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

User avatar
ktkenshinx
Posts: 571
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: West Coast
Contact:

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

Mtgthewary wrote:
1 year ago
Sometimes I believe they did this on purpose because Pioneer. If they don't fix this soon, many people will just change at Pioneer (which they sure will like) and some of us just stop playing (which they don't like).
Even if you aren't enjoying the state of the format, or any format for that matter, these kinds of unfounded and absurd conspiracy theories need to stop. They don't advance the discussion, they don't have any relevant evidence, and they just create an environment where it's difficult to have critical conversations about Modern. The far clearer explanation for Modern having no changes is that Standard has been a raging garbage wildfire for months now and R&D's efforts have been focused overwhelmingly on fixing their marquee format. The relatively self-sustaining Modern is a secondary priority, not because they want Modern to fail, but because their resources are needed elsewhere. They are also likely having ongoing and lengthy internal discussions about the abject failures of Play Design this year, a team that has failed to do the very thing it was created to do. Not to mention design/development level failures in multiple sets this year, leading to a year that will likely see the most multi-format bans in any year in MTG's history.

These are the reasons Wizards isn't making adjustments to Modern at this time. That and there haven't been any major events. Plus their enacting a significant change just a few months ago. I know people have come to expect lightning fast format evolution in this era of lightning fast information spread. But these expectations are harmful to the format and the game. Faithless Looting was banned in late August. It hasn't been three months and we've had zero major individual paper events. Allow the format to settle and then call for changes if any are warranted. This kind of instant-gratification climate is at the heart of the current MTG issue around overpowered threats, weak answers, undertested sets, rapid releases, endless bans, etc.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

Mtgthewary
Posts: 219
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Mtgthewary » 1 year ago

Mox is mox... It's not because less mayor events or more data... It's just a unfair unfunny card and caused and cause so many problems in modern. Time for accepting reality. This excuses needs to stop! That's what's really should stop

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 279
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
There is no way Wizards broke Modern on purpose. Agreed, the format is in a terrible state for many months now. I have heard some exaggerated comments that it is unplayable, which I don't agree with. But Modern is in a bad state for sure, and it keeps breaking and breaking. The card pool is too big and MH was an utter failure (except for FoN). Even Plague Engineer and W6 made some decks a little bit worse(I want to avoid the hyperbole, Merfolk are not unplayable because of those two cards, but the deck has to face so many answers now).
All of this is happening, because Wizards chose to ban around artifact decks, graveyard decks and Tron. Finally, looting was banned and the one problem is now solved, as we can see. But they need to address the big elephant in the room: Just go ahead and ban Mox Opal. Also, banning Expedition Map would be the final straw to make Modern fair and balanced, although there are datapoints that indicate Tron should be banned, so no, it's not going to happen. It's just that E-Tron(which seems to be one of the best 3 modern decks at the moment) and Tron will keep posing small problems to the fair decks for ever.
And now that we have Wrenn and Six, we can't never have a Wasteland type of card, so, that's settled.

Let's wait for GP. I think I am also done caring about Modern all that much, but I would love a day where:
Mox Opal, Expedition Map were banned.
Splinter Twin, Birthing Pod.

Even with no Map on the table, if Wizards goes on with the other 3 options, I bet people will be so excited, the format will be a lot better, and the excitement (contrary to Stoneforge Mystic) will keep on and on!
Just do it, finally!
I'd disagree that MH1 is/was a failure. Yes it introduced 2 extremely powerful cards in Hogaak and Urza, but the set had 255 cards, of which several found a home in both Modern and Legacy. They overshot Hogaak and arguably Urza, but that doesn't make the set as a whole a failure.

That "fair and balanced" is a pretty ominous and dangerous phrase. That is because YOU don't want to play combo/unfair decks (of which Twin can be argued to be one of them, also is GDS a fair deck?) others have to abide by YOUR standards. A Mox Opal ban utterly destroys 2 archetypes (3 maybe with Thopter/Sword) while marginally slowing Urza decks.

An Expedition Map ban is absurd in that you don't even hit the "problematic" card in the deck (which is Ancient Stirrings) and also hindering a deck that isn't at all oppressive and it's healthy for the format to exist and prey on midrange strategies (and Urza decks). To note, UWx Control has positive matchups against both E-Tron and Gx-Tron, so you'd handicap a fair strategy by removing one of its preys.

