means Tron keeping down a bunch of fair midrange decks.. Great! Don't ban anything.
Whatever is happening in Modern that stops it from looking like this Standard PT is just fine with me. If that means Tron keeping down a bunch of fair midrange decks.. Great! Don't ban anything.
Other than Eldrazi Winter, Modern has never looked as bad as this Standard PT. Remember that the crimes of Twin were basically "1-2 copes" and even Pod and DRS Jund never swept 7/8 slots...
Whatever is happening in Modern that stops it from looking like this Standard PT is just fine with me. If that means Tron keeping down a bunch of fair midrange decks.. Great! Don't ban anything.
I find the "there is not enough metric evidence"-argument rather irritating. Some posters don't seem to get the difference between a situation where something desperately needs to be done and a situation where the format would be more enjoyable to play and watch on stream for various people. Just because you don't agree with an opinion, doesn't mean that you are right and everybody who has a different opinion wrong. Why do people here always have to be so intolerant in discussions? It can't be so hard to accept that there are players out there who are tired of seeing the same lines of play again and again from decks that have become highly redundant over time. You don't have to agree, but this opinion is not that far fetched, IMHO.
People prefer the evidence-based banning metrics because they are more objective and transparent than the fun/experience-based ones. Who is to say one kind of Modern fun is more/less fun to more/fewer people than another? Maybe Player A likes engine combos and beating a little disruption to assemble the win, but hates facing concentrated disruption that prevents them from doing anything. Maybe Player B loves clogged board states like Counters Company vs. Elves, but hates creatureless decks that avoid combat and kill their armies. Maybe Player C loves deploying enormous threats and thinks decks that run them over quickly are unfair. Then there's player D that loves lengthy control/midrange grinds and hates decks that overcome their answer and trading abilities. We all know dozens of players who fit all these mindsets, as well as dozens who fit other mindsets. It is unfair to say that one style is better than the others because all of them represent important player profiles (johnny, timmy, spike), essential Magic elements (assembling combinations, casting flashy spells, creature combat, spell dueling, etc.), and major deck archetypes (aggro, combo, ramp, disruptive aggro, control, midrange, etc.). We can build rhetorical arguments to support positions on all sides of those domains.
This is why many, Wizards included, seem to prefer an evidence-based approach of tracking shares/win rates when assessing format health and success. We will never all agree that Magic/Modern should be played in a certain way. We are much more likely to agree that, for example, a deck with a 20% metagame share in a format where most decks never have more than 10% is probably reducing diversity.
People prefer the evidence-based banning metrics [..]
Where is the evidence for that? Have you done a study based on scientific methodology on this topic or how do you know what magic players prefer? If yes, would you please share your sources?
People prefer the evidence-based banning metrics [..]
Where is the evidence for that? Have you done a study based on scientific methodology on this topic or how do you know what magic players prefer? If yes, would you please share your sources?
I never said "most" people prefer it for that reason. Nor did I mean to suggest this is the only reason why people might prefer this approach. I'm simply giving one reason as to why people may prefer those methods. I am sure there are other reasons too.
1) Red is OP, Why well part of is narrative ie Kaladesh was a powerful set and Chandra was the focus ergo her color got the most pushed. This gets compounded by later sets resulting in Red being the Color with strong playable options at every point on the curve from 1-5. The advantage of drawing from 7 sets.
2) Red simply fits what WOTC wants in standard and in my book and magic in general. Aggro to Midrange based on creature combat. Answers bolted to creatures while standard answers via instants and sorceries simply cannot keep pace because they are not broad enough or cheap enough and you cannot draw them fast enough to keep pace. Although Red does benefit from being the almost exclusive home of Haste and Burn magnifying these issues.
3) The biggest issue in my book is Red with a Black Dip has options that are either recurable (phoenix, scrapheap or simply hard to kill (hazoret and chandra). Combine that with hasty aerial superiority (glorybringer and phoenix) without the need to rely primarily on Heart of Kiran and its no Wonder Red is unstoppable. In short, not enough Exile and White is way too fair. I go far to say its unfair for the user. Not only is it overcosted. Fumigate, they can recur through it or just tank it. Settle and they get free lands gee thanks Maro. Basic aint much of a problem for Standard seeing as these decks seem to average 15 Basic Lands. So I am giving them extra mana and thinning their deck so they can draw more creatures to run over me with? How is that fair. Need to rebalance the color wheel...playing fair is not an identity.
That and these silly naming conventions, this distinction between RB Aggro and RB Midrange is weak looking at the decklists.
From the Modern, Prospective though Karn should be cheaper. Although, he was in the winning deck...don't think anyone is giving Karn most of the credit.
The fair and unfair motifs have come to the point they can only enact utter disdain. Thrown out there expecting them to make the whole argument for people. What you can substitute when someone starts using them:
"Hey I'm paper, please nerf scissors because I'm fair, neither sharp edges nor hard surfaces here. Rock and scissors are unfair, it doesn't matter if the meta becomes 100 % me because I'm fair, I'm entitled to it".
