[Official] State of Modern Thread (B&R 07/13/2020)

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 900
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 4 years ago

motleyslayer wrote:
4 years ago
The Gruul midrange deck seems to be super well positioned right now with its disruption and reasonable threats.
It does. And I was definitely a doubter until I saw some of the results recently, as well as watching 2 Pro Players stream the super qualifier (one was 2-2 vs. Gruul Midrange with Bant Snowblade, 5-0 elsewhere, the other was 1-1 vs. Gruul Midrange with Uroza, 6-1 elsewhere)

@TheBoulderer - I believe it's just not played much. It's probably not a deck that has caught on much and has the "stigma" of potentially not being more than mediocre, as Ad Nauseam has always been in Modern. I was actually wondering a bit myself though...
Standard - Will pick up what's good when paper starts
Pre Modern - Do not own anymore
Pioneer - DEAD
Modern - Jund Sacrifice, Amulet, Elementals, Trollementals, BR Asmo/Goryo's, Yawmoth Chord
Legacy - No more cards, will rebuy Sneak Show when I can
Limited - Will start when paper starts
Commander - Nope

User avatar
motleyslayer
Posts: 1127
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Contact:

Post by motleyslayer » 4 years ago

I remember seeing Ad Nauseam on a bit of an uptick around War of the Spark when it got 3feri but deck still seems mediocre and weak to interaction. The only people I see on it are people who have been on it for years and know it inside out.

I actually highly doubted GR mid until I played against it on MTGO yesterday and barely won

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 900
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 4 years ago

motleyslayer wrote:
4 years ago
I remember seeing Ad Nauseam on a bit of an uptick around War of the Spark when it got 3feri but deck still seems mediocre and weak to interaction. The only people I see on it are people who have been on it for years and know it inside out.

I actually highly doubted GR mid until I played against it on MTGO yesterday and barely won
I know 2 Ad Nauseam "specialists" and both of them have indeed tried the new Esper Oracle and/or Ad Nauseam. For the Spike one, the results have not been enough for him to play it in a competitive tournament over Bant Snow Control. It took many years for his Spike buddies telling him Ad Nauseam is not good for him to get it through his head, sadly enough. For the other Timmy one, he (very much so like myself) just loves trying new decks. It's hard for him to stick with a deck and I doubt he'd play this at Comp REL.

You're better than me. I lost to a version similar to the new version and still doubted it. I dismissed the draws as somewhat out there (Elf, Sprawl into turns 2 and 3 Bloodbraid Elf, one cascading into (I'm guessing) 1 of 2 Grafdigger's Cage). I need to be a bit more serious about beating this deck if the online meta keeps the paper meta the same after Quarantine is over.
Standard - Will pick up what's good when paper starts
Pre Modern - Do not own anymore
Pioneer - DEAD
Modern - Jund Sacrifice, Amulet, Elementals, Trollementals, BR Asmo/Goryo's, Yawmoth Chord
Legacy - No more cards, will rebuy Sneak Show when I can
Limited - Will start when paper starts
Commander - Nope

User avatar
motleyslayer
Posts: 1127
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Contact:

Post by motleyslayer » 4 years ago

FoodChainGoblins wrote:
4 years ago
motleyslayer wrote:
4 years ago
I remember seeing Ad Nauseam on a bit of an uptick around War of the Spark when it got 3feri but deck still seems mediocre and weak to interaction. The only people I see on it are people who have been on it for years and know it inside out.

I actually highly doubted GR mid until I played against it on MTGO yesterday and barely won
I know 2 Ad Nauseam "specialists" and both of them have indeed tried the new Esper Oracle and/or Ad Nauseam. For the Spike one, the results have not been enough for him to play it in a competitive tournament over Bant Snow Control. It took many years for his Spike buddies telling him Ad Nauseam is not good for him to get it through his head, sadly enough. For the other Timmy one, he (very much so like myself) just loves trying new decks. It's hard for him to stick with a deck and I doubt he'd play this at Comp REL.

You're better than me. I lost to a version similar to the new version and still doubted it. I dismissed the draws as somewhat out there (Elf, Sprawl into turns 2 and 3 Bloodbraid Elf, one cascading into (I'm guessing) 1 of 2 Grafdigger's Cage). I need to be a bit more serious about beating this deck if the online meta keeps the paper meta the same after Quarantine is over.
I can see the deck being a real deal. Not sure if it'll be tier 1/1.5 but it has some good draws. BBE is a good card (especially if it can hit stone rain effects)and glorybringer seems okay, especially when cast earlier. the GR god seems really good and scooze can get out of control against certain decks.