As [mention]ktkenshinx[/mention] above and before him [mention]Amalgam[/mention] noted so far the MTGO metagame seems to have adapted to Urza decks and the last few "major" paper tournaments have had some serious asterisks in their results due to the nature of the events. We'll see how Columbus fares and then we can have a 2nd data point to elaborate on.

As for your wish list, if you introduce 2 unfair cards and cut 2 other, how is that making the format more "fair and balanced"?
Mtgthewary wrote:
1 year ago
Mox is mox... It's not because less mayor events or more data... It's just a unfair unfunny card and caused and cause so many problems in modern. Time for accepting reality. This excuses needs to stop! That's what's really should stop
I mean, I love Mox Opal, I've had the invention variant of the card since it was released (trading a regular plus some bulk back then is absurd looking back at it now). So there you have it, I find Mox Opal fun and it helps many archetypes in Modern.

Now that we got our personal opinions out of the way, do you care to substantiate your claims that Opal is problematic in Modern, because you're the one that needs to accept reality that cards aren't banned based on feelings (except Twin) or "funness" or "unfairness" (have you seen Amulet Titan or CrabVine?) and rather on data.

iTaLenTZ
Posts: 216
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by iTaLenTZ » 1 year ago

Ever since I lost back to back to a turn 1 Emry followed by turn 2 Jeskai Ascendacy infinite I stopped playing Vintage.....I mean Modern. From a business-point they can't ban everything at the same time because what would people spend their money on during Christmas? Buy MH, no thanks if Wrenn and Urza are banned, buy Throne, no thanks if Oko and OUaT get banned in Pioneer. A lot of the things are living on burrowed time until January after people have spend their money.

I rethinked Once Upon a Time for Modern and while I am 100% sure it will be banned in Pioneer it might actually be ok, though super strong, in Modern. Modern is as degenerated as it gets and OUAT gives fairer, creature based decks an unfair card to fight all the degeneracy of Tron, Urza and Amulet, Valakut. The only downside is that Devoted Druid and some Amulet builds also gained this card. Turn 2 Oko does nothing against half the field either.

User avatar
Amalgam
Posts: 151
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Amalgam » 1 year ago

Well at the very least if the current trend follows into this weekend it will mean the format has moved more towards fairer decks. As much as people dislike Oko he has introduced a new Archtype in Bant snow Control decks or at least pushed them to the forefront. Also there's a jund deck splashing for Oko in the latest PTQ top 8. The return of humans and GDS even if the are followed by their nemesis eTron is still a push in the right direction.
Anyone know if this weekend is being streamed? The lack of streams has got to be one of Wizards/CFB biggest blunders for the last 12 months

Mtgthewary
Posts: 219
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Mtgthewary » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
There is no way Wizards broke Modern on purpose. Agreed, the format is in a terrible state for many months now. I have heard some exaggerated comments that it is unplayable, which I don't agree with. But Modern is in a bad state for sure, and it keeps breaking and breaking. The card pool is too big and MH was an utter failure (except for FoN). Even Plague Engineer and W6 made some decks a little bit worse(I want to avoid the hyperbole, Merfolk are not unplayable because of those two cards, but the deck has to face so many answers now).
All of this is happening, because Wizards chose to ban around artifact decks, graveyard decks and Tron. Finally, looting was banned and the one problem is now solved, as we can see. But they need to address the big elephant in the room: Just go ahead and ban Mox Opal. Also, banning Expedition Map would be the final straw to make Modern fair and balanced, although there are datapoints that indicate Tron should be banned, so no, it's not going to happen. It's just that E-Tron(which seems to be one of the best 3 modern decks at the moment) and Tron will keep posing small problems to the fair decks for ever.
And now that we have Wrenn and Six, we can't never have a Wasteland type of card, so, that's settled.

Let's wait for GP. I think I am also done caring about Modern all that much, but I would love a day where:
Mox Opal, Expedition Map were banned.
Splinter Twin, Birthing Pod.