The more these two comes in vogue the more reason to ignore them and use metagame percentages, matchups and win rates as the sole measure to judge whether a deck deserve banning or not. Care for balance, and the rest will follow.
in general i think there is a certain amount of miscommunication going on. the terms used to classify various decks are abstract. for instance 'linear' has no exact definition, especially not one that is universally agreed on, however the term can and is used regularly with people understanding what is trying to be conveyed.
for 'fair' and 'unfair' specifically though there is the connotation that one is good and the other is bad. when in reality people are just using the term as a label for certain kinds of decks, with no implications about morality of whatever else attached. not all decks fall cleanly into either space, but we know for sure that there is some difference between say a deck playing efficient creatures on curve and a deck that is drawing their whole deck and killing you in one turn.
so when someone says they would prefer more fair decks it isnt because unfair decks are inherently evil. its just that the play patterns attributed to fair decks tend to involve more back and forth exchanges, longer games, and more decisions, perceived or otherwise, contributing to the outcome of a game. if i had to guess, these sort of qualities are what people have in mind when mentioning 'fun' magic; with the implicit suggestion that more fun leads to a better format.
for me personally, while i can agree with the sentiment, i recognize that there are a lot of other factors at play and that the format is enriched by having unfair elements around. if nothing else than to separate modern from other formats.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
That and these silly naming conventions, this distinction between RB Aggro and RB Midrange is weak looking at the decklists.
It falls in line perfectly with Wizards' stance on deck name diversity over archetype diversity though. Even if this is literally the most blatantly transparent attempt to falsely represent "diversity."
If I was in charge of a company which owns multiple brands and one of these brands would struggle with a dwindling player base while one of my other brands, which targets a similar audience, would constantly exceed expectations, I would closely look at what drives up the sales numbers of the second brand. One of the main reasons for the recent success of the 5th edition of Dungeons and Dragons is its popularity on twitch and youtube, sparking the interest of many new players, including everyone in the new playgroup that I just joined (except the DM, who has some previous experience in Pathfinder).
I think it's safe to assume that Magic would also benefit from attractive tournament matches with interesting and meaningful interactions. This looks to me like a good reason for overthinking the way certain tournament formats have been policed in the past, based on what is perhaps the most important metric for a company: future sales numbers. Heck, we could even randomly unban some cards that might or might not ruin the format, just create some artificial hype around the next set of reprints that we are trying to sale. Not that WotC would ever resort to such tactics, though...
I never really looked into how does MTG do compared to Yugioh or Pokemon or Hearthstone? I will admit TCG aint exactly the most dynamic thing to watch. So Hearthstone has a massive edge there plus Blizzard really wants some workable Esports, they see the writing on the wall in regards to that. Granted, I still have trouble casually watching MTG get played on stream. I really have to focus to read the cards and follow the match. That is probably not good for business.
But lets be fair DnD spent years during 4th Edition in the woods suffering from dwindling market share while Paizo made Pathfinder to eat their market share. They did good switching to 5e even if it does massively reduce complexity and yeah streaming has injected new life into as well as pop culture references, Stranger Things springs to mind.
for the people here, and the mtg community by and large, its mostly just a guessing game. the best we can do is look at the past decisions wizards has made, with the assumption that they will make similar decisions in the future. or look at when modern, or other formats, were held in high regard; break down the qualities of that format and see how they align with the current state of things.
for a good viewer experience here are some things id look for:
archetype diversity: its good to show that the game can be played multiple ways and players can choose something suited to their tastes
the ability to outplay or out maneuver an opponent: wanting to see skill being a factor, including being able to score a comeback win
rewarding creativity: unique use of card or game mechanics to showcase there is more depth than how cards read on the surface.
games are close: generates suspense, and wins happening on slimmer margins means the small edges accrued matter
those were what i could think of off the top of my head. having 20 decks with different names on camera only to see lopsided games where people are just nutting all over eachother is hardly interesting. likewise the same deck showing up repeatedly, even if the gameplay itself is compelling, would lose appeal quickly (ie temur energy mirrors).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
for the people here, and the mtg community by and large, its mostly just a guessing game. the best we can do is look at the past decisions wizards has made, with the assumption that they will make similar decisions in the future. or look at when modern, or other formats, were held in high regard; break down the qualities of that format and see how they align with the current state of things.
for a good viewer experience here are some things id look for:
archetype diversity: its good to show that the game can be played multiple ways and players can choose something suited to their tastes
the ability to outplay or out maneuver an opponent: wanting to see skill being a factor, including being able to score a comeback win
rewarding creativity: unique use of card or game mechanics to showcase there is more depth than how cards read on the surface.
games are close: generates suspense, and wins happening on slimmer margins means the small edges accrued matter
those were what i could think of off the top of my head. having 20 decks with different names on camera only to see lopsided games where people are just nutting all over eachother is hardly interesting. likewise the same deck showing up repeatedly, even if the gameplay itself is compelling, would lose appeal quickly (ie temur energy mirrors).
