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

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1177
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
In the past, you have rightfully noted SCG events are not necessarily (or even often) representative of the larger metagame. I believe it was you who once called them "glorified FNMs," and I largely agree with that characterization in many metagames. I am unwilling to make any conclusions about the health of the format based on SCG Opens or non-GP/non-aggregated MTGO events. SCG Opens can certainly represent the larger metagame, but it's by no means a rule and requires other corroborating points.
You're right, which is why I am not talking about the metagame as a whole for the event, or even representative standings of players or decks in the event. The point I was making was from gameplay of these decks, how it is showcased, and how utterly bad it makes Urza decks look. The power level discrepancy between the "top decks" and "the rest" is enormous. It's why games between Tier 2 decks are the best that Modern can offer, games between Tier 1 decks are at least mostly interesting, due to individual strength and resiliency of each, and games between Tier 1 and Tier 2 decks are often variance-driven landslides, IMO.

User avatar
robertleva
Posts: 582
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 1 year ago

Just because they didnt Emergency ban hogaak doesnt mean modern wont be on this moved up date. Id bet they are going to be very cautious about letting broken decks linger.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 857
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

robertleva wrote:
1 year ago
Just because they didnt Emergency ban hogaak doesnt mean modern wont be on this moved up date. Id bet they are going to be very cautious about letting broken decks linger.
Do we honestly believe that Wizards can think about 2 formats in any less than 1 month? There's hardly any chance that they have looked at Standard and Modern. Honestly they probably spent 10 min. a week, much more than they spent on Stoneforge Mystic through the years. Anything is possible, but a ban in Modern is pretty unlikely and probably would cause more ban mania in the end.

I think that peoples' points on Hogaak equate to Wizards giving Modern players a chance to adapt and try to beat the Paradoxical deck. Right now, the deck is far from unbeatable. It's just the best thing all around to be doing.
Standard - Will pick up what's good when paper starts
Pre Modern - Do not own anymore
Pioneer - DEAD
Modern - Amulet Titan, 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: 260
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 1 year ago

Standard is certainly the driving factor for this b&r to be moved up. But if they are already moving it up they could easily update other formats while they are at it. All they have to do is take a vote and write an explanation, they can and should debate and research more but they don't have too.
I remember the felidar guardian ban just days past the regularly scheduled b&r announcement that was entirely based on mtgo data from those couple of days. They have way way more info than we do and there is no way to know what they will do with this announcement IMO.

Mtgthewary
Posts: 220
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Mtgthewary » 1 year ago

Yes, we don't knew what they do. Maybe they won't ban so fast after hoogak and bridge, but maybe they think let's ban standard and modern together so people cry only 1 time and it's better as banning only standard and next time urza, because so they will cry 2 times

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 2115
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

Arkmer wrote:
1 year ago
I guess I would be sort of surprised if they gave something in Whirza Outcome the axe, but if it's starting to show its power and gaining momentum... I don't know, tough call. If I'm 50/50, I assume WotC is no change for Modern, lol.
let's see in the coming weeks if Whirza Outcome can reach the levels that KCI has reached. My playtest buddy who is a Burn player thinks at least Urza himself should be banned.. but I'm not sure if anything should be banned at all.
Image
AnimEVO 2020 - EFZ Tournament (english commentary) // OE 2016 // POF 2018
want to play a uw control deck in modern, but don't have Jace or snapcaster? please come visit us at the Emeria thread

iTaLenTZ
Posts: 224
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by iTaLenTZ » 1 year ago

The Fluff wrote:
1 year ago
My playtest buddy who is a Burn player thinks at least Urza himself should be banned.
Several Whirza players have said to me that the truly broken card of the deck and the thing that makes all the broken plays possible is Urza himself and he should be banned because if Emry gets banned, which I 100% believe will happen, people go back to how things were 1 week ago and its like nothing ever happened.

They also assured me that Mox Opal isn't required for the deck and that it would easily survive the ban. However I still think delaying their mana 1 turn might give other decks the small edge needed.

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1177
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

I am fully aware of the relative insigificance of a single event, as well as the general differences between an Open and a GP. However, the Day 2 breakdown is still fairly interesting at the Indy Open. Namely, Urza-based decks were by far and away the most prevalent. 12 Ascendancy builds, 8 Outcome builds, 5 4c Whir builds, 1 UW build, and 1 Sultai build, for a total of 27 copies (or about 20% of Day 2). Interesting to see the slathering of random 1-ofs.
Day 2 Breakdown
Show
Amulet Titan – 12
Urza Ascendancy – 12
Jund – 12
Mono-Green Tron – 11
Burn – 11
Urza Outcome – 8
Grixis Death's Shadow – 6
Eldrazi Tron – 5
Four-Color Whirza – 5
Humans – 4
Azorius Control – 4
TitanShift – 4
Jund Death's Shadow – 3
Dredge – 3
Azorius Stoneblade – 3
Bant Snowblade – 3
Devoted Devastation – 2
Abzan Company – 2
Mardu Death's Shadow – 1
Jeskai Control – 1
Mystic Sultai – 1
Living+End –1
Elementals – 1
Five-Color Niv-Mizzet – 1
Esper Goryo's – 1
Elves – 1
Esper Control – 1
Esper Stoneblade – 1
Izzet Breach – 1
Boaryo's Vengeance – 1
Mono-Red Prowess – 1
Selesnya Eldrazi – 1
Four-Color Snowheeli – 1
Kethis Combo – 1
Sultai Whirza – 1
Naya Zoo – 1
Izzet Delver – 1
Azorius Whirza – 1
Jeskai Flash – 1
Hardened+Scales – 1
Golgari Yawgmoth – 1
Gifts Storm – 1
Azorius Spirits – 1
Bant Spirits – 1
Affinity – 1
Bant Soulherder – 1