Even with no Map on the table, if Wizards goes on with the other 3 options, I bet people will be so excited, the format will be a lot better, and the excitement (contrary to Stoneforge Mystic) will keep on and on!
Just do it, finally!
I'd disagree that MH1 is/was a failure. Yes it introduced 2 extremely powerful cards in Hogaak and Urza, but the set had 255 cards, of which several found a home in both Modern and Legacy. They overshot Hogaak and arguably Urza, but that doesn't make the set as a whole a failure.

That "fair and balanced" is a pretty ominous and dangerous phrase. That is because YOU don't want to play combo/unfair decks (of which Twin can be argued to be one of them, also is GDS a fair deck?) others have to abide by YOUR standards. A Mox Opal ban utterly destroys 2 archetypes (3 maybe with Thopter/Sword) while marginally slowing Urza decks.

An Expedition Map ban is absurd in that you don't even hit the "problematic" card in the deck (which is Ancient Stirrings) and also hindering a deck that isn't at all oppressive and it's healthy for the format to exist and prey on midrange strategies (and Urza decks). To note, UWx Control has positive matchups against both E-Tron and Gx-Tron, so you'd handicap a fair strategy by removing one of its preys.

As ktkenshinx above and before him Amalgam noted so far the MTGO metagame seems to have adapted to Urza decks and the last few "major" paper tournaments have had some serious asterisks in their results due to the nature of the events. We'll see how Columbus fares and then we can have a 2nd data point to elaborate on.

As for your wish list, if you introduce 2 unfair cards and cut 2 other, how is that making the format more "fair and balanced"?
Mtgthewary wrote:
1 year ago
Mox is mox... It's not because less mayor events or more data... It's just a unfair unfunny card and caused and cause so many problems in modern. Time for accepting reality. This excuses needs to stop! That's what's really should stop
I mean, I love Mox Opal, I've had the invention variant of the card since it was released (trading a regular plus some bulk back then is absurd looking back at it now). So there you have it, I find Mox Opal fun and it helps many archetypes in Modern.

Now that we got our personal opinions out of the way, do you care to substantiate your claims that Opal is problematic in Modern, because you're the one that needs to accept reality that cards aren't banned based on feelings (except Twin) or "funness" or "unfairness" (have you seen Amulet Titan or CrabVine?) and rather on data.
sometimes amulet is on top, sometimes gravebased like crab... Sometimes shadow, but man, opal decks like urza are allways there

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Just a reminder since ppl have shorter memories.

There is no reason to believe in the 'Ban the Best Deck' view that killed Twin, that a piece of Affinity would not have been hit next if not for Eldrazi breaking the format.

It was next, it's always been around, and Opal has been there from Eggs, to Affinity, to KCI, to Scales, to Whir, to Ursa, to whatever we have today.

The philosophy changed, that's all that saved Opal.
UR Control UR

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 279
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
Just want to address some views I heard, that I find absolutely absurd.
- Does anybody want to kill Tron? Nope. Do I think Tron is a good ban target now? No. Do I lose to Tron? No, as I am playing Amulet. I don't have a grudge for the deck. It's just that it's the most important reason(not the only one) that fair decks suffer in Modern. BUT! I do get that banning a Tron piece seems absurd. I already said earlier that it's a personal opinion. If I were in Wizard's shoes, I wouldn't do it. It's just that I feel Modern is never free from Tron's chains, and if it would be, the format would shine.
- About Ancient Stirrings. I think this card is making Modern healthier now. I used to believe it was a problem, but not. I will put out a relevant tweet here.