If viewer experience is the metric by which you determine success then there are certainly grave offenders in modern (in which players flock to as they are high variance lockout cards) such as Blood Moon, Ensnaring Bridge, Chalice of the Void, etc. None of these cards provide compelling viewership. Basically, cards that invalidate parts of the game are not so great for viewership. I give it *****, but I still love Modern (especially compared to Standard), but for me the spectating quality of the matches has gone significantly downhill since Pod/Twin bannings. While it wasn't as "diverse", the viewing experience was much better back when Pod, Twin/Ux control, BGx, and infect/burn/affinity were the top decks. Pod vs Ux control, BGx vs Twin, etc. were all fun viewing experiences that had depth to the gameplay. I find that is much more lacking in today's format. Cue another "diversity" (imho in name only as archetypal diversity has suffered since those days imho) vs subjective viewer and player experience argument.
having 20 decks with different names on camera only to see lopsided games where people are just nutting all over eachother is hardly interesting.
I agree. However, this is often what happens on camera at Modern events and, as KTK and others have pointed out, Modern is easily the most popular format to watch. Wildly swingy games that are dictated by "sick top decks" are just more "exciting" to watch compared to long, tough decision-making, sprinkled with nuance and subtlety. It's unfortunate that the goal of Wizards seems to be to make the game more exciting to watch, even if that means making the game more random and randomly lopsided.
alright this is getting ridiculous. nothing tron is doing is oppressive by basically any metric you could possibly think of. i have to consider tron when i make card choices for my deck, but i am also considering any number of other good decks. that is just how the game works.
And then there's people like me who never have to consider Tron because of the decks we usually play. As for the decks I have to consider: Humans, Hollow One, and Affinity. Then there's the list of Tier 2/3 decks that always can come up, like the mirror or Mono Red Prison or 8 Whack or... or …
(I'm agreeing with you.)
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)
And then there's people like me who never have to consider Tron because of the decks we usually play. As for the decks I have to consider: Humans, Hollow One, and Affinity. Then there's the list of Tier 2/3 decks that always can come up, like the mirror or Mono Red Prison or 8 Whack or... or …
(I'm agreeing with you.)
PVDdR recently wrote an article (yeah yeah i know people hate him) on choosing to play the 'best deck' or not. in it he states that modern is THE format where you should be sticking to your guns instead of deck hopping. primarily because there are so many playable options that are relatively close in power level, and experience offsets the difference. specifically because a diverse format makes testing for an event time consuming and difficult, and playing a deck for an extended period of time makes it more likely you have a gameplan against the fringe stuff that pops up.
as for viewership. i attribute moderns popularity to the actual increase in modern players, not because the format is particularly good to watch. these things arent entirely mutually exclusive, but if standard sucks because its just the same thing over and over (or people dont want shell out for expensive mythics nonstop) and players gravitate to modern; then they are more likely to tune into modern events merely because it is relevant.
so the qualities that make a format interesting to watch and interesting to play share a lot of the same space, but there is still a contrast between perception and reality. wizards has to care about how a format is perceived, especially in regards to more recently released products; however that isnt the same as saying they only care about or set a higher priority on image.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
for a good viewer experience here are some things id look for:
archetype diversity: its good to show that the game can be played multiple ways and players can choose something suited to their tastes
the ability to outplay or out maneuver an opponent: wanting to see skill being a factor, including being able to score a comeback win
rewarding creativity: unique use of card or game mechanics to showcase there is more depth than how cards read on the surface.
games are close: generates suspense, and wins happening on slimmer margins means the small edges accrued matter
The problem is when you have multiple decks (diversity) you are going to have issues come into play when the axis upon which Deck A runs, is completely counter to Deck B, and there is no room for either outplaying, or keeping a game close.
The other issue with having such diversity is that while one would think that it rewards creativity, that only works to a point, when you have any number of gatekeeper decks that demand specific paths of interaction or speed. This is the 'Can I beat Twin' argument of old, where whatever you brewed up had better have game against Twin/Jund. Now however its 'Can I beat Storm/Tron?' if not, at least on MTGO, you better rethink your life choices.
In short, while I agree with your list, you kind of have to pick which of these 4 to prioiritize. I'm fine with Diversity being number 1, because frankly I want an 'eternal' (dont @ me with your Modern isnt Eternal folks...) format to allow people to play 'their' deck, forever unless its simply overpowering.
If that means we have some lopsided matches, so be it.
I mean obviously we have diversity.
Outplaying, well I think that comes down to the deck types. I dont find unfair decks (even things like Turns) 'outplaying' people. You get there or you dont.
Rewarding Creativity: Well we have some decks, that are wildly competitive, that have been made by streamers like Todd and h0lydiva.
Games are close? Eh, sometimes. I put this into the same range as point 2. Games are close between fair decks.
