cfusionpm wrote: ↑
2 years ago
I do not appreciate this complete and utter dismissal of experience in a world where we do not have data
and Wizards actively hides and distorts data.
%$#% things happen to me just about every FNM, but I often don't feel the need to post about them here because
of their irrelevant one-off nature. This did not seem that way (and hey! guess what! it wasn't!) because of the experience shared by the friend who played it was seeing repeated success game after game, match after match, as well as in his grinding. Hogaak was still the real deal, and everyone here dismissed that.
I'm fine with citing qualitative, experiential examples to make arguments. We don't have data for everything and sometimes data misses the in-depth, qualitative stuff. That said, the actual post in question does not actually pose an argument. It's just a sort of casual observation of a powerful deck, hence the one-liner attribution I gave it. I believe this is the quote in question but, if not, please redirect me and I will happily rescind/edit this if needed:
There are many ways to develop that qualitative experience into a decent, albeit limited, argument for why a certain deck is broken. Or, in the case of Hogaak, still
broken. But simply describing the "casual 20 power in play" is the same kind of Twitter and Reddit soundbite we routinely see about all kinds of allegedly broken decks. It simply doesn't meet the bar of an argument, which is why I will push back against that style of posting whenever I see it. Again, there's nothing wrong with using experience an qualitative examples to argue for an issue. But the above example isn't arguing for an issue; it's just that same one-liner we need to fight back against.
LeoTzu wrote: ↑
2 years ago
The problem is that play experience often tends to be skewed and biased, unless it's backed up by numbers. Plenty of pros and grinders are notorious for making some bold, sweeping statements, without anything to back it up aside from " I played it a bunch of times and it's busted."
I know a local grinder that I trust who told me that Death's Shadow needed a ban. Heck, H0lyDiva was predicting a Death's Shadow ban at one point. Experience is inherently filtered through the lens of personal perception, and humans are biased. That's why it's hard to trust experience-based opinions on the matter and it's why people tend to dismiss those sorts of experience-based claims without things like concrete winrates, tournament results, etc.
This is also a significant problem with experience, and why I don't trust it even when it's right 1 in N times. LSV infamously wanted DS banned too in 2017, and we've all seen tons of "ban this/that/this too" arguments by many of Magic's most iconic players. Data is a way arbitrate those claims and separate the off-base ones from the accurate ones. Given how few of them end up being accurate or predictive, it's good for us to be skeptical.
gkourou wrote: ↑
2 years ago
This above statement right here showcases a lack of fundamental understanding in how a 6 card package works in modern.
Unlike twin, its just 5-6 cards, hence not a big deal.
It is easy for any deck to play them, just like lsv and matt nass explained.
Argument: blue decks used to jam 10 cards package.
Ps: i wish it gets unbanned.
I don't think any "side" here definitively knows if Wx decks, or UWx decks, will or won't jam the SFM package. Anyone who definitively states otherwise is misrepresenting our ability to predict how new cards/unbans affect the format. It's an open question and basically everyone routinely get these kinds of evaluations wrong. That's fine! Card evaluation is super difficult and I don't hold that against anyone. We just need to admit it's hard and tone back the certainty on all "sides" of this SFM issue.
Can anyone think of another "package" that got introduced in Modern, either through unbans/new cards/reprints, which decks adopted or didn't adopt? For instance, WAR Karn represents a MD/SB package that many decks can adopt. Who actually did adopt this and who didn't but could've? Those historical examples might be more telling than just speculating on future lists. I'm extremely skeptical of our ability to accurately predict what formats will look like after cards get introduced, especially after the laughably community failures in WAR/MH1 evaluation (Teferi, Narset, W6, Urza, Hogaak, etc.).
ModernDefector wrote: ↑
2 years ago
Twitch streamer ewlandon abandons Modern streaming because of decaying interest
Although just a single streamer, this still contributes to a picture of some broader Modern issues. I haven't done enough format analysis of articles, readership, stream views, event attendance, etc. to definitively say Modern is/is not losing players. But I can definitely feel
(not very data-driven, admittedly) a nasty, dissatisfied undertone with Modern that has never been this bad. Again, I can't prove that/haven't tried to prove it yet, but it's my read on the format over the last 3-6 months. It might just be that vocal Modern representatives/community members are down on the format and their negativity is the most visible, but I suspect (emphasis: suspect
, cannot currently prove/haven't tried to in a rigorous way) it's indicative of a broader problem.