- Pod and Twin are two unfair cards, as is(in the vein of) Mox Opal. Literally don't/can't understand how one can put
Mox Opal: a free mana card(sure, will build-in restrictions) that can't be interacted with pre-sideboard,
can give free mana on turn 1(with one or moremishra's bauble plus another 0-cmc artifact),
has and still does produce Turn 3 kill at a Tier 1(or the deck to beat)
and was the big engine of at least two Modern decks to be banned(Second Breakfast, KCI).
Those things said, Opal is a problematic card in Modern and will always be as long as it exists.
On the other hand, you have Birthing Pod, card that is hitting the battlefield on Turn 3 (or Turn 2 if the bird lives), and generate value through multiple turns. Sure, Pod was broken back in the days that I was with Jeskai Control and my opponent played a Turn 2 Voice of resurgence and most fair players were like, "oh, what do I do now, voice is here" era. Times have changed, Pod would be a lot weaker, because of K-Com, because of Oko, because of multiple combo decks that are bad matchups for Pod, because of big mana that also are big mana.
Pod would introduce more creatures in Modern. Modern is lacking on toolbox, modern is lacking on having small, or bigger, creatures in the battlefield, modern is lacking on a good, value deck.
Splinter Twin: Yeah, it is an unfair card. But the whole shell is fair. Opal decks(besides the new midrangey, but still unfair Sultai Urza deck) are usually ultra unfair. Their whole shells are ultra unfair. Think of decks like KCI. 100% unfair. Think of decks like Paradoxical Outcome or Turn 1 Emry variants. It also wants you to interact with it. Urza decks don't want to actively interact with them. Yes, up to a point, every deck wants to. Twin also makes Control and Midrange shells a little bit(just a little) better positioned in the metagame, as those decks tend to have even or positive matchups vs Twin. For all those multiple reasons, again, Twin would make Modern a better format than Mox Opal does. Also, Twin would not be as good(Fatal Push, GDS deck as a whole, FoN, FoV, stronger decks overall, I am looking to you).

To close this up, Opal decks had 30% day 2 metagame breakdown in the last SCG. We will see the next GP. Even if multiple Top 32 copies are on Urza, we have something on our hands. But, at the moment, I can't believe Pod or Twin would reach those numbers. Not at all. What I am saying here, is Twin and Pod would be a lot weaker now, except for making Modern a little bit better(Twin) or adding some diversity(Pod).

That many reasons said, I believe Mox Opal is a lot more unfair than Twin and/or Pod. Opal being banned would make Modern more fair, Twin and Pod would make it more fair.

PS:
Ban Mox Opal, or at least unban Splinter Twin and Birthing Pod if you think Urza decks are fine.
Some dude on the net saying that Stirrings is a boon for "fairness" in Modern (8 months before no less) does not in any way shape or form take away that the card is a mistake and has been at the center of broken or borderline decks unfair decks, see KCI, Titan and Tron.

As I said, if you take away Tron, you're taking away a good match up for control. Why do you want control to fail?

You're saying that Opal's restriction for T1 free mana is irrelevant, while you later on tack a restriction of "the bird living" as a meaningful restriction. At least be consistent. Both "restrictions" are irrelevant. Opal isn't breaking Modern, it enables artifact decks, just as Ancient Stirrings enables colorless or land heavy decks to exist. Why are ones more worth to have than the others?

Since when are Urza decks "ultra unfair", but Pod decks aren't? Pod's bad matchups were Tron, Scapeshift and maybe Twin, all 3 are unfair. Pod decks also shat on T2 and T3 strategies.

You still put your pet deck (Twin, an unfair deck) as a deck that should exist, but other unfair decks shouldn't. Need I remind you that Twin had almost no negative matchups?

Pod WILL produce a deck to beat, maybe even different variants of a deck (sounds familiar...), it's unclear about Twin. Plus, the Bant Snowblade decks ARE creature decks. So are Humans and Spirits. E-Tron as well. I don't see any lack of creature decks in the MTGO meta.

You're fixated on the 30% Urza decks of the SCG invitational, but you're ignoring both the nature of the event (8 rounds of Modern and 8 rounds of Pioneer) and the rationale of how decks are chosen in such events. The best performing Modern decks (7-1 or higher) were: 2 Urza decks, 1 4C Shadow, 1 Grixis Shadow, 1 Mono-R prowess, 1 Infect, 1 Tron, 1 Devoted Devastation. So I guess we should ban Death's Shadow too? It has the same performance as Urza decks after all.

And again, the numbers from the last GP were similar to breakout weekends from other decks, such as GDS, Humans and Phoenix.

I'll reiterate again in closing, why is YOUR pet unfair deck better for the meta than mine? Or anyone other's "unfair" deck for that matter.

It's fine to gripe about design mistakes or not liking a deck, but when it comes to banning cards and or decks, they should be based on data and objective measures not just feelings.

PS. Unban Twin and Pod for all I care, just rein in the sill knee-jerk banmania. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Modern needs unbans on top of better answers, bannings are not (always) the answer.