Yawgmoth
Posts: 170
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Yawgmoth » 1 year ago

I am mystified all of the calls to ban Urza decks. Maybe we all have different views of a healthy format in which case defining what those views are might help us communicate.

What criteria do people (you, the reader) have for when a deck should be banned?

Is it prevalence? No, prevalence alone is not worth banning.

Is it win rate? That makes more sense but what kind of win rate is ban-able? It needs to be considerably higher than what can be achieved by other top tier decks in high skilled hands.

Is it "fun level"? That probably makes the most sense but is pretty subjective.

If I go to a tournament or FNM and over a third of the format is a single deck AND it is winning consistently at turn 3 then sure, ban it. Otherwise, I fail to see the issue.

Why not ban Tron, Burn, and Jund too while we are at it? Those decks are too popular and strong!

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 857
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

Yawgmoth wrote:
1 year ago
I am mystified all of the calls to ban Urza decks. Maybe we all have different views of a healthy format in which case defining what those views are might help us communicate.

What criteria do people (you, the reader) have for when a deck should be banned?

Is it prevalence? No, prevalence alone is not worth banning.

Is it win rate? That makes more sense but what kind of win rate is ban-able? It needs to be considerably higher than what can be achieved by other top tier decks in high skilled hands.

Is it "fun level"? That probably makes the most sense but is pretty subjective.

If I go to a tournament or FNM and over a third of the format is a single deck AND it is winning consistently at turn 3 then sure, ban it. Otherwise, I fail to see the issue.

Why not ban Tron, Burn, and Jund too while we are at it? Those decks are too popular and strong!
Urza decks are just too strong right now, mostly because of their namesake.

Prevalence is enough to ban a deck.

If the win rate is 51% overall, it is enough to ban the deck. Before you jump on me, that's what I've heard here many times before.

Fun level is NOT enough to ban a deck. There literally would be no Modern. Urza decks wouldn't exist, Tron wouldn't exist, Bogles wouldn't exist, Burn wouldn't exist, Valakut decks wouldn't exist, etc., etc. The format would be Little Kid Abzan vs. Faeries.

FNM doesn't matter for banning decisions. This at least partially explains why many players globally used to absolutely CRUSH with Summer Bloom in Bloom Titan. Then it got played on the national level. WotC gave it some time and then crunched numbers and banned it. I'm pretty sure that somewhere along the line, there was some FNM where an Amulet player literally won every single FNM for months.

Tron may indeed get a ban. Once WotC realizes that Tron is too consistent, something they HATE, Hate, hate with a passion, it will be canned. Maybe that is the reason they printed Once Upon a Time in order to get it a bit more consistent until it dies in a blaze of glory. In my last 4 matches vs. Tron (2 Tron, Blue Tron, and E Tron), they have mulliganed in order to get turn 3 Tron in 10 or 12 games (all matches went to 1-2, except one that I won 2-1). Burn is freaking annoying to me. But it is a necessity. Also, WotC will never ban a deck that is an easy introduction to Modern. So many players join Modern utilizing Burn. I asked some people who have played decks miles away from Burn and many have told me that Burn was indeed their first deck. Jund won't get banned unless something pushes it too much. Jund has had bannings in the past, but for the most part, it is just a super fair deck that wins when their draws line up well vs. the opponents' draws. Sometimes they draw parts that don't matter and they get run over since they don't have much natural card advantage. Also, Jund gets (somewhat) run over by most variants of Blue Control.

Tron is probably 7% of the meta, Burn is probably 7% of the meta, and Jund is definitely under 4% globally. I could check mtgtop8 or mtggoldfish to verify for the past 2 weeks.
Standard - Will pick up what's good when paper starts
Pre Modern - Do not own anymore
Pioneer - DEAD
Modern - Amulet Titan, 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
Ym1r
Posts: 153
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Ym1r » 1 year ago

Well, for what it's worth, we have 7 different decks in the top8 of the SCG, and 14 different decks in the top16. Urza might have been strong, but the conversation was definitely not out of this world, seeing as only 2 Urza Ascendancy decks made it to top6. Noteworthy inclusions in the top16 are Esper's Goryo (16), UW Stoneblade (12), Selesnya Eldrazi (7), and Storm (1). Amulet Titan seems to be very strong right now, especially with the inclusion of the new green castle and field of the dead (only deck with 2 copies in the top8).

