MTGNexus

cfusionpm wrote: ↑

4 years ago

The Fluff wrote: ↑

4 years ago

About latest SCG. Nice, that's a diverse top 16.

I actually made quite a lengthy post about this two weeks ago, with regards to competitive diversity.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=139&p=35867#p35867

I only looked at GPs and only Top 8s, but the general conclusion was crystal clear.

"Raw numbers of "competitive diversity" have remained largely unchanged throughout at least the last five years. However, more events do not appear to provide additional opportunities for more diversity to shine. Percentage of competitive diversity has trended downward since 2015."

ugh, sorry I'd have to pass on discussing anything about "competitive diversity" in the modern conversation. As it can lead to talk about the deck that shalt not be named in this thread. It's a toxic topic.
___________________________

About Urza decks, there is none here in my area. But I did read some fnm reports, both here on this forum and some other places. The deck looks fine for now. Deck actually looks fun to play, with the iconic character Urza to whom I'm a bit of a fan of in mtg lore. Well, but it's monetarily impossible for me to build due to having sold my opals 2 years ago... so will just be a spectator on how people use the deck.

I was looking at MTGStocks' list of cards that have gained and lost the most value in the last week. Standard's Field of the Dead has gone from $8.99 to $5.99, and while it's unusual to see a centerpiece card of a dominant deck drop in price, this tells me that people are anticipating a ban from the Standard deck that it's in.

Also on the list was Emry, which has gone from $8.25 at its height to $5.60 now. It could just be a new card coming down in price, but it's always a little unusual to see a centerpiece card of a dominant/very good/upwardly trending deck drop in price, so I wonder if it's because people are anticipating a banning from the Modern decks with Emry.

ModernDefector wrote: ↑

4 years ago

I was looking at MTGStocks' list of cards that have gained and lost the most value in the last week. Standard's Field of the Dead has gone from $8.99 to $5.99, and while it's unusual to see a centerpiece card of a dominant deck drop in price, this tells me that people are anticipating a ban from the Standard deck that it's in.

Also on the list was Emry, which has gone from $8.25 at its height to $5.60 now. It could just be a new card coming down in price, but it's always a little unusual to see a centerpiece card of a dominant/very good/upwardly trending deck drop in price, so I wonder if it's because people are anticipating a banning from the Modern decks with Emry.

Emry has been dropping since she got spoiled. The reason she dropped even more is because she's been opened more, it's like the 2nd week after release.

Tzoulis wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Emry has been dropping since she got spoiled. The reason she dropped even more is because she's been opened more, it's like the 2nd week after release.

Like I said, it could be that it's just a new card dropping in price, but typically a card being a major part of a format's new dominant deck will act as opposite price pressure. Anecdotally, people have told me that they're not buying Mox Opals, Urzas, POs, or Emry (and I'm sure some are selling) because they think a banning is coming at some point. When a lot of people do that, it can help the price fall, especially in combination with more packs being opened.

The price of a non RL card that is stable in price, is nirmally function of both the availability and the demand for that card in the first order. The second order is the liklihood of a reprint and the liklihood of a ban.
When a card is not stable in price all bets are off, as the hype train about new interactions or the mentioning of a card in a podcast can radically alter perceptions of a card and skew the price temporarily.

Mox Opal's price will already factor in the liklihood of a ban as most cards do. Generally the market is pretty good at working out the chances of a direct ban or an indirect one and factoring them in.

I personally would be slightly wary on Opals, if I had the cash spare there are safer bets.

The Fluff wrote: ↑

4 years ago

cfusionpm wrote: ↑

4 years ago

The Fluff wrote: ↑

4 years ago

About latest SCG. Nice, that's a diverse top 16.

I actually made quite a lengthy post about this two weeks ago, with regards to competitive diversity.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=139&p=35867#p35867

I only looked at GPs and only Top 8s, but the general conclusion was crystal clear.

"Raw numbers of "competitive diversity" have remained largely unchanged throughout at least the last five years. However, more events do not appear to provide additional opportunities for more diversity to shine. Percentage of competitive diversity has trended downward since 2015."

ugh, sorry I'd have to pass on discussing anything about "competitive diversity" in the modern conversation. As it can lead to talk about the deck that shalt not be named in this thread. It's a toxic topic.

Ironically, my goal in showing that was so whenever someone takes some random event and says "look, Modern is so much more diverse now!" I could point to concrete numbers that backup my long-standing claim that "outside of short, rare pockets of time, Modern has always been diverse and tons of different random tier 2 decks see success."