There's one player I see at events who has foiled out ad naus and it's all he plays. Ever since I started playing comp level events, I haven't seen him play any other deck. I have another buddy that switches between dredge and ad naus. Guess it has its faithful players

User avatar
Bearscape
Posts: 233
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Bearscape » 4 years ago

If Modern is in a state where a Gruul midrange deck is a good anti-meta-call then it's in a fantastic spot

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 634
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 4 years ago

That does not really work out if 70% or more of the decks are packing green. If green is in most decks, there is an issue. They may be diverse, but if they all run forests, it won't feel diverse to me.

User avatar
ktkenshinx
Posts: 571
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: West Coast
Contact:

Post by ktkenshinx » 4 years ago

drmarkb wrote:
4 years ago
That does not really work out if 70% or more of the decks are packing green. If green is in most decks, there is an issue. They may be diverse, but if they all run forests, it won't feel diverse to me.
I'm not 100% disagreeing with you and do think there are issues with this, but to play devil's advocate, what is wrong with Modern being a format focused on green if top decks are all doing different things with green? Judging by SQ T32s, we have a pretty even aggro, control, midrange, and ramp split right now at the top tables. Top players include Bant Snow Control, Eldrazi Tron, Amulet Titan, Dredge, Burn, Jund, Temur Urza, and Mono G Tron. Let's ignore the much more real issue of Tier 1 decks being degrees stronger than Tier 2 decks, which I think is much bigger than any one color being dominant. Just focusing on color spread across top strategies, what's so bad about this picture?

I have some answers for this to try and capture what people are feeling, but want to hear what others think first.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 634
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 4 years ago

For me the gap between t1 and t2 is big, and it is a consideration.

I guess there are a couple of issues for me. Green offers the ability to deal with literally anything- opposing counterspells (in the form of Veil/ plus uncountrables like Decay), artifacts, enchantments (for zero mana in my turn), and increasingly creatures outside of draft via planeswalkers like Vivien-and of course it has better selection than most and can ramp better, and splash better. So whatever I am playing to control the game won't be safe. In most mtg there will be matches where a specific card is something that is feared- it does not have to be a hoser, but it can be. Matchups being what they are you will find that sometimes your key card is up against decks that can deal with it, sometimes it can't. That is not true when green is best- because whatever your strategy is green has the answer, including now for storm decks with its storm "gain 3 life" card waiting for storm to get good.

When people all play one colour there should be a way of taking advantage and exploiting, but there are no green hosers like Choke for blue.
A meta where one colour is extremely strong is what we see in Legacy, with Blue- but there is a whole barrel full of anti blue decks packing chalice, 3 sphere etc. that prey upon these, and plenty more fringe decks running cards like Chain of Mephistopheles to boot that prevents the blue feeling oppressive. Even in Legacy, you can see decks running main deck Pyroblasts to get an edge against the U cantrip engines, and although it is a warning sign, it does lead to self correction as other decks get stronger when Ux decks pack pyroblast type effects. In green in Modern there is literally no way to punish or get an edge on the green players.

We also need to consider the other half of the equation- by all the decks being green, something is not getting played- meaning we lack something that the other colours are supposed to bring- which brings us back to white being underplayed.

It comes to a feeling that we get when we start the game- we learn that each colour has strengths and weaknesses, and it feels unfair if one does not. Technically we could have Mtg with no colours, and that would be just as good a game for many, but as it is we are taught from day one that all colours have stengths and weaknesses, and when that paradigm is not true, we feel cheated.

Another point is the patterns you often see are the same,again mirroring the cantrip engine in Legacy, the difference being there are no answers to these patterns- no main deck chains or trinisphere tech.

Witness this deck. I used it last August in the European store series. I played one only and got to my store's final with this, I played it a couple of weeks before at a 40 player event and missed the win and in having not played it before, beating some v good players on more established decks.