Overall, however, it seems like there currently isn't a "right" answer to modern, and the format has not yet been solved. There is plenty of wiggle room, and Urza decks are not unbeatable.
Counter, draw a card.

User avatar
ktkenshinx
Posts: 571
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: West Coast
Contact:

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

SCG Indy Open Day 2 decklists are up:
http://www.starcitygames.com/decks/resu ... art_num/0/

T16 from the day:
  1. Gifts Storm
  2. Amulet Titan
  3. Amulet Titan
  4. Burn
  5. Jund Death's Shadow
  6. Paradoxical Urza Ascendancy
  7. Selesnya Eldrazi
  8. Dredge
  9. Devoted Devastation
  10. Paradoxical Urza Ascendancy
  11. Azorius Stoneblade
  12. Mono G Tron
  13. Humans
  14. Grixis Death's Shadow
  15. Esper Goryo's
Pretty typical Modern T16 with no clearly dominant deck. Despite making up 20% of Day 2 decks, Urza variants only made up 12.5% of the T16, which is a notable underperformance for the deck billed as the best. I still believe it's the best deck (with some 75) and I further believe players have not figured out the best way to build around Urza, but this weekend undermines the absolutely premature and hyperbolic anti-Urza/Opal/Outcome/etc. sentiment we've seen recently. It's yet another reason to maintain the wait-and-see mentality until we have major events, not these scattered 500-player regional things.

Bonus: Modern playoff on MTGO from yesterday - https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/a ... 2019-10-13
  1. Mono G Tron
  2. Titanshift
  3. Azorius Stoneblade
  4. Grixis Death's Shadow
  5. Whirza Foundry
  6. Azorius Control
  7. Eldrazi Tron
  8. Eldrazi Tron
  9. Amulet Titan
  10. Merfolk
  11. Burn
  12. Burn
  13. Esper Stoneblade
  14. Gruul Eldrazi
  15. Whirza Foundry
  16. Titanshift
Same story here as with the other event, except a lot more Tron. Tron variants tend to be big online so that's not super surprising.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
ktkenshinx
Posts: 571
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: West Coast
Contact:

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

Going to address this with respect to Urza decks specifically, as I believe that is what this post centers on.
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
Prevalence is enough to ban a deck.
Yes, but the prevalence generally needs to be pretty high over at least a few months of sustained GP T8, PT/MC T8, and MTGO events. Prevalence can also get combined with other ban reasons, but generally speaking, if prevalence is the big issue, a deck is in the ~20% overall prevalence range. We don't have nearly enough relevant events to assess where Urza is or isn't in that regard.
If the win rate is 51% overall, it is enough to ban the deck. Before you jump on me, that's what I've heard here many times before.
That is a mischaracterization or misunderstanding of the win-rate statistic. There are tons of decks with >50% win rates in Modern. Wizards even published those decks in the last MC4 data-dump, many of which did not get banned. The issue is if all the individual matchups are 51%+, not the overall win rate. In the last year, the scary win rates have been in the +/- 60% range overall (KCI and Hogaak are examples of this). But there are many decks both Wizards and the community has tracked at an average 51% MWP that are untouched by bans.
Fun level is NOT enough to ban a deck. There literally would be no Modern. Urza decks wouldn't exist, Tron wouldn't exist, Bogles wouldn't exist, Burn wouldn't exist, Valakut decks wouldn't exist, etc., etc. The format would be Little Kid Abzan vs. Faeries.
This is true, although Wizards has invoked a version of the fun factor with Marvel's Standard ban. In Modern, however, any complaints about a deck being fun/not fun are always connected to other more objective measures (e.g. logistical delays, overwhelming metagame percentage, high win rate, etc.).
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 857
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
If the win rate is 51% overall, it is enough to ban the deck. Before you jump on me, that's what I've heard here many times before.
That is a mischaracterization or misunderstanding of the win-rate statistic. There are tons of decks with >50% win rates in Modern. Wizards even published those decks in the last MC4 data-dump, many of which did not get banned. The issue is if all the individual matchups are 51%+, not the overall win rate. In the last year, the scary win rates have been in the +/- 60% range overall (KCI and Hogaak are examples of this). But there are many decks both Wizards and the community has tracked at an average 51% MWP that are untouched by bans.
Yes, prevalence has to be over a period of time, but honestly, I doubt any deck would be more than even 12% for a few months before it had something banned from it.