[mention]Mtgthewary[/mention] Before Urza, Opal decks were relegated to Scales and/or Affinity and they were struggling in general, so no, Opal decks haven't "been there always".

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1109
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
This means that if they think Urza decks are fine, then why Pod & Twin aren't? If they think Twin and Pod are not fine, while this busted Urza deck than can occasionally kill on Turn 3, play 3-4 Explosives mainboard, have a different flavour/variations to play with, some of them needing 5 minutes to close the game, and being super hard or almost impossible to hate it out or use a remove on them, they are just hypocrites.
They are exactly hypocrites. They have zero obligation to hold any continuity with past bannings and have shown this time and time again. They do what they want, when they want, for whatever reasons they want. If there is a card they personally don't like, they will get rid of it and make sure it never sees the light of day again. They have also shown us that, other than the extremely rare and random unbanning of Jace/BBE, essentially every unbanning appears to be an apology stapled onto a massive and predictable ban: Bitterblossom and Wild Nacatl with DRS; GGT with TC, DTT, and Pod; AV and SotM with Eye of Ugin; and Stoneforge with Hogaak and Looting.

The only way we will ever see Twin or Pod again is if Modern becomes so warpingly f**ked again that they feel another apology unban is appropriate. And I am confident that it will never be sooner than that, if it happens at all.

User avatar
Moth
Posts: 54
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Moth » 1 year ago

So what you're saying is I should buy a copy of Birthing Pod before it gets unbanned and I need to get a bank loan for it?

Edit: I brought one on impulse, can't be too careful these days. [mention]cfusionpm[/mention]
Last edited by Moth 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1109
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

Moth wrote:
1 year ago
So what you're saying is I should buy a copy of Birthing Pod before it gets unbanned and I need to get a bank loan for it?
I'm sitting on 8 foil and 36 non-foil copies of Splinter Twin in paper, 24 copies on MTGO.

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 553
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

You won't need a bank loan, Modern's price fall is not just the usual November slump. Modern multi format cards will still have value, but if pod was unbanned, or any other Modern only card, it won't hit the heights.
Modern finance has moved house. It is never going to be the neighbourhood it was. Multi format all stars will command a premium if they are Pioneer legal, a smaller premium for Legacy legal, but Modern only cards..... no. Modern won't die, but it will have to be satisfied with less.

User avatar
pierreb
Posts: 266
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Up North

Post by pierreb » 1 year ago

Mox and bird are different because:
  • Creature removal is played in the main.
  • 0 mana is a lot less than one and has been behind combos multiple times.
  • Free spells in general are almost always design mistakes in the end.*
* The card does not simply has to be crappy to not see play (ornithopter is awful and yet saw play in paradoxical outcome decks) it has to be actively bad as in one with nothing (and even then... it's just waiting for some weird combo to come along)

as for tron... tron keeps getting good results and keeps placing multiple spots in top 8. Yes, it's not dominating enough to be considered bannable using the usual metrics, but it should be hit with a ban IMO for multiple weak reasons:
  • It's considered unfun by a sizeable group.
  • It uses lands that produces more than one mana, which even Wizards admit is a typical bad design idea.
  • It is holding back modern.
I don't buy the line that it would make control worse. First, tron is not prevalent enough that its presence makes control good anyway. Second, control should be improved by making cards that helps it, not by weirdly engineering a meta-game it can somehow prey upon.

Tomatotime
Posts: 197
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

Going forward in terms of Modern, the player base will have to (if it even can) come to a consensus about what standard of play we should even be pushing for in Modern and sculpting the format towards. There appears to be an identity crisis that has been occurring in Modern this entire time albeit perhaps under the surface, it was only really with the introduction of Pioneer that these issues are being dredged into the public view.

We need to find out whether the format should be balanced around fair decks or not, and if so, what exactly is a fair deck? If we are not to balance the format around fair decks, then people should be made aware that playing decks like Jund or UW based control, or even lower tiered fun decks like 5-color Niv, is simply not welcome in the format and if you are playing Modern your deck should be almost exclusively a solitaire pile of some form or fashion.

Please note, I'm not trying to say the above hypothetical is good or bad, I'm simply saying if this is the standard we as a community are setting, than this should be the way we honestly and forthrightly advertise the format to outsiders who may or may not be interested in the terms outlined above.