Now when I was "brewing" this- I use the term loosely- I basically took a well known acceleration package- the steve/sprawl/arbor elf package. No brainer, because, well that is the package to accelerate outside of tron lands.
I then stuck in the potential landkill spells (most of which do other things- command can nerf bins or gain life, beast can do anything) and nicked the critter package from the old eternal command deck and other decks like ponza that were about. All of the packages were almost building themselves- the tireless tracker (I varied between 1/2 copies) fetch package, the one ofs for commands' tutor mode- all I did was add a couple of bad pet cards that work well with landkill and adjust the creatures for the then phoenix metagame- and boom- one deck. Now the problem with this is although the deck looks like a homebrew it is actually just well known engines jammed together- no real innovation, or testing beyond knowing the meta required. That is what you get when green dominates- a series of well known packages - the tracker midrange package, the arbor elf sprawl package, the steves, and removal for everything. I am having difficulty in thinking about what other well known packages there are in Modern- the ad nauseam suite perhaps- the tron suite (also green), the amulet package, the tribal packages etc. When you have different colours being equally strong deckbuilding becomes more challenging and, by extension, rewarding. If I was having to compare the value in Arbor elf/sprawl vs Dark ritual package for my shiny new deck, I would be making decisions, but I am not- I want acceleration, I play green,and I play either spawl/steve or the tron suite. I have no issue with one colour being better per se, I have an issue with what it brings, and how it feels, and this is one time when feeling matters. Ultimately all cards could be test cards, with no art and one colour, and the game would not sell, despite the mechanics being the same for the most part. The colours make decisions matter.

Aazadan
Posts: 547
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Aazadan » 4 years ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
4 years ago
I'm not 100% disagreeing with you and do think there are issues with this, but to play devil's advocate, what is wrong with Modern being a format focused on green if top decks are all doing different things with green? Judging by SQ T32s, we have a pretty even aggro, control, midrange, and ramp split right now at the top tables. Top players include Bant Snow Control, Eldrazi Tron, Amulet Titan, Dredge, Burn, Jund, Temur Urza, and Mono G Tron. Let's ignore the much more real issue of Tier 1 decks being degrees stronger than Tier 2 decks, which I think is much bigger than any one color being dominant. Just focusing on color spread across top strategies, what's so bad about this picture?

I have some answers for this to try and capture what people are feeling, but want to hear what others think first.
I think that it's a poor argument. I think back to when people claimed blue wasn't represented because there were decks playing blue but none of them were somehow blue decks. Think decks like Grixis control, or Blue jund, or even now something like Bant Snow or even Urza. But that several decks include green somehow makes them all green decks.

It just feels to me like a dishonest argument. I don't think people are trying to intentionally be dishonest, but rather think it comes from an outdated notion that blue decks need to be mostly/all spells while green decks are mostly/all creatures. So a creature based blue deck isn't a blue deck, while a creature based green deck, even if it doesn't use green much (think Kroxa based Jund builds) are green decks.

Recent case in point: Oko was generally considered a green deck. Few ever classified it as a blue deck.

User avatar
ktkenshinx
Posts: 571
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: West Coast
Contact:

Post by ktkenshinx » 4 years ago

gkourou wrote:
4 years ago
I also think this argument is kind of poor and people want to make Modern look more diverse than it already is.

A few couple of pages ago, we were saying Astrolabe creates 7 different decks, and when it would come down to only two, this would be a problem. Now I see people saying this is fine.

Green warping Modern is also a bad sign that should be corrected with multiple, well targeted bans.
I remain puzzled and increasingly annoyed about why you are misrepresenting this statement. If your post was not directed at me, then disregard. If it was, I will remind you again that I warned of THREE, not one, increasing warning signs about AA. The one you keep citing is homogenization of AA decks. The two you seem to not be citing are AA decks pushing out all non-AA fair decks, and AA decks occupying dominant metagame shares. If you are arguing those additional two levels have been reached, make that argument and cite those sources. If not, please stop suggesting people are moving goal posts. Again, if this was directed at other users then I won't necessarily speak in their defense. But if your remark is referring to me, as it seemed to be on Reddit and here again, please reread my original post.

My original post on this topic for reference: http://nxs.wf/np70342
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

TheBoulderer
Posts: 88
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by TheBoulderer » 4 years ago

There are only 3 ways modern can ever evolve: New prints, bans and innovation.

a) Right now, Gruul Ramp seems to be that "innovation", although to be fair that deck has been a thing for ages in some form, it just got several good cards recently and is well positioned. I fully expect GR Ramp to disappear as fast as it showed up the past weeks if the meta shifts. And outside of some splash-in-the-pan decks, I think modern is solved enough that it's fair to say there is pracitally no capacity to upset the top decks or effectively metagame against them (Gruul Ramp being the exception for now).

b) New prints: if we accept that the top tier is too far removed from the rest of the pack power-wise, new prints would need to buff tier-2-and-below strategies WITHOUT easily slotting well into any established top deck. And there is a huge problem there: you can't go "off-color" with good new cards, because if its good enough, the Simic Uro Snow core will just splash a 4th color or go into another shard to play that new card. Basically, any new, powerful card can easily be adopted by this core. A solution would be to print either Snow-hate or something like "you can't cast this if you control a snow permanent" but at that point, Snow strategies would be strongly warping card design, to me that sounds way worse than any ban.

c) bans: I still firmly believe that it's just 2 cards that play the biggest roles by far in screwing up modern, Veil of Summer and Arcum's Astrolabe. I'm too drained at this point and it would be too redundant to reenter the discussion why, but there it is.