No deck in the history of Magic the Gathering has had a 51% or better matchup vs. every single deck in the format. Modern is such a diverse format that you can always find decks that beat the best deck if you want to, although I'm not sure I knew what that was in the Flash Hulk and possibly the Tolarian Academy formats. Hogaak was definitely not over 51% vs. Neoform or Cheerios. There's just no way, even if my testing is trash. Modern has never had an unbeatable deck. It just has decks that beat most of what people are choosing to play at the time, mostly because those decks that people choose to play stomp the decks that beat the BEST deck. UW Control and Living End were solid against Eye of Ugin Eldrazi, along with Devoted Company. What I'm trying to say is that there are no absolute guidelines to how something gets banned. I could say something here, but the next moment, they change their minds and ban Mox Opal, leading to a later ban of Urza, High Lord Artificer. There are some vague guidelines and there are WotC's vision of how Modern should be. For many people, Stoneforge Mystic being on the ban list for so long while Tron gets newer toys every single year isn't their vision, but that is WotC's vision. It's their card game.

*Regarding Aetherworks Marvel in Standard, I don't believe that was banned because of fun. The deck won too much in my opinion and someone who picked it up and was scared of no deck but the mirror when they're on the play. I personally think the deck IS fun in my opinion. If my opponent wins the die roll and then Marvel into Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger 2 of my 3 lands, then how is that any different from what nearly any deck in Modern does? Why, because Karn Liberated gets one land and stays on the battlefield, that makes it much more fun?

**Also, KCI's prevalence was 6%, so this shows that there are at least 2 specifically and HUUUUGELY different reasons for banning a deck. If someone honestly knew all of the reasons, they could make a killing speculating on cards. This is part of the reason it is not easy to do so.
Standard - Will pick up what's good when paper starts
Pre Modern - Do not own anymore
Pioneer - DEAD
Modern - Amulet Titan, 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
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1177
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

Ym1r wrote:
1 year ago
Noteworthy inclusions in the top16 are Esper's Goryo (16)
I forgot this was a deck and will be playing this for quite a while going forward. It may not be amazing, but it got significantly better now that GY hate is in the backburner. Already had everything except 1 or 2 pieces on MTGO and everything but a bunch of Ghost Dads in paper. Already with a few matches, I forgot how much I loved the idea of this deck.

User avatar
ktkenshinx
Posts: 571
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: West Coast
Contact:

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
No deck in the history of Magic the Gathering has had a 51% or better matchup vs. every single deck in the format. Modern is such a diverse format that you can always find decks that beat the best deck if you want to, although I'm not sure I knew what that was in the Flash Hulk and possibly the Tolarian Academy formats. Hogaak was definitely not over 51% vs. Neoform or Cheerios. There's just no way, even if my testing is trash. Modern has never had an unbeatable deck. It just has decks that beat most of what people are choosing to play at the time, mostly because those decks that people choose to play stomp the decks that beat the BEST deck. UW Control and Living End were solid against Eye of Ugin Eldrazi, along with Devoted Company. What I'm trying to say is that there are no absolute guidelines to how something gets banned. I could say something here, but the next moment, they change their minds and ban Mox Opal, leading to a later ban of Urza, High Lord Artificer. There are some vague guidelines and there are WotC's vision of how Modern should be. For many people, Stoneforge Mystic being on the ban list for so long while Tron gets newer toys every single year isn't their vision, but that is WotC's vision. It's their card game.
I strongly disagree with this. We've successfully predicted most bans and "no changes" announcements for the last few years, which suggests we are largely onto Wizards' Modern methodology. I personally missed the Looting ban and didn't get the exact card right from the initial version of Hogaak, but I and others did successfully predict what would happen with KCI, a slew of "no changes," and others. Unbans are a totally different story and I have no idea what drives them.

Re: MWP
I'm not talking about 51%+ vs. literally every deck in the format. There's always an anti deck. But if a deck has 51%+ against the vast majority of top-tier decks and a super high win rate anyway, it's probably trending towards a ban.
**Also, KCI's prevalence was 6%, so this shows that there are at least 2 specifically and HUUUUGELY different reasons for banning a deck. If someone honestly knew all of the reasons, they could make a killing speculating on cards. This is part of the reason it is not easy to do so.
We already knew these criteria and talked about them at length. It's not new information. The factors that go into a ban are, and have been for a while (in no particular order and all need not apply):

1. Prevalence at the GP/MC/PT T8 level
2. MTGO prevalence
3. Overall win rates
4. Matchup win rate spectrum
5. T4 rule violations
6. Logistical issues
7. "Battle of the sideboards" (this one is murkier)
8. Player feedback (also murky, likely represented by #1-6 anyway)