If I had to grade Modern on these 4 points. I would go A, C, B, B.
there is a distinction between deck diversity and archetype diversity, which can either be more archetypes being represented or more decks within a certain archetype showing up. i do agree though that hitting all of those goals i listed is no easy task. creativity is a difficult one to measure, because non-rotating formats rarely have new stuff popping up; so i might include other things like less seen cards or decks that have very unconventional lines of play. not specifically for veterans of the format, but maybe for newer players who are used to standard.
also im sure there are other qualities that make viewership better and im just not thinking of them. id be interested to hear what others might look for, or a if there were other formats that people enjoyed watching.
one format that i thought was great to watch was legacy prior to the top ban. it had a little bit of everything going on, and the format being more skill-intensive may not be true, but it certainly looked harder to play. so perception is certainly a thing. i cant remember where i read it, but i remember one pro saying that even the illusion of decisions mattering in a game is important for the experience. a lot of games will have decisions that seem important, but ultimately did nothing to change the outcome of the game; and alternatively there are a lot of games where it feels like there was nothing you could do when there really was.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
I think a big part of things for me, and something we see a ton is not just 'play what you want' but 'play and cheer for your deck'.
I don't get behind players, because a lot of them move around and play other decks, but I identify with decks, the same as I do (if not more than) with sports teams.
The appeal when playing it, is that it offers play lines completely alien to Standard, without the hilarity that is the Reserve list of Legacy. Forget Vintage.
I mean if I wasn't on my phone is list all the decks I've played, and against in the last 3 weeks, it's long...
Back in the day in wow you had 1 class at max level and if your class got nerfed, you had to stick with the nerfs, because leveling and equipiing the fotm class would take months.
If they banned cards that didn't delete the decks from existence and just banned cards that make them be over the top, like banning stirrings, no one loses their deck.
Tron without stirrings loses consistency. The deck doesn't stop being viable. They go back to 2 years ago power level. That, or ban ulamog.
The problem with this--well, outside of everything else--is that you insist the deck must go back to "2 years ago power level". Okay, then let's do it to everything else. Because it's not like plenty of other decks haven't gotten buffs in the intervening 2 years. In fact, with your continued complaining about how Tron got so much better in the last 2 years (ironic, considering its biggest buffs occurred prior to the last 2 years), you're ignoring how the various other decks got better.
Ulamog and world breakers cast clauses of destroying lands and ugin's destroy everthing ability are mainly what put Tron over the top against slow decks. Need to fix that ****. Revert back when the only thing they could do with lots of mana was wurmcoil engines, karns -3, and 15 mana emrakuls. Those were pathable, boltable, counterable cards until they got to 15 mana. Waaaaaaaaaay more fair than the uncounterable/destroy everything things they are casting now. Plus sanctum is probably even better than eye of ugin, really.
Okay, that last sentence of yours is utter nonsense.
Eye of Ugin was way better than Sanctum. Sanctum can be great, but it's unreliable if you can't activate it (which happens quite often) and is one-shot. Eye of Ugin you just got into play and then could start the tutoring right away. The guaranteed ability to search it out and then use it to get what you want allowed the deck to run Emrakul, which was far more harmful to slow decks than the other things you complain about. Are Ulamog and Ugin annoying? Sure. But they can be dealt with. Emrakul was basically an "I win!" button that was only possible to play because of Eye of Ugin. That guaranteed "I win!" button is what sealed the deal on Tron being a nightmare for control (and to a lesser extent midrange), because of their lack of ways to deal with it.
If Eye of Ugin was still legal you might have a point with these complaints, but it's not. Are Ulamog and Ugin powerful? Sure. But they don't win the game on the spot like Emrakul does, and Emrakul doesn't work that well with Sanctum of Ugin because it lacks the previous reliability that Eye of Ugin had.
The main place Sanctum of Ugin is better is against fast decks, because the ability to tutor repeatedly, or tutor up Emrakul, generally comes too late. So the ability to tap out and then search out a Wurmcoil Engine or whatever is more useful. But again, that's against the faster decks, not the slower ones.
If nothing gets changed from tron I believe the format will be trapped between aggro decks that beat Tron, and Tron decks preying on decks designed to beat those aggro decks but that miserably lose to Tron. A rock papers scissors format where every game is a 70-30 that you know are gonna win or lose from turn 1.
Oh wait, are you here admitting that Tron isn't presently a problem, but you believe the format will be "trapped" between these decks? If that's the case, why not actually see if that is the case, rather than enacting bans based on a "belief" things will go a certain way? Particularly because your various other claims have generally been poorly supported?
The simple fact is that Tron is not the metagame-controlling monster you've claimed it is, as it is, as I've noted, at about 5% of the metagame. That isn't anywhere close enough to have the kind of effect you're proclaiming it does. And, once again, other decks with bad Tron matchups have been able to do well in the format. And for that matter, the slower decks you're complaining are being kept out by Tron are doing fine! There were two UWR Control decks and one Jund deck in the Top 8 of the last SCG Open! In fact, counting Humans, the majority of decks in the Top 8 had a weak Tron matchup. Oh boy, that Tron sure is keeping those decks out of the format, they only comprised the majority of that Top 8!
But okay, sure, that's just one Top 8. Let's look at the SCG Open before that, Louisville. Again, the majority of decks in that Top 8 are weak against Tron. Mardu Pyromancer, Jeskai Control, Humans, two Jund decks...all bad against Tron.
