, and there is no 2nd Modern event deck in the past four years.
They would market the Master series to fill the gaps in the modern challenge decks if they did that. Affinity for example could be a very reasonably priced challenger deck if they left out even just Mox Opals, Arcbound Ravager, and Inkmoth Nexus. Then make artifacts a subtheme of the master series and you have people who pick up the challenge deck more willing to draft or buy a masters series because the cards are able to slot into their constructed deck immediately.
Master series not only need to have high end staple such as Mox Opals, Arcbound Ravager, and Inkmoth Nexus. They also need to have some value common/uncommon (Steel Overseer, Vault Skirge, Cranial Plating, Ghirapur Aether Grid) to attract players.
The truth is, there is only a limited amount of cards worth of the reprint. The idea of creating Modern challenge decks or Modern event decks is trying to compete the "reprint resource" with Master series...
There is a good article for you to read, as a reference:
The problem with that article is that the people who run MTG goldfish know more about card equity than wizards apparently does. The thing is there is reprinting a card to increase availability and printing a card to reduce the price of it, and in modern there's really only a handful of cards that actually need a price reduction.
Basically, it's healthier for the game if a deck is a bunch of 10-20 dollar cards with a few 25-50 dollar staples than if a deck is a bunch of 5-10 dollar cards and a few 60-100 dollar staples.
Suppose WOTC does something to make 60-100 dollar staples down to 25-50 dollar range, just like you wish, how can they sell you 10$ USD per pack in the Master series ???
They need to keep the price above certain level for some staples, from the business point of view.
Did you know that you can drop absurd prices without affecting EV? Wow!
The interesting deck that has not seen any coverage (deck tech, or on twitch) is Temur (RUG) Energy, which has a 82% conversion rate.
Also, conversion rates are not a perfect measure of a deck's potential, since a player can miss day 2 because of a bad draft record, and because statistics break down when there is not enough data (a deck with 1-2 players can easily go 0 or 100%).
You posted the day 2 conversion rates.
I'm talking about the day 3 conversion rates (Top 8 decks).
I'm sorry but I'm going to disregard that, as that data is extremely suspect.
How is that total calculated? Sum of the individual price of every card? I don't see how that's a good indicator of the cost of the format. You need weights. The best weight I can think of is the average number of copies of every card in the decks that have at least one copy. So Tarmogoyf would be x4, Liliana like x3, Karn x3.2 or some such...
I have only seen "good" cards going up month after month and some barely going down. Could be true that overal it's a ton down since last year, but that raises a big alarm for me. Three cards that are one-offs going from $4 a piece to $1 really don't matter. A 4-off that goes up from $20 a piece to $30 (or worse) hurts the format.
It's an iconic useful card, gives value to FNM players, I couldn't be happier with the choice. Yes I would like to have seen it in MM15 but it is better this than no reprint or another crap standard card that never goes anywhere.
<Snip>
I'm sorry but I have a higher standard that "it could be worse." I expected way better.
Unfortunately, I'm probably going to be out of Pauper soon. It has been a failed experiment in my LGS (I don't use Magic OnLine, we played paper with MOL rules.)
@Tom the Scud: Good work, obviously. BUT, I'd really really consider not going bellow two weeks for reports. There are just too few events.
I actually use four weeks for Pauper (two weeks for Modern and Standard,) but since the new online schedule doubled the number of events, I'd feel confortable with 14 days now. Just not seven...
I'm sorry, but I have to fall back on the widely avaliable data.
There is more data on metagame than on matchup percentages, even if both are a little low (it's improving as we speak.) I assume you are refering to this. Notice that it stops late January, when UR Delver Control gained metagame % for the first time.
UR is not "dying off" at this point, no data supports that. It may very well do in the coming weeks, just not right now. Whatever you see will be anecdotic until you round up all the avaliable data for a period of time.
Maybe Esper is way better than Delver Faeries, but I won't speculate on things that aren't in the avaliable data. I have to tell what I see. The more time passes, the more unlikely than Esper is actually better than Delver Faeries. I'm sure Esper won more of its matches, but it's effectively worse.