The biggest challenge when it comes to predicting bans is that we don't actually have good data to assess #2-#5. Wizards has deliberately kept this data secret which, incidentally, has not resulted in formats going unsolved if something is broken. I won't get into the weeds on that terrible and misguided policy, but suffice to say Wizards' data throttling makes it much harder to predict which decks meet the known criteria. But the criteria themselves are relatively known at this point if folks are reading the ban updates. Reddit, Twitch, Twitter, and others like to call out for bans for a variety of different, unjustified reasons, or citing the known criteria without actual evidence. That doesn't mean the criteria are unknown. It just means the community struggles to remember and implement them.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 857
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
No deck in the history of Magic the Gathering has had a 51% or better matchup vs. every single deck in the format. Modern is such a diverse format that you can always find decks that beat the best deck if you want to, although I'm not sure I knew what that was in the Flash Hulk and possibly the Tolarian Academy formats. Hogaak was definitely not over 51% vs. Neoform or Cheerios. There's just no way, even if my testing is trash. Modern has never had an unbeatable deck. It just has decks that beat most of what people are choosing to play at the time, mostly because those decks that people choose to play stomp the decks that beat the BEST deck. UW Control and Living End were solid against Eye of Ugin Eldrazi, along with Devoted Company. What I'm trying to say is that there are no absolute guidelines to how something gets banned. I could say something here, but the next moment, they change their minds and ban Mox Opal, leading to a later ban of Urza, High Lord Artificer. There are some vague guidelines and there are WotC's vision of how Modern should be. For many people, Stoneforge Mystic being on the ban list for so long while Tron gets newer toys every single year isn't their vision, but that is WotC's vision. It's their card game.
I strongly disagree with this. We've successfully predicted most bans and "no changes" announcements for the last few years, which suggests we are largely onto Wizards' Modern methodology. I personally missed the Looting ban and didn't get the exact card right from the initial version of Hogaak, but I and others did successfully predict what would happen with KCI, a slew of "no changes," and others. Unbans are a totally different story and I have no idea what drives them.

Re: MWP
I'm not talking about 51%+ vs. literally every deck in the format. There's always an anti deck. But if a deck has 51%+ against the vast majority of top-tier decks and a super high win rate anyway, it's probably trending towards a ban.
**Also, KCI's prevalence was 6%, so this shows that there are at least 2 specifically and HUUUUGELY different reasons for banning a deck. If someone honestly knew all of the reasons, they could make a killing speculating on cards. This is part of the reason it is not easy to do so.
We already knew these criteria and talked about them at length. It's not new information. The factors that go into a ban are, and have been for a while (in no particular order and all need not apply):

1. Prevalence at the GP/MC/PT T8 level
2. MTGO prevalence
3. Overall win rates
4. Matchup win rate spectrum
5. T4 rule violations
6. Logistical issues
7. "Battle of the sideboards" (this one is murkier)
8. Player feedback (also murky, likely represented by #1-6 anyway)

The biggest challenge when it comes to predicting bans is that we don't actually have good data to assess #2-#5. Wizards has deliberately kept this data secret which, incidentally, has not resulted in formats going unsolved if something is broken. I won't get into the weeds on that terrible and misguided policy, but suffice to say Wizards' data throttling makes it much harder to predict which decks meet the known criteria. But the criteria themselves are relatively known at this point if folks are reading the ban updates. Reddit, Twitch, Twitter, and others like to call out for bans for a variety of different, unjustified reasons, or citing the known criteria without actual evidence. That doesn't mean the criteria are unknown. It just means the community struggles to remember and implement them.
I'm just saying that Modern could have been 15 different scenarios than it is now. Cloudpost could have been legal while a Tron land was banned and nobody would know different. Right now, most people believe that Cloudpost would have a 75% win rate vs. the field and that Tron wins 49% vs. the field. But it would be the other way around if Wizards had chosen a different ban. If some stronger stuff (cough, cough, like nearly as strong as Urza) was unbanned, KCI wouldn't have to be banned. Jace, the Mind Sculptor, Stoneforge Mystic, Bloodbraid Elf, Wild Nacatl, Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle, Green Sun's Zenith, and Bridge from Below all could have never been banned and been legal from the beginning and no one would know any different. Even Umezawa's Jitte could have been all right if Wizards had gone down a different path. I can't believe I'm saying that about Jitte.

People know what Wizards wants them to know. If WotC wants you to believe that Preordain, Bridge from Below, or Green Sun's Zenith are serious offenders to the Modern format, while Urza, Mox Opal, Ancient Stirrings, and similar cards are legal, that's what we have to believe. Green Sun's Zenith would lead to a seriously %$#% up format where everyone has to run it or lose, but Urza is 100% fine (I can't know any better; this is what the ban list tells me). The ban list said the same about Stoneforge Mystic for years and it surprised me nearly to death that some people actually disagreed with WotC and believed the Kor was fine. We are not supposed to think for ourselves. A card is only unbanned when and only when it is deemed fine in the format, not before.

Also, nobody guesses every ban. If you show me 1 person in the world that thought Splinter Twin would be banned when it was, I will show you someone who has serious inside information. They wouldn't jeopardize their stature by telling that if they had inside information. It won't happen.

*Also, 51% is a small number for an overall win percentage. I lowered my overall Modern win percentage from 65.7% to 64.2% over the past year, which means I got WRECKED. Those numbers are hopelessly low. If I had ever gotten 51% on a test when I was younger, my parents would disown me. I think instead of looking at why a deck is winning overall at 51%, we should look at why players continue to play decks that have a sub 40% win rate when they can easily see the statistics for their deck(s) online.