So again, can we stop this utter nonsense that Tron is actually having that big of an impact on the metagame? It's clearly not, and you're ignoring all the evidence against your claims. It's obviously possible for slower decks to succeed in the metagame despite Tron being around because they are succeeding in the metagame. And if the claim is actually that Tron could be much more of an issue in the future... well, how about we ban based on actualities rather than guesses?
I wonder if Tron is really that 5% of the meta mtggoldfish says, because I surely find it way more than once in every 20 games.
PD: Sanctum is better than Eye because it's better against aggro, the one archetype Tron needs to beat, not control or midrange, those are archetypes Tron beats without even thinking of what to play next, just putting cards into the BF. If Tron had Eye legal, they would still use Sanctum. With Eye instead of Sanctum, their win% increases against slow decks but drops against aggro decks. They lose way more win% against those aggro decks than the tiny bit win% they lose against the slow decks, which are decks they beat anyways emrakul, or no emrakul.
@lord_seth: I'm too lazy right now to answer all those claims, maybe later. I'd gladly revert the power level of everything to 2 years ago. I assure you that slow decks have not gotten as many good toys as Tron has. 2 years or whatever, don't know exactly how long it's been since new ulamog. Before new ulamog I had a 70% winrate against Tron with RUG scapeshift. Now it's reversed.
In fact, with your continued complaining about how Tron got so much better in the last 2 years (ironic, considering its biggest buffs occurred prior to the last 2 years), you're ignoring how the various other decks got better.
What do you mean by "biggest buffs"? The biggest buffs to Tron in recent time have been the big Eldrazi with their enters-the-battlefield-effects. And just because other decks also received buffs doesn't mean that the buffs for Tron where for the better for the format. This finger pointing in a different direction is a diversion tactic.
Eye of Ugin was way better than Sanctum. Sanctum can be great, but it's unreliable if you can't activate it (which happens quite often) and is one-shot.
I agree with you that Eye of Ugin is the more problematic card, but in what world can Tron not activate Sanctum? If they can't activate it, they usually don't tutor it. But it gets tutored a lot against me. And used a lot.
Are Ulamog and Ugin annoying? Sure. But they can be dealt with. Emrakul was basically an "I win!" button that was only possible to play because of Eye of Ugin. That guaranteed "I win!" button is what sealed the deal on Tron being a nightmare for control (and to a lesser extent midrange), because of their lack of ways to deal with it.
I played many matches against the old Tron and never got the impression that Emrakul was too powerful. There is a reason why Ulamog replaced Emrakul. It's just way more powerful in this deck.
The main place Sanctum of Ugin is better is against fast decks, because the ability to tutor repeatedly, or tutor up Emrakul, generally comes too late. So the ability to tap out and then search out a Wurmcoil Engine or whatever is more useful. But again, that's against the faster decks, not the slower ones.
This is just plain wrong. When I play fast against Tron with my Snapcaster-based decks, which can be very good at playing the tempo game, the Tron player's main problem is that they can usually only produce one big threat per turn. So, what they do is not tutor up Wurmcoil Engine, but Ulamog (see a pattern?), to get rid of my two best creatures even if I have a counterspell for it. And I don't always have a counterspell, so in the pre-supercharged-Edlrazi world of MtG, where the mere attempt of casting a spell wouldn't have a huge impact on the game, the Tron player would have to calculate the odds of me having a counterspell and then decide if they want to bait it out with their second best card etc. pp. But since they now have Ulamog, they just slam. This is the kind of change in the play experience against Tron that I criticize. I don't have a problem with Tron doing powerful stuff in general.
The simple fact is that Tron is not the metagame-controlling monster you've claimed it is, as it is, as I've noted, at about 5% of the metagame. That isn't anywhere close enough to have the kind of effect you're proclaiming it does.
You are accusing the person you reply to of not sticking to the facts, but seem to have a problem with the facts as well. Just because the metagame share of a deck archetype is around the 5% mark (which is true for most current Modern decks, including Humans) doesn't mean that its presence doesn't have a major impact on the format. I like to brew and when I have a new deck that is doing great against some of the established decks, there is usually a point at which I have to face Tron and get utterly bashed because I can't keep up with its consistency. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, it's kind of a fun police situation where Tron might even help to filter out non-competitive deck ideas for the better of the format. But it is certainly very noticeable. So, yes, Tron is a format-defining deck.
So again, can we stop this utter nonsense that Tron is actually having that big of an impact on the metagame?
First of all, Tron can certainly have an effect on the metagame whenever it rises in popularity or one of the decks that it is good against rise in popularity. You don't have to be a prophet to predict an uptick in Tron if, say, Jund does particularly well. It certainly affects my deck choices when I go to a tournament. So, I think it's actually utter nonsense to call that utter nonsense. But that's not even the point here. "Metagame" and "format" are not the same thing. Tron is one of the few format-defining decks in Modern. I don't know if that's good or bad, even though I think that it's a myth we all have to thank Tron that Modern doesn't look like Pro Tour Dominaria Standard - because nobody knows what Modern would be like without Tron. It could be worse, it could be better. We simply don't know. And I don't think that there is something fundamentally wrong with Tron. As others are not tiring to point out, there has been no "metric evidence" that Tron is too good. But denying that Tron's presence has a significant impact on the format is absurd. There are literally dozens if not hundreds of threads on forums all other the internet in which midrange and control players discuss what they can do about Tron. That's a tale-tell sign of how much Tron influences deck building and sideboard choices, even at 5% metagame share at some point in time.