While there is some diversity at the top of competitive play, it is an extremely exlusive club. it has become pretty much impossible for new strategies to do anything other than die horribly to the top decks. One or more of these 3 tools to advance Modern will have to be used in the near future. The new set seems to be doing diddly-squat by way of new prints (and those come with a lot of problems as mentioned), innovation seems to be exhausted by Gruul Ramp, so to me, a ban is what Modern really needs, and what it will most probably also get.

If it's just one card, ban Veil of Summer, leave Astrolabe.

Btw I think at this point it is obvious that WotC's approach to try and nerf top decks is pretty worthless. I don't know what the alternative should be, but here are the facts: They tried to hit ETron, its one of the unreachably powerful decks. They banned TWO core pieces of UGx Urza (Oko and Opal) only to print 1 new one (Uro). Its still one of the unreachably powerful decks. They banned OuaT, and Titan decks are still part of this tier 0,5. Other, lower-tier OuaT, in turn, have disappeared.

It absolutely cannot be stressed enough how humongously the design team screwed up in 2019. It's quite baffling. To be frank, it really boils down to a bunch of completely insane 2019 cards:

Urza (ultimately got Opal banned), Uro (replacement for Oko), Oko (banned), Hogaak (banned, got Bridge banned), OuaT (banned), Veil (almost everybody hates it and wants it banned), Astrolabe (is fast approaching OuaT numbers of play), Wrenn, T3feri, Dryad of the Illysian Grove.

Obviously they shouldn't all be banned, but these 10 cards weren't power creep, they are huge power LEAPS.

While I'm at it: I also don't understand why burn, a Tier 1-2 deck for YEARS, needed several additions (Skewer, Canyon, Islet), so 10 new maindeck slots for Boros Burn, and an entire side-kick archetype in Prowess Deck Wins (Lava Dart, Light up the Stage, Canyon, Islet). Boros burn also reached a whole new power level, it's just not as flashy because it's always been there as an archetype. But boy, did it get better. By a TON. Another gift of 2019.

PS: And no, I don't believe in a "golden age", whenever that was. Modern will and should slowly evolve with the printing of new sets. But not by virtue of a plethora of pushed cards.

I mean, I remember when they printed Dovin's Veto and I thought "damn this might be a pain to face". Little did I know then what modern would become^^.

PPS: also Astrolabe decks have completely homogenized, the "diversity" people saw when everybody was brewing crazy piles of greedy mana requirements is now: Bant Control / Bant Snowblade (50+ cards overlap, its basically the same deck with or without the Mystic-package) and Temur Uroza. Every other cute, "diverse" little brew with Astrolabe is all but gone, which, to be honest, was very predictable.

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 900
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 4 years ago

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/a ... 2020-04-05

Is 5 Color Niv Mizzet the real deal?

For what it's worth, I did actually play the deck a few times before Oko, Thief of Crowns was printed. I did pretty darn well (I can look up the actual stats) with it, but I attributed that to people not knowing what's in the deck and drawing well. It was pretty funny because often there are many different lines of play, but many times, either path will lead to a win. I need to learn which is the higher percentage path more often - sometimes I don't think it out because of time. I stopped playing when Oko was around because you would have to put Oko in this deck and I refused to do that (even if I did play it elsewhere, like Amulet, lol).

Since Oko has come and gone, Uro, Titan of Wrath's End has taken its place and is very strong. All together, the deck is like a super big version of Jund in my opinion, but more flexibility because of the use of all colors. And Niv Mizzet when you're turning a corner is just lights out, drawing 4-6 cards in my experience (less now with Thoughtseize MB, but still).

*Further evidence for this deck is this - I watched that Challenge from the side of 2 streamers who needed 1 more win to top 8 (Corey B and Dylan D at 7-2). The Niv player went 9-0 in the Swiss, so 12-0 overall after winning.