Don't get me wrong, you need to know everything you can. Metagame share is just the starting point. We each tell what we see and are all the better for it. You need to beat Delver Faeries, because you will face it like twice as much as Esper (as per metagame %,) but you also need a plan for Esper (because it wins many of its matches, as per matchup %.)
So I'm not competitive yet... so this is from an outside point of view, but there really seems to be a problem with cruise. I'm mostly from Modern, but even there it was clear the spell was way to powerful. It pushed out the best archetype, so I'm sure the impact could be even bigger over here.
Anyways, I've been looking into the format, trying to find a deck to play... but it doesnt seem theres a midrange like deck here. Again, cruise pushed out midrange from modern for a while, so I'm wondering if thats got something to do with it, or if its more of a lack of cards to support it.
I'm from Modern too. Old Extended before that.
Your two posts made me realize Mono Black is in fact midrange (whatchuwant, I'm two months into the format myself.)
I think it's also lack of tools. The best played fattie is Fangren Marauder, from RUG Tron. Flipped Delver of Secrets has three power, then almost everything else has two power, or it grows with other cards.
I will mostly defer on deck recomendations to other people, since I have been studying the format for like, only two months. But I'll say this:
The most midrangy deck that wins is actually RUG Tron. It's fueled by Mulldrifter and Treasure Cruise, so you wouldn't be scaping blue, but it's only for support. RG deck with U support and many-colored sideboard.
Eh, I don't consider Mono Black as midrange. It plays too few creatures, depending on the version. Edit: I guess it IS midrange. Chittering Rats, Gray Merchant of Asphodel...
I thought the most midrange deck of the format was Jund Tortured Existence, but it's a fringe deck and a true three-colored manabase is not really there in Pauper.
Weird... I definitely don't consider Boros Skyfisher as midrange. The creatures are too small for that. If it was built for midrange, it's a failure. Aggro deck or bust.
No primer, but I can help with the metagame and overal card choices. No decklists. You can look up decks in this very forum, or I'll generate aggregated lists on demand.
All of this data I generated just today. It covers since Khans entered the format, until February the 25th. I cheated a little and tucked #8022204 and #8022237 into the 25th, so they'd be included.
meta_t88.html, metatable_t88.html, cards_distro_2-1-2-4.html. Those same three I mentioned.
tree_t88.html. I call this a Format Tree. It's just the same data as the periodic metagame, but all together. Click a header to fold/unfold it.
legal_20150127.txt. List of every legal card in MOL Pauper, until the date in filename. It's not here, it's not legal. I did my research, thank you very much.
tag_distro.html. This is like the cards in known decklists, but counting "tags" instead of cards. Tags are labels I use to describe some functions. I don't have as much as I want, but it's good enough. Examples of tags are disruption, removal, graveyard hate.
cards_artifact hate.html, cards_disruption.html, cards_enchantment hate.html, cards_graveyard hate.html, cards_removal.html. For each main tag, the cards that have it.
archetype-cards.html, archetype-cards_tags.html. These are the biggest card changes in the archetypes with the most metagame, and the same, but looking at tag changes instead of cards. My latest juice.
All the table headers are intuitive, I think, but feel free to ask anything. When having time into account, I use four week periods, because Pauper has just not much data. However, the recent MOL Schedule change doubled the Pauper events, so we'll have better data from now on. My weeks go from Thursday to Wednesday, just because.
Mostly, Delver of Secrets Blue based decks dominate the metagame. Treasure Cruise recently brought Mono Black down (it's based on discard. Yeah.) Substituted it with a UR Delver good stuff control deck fueled by that very Cruise. Mono Blue Delver Faeries is the best deck by a mile. Before Cruise became popular, said Mono Black was the second-best deck.
I really think blue needs at least one important ban. Probably two.
There are some decks, like Affinity and MonoG Aggro, that are always there, just not the best. Affinity has had its moments...
How is that total calculated? Sum of the individual price of every card? I don't see how that's a good indicator of the cost of the format. You need weights. The best weight I can think of is the average number of copies of every card in the decks that have at least one copy. So Tarmogoyf would be x4, Liliana like x3, Karn x3.2 or some such...