I was hoping to have a discussion about what diversity means as a whole and how it is (or is not) an indication of format health in the short or long term. But it doesn't seem like anyone was interested. Shame. It took a good amount of time compiling all that data.

drmarkb wrote: ↑

4 years ago

The price of a non RL card that is stable in price, is nirmally function of both the availability and the demand for that card in the first order. The second order is the liklihood of a reprint and the liklihood of a ban.
When a card is not stable in price all bets are off, as the hype train about new interactions or the mentioning of a card in a podcast can radically alter perceptions of a card and skew the price temporarily.

Mox Opal's price will already factor in the liklihood of a ban as most cards do. Generally the market is pretty good at working out the chances of a direct ban or an indirect one and factoring them in.

I personally would be slightly wary on Opals, if I had the cash spare there are safer bets.

I also do believe that Mox Opal is the most likely ban, if all, for Modern. I don't think it will be the more recent ban announcement, but it will be high on the radar, even if it's not the biggest offender (just like Bridge was high on the radar, while Hogaak was low at that particular time).

I've been noticing a lot of people on FB selling Opals. It seems like a good time to do so and try your play skill at a non Mox Opal deck. I actually really would like to get Judge Mox Opals, but buying them now, even at the "bargain price" they are now and I use that term loosely for a card at a minimum of $100, seems very foolish.

Shouldn't Modern be better of with a restricted list? Right now its all or nothing and I feel like a lot of cards could get off the banlist if they were restricted (DRS, Twin, GSZ, Jitte, Chrome Mox, Preordain too name a few) and also a lot of cards that are on the watchlist but at the same time the core of many decks could become restricted like Mox Opal, Ancient Stirrings, Urza, Wrenn. It also means you can have more powerful cards entering the format without absolutely dominate it. Even Hogaak and FL could become restricted.

A lot of balancing is around consistency. Like nobody cares about 1 Preordain but 4 would make decks too consistent.

I don't understand how Chrome Mox can be banned but Mox Opal and Mox Amber are legal while they are strictly better than Chrome Mox in the decks they are played in.

FoodChainGoblins wrote: ↑

4 years ago

I've been noticing a lot of people on FB selling Opals. It seems like a good time to do so and try your play skill at a non Mox Opal deck. I actually really would like to get Judge Mox Opals, but buying them now, even at the "bargain price" they are now and I use that term loosely for a card at a minimum of $100, seems very foolish.

in our fb, people are comfortable shelling out plenty of cash to get sfm, as they are sure she won't be banned. Just having come off the banlist. A safe investment. Which is the reverse of opal, which people feel is very unsafe to buy right now.

Don't want to be caught with judge foils, when the ban hammer could come crashing down so hard like the comet that killed the dinosaurs.

FoodChainGoblins wrote: ↑

4 years ago

drmarkb wrote: ↑

4 years ago

The price of a non RL card that is stable in price, is nirmally function of both the availability and the demand for that card in the first order. The second order is the liklihood of a reprint and the liklihood of a ban.
When a card is not stable in price all bets are off, as the hype train about new interactions or the mentioning of a card in a podcast can radically alter perceptions of a card and skew the price temporarily.

Mox Opal's price will already factor in the liklihood of a ban as most cards do. Generally the market is pretty good at working out the chances of a direct ban or an indirect one and factoring them in.

I personally would be slightly wary on Opals, if I had the cash spare there are safer bets.

I also do believe that Mox Opal is the most likely ban, if all, for Modern. I don't think it will be the more recent ban announcement, but it will be high on the radar, even if it's not the biggest offender (just like Bridge was high on the radar, while Hogaak was low at that particular time).

I've been noticing a lot of people on FB selling Opals. It seems like a good time to do so and try your play skill at a non Mox Opal deck. I actually really would like to get Judge Mox Opals, but buying them now, even at the "bargain price" they are now and I use that term loosely for a card at a minimum of $100, seems very foolish.

Well I sold mine, but then if you read a few pages back I sold my twin stuff too pre ban. I am, let us say, conservative when it comes to holding cards, which is why I own playsets of Tabernacles and duals and not the more liquid but vulnerable Opals. If you study the history of banned cards quite a few do recover some value at least.
I would wager that with a ban Opal would stagnate sonewhat. Price memory would keep people from selling too low, but lack of demand would stop it from being bought. So it would be one of those cards that just does not move for its price, a bit like Coldsnap Dark Depths doesn't net you ten pounds more than the regular masters printing, it just sits there on Ebay not being sold for more than its reprint cousin.
If it does get a ban a subsequent commander or Battlebond type reprint might then knock it to ten dollars, as people will then own it for the price of a booster, but without that it will likely be in price purgatory after an initial twenty to maybe thirty dollar dip in price, just not moving.