I think a lot of the issues that come to the forefront are when people watch people like Saffron Olive playing fun decks like 5-Color Niv or Slivers in Modern and think that this is somehow indicative of what is realistically possible in the format, only to later get stomped into dust in practice.

Now alternatively, if the community somehow finds a consensus and it wants fair decks to have a GUARANTEED seat at the table, then bannings will have to occur, there is simply no way that average power level fair decks can exist in Modern when the highest powered fair decks in Jund/UW control are already getting pushed to the margins themselves. Also over the past few pages in this thread people have been saying everything is okay because Death Shadow is doing fine, I think it is worth mentioning that in terms of fair decks, Death Shadow is by far the cheesiest of the fair decks that exist, to the point where in my opinion it is a fair deck simply for comparison sake, if DS is the standard we are using for fair decks, then I don't know how accurate our discussion with these topics will ever be.

EDIT: To further make my point, in terms of actually finding any consensus in Modern, it will require a de-fragmentation of the various Modern communities and for them to consolidate, there is no possibility of consensus on any issue if we are split up as much as we are in my opinion.

Secondly, regardless of the answer that is found, we need to acknowledge whether it is a commercially viable one. For instance, Legacy and Vintage are not commercially viable formats as evidenced by their repeated slashed event support. This is not the end of the world, there are still plenty of people who play these formats, but it does not change the fact that it is not commercially viable. The community will have to determine for itself whether it's answer to the question of fair decks in Modern will affect the format's commercial viability or not and to what extent. Are people okay having Modern be exclusively a LGS format and not an event format? Again, its okay if the answer is yes, but we should at least have an answer.

Yawgmoth
Posts: 170
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Yawgmoth » 1 year ago

@Tomatotime Yes to all of that. I tried to express a similar sentiment earlier in this thread about whether or not Modern was becoming a sort of "new Legacy."

In that case Modern would be a format where there are massively powerful decks that many average players would consider unfun/unfair but that the entrenched player base considers the bread and butter of the game. I'm all for this realization/evolution as I like how powerful Modern feels compared to Standard and I don't want to see the format disappear/change to the point that all of the iconic Modern decks are banned.

Meanwhile, Pioneer will become a more fair alternative which is essentially at the same power level as Standard but with more cards. Obviously more cards makes for more possible interactions and thus power. However, if game designers are actively curating the format regularly I can imagine a world where Pioneer is more akin to an "extended" version of Standard (like modern originally was).

There will be player movement back and forth initially but eventually people will settle on which format they like best. I think this will lead to greater player satisfaction overall as the people who find Modern unfair and what to ban something every other week will just play Pioneer and the people who like broken decks will play Modern and not have to worry about the constant threat of ban destroying their decks. Legacy players as a whole seam pretty happy because I think all of the unhappy players stopped playing it. I hope something similar happens to Modern but I a way where everyone gets to play the type of Magic that they enjoy.

I think that Modern players are actually made up of two types of players and that they cannot coexist in the same format because they have fundamentally opposing views of what makes the game fun.

User avatar
Amalgam
Posts: 151
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Amalgam » 1 year ago

People have to remember the grass isn't always greener and issues with Pioneer will become more prevalent with time. One of the biggest issues is the set starts around the time when wizards started pushing threats over answers and I'm sure we will find just as many broken unfair decks in it because of this

Tomatotime
Posts: 197
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

Yawgmoth wrote:
1 year ago
@Tomatotime Yes to all of that. I tried to express a similar sentiment earlier in this thread about whether or not Modern was becoming a sort of "new Legacy."

In that case Modern would be a format where there are massively powerful decks that many average players would consider unfun/unfair but that the entrenched player base considers the bread and butter of the game. I'm all for this realization/evolution as I like how powerful Modern feels compared to Standard and I don't want to see the format disappear/change to the point that all of the iconic Modern decks are banned.

Meanwhile, Pioneer will become a more fair alternative which is essentially at the same power level as Standard but with more cards. Obviously more cards makes for more possible interactions and thus power. However, if game designers are actively curating the format regularly I can imagine a world where Pioneer is more akin to an "extended" version of Standard (like modern originally was).