I have only seen "good" cards going up month after month and some barely going down. Could be true that overal it's a ton down since last year, but that raises a big alarm for me. Three cards that are one-offs going from $4 a piece to $1 really don't matter. A 4-off that goes up from $20 a piece to $30 (or worse) hurts the format.
So, apparently is worth it to experiment drawing first vs. BGx...
I'm sorry but I have a higher standard that "it could be worse." I expected way better.
@Tom the Scud: Good work, obviously. BUT, I'd really really consider not going bellow two weeks for reports. There are just too few events.
I actually use four weeks for Pauper (two weeks for Modern and Standard,) but since the new online schedule doubled the number of events, I'd feel confortable with 14 days now. Just not seven...
There is more data on metagame than on matchup percentages, even if both are a little low (it's improving as we speak.) I assume you are refering to this. Notice that it stops late January, when UR Delver Control gained metagame % for the first time.
UR is not "dying off" at this point, no data supports that. It may very well do in the coming weeks, just not right now. Whatever you see will be anecdotic until you round up all the avaliable data for a period of time.
Maybe Esper is way better than Delver Faeries, but I won't speculate on things that aren't in the avaliable data. I have to tell what I see. The more time passes, the more unlikely than Esper is actually better than Delver Faeries. I'm sure Esper won more of its matches, but it's effectively worse.
Don't get me wrong, you need to know everything you can. Metagame share is just the starting point. We each tell what we see and are all the better for it. You need to beat Delver Faeries, because you will face it like twice as much as Esper (as per metagame %,) but you also need a plan for Esper (because it wins many of its matches, as per matchup %.)
Your two posts made me realize Mono Black is in fact midrange (whatchuwant, I'm two months into the format myself.)
I think it's also lack of tools. The best played fattie is Fangren Marauder, from RUG Tron. Flipped Delver of Secrets has three power, then almost everything else has two power, or it grows with other cards.
Ha, that explains Bonesplitter...
Anyway, I think we all know by now that bans are happening.
The most midrangy deck that wins is actually RUG Tron. It's fueled by Mulldrifter and Treasure Cruise, so you wouldn't be scaping blue, but it's only for support. RG deck with U support and many-colored sideboard.
Eh, I don't consider Mono Black as midrange. It plays too few creatures, depending on the version. Edit: I guess it IS midrange. Chittering Rats, Gray Merchant of Asphodel...
I thought the most midrange deck of the format was Jund Tortured Existence, but it's a fringe deck and a true three-colored manabase is not really there in Pauper.
Weird... I definitely don't consider Boros Skyfisher as midrange. The creatures are too small for that. If it was built for midrange, it's a failure. Aggro deck or bust.
Wizards knows what they're doing. They get full hype but then no problems at all for constructed.
Clever WoTC!
All of this data I generated just today. It covers since Khans entered the format, until February the 25th. I cheated a little and tucked #8022204 and #8022237 into the 25th, so they'd be included.
Metagame:
http://www.moxes.com/images/articles/tally/PAU_meta_t88.html
Metagame, but in table form so you can see subarchetypes and 4-0s:
http://www.moxes.com/images/articles/tally/PAU_metatable_t88.html
Cards in known decklists:
http://www.moxes.com/images/articles/tally/PAU_cards_distro_2-1-2-4.html
All of that and more:
http://www.moxes.com/images/articles/tally/pauper_20150302.zip
All the table headers are intuitive, I think, but feel free to ask anything. When having time into account, I use four week periods, because Pauper has just not much data. However, the recent MOL Schedule change doubled the Pauper events, so we'll have better data from now on. My weeks go from Thursday to Wednesday, just because.
Mostly, Delver of Secrets Blue based decks dominate the metagame. Treasure Cruise recently brought Mono Black down (it's based on discard. Yeah.) Substituted it with a UR Delver good stuff control deck fueled by that very Cruise. Mono Blue Delver Faeries is the best deck by a mile. Before Cruise became popular, said Mono Black was the second-best deck.
I really think blue needs at least one important ban. Probably two.
There are some decks, like Affinity and MonoG Aggro, that are always there, just not the best. Affinity has had its moments...
Anyway... you can see for yourself.