Magic Market Index for July 20th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for July 13th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for July 6th, 2018
  • posted a message on Jeskai Control
    Quote from TonySoprano »
    Am I the only one who feels like KCI is one of the most annoying / hardest match-ups for us right now?


    its definitely a bad matchup. dunno if id rate it worse than something like dredge. stony silence is well positioned atm. my side plan is:

    -2 path
    -2 helix
    -2 electrolyze
    -1 supreme verdict
    -1 wrath of god
    -1 bolt

    +2 stony silence
    +1 clique (i play 1 main)
    +1 damping sphere
    +1 ceremonious rejection
    +1 negate
    +1 disdainful stroke
    +1 wear
    +1 dispel
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 02/07/2018)
    Quote from idSurge »
    Yeah, I could be tempted to give it (UW Miracles) a spin, it was a close thing (had him at 2, then had him at 4!!) but its really hard for me to give up reach with Bolt.

    I still dont understand Hollow Ones success. I'm over 60% win rate on that one with UWR.


    yeah i played miracles around a month ago when i started seeing lists in the 5-0 dumps that werent the piles playing spreading seas or nonsense like telling time. easily prized the 2 weekly events i played in. terminus is a busted card.

    not sure id say its outright better than jeskai like some claim, but it certainly has clear upsides. definitely a solid home for jace, which is reason enough for me to sleeve it up from time to time (they were expensive damnit!).
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on What do you do?
    the simple, albeit not very useful, answer is to follow the rules. you mentioned it in the OP, but if you really want to compete at the top levels you need to put aside any misgivings about looking mean.

    its probably partially the reason that spikes, pros, and grinders arent looked at very kindly by most of the community. tight play should be rewarded, and loose play punished. its the reason that the REL system exists.

    the young pyro elemental play is questionable because there might have some verbal cue that viewers couldnt see; the baliista play though played out as it should have. the trigger types may have been different, but from my understanding carvalo would have received a warning for failing to maintain the game state (please correct me if im wrong).

    of course the fine line is making sure you are strict with your opponent at comp+ REL and just being scummy and rules lawyering. i know for me personally it took a while before i felt comfortable calling a judge to watch for slow play.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 02/07/2018)
    Quote from 13055 »
    Keep in mind that ktk's comparison of pro players does not take into account decks that were played. Someone had mentioned apples and oranges - bringing up the variance in matchup WP is exactly that. The indistinguishable MWP between standard and modern are just to prove that, when played at the highest level, a professional is able to achieve the same (on average) win percentage between the two formats. This doesn't say that matchups between certain decks are at a certain percentage. There might be some correlation between the two, but the numbers do not state anything about this.
    true, but i think when an observation is made a natural response is to attempt to explain it. if you assume that modern truly has some lopsided matchups, and standard doesnt; then maybe we should be discussing how pros overcome this barrier and apply it to ourselves.

    one such way is that one player is just way better than their opponent, meaning they would make up significant percentages attributed to a bad matchup. however we are talking about this in the abstract, meaning player skill isnt a factor. outside of overwhelmingly skewing your sideboard to address said bad matchup, i just dont see how you can expect to do well when paired with multiple bad matchups against players of similar skill level to your own.

    hence i think its worth questioning the original assumption that there is a major difference between modern and standard.
    More cards in the card pool to make a deck means more skill and less variance. Not sure why you guys are bickering, it really is that simple.

    More cards in a pool means more search/sift cards to find copies 5-8. It also means there are many more strategies to make a deck with.

    You can only do so much piloting a deck before the actual deck construction is weak.


    yes modern decks have more tools to make executing their gameplan more consistent, but this is set apart from strategic differences. in fact it would only make it more noticeable, because its more likely that each deck does what its supposed to; which is the assumed state when discussing decks. when we talk about a deck like tron we arent thinking 'hey maybe they will brick for 5 turns and do nothing' we assume they are going to assemble tron early and play huge threats because that is what the deck is designed to do.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 02/07/2018)
    Quote from ktkenshinx »

    It is very possible that some Modern matchups are more variable than Standard ones. But again, this variability, whatever it is, currently has zero measurable effect on Modern performance metrics at the GP or SCG level. Players with and without byes are able to have the same consistent top performance at Modern, Standard, and Legacy events. This means that variability isn't real and/or people are able to overcome it such that it has no effect on performance.


    ive yet to see any reasonable explanation on how one would overcome such a thing. at least to the point where it has minimal to no impact on results. all other things being equal, i just dont see how being upwards of 20% more or less likely to win a match isnt going to effect win percentages at the top level of play.

    imo the simpler, and therefore more likely, explanation is either:

    A)matchups in standard arent as even as people believe
    B)matchups in modern arent as varied as people believe
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 02/07/2018)
    the only thing the pro-tour really provides is an idea of how pros perceive the strength of various decks, and we have evidence wizards takes that into consideration based on their previous statements.

    if pro teams gain a major advantage in anything, as someone else brought up in the context of modern, it is limited. which is why, according to most of what ive read, the majority of practice and testing is devoted to it.

    the unfortunate truth of things is that multi-format pros simply dont have enough time to discover and innovate new things in non-rotating formats. the byproduct of this is inflated numbers for known quantities because they are safe, low effort, choices. i believe twin and pod fell victim to this to some degree, more recently humans, and likewise decks such as grixis delver/czech pile in legacy.