"Hey I'm paper, please nerf scissors because I'm fair, neither sharp edges nor hard surfaces here. Rock and scissors are unfair, it doesn't matter if the meta becomes 100 % me because I'm fair, I'm entitled to it".
The more these two comes in vogue the more reason to ignore them and use metagame percentages, matchups and win rates as the sole measure to judge whether a deck deserve banning or not. Care for balance, and the rest will follow.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Truth right here.
Spirits
People prefer the evidence-based banning metrics because they are more objective and transparent than the fun/experience-based ones. Who is to say one kind of Modern fun is more/less fun to more/fewer people than another? Maybe Player A likes engine combos and beating a little disruption to assemble the win, but hates facing concentrated disruption that prevents them from doing anything. Maybe Player B loves clogged board states like Counters Company vs. Elves, but hates creatureless decks that avoid combat and kill their armies. Maybe Player C loves deploying enormous threats and thinks decks that run them over quickly are unfair. Then there's player D that loves lengthy control/midrange grinds and hates decks that overcome their answer and trading abilities. We all know dozens of players who fit all these mindsets, as well as dozens who fit other mindsets. It is unfair to say that one style is better than the others because all of them represent important player profiles (johnny, timmy, spike), essential Magic elements (assembling combinations, casting flashy spells, creature combat, spell dueling, etc.), and major deck archetypes (aggro, combo, ramp, disruptive aggro, control, midrange, etc.). We can build rhetorical arguments to support positions on all sides of those domains.
This is why many, Wizards included, seem to prefer an evidence-based approach of tracking shares/win rates when assessing format health and success. We will never all agree that Magic/Modern should be played in a certain way. We are much more likely to agree that, for example, a deck with a 20% metagame share in a format where most decks never have more than 10% is probably reducing diversity.
I never said "most" people prefer it for that reason. Nor did I mean to suggest this is the only reason why people might prefer this approach. I'm simply giving one reason as to why people may prefer those methods. I am sure there are other reasons too.
There are a TON of decks people hate. There are approximately ZERO decks that are objectively too good in Modern.
I'll take fact based format curating all day.
Otherwise I could see decks like Tron, Burn, Lantern, Storm, As Naus, Turns, all getting 'hated' out.
I'd rather not be playing Standard.
Spirits
1) Red is OP, Why well part of is narrative ie Kaladesh was a powerful set and Chandra was the focus ergo her color got the most pushed. This gets compounded by later sets resulting in Red being the Color with strong playable options at every point on the curve from 1-5. The advantage of drawing from 7 sets.
2) Red simply fits what WOTC wants in standard and in my book and magic in general. Aggro to Midrange based on creature combat. Answers bolted to creatures while standard answers via instants and sorceries simply cannot keep pace because they are not broad enough or cheap enough and you cannot draw them fast enough to keep pace. Although Red does benefit from being the almost exclusive home of Haste and Burn magnifying these issues.
3) The biggest issue in my book is Red with a Black Dip has options that are either recurable (phoenix, scrapheap or simply hard to kill (hazoret and chandra). Combine that with hasty aerial superiority (glorybringer and phoenix) without the need to rely primarily on Heart of Kiran and its no Wonder Red is unstoppable. In short, not enough Exile and White is way too fair. I go far to say its unfair for the user. Not only is it overcosted. Fumigate, they can recur through it or just tank it. Settle and they get free lands gee thanks Maro. Basic aint much of a problem for Standard seeing as these decks seem to average 15 Basic Lands. So I am giving them extra mana and thinning their deck so they can draw more creatures to run over me with? How is that fair. Need to rebalance the color wheel...playing fair is not an identity.
That and these silly naming conventions, this distinction between RB Aggro and RB Midrange is weak looking at the decklists.
From the Modern, Prospective though Karn should be cheaper. Although, he was in the winning deck...don't think anyone is giving Karn most of the credit.
in general i think there is a certain amount of miscommunication going on. the terms used to classify various decks are abstract. for instance 'linear' has no exact definition, especially not one that is universally agreed on, however the term can and is used regularly with people understanding what is trying to be conveyed.
for 'fair' and 'unfair' specifically though there is the connotation that one is good and the other is bad. when in reality people are just using the term as a label for certain kinds of decks, with no implications about morality of whatever else attached. not all decks fall cleanly into either space, but we know for sure that there is some difference between say a deck playing efficient creatures on curve and a deck that is drawing their whole deck and killing you in one turn.
so when someone says they would prefer more fair decks it isnt because unfair decks are inherently evil. its just that the play patterns attributed to fair decks tend to involve more back and forth exchanges, longer games, and more decisions, perceived or otherwise, contributing to the outcome of a game. if i had to guess, these sort of qualities are what people have in mind when mentioning 'fun' magic; with the implicit suggestion that more fun leads to a better format.
for me personally, while i can agree with the sentiment, i recognize that there are a lot of other factors at play and that the format is enriched by having unfair elements around. if nothing else than to separate modern from other formats.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)It falls in line perfectly with Wizards' stance on deck name diversity over archetype diversity though. Even if this is literally the most blatantly transparent attempt to falsely represent "diversity."