I personally think that if a new post Modern format is given its head we might see a loosening of the ban list to include Chrome Mox type cards. Trouble is I can't see that happening any time soon in paper. Modern is a cash cow, they won't mess with it and introduce competition now.

iTaLenTZ wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Shouldn't Modern be better of with a restricted list? Right now its all or nothing and I feel like a lot of cards could get off the banlist if they were restricted (DRS, Twin, GSZ, Jitte, Chrome Mox, Preordain too name a few) and also a lot of cards that are on the watchlist but at the same time the core of many decks could become restricted like Mox Opal, Ancient Stirrings, Urza, Wrenn. It also means you can have more powerful cards entering the format without absolutely dominate it. Even Hogaak and FL could become restricted.

A lot of balancing is around consistency. Like nobody cares about 1 Preordain but 4 would make decks too consistent.

I don't understand how Chrome Mox can be banned but Mox Opal and Mox Amber are legal while they are strictly better than Chrome Mox in the decks they are played in.

No, that kind of variance is too much, and with idiocy like the London Mulligan, it's just a bad concept. Mox Amber was exactly USELESS, for months on end. Chrome Mox is much more dangerous.

drmarkb wrote: ↑

4 years ago

I personally think that if a new post Modern format is given its head we might see a loosening of the ban list to include Chrome Mox type cards. Trouble is I can't see that happening any time soon in paper. Modern is a cash cow, they won't mess with it and introduce competition now.

I personally don't wanna see more mox like this in the format, I can't see what good chrome mox adds to the format

a mox.. mox opal... is already in danger to be ban. Why suggest to unban more mox like Chrome?

I'm considering buying oko. Sam black is calling it the most powerful planeswalker ever on scg today. It's good, that +1 ability is way better than I realized, but best ever? What do you guys think?

iTaLenTZ wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Shouldn't Modern be better of with a restricted list? Right now its all or nothing and I feel like a lot of cards could get off the banlist if they were restricted (DRS, Twin, GSZ, Jitte, Chrome Mox, Preordain too name a few) and also a lot of cards that are on the watchlist but at the same time the core of many decks could become restricted like Mox Opal, Ancient Stirrings, Urza, Wrenn. It also means you can have more powerful cards entering the format without absolutely dominate it. Even Hogaak and FL could become restricted.

No. Restriction has a major problem: It dramatically increases variance. The guy who gets lucky enough to draw their overpowered 1-of gets a big advantage.

It works out in Vintage for only one reason: Vintage has so many absolutely broken restricted cards that almost all decks are running that each player is guaranteed to draw some of them. The advantage your opponent has by being the only one to draw their 1-of Ancestral Recall is less of a problem if you're the only one to draw a Time Walk.

I don't understand how Chrome Mox can be banned but Mox Opal and Mox Amber are legal while they are strictly better than Chrome Mox in the decks they are played in.

Are Mox Opal/Amber "turn 3" offenders in the same way Chrome Mox is?

I actually do wonder if Chrome Mox needs to be banned... but I'm not sure if it really brings anything positive to the format.

metalmusic_4 wrote: ↑

4 years ago

I'm considering buying oko. Sam black is calling it the most powerful planeswalker ever on scg today. It's good, that +1 ability is way better than I realized, but best ever? What do you guys think?

I played with three Oko last night in a Bant control list. I was rolling 4 Arcum's Astrolabe and 2 Witching Well. It was pretty nice going T1/2 Scry/Cantrip T3 make a 5 Loyalty walker and a 3/3 with "haste". I found that often times I did not want to make their things into 3/3s because it would be a boost! Naturally, making my own 3/3s out of random things was pretty powerful. Move into T4 sweeper + Food felt pretty good. That leaves him on 7 with a Food in play, you either steal a useful creature they play and give them a food or you make a 3/3 next turn to block or attack with.

Was he crushing? No, but he creates some interesting play patterns. Getting him up to 9+ basically guarantees that he's staying on the board and there are few reasons to use his -5. He grinds, but likely isn't powerful enough to win on his own.

I think I have more to learn about when I should be jamming him, I also just have a ton to learn about playing him. Maybe I keep going, maybe not. Was a fun deck, to say the least.

If they are actually going to ban Mox Opal, they should unban the 5 artifact lands at the same time so longtime affinity players do not ragequit this game in disgust. The backlash for banning this card would be huge. I don't know if Wizards wants to risk something like that happening again. Twin was bad enough, but at least Twin has Kiki Jiki as a replacement, whereby Mox Opal has no close replacement.