There will be player movement back and forth initially but eventually people will settle on which format they like best. I think this will lead to greater player satisfaction overall as the people who find Modern unfair and what to ban something every other week will just play Pioneer and the people who like broken decks will play Modern and not have to worry about the constant threat of ban destroying their decks. Legacy players as a whole seam pretty happy because I think all of the unhappy players stopped playing it. I hope something similar happens to Modern but I a way where everyone gets to play the type of Magic that they enjoy.
And this opinion is completely fine, and I can either agree with it or disagree with it which is also fine. The issue at play is that without a method for actually drawing an actual consensus of a large section of the Modern player base, the chain of ban manias or format defenses will never actually reach an equilibrium like Legacy and Vintage has. Those formats achieved their consensus during periods of greater community consolidation where the standards could actually be defined, unfortunately in the current state the community is in, these standards will be much harder to define in Modern. And as such, the constant repetitions in arguments and counter-arguments will never end, even just a page or two prior in this thread we have people re litigating Counterspell in Modern AGAIN.

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 279
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
Justin Cohen is not just some dude. It's the guy that broke Modern with Sam Black back in 2015 and came second with Amulet Bloom in the PT Fate Reforged with the deck. But, I am not trying to invoke the authority here, I just think his arguments are great.
Stirrings enables many different strategies. Opal's strategies are not so vastly different. This is why Looting was banned. And I believe Wizards made that argument in an announcement of theirs. That if a card is enabling many different strategies, it should be relatively fine. Looting for example, enables many same strategies.
He is some random dude and you did appeal to authority. Amulet existed well before those 2 played it on a PT, as did KCI.

You just said before that Stirrings increases consistency, but here it's an enabler? Please decide.

Opal is by no means an enabler and in under no circumstances are Opal decks the same. Affinity is an aggro deck, Scales is a highly synergistic midrange deck (which also plays Stirrings) and before Urza there was the Thopter/Sword prison list and straight up Lantern Control. Even with Urza, the 3 main variants of the deck still play COMPLETELY differently and Affinity and Scales still remain. So, no. Opal strategies ARE different, much different than Twin variants ever were. Your argument shows that you don't know the decks or that you're just seeing red and want to ban Opal no matter what.

Their rationale for banning Looting is that it enabled the winningest strategy every time, not many different ones. Stirrings has been as much part of decks that needed a ban, if not more than Opal.

There IS no artifact deck that plays without Opal and there will be none if Opal is banned. Affinity and Scales won't survive such a ban, without something to counteract the loss of speed. I don't think you want Artifact Lands or Skullclamp in Modern, do you? Maybe Emry Ascendancy will stick around as meme deck and MAYBE Urza decks will be competitive enough to see some fringe play.

And again: What feelings a deck elicits is not a legitimate reason for banning something.

I've lost to Discard, Goyf, Lili, Elf and it's miserable. I've had miserable games against control. I've had miserable games against Taxes and Tron. Should we ban everything then? Where do we stop?

Stop with the constant ban mania, it's bad for everyone. Your feelings towards a decks are not legitimate arguments, because someone else loves that play style. I love playing prison decks. I love playing artifact decks. I love playing UWx Tempo/Control/Midrange. I hate Tron and Storm (if it's not based on artifacts). I've never said ban those decks, because it's silly to even suggest such a thing on feelings alone.

Modern needs more unbans (See Twin, Pod, Green Sun's) AND a change in design philosophy by Wizards, where they value answers as much as they value threats, not bans. And certainly they don't need the level of banmania that has been happening the past few months.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Yawgmoth wrote:
1 year ago
I think that Modern players are actually made up of two types of players and that they cannot coexist in the same format because they have fundamentally opposing views of what makes the game fun.
The problem here is, the format used to allow for those opposing views to exist.
Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
You just said before that Stirrings increases consistency, but here it's an enabler? Please decide.

Opal is by no means an enabler and in under no circumstances are Opal decks the same. Affinity is an aggro deck, Scales is a highly synergistic midrange deck (which also plays Stirrings) and before Urza there was the Thopter/Sword prison list and straight up Lantern Control. Even with Urza, the 3 main variants of the deck still play COMPLETELY differently and Affinity and Scales still remain. So, no. Opal strategies ARE different, much different than Twin variants ever were. Your argument shows that you don't know the decks or that you're just seeing red and want to ban Opal no matter what.
A dubious definition of 'midrange' aside, what does it matter if Opal decks are different? Its still a problematic card.