Goldfish had a fun breakdown of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0WgEBj_w1E
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I think it's safe to assume that Magic would also benefit from attractive tournament matches with interesting and meaningful interactions. This looks to me like a good reason for overthinking the way certain tournament formats have been policed in the past, based on what is perhaps the most important metric for a company: future sales numbers. Heck, we could even randomly unban some cards that might or might not ruin the format, just create some artificial hype around the next set of reprints that we are trying to sale. Not that WotC would ever resort to such tactics, though...
But lets be fair DnD spent years during 4th Edition in the woods suffering from dwindling market share while Paizo made Pathfinder to eat their market share. They did good switching to 5e even if it does massively reduce complexity and yeah streaming has injected new life into as well as pop culture references, Stranger Things springs to mind.
for a good viewer experience here are some things id look for:
archetype diversity: its good to show that the game can be played multiple ways and players can choose something suited to their tastes
the ability to outplay or out maneuver an opponent: wanting to see skill being a factor, including being able to score a comeback win
rewarding creativity: unique use of card or game mechanics to showcase there is more depth than how cards read on the surface.
games are close: generates suspense, and wins happening on slimmer margins means the small edges accrued matter
those were what i could think of off the top of my head. having 20 decks with different names on camera only to see lopsided games where people are just nutting all over eachother is hardly interesting. likewise the same deck showing up repeatedly, even if the gameplay itself is compelling, would lose appeal quickly (ie temur energy mirrors).
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)If viewer experience is the metric by which you determine success then there are certainly grave offenders in modern (in which players flock to as they are high variance lockout cards) such as Blood Moon, Ensnaring Bridge, Chalice of the Void, etc. None of these cards provide compelling viewership. Basically, cards that invalidate parts of the game are not so great for viewership. I give it *****, but I still love Modern (especially compared to Standard), but for me the spectating quality of the matches has gone significantly downhill since Pod/Twin bannings. While it wasn't as "diverse", the viewing experience was much better back when Pod, Twin/Ux control, BGx, and infect/burn/affinity were the top decks. Pod vs Ux control, BGx vs Twin, etc. were all fun viewing experiences that had depth to the gameplay. I find that is much more lacking in today's format. Cue another "diversity" (imho in name only as archetypal diversity has suffered since those days imho) vs subjective viewer and player experience argument.
I agree. However, this is often what happens on camera at Modern events and, as KTK and others have pointed out, Modern is easily the most popular format to watch. Wildly swingy games that are dictated by "sick top decks" are just more "exciting" to watch compared to long, tough decision-making, sprinkled with nuance and subtlety. It's unfortunate that the goal of Wizards seems to be to make the game more exciting to watch, even if that means making the game more random and randomly lopsided.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
And then there's people like me who never have to consider Tron because of the decks we usually play. As for the decks I have to consider: Humans, Hollow One, and Affinity. Then there's the list of Tier 2/3 decks that always can come up, like the mirror or Mono Red Prison or 8 Whack or... or …
(I'm agreeing with you.)
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)PVDdR recently wrote an article (yeah yeah i know people hate him) on choosing to play the 'best deck' or not. in it he states that modern is THE format where you should be sticking to your guns instead of deck hopping. primarily because there are so many playable options that are relatively close in power level, and experience offsets the difference. specifically because a diverse format makes testing for an event time consuming and difficult, and playing a deck for an extended period of time makes it more likely you have a gameplan against the fringe stuff that pops up.
article is here
as for viewership. i attribute moderns popularity to the actual increase in modern players, not because the format is particularly good to watch. these things arent entirely mutually exclusive, but if standard sucks because its just the same thing over and over (or people dont want shell out for expensive mythics nonstop) and players gravitate to modern; then they are more likely to tune into modern events merely because it is relevant.
so the qualities that make a format interesting to watch and interesting to play share a lot of the same space, but there is still a contrast between perception and reality. wizards has to care about how a format is perceived, especially in regards to more recently released products; however that isnt the same as saying they only care about or set a higher priority on image.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)The problem is when you have multiple decks (diversity) you are going to have issues come into play when the axis upon which Deck A runs, is completely counter to Deck B, and there is no room for either outplaying, or keeping a game close.
The other issue with having such diversity is that while one would think that it rewards creativity, that only works to a point, when you have any number of gatekeeper decks that demand specific paths of interaction or speed. This is the 'Can I beat Twin' argument of old, where whatever you brewed up had better have game against Twin/Jund. Now however its 'Can I beat Storm/Tron?' if not, at least on MTGO, you better rethink your life choices.
In short, while I agree with your list, you kind of have to pick which of these 4 to prioiritize. I'm fine with Diversity being number 1, because frankly I want an 'eternal' (dont @ me with your Modern isnt Eternal folks...) format to allow people to play 'their' deck, forever unless its simply overpowering.