I don't think you can ever unban the artifact lands. Artifact synergies are even stronger than ever with Urza, Oko, Goblin Engineer, and the Hardened Scales deck. I mean, we used to say they were too good when Affinity was the only deck that was likely to use them, and now we have several decks that would get a large boost from them.

They won't ban anything from Modern yet. There are no big events coming up so they will let people enjoy Urza a few months more before having to ban something. However I don't see Emry, Mox Opal, even Urza himself stay legal for more than 3-6 months. They simply don't want to ban anything yet because it would make them look absolutely stupid and MH a fail because its too soon after the Hogaak debacle. However they also risk Modern being a pretty %$#% format for the next couple of months but they have showed in several occasions they don't really care about that.

Also without any premium events people are less focused on playing the best deck but rather play whatever they enjoy at FNM's etc. KCI was at some point by far the best deck but never had more than 8% metashare because for the majority it wasn't a fun deck to play. Same applies to Paradoxical Jeskai Urza. 10-20 minutes turns aren't for everyone.

ElectricEye wrote: ↑

4 years ago

If they are actually going to ban Mox Opal, they should unban the 5 artifact lands at the same time so longtime affinity players do not ragequit this game in disgust. The backlash for banning this card would be huge. I don't know if Wizards wants to risk something like that happening again. Twin was bad enough, but at least Twin has Kiki Jiki as a replacement, whereby Mox Opal has no close replacement.

Calling Kiki Jiki a replacement for Twin is like calling Chromatic Lantern a replacement for Opal.

Lord Seth wrote: ↑

4 years ago

No. Restriction has a major problem: It dramatically increases variance. The guy who gets lucky enough to draw their overpowered 1-of gets a big advantage.

It works out in Vintage for only one reason: Vintage has so many absolutely broken restricted cards that almost all decks are running that each player is guaranteed to draw some of them. The advantage your opponent has by being the only one to draw their 1-of Ancestral Recall is less of a problem if you're the only one to draw a Time Walk.

The variance is what I really like about Vintage but yes, I could see some implementation problems in Modern. In Vintage its easier to get back into the game because your opponent goes broken in his turn but the same applies for you in your turn.

iTaLenTZ wrote: ↑

4 years ago

They won't ban anything from Modern yet. There are no big events coming up so they will let people enjoy Urza a few months more before having to ban something. However I don't see Emry, Mox Opal, even Urza himself stay legal for more than 3-6 months. They simply don't want to ban anything yet because it would make them look absolutely stupid and MH a fail because its too soon after the Hogaak debacle. However they also risk Modern being a pretty %$#% format for the next couple of months but they have showed in several occasions they don't really care about that.

Also without any premium events people are less focused on playing the best deck but rather play whatever they enjoy at FNM's etc. KCI was at some point by far the best deck but never had more than 8% metashare because for the majority it wasn't a fun deck to play. Same applies to Paradoxical Jeskai Urza. 10-20 minutes turns aren't for everyone.

Can we stop with the predetermined and unfounded claims that:

1. Urza decks are dominant and need something banned from them.
2. Modern is or will be a %$#% and WotC doesn't care.

The first has no strong evidence of it being true, the last big-ish event showed nothing of the sort. If anything, Amulet had a similar or better showing.

The second is highly subjective outside of outlier periods such as Eldrazi winter or Hogaak summer, and is no basis for a B&R decision.

iTaLenTZ wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Lord Seth wrote: ↑

4 years ago

No. Restriction has a major problem: It dramatically increases variance. The guy who gets lucky enough to draw their overpowered 1-of gets a big advantage.

It works out in Vintage for only one reason: Vintage has so many absolutely broken restricted cards that almost all decks are running that each player is guaranteed to draw some of them. The advantage your opponent has by being the only one to draw their 1-of Ancestral Recall is less of a problem if you're the only one to draw a Time Walk.

The variance is what I really like about Vintage but yes, I could see some implementation problems in Modern. In Vintage its easier to get back into the game because your opponent goes broken in his turn but the same applies for you in your turn.

Vintage hardly has more variance than any other formats. The combination of broken CA/selection, Tutors and cards like Dack or Bazaar add extreme consistency despite the restricted list.

Anybody bold enough to make a prediction about the B&R on Monday? I'm not, they could do anything. It may be no changes or they may ban 3 cards. They are obviously banning something in Standard, but who knows what else they may do. Word around my LGS is probably an Urza ban, but I'm not sure.

I'm guessing Arcum's Astrolabe in Pauper, Field of the Dead in Standard, nothing in Modern (at worst some mentions of something), and I don't know enough about Legacy and Vintage to make any calls.

... I guess I haven't checked on Pauper in awhile, but last I saw it was snow snow snow.