The TeamLotusBox Modern tournament online had 500 something players from what I heard. The top 8 was this...
1. Niv Mizzet
2. Niv Mizzet
3. Uroza
4. Abzan Company
5. Infect
6. Storm
7. Jeskai Whirza
8. Dredge

The finals was Niv Mizzet vs. Niv Mizzet, a match that ended the same as it did in the Swiss when they played (Will Pulliam won).
Standard - Will pick up what's good when paper starts
Pre Modern - Do not own anymore
Pioneer - DEAD
Modern - Jund Sacrifice, Amulet, Elementals, Trollementals, BR Asmo/Goryo's, Yawmoth Chord
Legacy - No more cards, will rebuy Sneak Show when I can
Limited - Will start when paper starts
Commander - Nope

metalmusic_4
Posts: 279
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 4 years ago

I'm late to the party and this may have been discussed a few pages back but I'm looking at the new companion mechanic. I have 5 color cascade deck that will easily allow Keruga, the Macrosage to be a companion with no deck changes at all outside adding him to the sideboard. My deck is certainly not competitive, but I was trying to think of another already well performing deck that already meets requirements and colors of any of the new companion cards. I couldn't think of any other than some red decks COULD use Obosh, the Burrower (but probably wouldnt) or some creature decks like elves or something using Umori, the Collector. Some changes would likely be made. But I don't come up with anything else, do you guys have any expectations for the companion mechanic or know where some could slot in easily?

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 634
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 4 years ago

Legacy is way more diverse than Modern. In Legacy you simply have to remember that the gap between top and bottom is small. Playing fringe stuff vs top tier I have literally played games where my opponent has not played even a cantrip as they got locked out. That leads to a better diversity, every deck doing something powerful- as does the mindset of the players, who are happy to play theoretically sub par decks because sub par decks often win, especially with experienced pilots, remebering the format has no pro attention so solved builds of most decks are not there. Then add in the fact that outside of the US blue decks really don't dominate-not 70 pc dominate- you often see top 8s with say a delver, a pile and a storm as your blue decks in medium and large events, at least over here. Cost stops paper players switching too, as well as complexity- nobody is picking up doomsday lists from scratch- all of which gives a blue-ish format, but not 70 pc blue. Online is different, of course, again, but the variety in the 5-0 decks is there, and in the US people play much more blue.

Oko is a blue card in Legacy, but was green in Modern, which says something. We need to find a way to get tier ii and below up closer to tier one, which is hard in a format without swords, wasteland, force, and universal fast mana.

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 323
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 4 years ago

drmarkb wrote:
4 years ago
Legacy is way more diverse than Modern. In Legacy you simply have to remember that the gap between top and bottom is small. Playing fringe stuff vs top tier I have literally played games where my opponent has not played even a cantrip as they got locked out. That leads to a better diversity, every deck doing something powerful- as does the mindset of the players, who are happy to play theoretically sub par decks because sub par decks often win, especially with experienced pilots, remebering the format has no pro attention so solved builds of most decks are not there. Then add in the fact that outside of the US blue decks really don't dominate-not 70 pc dominate- you often see top 8s with say a delver, a pile and a storm as your blue decks in medium and large events, at least over here. Cost stops paper players switching too, as well as complexity- nobody is picking up doomsday lists from scratch- all of which gives a blue-ish format, but not 70 pc blue. Online is different, of course, again, but the variety in the 5-0 decks is there, and in the US people play much more blue.

Oko is a blue card in Legacy, but was green in Modern, which says something. We need to find a way to get tier ii and below up closer to tier one, which is hard in a format without swords, wasteland, force, and universal fast mana.
Legacy is much more hateful and restrictive towards T2/fringe strategies than Modern. In what way blue decks don't diminate? The last 2 challenges had 11/12 x/0 base blue strategies. There's a reason why Legacy is called the Brainstorm format.

The fact that Force/Wasteland and such exist means that anything that can't abuse one or both (see Delver) is automatically worse. Winning with Mono-R prison doesn't mean the deck is good or the format is open to T2 and less strategies. These kind of powerful spells are inherently limiting, because the moment a shell that can use the the most effectively, decks that can't are automatically worse. Legacy has had years to perfect Delver for example, nothing will be as good as it short of banning Delver.

It's also been noted in before in this thread, several times I might add, that Legacy has only the perception of an open/fair/healthy format because no competitive emphasis is put on it. The moment this changes, Legacy will be shown revealed as the broken and imbalanced format that it is.