**For those curious about the tool - mtgstats.net
Standard - Will pick up what's good when paper starts
Pre Modern - Do not own anymore
Pioneer - DEAD
Modern - Amulet Titan, 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
Ym1r
Posts: 153
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Ym1r » 1 year ago

FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
People know what Wizards wants them to know. If WotC wants you to believe that Preordain, Bridge from Below, or Green Sun's Zenith are serious offenders to the Modern format, while Urza, Mox Opal, Ancient Stirrings, and similar cards are legal, that's what we have to believe. Green Sun's Zenith would lead to a seriously %$#% up format where everyone has to run it or lose, but Urza is 100% fine (I can't know any better; this is what the ban list tells me). The ban list said the same about Stoneforge Mystic for years and it surprised me nearly to death that some people actually disagreed with WotC and believed the Kor was fine. We are not supposed to think for ourselves. A card is only unbanned when and only when it is deemed fine in the format, not before.
This is one of the most absurd takes I've seen in a while. I have bolded all the bits that I think are completely absurd. This is such a conspiracy theory that I don't know where to begin. Which, weirdly enough, is contrasted by the absolutely correct statement I've underlined at the end of your paragraph. Indeed a card is unbanned when it is deemed fine in the format.

Every statement you make before that makes no sense. Cards don't necessarily enter the banlist because they are completely broken cards (although that might be a reason), but to maybe weaken other decks as well. The curation of the banlist is a multifaceted process that has to take into account multiple variables. However, none of these variables have to do with Wizards "wanting us to believe them and not think for ourselves". Literally, every unban scenario shows the opposite. People were vocal about JTMS. Wizards said no, it ain't happening. People KEPT being vocal, Aaron said ok, we will consider. A year later, and after consideration JTMS got unbanned. Same with SFM, same with BBE. People definitely did not "believe what they had to believe". They voiced their opinion, this opinion was taken into account, and then action was taken.

Same thing goes for bans. People voiced opinions about Looting, and looting eventually got banned. Is Looting a card that pushes any deck to 75% win ratio? No, it isn't, that doesn't make it a healthy inclusion in the format, as it enables the format to be too GY centric.

Literally you got it on the last sentence. There are MANY parameters to be taken into account, and only a card is considered fine, as in, it won't break anything or over-enable a particular strategy, it is unbanned.

FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
*Also, 51% is a small number for an overall win percentage. I lowered my overall Modern win percentage from 65.7% to 64.2% over the past year, which means I got WRECKED. Those numbers are hopelessly low. If I had ever gotten 51% on a test when I was younger, my parents would disown me. I think instead of looking at why a deck is winning overall at 51%, we should look at why players continue to play decks that have a sub 40% win rate when they can easily see the statistics for their deck(s) online.
Going from 65.7 to 64.2% is not getting wrecked, I don't know why you think that. These are definitely not "hopelessly low" numbers, they are just fine. If you can maintain such a win-ratio you would definitely win some GPs (maybe you have, I don't know).

The comparison with the school test is completely off-base, as there are completely different expectations and conditions. If you had a 90% win ratio in a VARIANCE based game something would have to get fixed.

People play decks that they like, we have established that for a long time now. And that's fine. In addition, the fact that the overall statistics with a deck might be low, doesn't necessarily mean that a player cannot have a higher WR. Corey Burkhart, for example, I am sure has a much higher WR with Grixis than the average of the deck itself.
Counter, draw a card.

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 2115
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
On an unrelated-to-Urza note, MTGO prices are usually a good indicator of relative power/strength of a card. I went to sell the rest of my MTGO Stoneforges yesterday and saw that they dropped allll the way back to their pre-unban price. That pretty much confirms everything I thought about the strength of the card. Paper price will continue to stay high, because that's what always happens (remember how Ancestral Vision was $50 for more than a year?! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: )
forgot to quote this, because was so tired yesterday.

whoa, did not expect her to be so cheap on mtgo. I wonder how long the paper prices would hold high.
______________________

About latest SCG. Nice, that's a diverse top 16. :)
Image
AnimEVO 2020 - EFZ Tournament (english commentary) // OE 2016 // POF 2018
want to play a uw control deck in modern, but don't have Jace or snapcaster? please come visit us at the Emeria thread

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1177
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

The Fluff wrote:
1 year 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."

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1177
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
As I dont watch enough modern this days, Always happy to see diversity trending upwards in Modern!
Wait... What makes you believe this is happening?

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 857
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

Ym1r wrote:
1 year ago
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
People know what Wizards wants them to know. If WotC wants you to believe that Preordain, Bridge from Below, or Green Sun's Zenith are serious offenders to the Modern format, while Urza, Mox Opal, Ancient Stirrings, and similar cards are legal, that's what we have to believe. Green Sun's Zenith would lead to a seriously %$#% up format where everyone has to run it or lose, but Urza is 100% fine (I can't know any better; this is what the ban list tells me). The ban list said the same about Stoneforge Mystic for years and it surprised me nearly to death that some people actually disagreed with WotC and believed the Kor was fine. We are not supposed to think for ourselves. A card is only unbanned when and only when it is deemed fine in the format, not before.
This is one of the most absurd takes I've seen in a while. I have bolded all the bits that I think are completely absurd. This is such a conspiracy theory that I don't know where to begin. Which, weirdly enough, is contrasted by the absolutely correct statement I've underlined at the end of your paragraph. Indeed a card is unbanned when it is deemed fine in the format.