    i know many people tend to think of pros as a source of innovation and new ideas, but i tend to think that they are the engine that powers the bandwagons that players latch onto. the MOCS shortly after the unbannings where jund was a stupid portion of the field is evidence of this in practice.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 02/07/2018)
    yeah id question premise #1. modern has a fairly even distribution of power and meta shares over way more decks than standard; which means that deck selection and prediction isnt just harder, its unfeasible. with a smaller subset of good decks you can more reasonably expect to be able to attack them in some way and gain a competitive edge; whereas modern rewards expertise in one deck because the difference between deck #1 and deck #10 is marginal.

    this is why some pros dislike modern, because the gap between skill at the game and skill at the format cant easily be bridged with a few weeks of dedicated testing. this is why you see pros like brad nelson who are known for their prowess at metagaming standard, while the best modern players are often renowned for their mastery of a specific deck.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 02/07/2018)
    its true that the deck choice doesnt necessarily have any bearing on the skill of the pilot, but the reality of it is that some decks are just easier to play. different decks or archetypes will have qualities that draw on different skill sets, but even among those there will always be decks that rate lower. a deck looking to spike their opponent out of the game with powerful hate cards just isnt asking much of the player when it shows up in their hand, and much of the 'skill' comes into play when the deck fumbles or encounters resistance.

    what i think people have trouble coming to terms with is that the skill required (including the floor and ceiling) to play whatever deck doesnt determine how good that deck actually is at any given point. and it shouldnt if people want or expect any level of diversity at the competitive level of play.

    there is also rampant overestimation/underestimation of how difficult certain decks are to pilot, usually when individuals assess the decks they play versus what decks other people play. for instance draw-go control players like to believe they are playing 4D underwater chess while overlooking that playing primarily at instant speed makes decisions easier, not harder.

    i think if kt's data shows anything its that matchups in modern, across most of the board, are closer than people make them out to be given the available card pool and selection of 'good' cards. good players win quite a bit more than bad players. if you dont think this is the case then you are doing yourself an injustice by not properly looking for ways to better your play.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 02/07/2018)
    no. ponza is horrible. nobody should play it. ever
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 02/07/2018)
    that abzan traverse list looks sweet. ive heard 1 mana tutors are pretty good. seems like a great direction for GBx decks since they have been struggling to keep up with the mardu lootings engine. hope the deck picks up.



    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 02/07/2018)
    ...


    yeah i agree with most of that. what you are saying is technically correct, because at comp+ REL players should know whats going on. if the non-kci player gets blown out because they couldnt see an interaction that is already on-board that is on them. however im just talking about the general magic experience at all levels.

    i bring it up because i recently saw a young kid playing some janky beatdown deck against kci (local casual event) and i just had to cringe and shake my head.

    so yeah its not enough reason to ban the deck on its own, which is why i hope its too good.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 02/07/2018)
    Quote from 13055 »

    I'm not sure that's worse gameplay than any Lantern win, honestly. I'm not sure about percentages, but there are always going to be games won because of misplays/accidents that don't get caught. In today's stream, there was a Humans/Merfolk matchup where the Merfolk player Echoing Truthed the Vials of the other player but didn't bounce his own Vial. He then used that Vial over two turns to amass a winning board state. This isn't an issue that's unique to KCI.


    fair enough. i guess i should rephrase to say that i hypothesize that kci games have a higher average number of mistakes on both sides of the table that effect the outcome of the game.

    its just a deck that promotes rules lawyering, which is one of the worst aspects of competitive paper magic.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 02/07/2018)
    Quote from tronix »
    from what ive seen of the coverage so far there certainly has been alot of stirrings decks on camera. plenty of lootings with hollow one and mardu as well.

    personally im low key hoping kci is actually too good. i got nothing against combo decks, but not only does the kci pilot have to take forever explaining every convoluted interaction but the opponent has to be versed enough in the nuances to know/check if anything is wrong. seems especially annoying in comp+ REL where it behooves players to be sticklers about rules. id imagine judges absolutely hate the deck.

    All Judges have to do is know the rules, which is all we can ask from them. I personally think it's much scarier from the KCI player's standpoint because a particular Judge may not know the rules. Modern PPTQ season is starting too and I for one am strongly considering playing KCI myself. Although I personally feel unconvinced that it is the "best deck," some players on my team believe so and I want to see who's right.

    I do understand that there could possibly be a lot of Judge calls at a tournament, but I for one hope that at a smaller (30-60 players) tournament that people will overhear some of the interactions and hopefully know them going into the tournament.


    yeah i get that there is pressure on the kci player to properly announce or sequence. thats my point though. not only does the player need to get everything right lest they accumulate too many warninrgs, but the opponent is also forced to watch like a hawk to make sure that the kci player hasnt done anything illegal.

    some may see that as some skill bar, because if you dont know how your opponents deck works you deserve to lose right? i would disagree because complexity doesnt equate to skill, and it means that some number of kci games are going to be decided by events that were actually illegal but never caught (with or without malicious intent).

    every time ive seen the deck being played in person it involves the kci player explaining in great detail what is going on while the opponent is just staring on glassy eyed just sorta nodding their head until they eventually decide that 'well the opponent must know what theyre doing'. that is crappy gameplay imo.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 02/07/2018)
    kci is fast enough to go under tron, and seems mostly like a coinflip against infect since both can have explosive draws to kill turns 2-4; both have minimal disruption from the board for the other (bolts/claims).
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 02/07/2018)
    from what ive seen of the coverage so far there certainly has been alot of stirrings decks on camera. plenty of lootings with hollow one and mardu as well.

    personally im low key hoping kci is actually too good. i got nothing against combo decks, but not only does the kci pilot have to take forever explaining every convoluted interaction but the opponent has to be versed enough in the nuances to know/check if anything is wrong. seems especially annoying in comp+ REL where it behooves players to be sticklers about rules. id imagine judges absolutely hate the deck.
    Posted in: Modern
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.