Aazadan
Posts: 547
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Aazadan » 4 years ago

drmarkb wrote:
4 years ago
Legacy is way more diverse than Modern. In Legacy you simply have to remember that the gap between top and bottom is small. Playing fringe stuff vs top tier I have literally played games where my opponent has not played even a cantrip as they got locked out. That leads to a better diversity, every deck doing something powerful- as does the mindset of the players, who are happy to play theoretically sub par decks because sub par decks often win, especially with experienced pilots, remebering the format has no pro attention so solved builds of most decks are not there. Then add in the fact that outside of the US blue decks really don't dominate-not 70 pc dominate- you often see top 8s with say a delver, a pile and a storm as your blue decks in medium and large events, at least over here. Cost stops paper players switching too, as well as complexity- nobody is picking up doomsday lists from scratch- all of which gives a blue-ish format, but not 70 pc blue. Online is different, of course, again, but the variety in the 5-0 decks is there, and in the US people play much more blue.

Oko is a blue card in Legacy, but was green in Modern, which says something. We need to find a way to get tier ii and below up closer to tier one, which is hard in a format without swords, wasteland, force, and universal fast mana.
I don't actually think this is true. Legacy is more casual because it doesn't have as competitive a tournament scene anymore, as such the decks aren't tuned anywhere near as heavily, and don't develop nearly as much. I used to think WotC was absolutely in the wrong in not pushing Legacy because it has the perception of being able to handle anything.

But, as the team PT showed, Legacy can't handle a competitive scene, that one team PT nearly trashed the format between prices and showing the cracks out there. Bringing about huge revisions to D&T as well as UB Shadow which is a real meta player now. The gap in Legacy is only small because people don't really explore the format the correct way to find the best decks. That's why decks like Nic Fit (one of my personal favorites) are viable. And sure, some out of color pie answers really help a lot to keep the casual balance roughly maintained, but I would say that if it were a competitive format, Modern would appear much more stable.

metalmusic_4
Posts: 279
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 4 years ago

Companion looks powerful if you can meet the deck building requirements and the card has a good ability. Lurrus appears to be the most playable certainly, so far. I'm looking forward to trying him out but I'm not as sure as you are that he is completely busted in half. He looks good but I'll wait for some results before I pass judgement. The RB companion and BG both look like they will be tried out as their requirements aren't too hard. The RU otter was insta-banned in commander(rofl) but will almost certainly see little constructed play.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 4 years ago

So Sam Black is currently under an NDA, but recently spent some time at Wizard's.

If you had any illusions about formats, even cards, being tested thoroughly, disavow yourself from those thoughts..read the thread.

UR Control UR

User avatar
AvalonAurora
Posts: 182
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: they / them

Post by AvalonAurora » 4 years ago

That sounds suspiciously like:
We basically stop testing once a set is mostly designed, and don't bother having a longer testing period to make sure Standard balance is good and the most powerful cards in the sets don't obviously mess up non-rotating formats. Our testing for 'Standard' involves deck-building methods that are closer to limited.

We pretend spikes don't exist during testing in favor of making sure people spend time goofing around with all the obvious limited jank and our cute gimmicks are all somewhat fun for the least spikey of johnnnies playing against each-other and the occasional non-spikey timmy, because either Hasbro doesn't give us enough of a budget for testing despite our incredible profits, or our testing team is lazy and gets bored easily, or our management is dumb and has dumb schedules.

And if something in Standard is too strong in a spike deck, we'll just ban it, lol. Also, who plays non-rotating formats, lol!?

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 4 years ago

100%

I'm shocked he posted that actually, but any claim's to 'balance' or 'healthy' are 100% luck. Dom/Rav was good because they lucked into it, nothing more.

Amazing.
UR Control UR

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 634
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 4 years ago

Tzoulis wrote:
4 years ago
drmarkb wrote:
4 years ago
Legacy is way more diverse than Modern. In Legacy you simply have to remember that the gap between top and bottom is small. Playing fringe stuff vs top tier I have literally played games where my opponent has not played even a cantrip as they got locked out. That leads to a better diversity, every deck doing something powerful- as does the mindset of the players, who are happy to play theoretically sub par decks because sub par decks often win, especially with experienced pilots, remebering the format has no pro attention so solved builds of most decks are not there. Then add in the fact that outside of the US blue decks really don't dominate-not 70 pc dominate- you often see top 8s with say a delver, a pile and a storm as your blue decks in medium and large events, at least over here. Cost stops paper players switching too, as well as complexity- nobody is picking up doomsday lists from scratch- all of which gives a blue-ish format, but not 70 pc blue. Online is different, of course, again, but the variety in the 5-0 decks is there, and in the US people play much more blue.