Every statement you make before that makes no sense. Cards don't necessarily enter the banlist because they are completely broken cards (although that might be a reason), but to maybe weaken other decks as well. The curation of the banlist is a multifaceted process that has to take into account multiple variables. However, none of these variables have to do with Wizards "wanting us to believe them and not think for ourselves". Literally, every unban scenario shows the opposite. People were vocal about JTMS. Wizards said no, it ain't happening. People KEPT being vocal, Aaron said ok, we will consider. A year later, and after consideration JTMS got unbanned. Same with SFM, same with BBE. People definitely did not "believe what they had to believe". They voiced their opinion, this opinion was taken into account, and then action was taken.

Same thing goes for bans. People voiced opinions about Looting, and looting eventually got banned. Is Looting a card that pushes any deck to 75% win ratio? No, it isn't, that doesn't make it a healthy inclusion in the format, as it enables the format to be too GY centric.

Literally you got it on the last sentence. There are MANY parameters to be taken into account, and only a card is considered fine, as in, it won't break anything or over-enable a particular strategy, it is unbanned.

FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
*Also, 51% is a small number for an overall win percentage. I lowered my overall Modern win percentage from 65.7% to 64.2% over the past year, which means I got WRECKED. Those numbers are hopelessly low. If I had ever gotten 51% on a test when I was younger, my parents would disown me. I think instead of looking at why a deck is winning overall at 51%, we should look at why players continue to play decks that have a sub 40% win rate when they can easily see the statistics for their deck(s) online.
Going from 65.7 to 64.2% is not getting wrecked, I don't know why you think that. These are definitely not "hopelessly low" numbers, they are just fine. If you can maintain such a win-ratio you would definitely win some GPs (maybe you have, I don't know).

The comparison with the school test is completely off-base, as there are completely different expectations and conditions. If you had a 90% win ratio in a VARIANCE based game something would have to get fixed.

People play decks that they like, we have established that for a long time now. And that's fine. In addition, the fact that the overall statistics with a deck might be low, doesn't necessarily mean that a player cannot have a higher WR. Corey Burkhart, for example, I am sure has a much higher WR with Grixis than the average of the deck itself.
I wish I had as much faith as you do. I do not think the timing of bannings was perfect. I do not think Bloodbraid Elf ever needed to be banned. I do not think that Bridge from Below needed to be banned instead of Hogaak. After Twin was allowed to go on for so many years, I do not think the timing of the banning was correct, if at all. I don't think Sword of the Meek ever needed to be banned. I don't think Valakut needed to be banned. If you think that WotC's decisions at every single point were correct and the best possible decision, then I honestly don't know what I can say to you. If you could not envision a Modern being any different than it is now, then I don't know what else I could say. Sorry.

As for percentages, I realize that the school example is not the same. Scratch that example. I was a bit extreme with that one. But for someone who has played thousands of matches, to lower your win percentage that much seriously takes a lot. I was avoiding the math because I didn't want to see how much I sucked, but since you would like to see it. If my percentage for 3000 matches was 65.7% and I played 400 matches the past year, this means I won 212 of those. 212 wins in 400 matches. I know people who have barely started to play who make mistakes at nearly ever junction of the game who have better win percentages than barely over 50%. Sorry, I am not convinced that slightly over 50% winning equates to someone who has top 8ed multiple GPs, ie. gone 13-2 in the Swiss (11-2 after Byes or 13-2 with no Byes). There are people who play Modern who will never win more than 40% of their matches. This balances out with others who will never lose more than 40% of their matches.

*If you think Modern is great, that's fine. More power to you. But in my opinion, the format can never be perfect for everyone because there honestly are so many different ways WotC could have gone. They could have started with no ban list. They could have started with a ban list of 100 cards. They could have just had "No Ban List" the whole time, but it would be hard for Standard sets and even Modern Horizons to have cards make an impact because the power level would already be so strong. So, those sets would not sell at all for Modern. Some people like myself wouldn't have minded the format with the ban list, but only banning Eye of Ugin and Hogaak, Arisen Necropolis along the way. Or I wouldn't have minded if they started with No Ban List, then do bans as problems arise. Then we wouldn't have cards like Sword of the Meek rotting away there for SO many years or Bridge from Below staying there.
Standard - Will pick up what's good when paper starts
Pre Modern - Do not own anymore
Pioneer - DEAD
Modern - Amulet Titan, 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
robertleva
Posts: 582
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 1 year ago

So the best urza shell is PO and the under performance of the deck as a whole is b/c people didn't use PO?
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

metalmusic_4
Posts: 260
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 1 year ago

FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
People know what Wizards wants them to know. If WotC wants you to believe that Preordain, Bridge from Below, or Green Sun's Zenith are serious offenders to the Modern format, while Urza, Mox Opal, Ancient Stirrings, and similar cards are legal, that's what we have to believe. Green Sun's Zenith would lead to a seriously %$#% up format where everyone has to run it or lose, but Urza is 100% fine I can't know any better; this is what the ban list tells me. The ban list said the same about Stoneforge Mystic for years and it surprised me nearly to death that some people actually disagreed with WotC and believed the Kor was fine. We are not supposed to think for ourselves. A card is only unbanned when and only when it is deemed fine in the format, not before.
What i think food chain is trying to say is that WOTC wants us to take them at their word and trust the ban list, but we all know it is wrong. Remember when they said SotM was too powerful because it would break lantern control? Do you trust their statements or do you not? That's what he's talking about. Of coarse we all can't agree on what would be exactly right, but that is a different topic.
I don't think bridge from below is on the level with mox opal either, the mox has been MUCH more dominant throughout moderns history with only the hogaak fiasco having bridge on top for a few weeks. Preordain is banned while I am using both ancient stirrings and once upon a time in the same deck and both on turn 1? We all know the ban list is hosed up but we can't agree on which to do, banning ancient stirrings or unbanning preordain to straighten it out. there are other choices for other cards to make too, but this one is a clear one to discuss to lay out our problem.

User avatar
Ym1r
Posts: 153
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Ym1r » 1 year ago

FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
I wish I had as much faith as you do. I do not think the timing of bannings was perfect. I do not think Bloodbraid Elf ever needed to be banned. I do not think that Bridge from Below needed to be banned instead of Hogaak. After Twin was allowed to go on for so many years, I do not think the timing of the banning was correct, if at all. I don't think Sword of the Meek ever needed to be banned. I don't think Valakut needed to be banned. If you think that WotC's decisions at every single point were correct and the best possible decision, then I honestly don't know what I can say to you. If you could not envision a Modern being any different than it is now, then I don't know what else I could say. Sorry.
It really is not a matter of faith. I never claimed, and will never claim, that WotC has made ONLY correct decisions. On the contrary, I do believe that Twin was a wrong ban for example. But this is the world we live in, and there are some reasons for Twin to stay banned. Do I agree with them? No. Do I see them as reasonable? Yes.

WotC also understand that it makes mistakes and/or that the environment changes, making it ok for cards to leave the ban list (many of your examples have been unbanned).

And yeah, I can envision a modern being different from what it is now. Actually, over the years we have seen SEVERAL iterations of modern. And I am sure we will have more. But so what? That has always been modern. Saying "oh maybe modern would have been different with Twin now". Yeah, maybe, so? There are people who say that modern wouldn't be ANY different with Twin not on the banlist. There are plenty of opinions, no need to feel pity for me.
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
As for percentages, I realize that the school example is not the same. Scratch that example. I was a bit extreme with that one. But for someone who has played thousands of matches, to lower your win percentage that much seriously takes a lot. I was avoiding the math because I didn't want to see how much I sucked, but since you would like to see it. If my percentage for 3000 matches was 65.7% and I played 400 matches the past year, this means I won 212 of those. 212 wins in 400 matches. I know people who have barely started to play who make mistakes at nearly ever junction of the game who have better win percentages than barely over 50%. Sorry, I am not convinced that slightly over 50% winning equates to someone who has top 8ed multiple GPs, ie. gone 13-2 in the Swiss (11-2 after Byes or 13-2 with no Byes). There are people who play Modern who will never win more than 40% of their matches. This balances out with others who will never lose more than 40% of their matches.
I NEVER claimed that winning slightly more than 50% of your matches should be the desired outcome. But there are multiple reasons for that, maybe you are running cold for a while, maybe you are playing the wrong deck, heck tons of pros haven't had successes for YEARS after some back to back wins. Being on the 65%+ WR is pretty high. Running cold has nothing to do with the format. Ktk has already shown that pros playing modern retain their WR, and there is no format bias.
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
*If you think Modern is great, that's fine. More power to you. But in my opinion, the format can never be perfect for everyone because there honestly are so many different ways WotC could have gone. They could have started with no ban list. They could have started with a ban list of 100 cards. They could have just had "No Ban List" the whole time, but it would be hard for Standard sets and even Modern Horizons to have cards make an impact because the power level would already be so strong. So, those sets would not sell at all for Modern. Some people like myself wouldn't have minded the format with the ban list, but only banning Eye of Ugin and Hogaak, Arisen Necropolis along the way. Or I wouldn't have minded if they started with No Ban List, then do bans as problems arise. Then we wouldn't have cards like Sword of the Meek rotting away there for SO many years or Bridge from Below staying there.
I don't think the format can be perfect for everyone. No format will ever be perfect for everyone. But what does this statement tell us? We already know that. They could have done all these things you are saying. So what? What does this add to the discussion?
Counter, draw a card.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”