If that means we have some lopsided matches, so be it.
I mean obviously we have diversity.
Outplaying, well I think that comes down to the deck types. I dont find unfair decks (even things like Turns) 'outplaying' people. You get there or you dont.
Rewarding Creativity: Well we have some decks, that are wildly competitive, that have been made by streamers like Todd and h0lydiva.
Games are close? Eh, sometimes. I put this into the same range as point 2. Games are close between fair decks.
If I had to grade Modern on these 4 points. I would go A, C, B, B.
Spirits
also im sure there are other qualities that make viewership better and im just not thinking of them. id be interested to hear what others might look for, or a if there were other formats that people enjoyed watching.
one format that i thought was great to watch was legacy prior to the top ban. it had a little bit of everything going on, and the format being more skill-intensive may not be true, but it certainly looked harder to play. so perception is certainly a thing. i cant remember where i read it, but i remember one pro saying that even the illusion of decisions mattering in a game is important for the experience. a lot of games will have decisions that seem important, but ultimately did nothing to change the outcome of the game; and alternatively there are a lot of games where it feels like there was nothing you could do when there really was.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)I don't get behind players, because a lot of them move around and play other decks, but I identify with decks, the same as I do (if not more than) with sports teams.
The appeal when playing it, is that it offers play lines completely alien to Standard, without the hilarity that is the Reserve list of Legacy. Forget Vintage.
I mean if I wasn't on my phone is list all the decks I've played, and against in the last 3 weeks, it's long...
That's the appeal of Modern to me.
Spirits
Okay, that last sentence of yours is utter nonsense.
Eye of Ugin was way better than Sanctum. Sanctum can be great, but it's unreliable if you can't activate it (which happens quite often) and is one-shot. Eye of Ugin you just got into play and then could start the tutoring right away. The guaranteed ability to search it out and then use it to get what you want allowed the deck to run Emrakul, which was far more harmful to slow decks than the other things you complain about. Are Ulamog and Ugin annoying? Sure. But they can be dealt with. Emrakul was basically an "I win!" button that was only possible to play because of Eye of Ugin. That guaranteed "I win!" button is what sealed the deal on Tron being a nightmare for control (and to a lesser extent midrange), because of their lack of ways to deal with it.
If Eye of Ugin was still legal you might have a point with these complaints, but it's not. Are Ulamog and Ugin powerful? Sure. But they don't win the game on the spot like Emrakul does, and Emrakul doesn't work that well with Sanctum of Ugin because it lacks the previous reliability that Eye of Ugin had.
The main place Sanctum of Ugin is better is against fast decks, because the ability to tutor repeatedly, or tutor up Emrakul, generally comes too late. So the ability to tap out and then search out a Wurmcoil Engine or whatever is more useful. But again, that's against the faster decks, not the slower ones.
Oh wait, are you here admitting that Tron isn't presently a problem, but you believe the format will be "trapped" between these decks? If that's the case, why not actually see if that is the case, rather than enacting bans based on a "belief" things will go a certain way? Particularly because your various other claims have generally been poorly supported?
The simple fact is that Tron is not the metagame-controlling monster you've claimed it is, as it is, as I've noted, at about 5% of the metagame. That isn't anywhere close enough to have the kind of effect you're proclaiming it does. And, once again, other decks with bad Tron matchups have been able to do well in the format. And for that matter, the slower decks you're complaining are being kept out by Tron are doing fine! There were two UWR Control decks and one Jund deck in the Top 8 of the last SCG Open! In fact, counting Humans, the majority of decks in the Top 8 had a weak Tron matchup. Oh boy, that Tron sure is keeping those decks out of the format, they only comprised the majority of that Top 8!
But okay, sure, that's just one Top 8. Let's look at the SCG Open before that, Louisville. Again, the majority of decks in that Top 8 are weak against Tron. Mardu Pyromancer, Jeskai Control, Humans, two Jund decks...all bad against Tron.
So again, can we stop this utter nonsense that Tron is actually having that big of an impact on the metagame? It's clearly not, and you're ignoring all the evidence against your claims. It's obviously possible for slower decks to succeed in the metagame despite Tron being around because they are succeeding in the metagame. And if the claim is actually that Tron could be much more of an issue in the future... well, how about we ban based on actualities rather than guesses?
PD: Sanctum is better than Eye because it's better against aggro, the one archetype Tron needs to beat, not control or midrange, those are archetypes Tron beats without even thinking of what to play next, just putting cards into the BF. If Tron had Eye legal, they would still use Sanctum. With Eye instead of Sanctum, their win% increases against slow decks but drops against aggro decks. They lose way more win% against those aggro decks than the tiny bit win% they lose against the slow decks, which are decks they beat anyways emrakul, or no emrakul.
@lord_seth: I'm too lazy right now to answer all those claims, maybe later. I'd gladly revert the power level of everything to 2 years ago. I assure you that slow decks have not gotten as many good toys as Tron has. 2 years or whatever, don't know exactly how long it's been since new ulamog. Before new ulamog I had a 70% winrate against Tron with RUG scapeshift. Now it's reversed.