Oko is a blue card in Legacy, but was green in Modern, which says something. We need to find a way to get tier ii and below up closer to tier one, which is hard in a format without swords, wasteland, force, and universal fast mana.
Legacy is much more hateful and restrictive towards T2/fringe strategies than Modern. In what way blue decks don't diminate? The last 2 challenges had 11/12 x/0 base blue strategies. There's a reason why Legacy is called the Brainstorm format.

The fact that Force/Wasteland and such exist means that anything that can't abuse one or both (see Delver) is automatically worse. Winning with Mono-R prison doesn't mean the deck is good or the format is open to T2 and less strategies. These kind of powerful spells are inherently limiting, because the moment a shell that can use the the most effectively, decks that can't are automatically worse. Legacy has had years to perfect Delver for example, nothing will be as good as it short of banning Delver.

It's also been noted in before in this thread, several times I might add, that Legacy has only the perception of an open/fair/healthy format because no competitive emphasis is put on it. The moment this changes, Legacy will be shown revealed as the broken and imbalanced format that it is.
I made it quite clear I was talking about paper, whilst also pointing out that the US tends to be more U than elsewhere. I have played a lot of 30-50 player events over the years in paper- there is always much more diversity than you see online as people want to play "their" deck. There is no substitute for a great pilot knowing their deck, and when they do it could be lands, depths, whatever, they will do well alongside those Brainstorm decks. Online tends to be about learning decks for some, and with a few exceptions of well known names who just are associated with one archetype, people move around more online.

Last two big-ish paper events on Mtg top 8:
https://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=25051&f=LE
https://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=25045&f=LE

That is 4/12 Brainstrom decks, lower than expected, but not what you see online.
Last edited by drmarkb 4 years ago, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 634
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 4 years ago

Aazadan wrote:
4 years ago
drmarkb wrote:
4 years ago
Legacy is way more diverse than Modern. In Legacy you simply have to remember that the gap between top and bottom is small. Playing fringe stuff vs top tier I have literally played games where my opponent has not played even a cantrip as they got locked out. That leads to a better diversity, every deck doing something powerful- as does the mindset of the players, who are happy to play theoretically sub par decks because sub par decks often win, especially with experienced pilots, remebering the format has no pro attention so solved builds of most decks are not there. Then add in the fact that outside of the US blue decks really don't dominate-not 70 pc dominate- you often see top 8s with say a delver, a pile and a storm as your blue decks in medium and large events, at least over here. Cost stops paper players switching too, as well as complexity- nobody is picking up doomsday lists from scratch- all of which gives a blue-ish format, but not 70 pc blue. Online is different, of course, again, but the variety in the 5-0 decks is there, and in the US people play much more blue.

Oko is a blue card in Legacy, but was green in Modern, which says something. We need to find a way to get tier ii and below up closer to tier one, which is hard in a format without swords, wasteland, force, and universal fast mana.
I don't actually think this is true. Legacy is more casual because it doesn't have as competitive a tournament scene anymore, as such the decks aren't tuned anywhere near as heavily, and don't develop nearly as much. I used to think WotC was absolutely in the wrong in not pushing Legacy because it has the perception of being able to handle anything.

But, as the team PT showed, Legacy can't handle a competitive scene, that one team PT nearly trashed the format between prices and showing the cracks out there. Bringing about huge revisions to D&T as well as UB Shadow which is a real meta player now. The gap in Legacy is only small because people don't really explore the format the correct way to find the best decks. That's why decks like Nic Fit (one of my personal favorites) are viable. And sure, some out of color pie answers really help a lot to keep the casual balance roughly maintained, but I would say that if it were a competitive format, Modern would appear much more stable.
Not a single word of what you said after the stuff I have bolded actually contradicts what I said about Modern being less diverse-in fact it agrees with it and explains it to an extent. I was not implying that force etc. was the primary reason legacy was diverse, merely that Modern's threats>answers to a greater extent, which will make balancing those top tier decks down harder.

Regardless of the reasons why it is the case- and you talk about some of them- paper legacy is more diverse than Modern. I am sure that if Modern had the best players in the MPL playing it incessantly and a Pro Tour a week it would look very different as well. It doesn't and we are where we are. They won't have the same level of support as each other and Modern thus has a problem that Legacy does not. If the situation were reversed then paper Legacy might have the issue, but it doesn't, its player base likes the format as is.
Online the formats share similar issues at times.
UB shadow is not really a meta player now though, btw, not that it matters- 3/430 decks in the last 2 months on Mtg top 8. Nic Fit is always good though... :grin:

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 323
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 4 years ago

drmarkb wrote:
4 years ago
I made it quite clear I was talking about paper, whilst also pointing out that the US tends to be more U than elsewhere. I have played a lot of 30-50 player events over the years in paper- there is always much more diversity than you see online as people want to play "their" deck. There is no substitute for a great pilot knowing their deck, and when they do it could be lands, depths, whatever, they will do well alongside those Brainstorm decks. Online tends to be about learning decks for some, and with a few exceptions of well known names who just are associated with one archetype, people move around more online.

Last two big-ish paper events on Mtg top 8:
https://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=25051&f=LE
https://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=25045&f=LE

That is 4/12 Brainstrom decks, lower than expected, but not what you see online.
The first one has some serious data issues... If you think a higher paper competitive focus on legacy won't reflect the results of online play, you haven't been paying attention to either this thread or other formats. Those who want to win will find the cards, usually borrow them, and as online show us, the best decks are Brainstorm decks. Your or my personal anecdotes don't really matter.
drmarkb wrote:
4 years ago
paper legacy is more diverse than Modern.
It's a false diversity, in that if you can't move around decks as easily, thus obscuring the "real" winners metagame. Online removes this barrier and you can see things more clearly, but you still have a bias there.

In Modern on the other hand, you get what you see more often than not and at the moment it is diverse. Both strategically and inside the macro archetypes (except artifact decks). In paper, especially in FNMs, varies wildly. My store rarely, if ever, consolidates around specific decks and we regularly had 15-20 people, others are different. The last Modern GP was 2 bannings (lol) ago, so again, online will be a better reflection of the meta.

User avatar
TheAnnihilator
Posts: 222
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: US
Contact:

Post by TheAnnihilator » 4 years ago

Not to be rude or anything, but why are we discussing how diverse Legacy is on the State of Modern thread? I realize that it's loosely related to Modern's diversity; but, even as a lurker, I'm just not really that interested in conversations regarding Legacy. Honestly, I just don't think it's relevant how diverse Legacy is compared to Modern, or how diverse/interactive Pioneer is for that matter. Modern is its own format! xD Not that I have any suggestions as to what to discuss -- that's why I'm a lurker, not a talker!

Sorry if this comes off the wrong way. Again, I'm really not trying to be oppositional -- just putting this out there.

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 634
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 4 years ago

Tzoulis wrote:
4 years ago
drmarkb wrote:
4 years ago
I made it quite clear I was talking about paper, whilst also pointing out that the US tends to be more U than elsewhere. I have played a lot of 30-50 player events over the years in paper- there is always much more diversity than you see online as people want to play "their" deck. There is no substitute for a great pilot knowing their deck, and when they do it could be lands, depths, whatever, they will do well alongside those Brainstorm decks. Online tends to be about learning decks for some, and with a few exceptions of well known names who just are associated with one archetype, people move around more online.

Last two big-ish paper events on Mtg top 8:
https://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=25051&f=LE
https://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=25045&f=LE

That is 4/12 Brainstrom decks, lower than expected, but not what you see online.
The first one has some serious data issues... If you think a higher paper competitive focus on legacy won't reflect the results of online play, you haven't been paying attention to either this thread or other formats. Those who want to win will find the cards, usually borrow them, and as online show us, the best decks are Brainstorm decks. Your or my personal anecdotes don't really matter.
drmarkb wrote:
4 years ago
paper legacy is more diverse than Modern.
It's a false diversity, in that if you can't move around decks as easily, thus obscuring the "real" winners metagame. Online removes this barrier and you can see things more clearly, but you still have a bias there.

In Modern on the other hand, you get what you see more often than not and at the moment it is diverse. Both strategically and inside the macro archetypes (except artifact decks). In paper, especially in FNMs, varies wildly. My store rarely, if ever, consolidates around specific decks and we regularly had 15-20 people, others are different. The last Modern GP was 2 bannings (lol) ago, so again, online will be a better reflection of the meta.
The point is is does not matter if the 'real best' decks are brainstorm if in paper you don't see 90 pc brainstorm decks and you play in paper.

Real winners mean nothing if you don't see them that often. I understand that a higher paper focus would result in a different meta, I presume that you understand that you prepare for the decks you face, not the best decks online?
Modern needs to be more like Legacy with less competitive focus on paper.

Regarding online in general, I think Wotc decisions to restrict meaningful data might actually be the way ahead for Modern and Legacy. They have taken steps in that direction. You can't actually fix the game with bans, the card pool is too big, and design can only ameliorate slowly even if it is done well.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”