Not that it matters to me, I am not on a 'ban opal' path. I have said Stirrings should be banned for years.
Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
Modern needs more unbans (See Twin, Pod, Green Sun's) AND a change in design philosophy by Wizards, where they value answers as much as they value threats, not bans. And certainly they don't need the level of banmania that has been happening the past few months.
I agree with the first, and at this point disagree with the later.

I dont think 'answers' matter anymore. We are too low, or can go to low, to the ground with our casting costs, we can go too fast, or we can go over (via Tron/Amulet/ETron/Urza) too fast. The answers to these problems would almost by necessity push out any 'fair' play anyway.

The only, literally only, options for Modern at this point.

1. Mass bans. Take the top off the format. - Unacceptable to the majority of the player base.
2. Unbans of the decks that historically pushed out other decks in the form of 'police'. Twin, Pod. - Not likely to make a meaningful change at this point.
3. Do nothing. Modern is, as Modern has been for almost 2 years. Ban the most offensive deck every 3-6 months.

Nothing is going to get us back to early 2018 other than bans.
Nothing is going to get us back to what, 2015 other than bans AND unbans.
Nothing will make 'fair' work in Modern, other than gutting the format, and why bother when they can curate Pioneer?

------------------------------

An open question, ok 3.

1. When was the last time 'fair' decks actually saw play at the top, successfully.
2. When was Modern last 'good', with actual diversity at the top of the 'winners meta'.
3. If you have answers to 1 and 2, is it even possible to get back there?
UR Control UR

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
What's also going to happen is Twin and Pod rotting for an eternity in the Banlist, and we will be asking during 2012, why are those cards still banned? It's a shame really. But, what can we do?
Play Pioneer. It is 100% more likely that Pioneer leans closer to the type of format we saw in 2015 Modern, and Dom/Guilds Standard, than Modern is likely to return to that format and see the ban's and unban's needed to make it happen.
UR Control UR

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 279
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
I think
3. Do nothing. Modern is, as Modern has been for almost 2 years. Ban the most offensive deck every 3-6 months.

is the most possible. Mox Opal is the next card to be banned, then we will move to something else.

I would really love to go back to 2014 or 2015, where you could play Voice, Remands, and fair magic. For this to happen, we need other bans than Mox Opal though, and I bet Wizards is just going to ban this one.

What's also going to happen is Twin and Pod rotting for an eternity in the Banlist, and we will be asking during 2012, why are those cards still banned? It's a shame really. But, what can we do?
You keep banging the "ban Opal" drum, but you still ignore the realities of the card and what it offers to the format. You keep haranguing about Urza decks, when:

1. It's still too early
2. It's probably not even the problematic deck

The deck existed FOR YEARS without a problem and somehow after Urza AND Emry, Opal is the problem? You seem content to kill off ALL artifact strategies with an Opal ban, because you don't like the decks that use it.

Are you OK with someone telling you to ban Amulet or Cryptic or Terminus or Goyf or Liliana or Shadow or whatever random cards from T1, just because you don't like their playstyle or lines that they have? Where's your call for bans on Infect or Storm? Or hell, Amulet, it can kill on T3 and T2 with a god hand, yet you're hellbent on an Opal ban when (the relevant) Urza decks rarely win before T4.

Hell, 2014-2015 Modern was in no way shape or form any fairer, you just have a nostalgia about Twin (and maybe Pod). You had Tron, Storm, Scapeshift and T2 Infect kills. Remember, BGx had Deathrite during that period. After came the Cruise/Dig era. Then Eldrazi Winter. Where's that famous "Golden Age" of Modern? I reckon it's more like Gilded Age, since you ignore the unfairness that existed back then.

Deal with it, Modern never was "fair". It had "fair" decks in the top, as it does now, but it never was under ANY circumstance wholly fair.

Pioneer will have the same problems as Modern, especially since it lacks significant land-hate (a la Blood Moon, Ghost Quarter) or strong artifact hate (Shatterstorm/Shattering Spree, Stony Silence) and lousy counters (no Force of Negation). The format will be as unfair as Modern, if not more because of this. Pioneer is not a "midrange paradise" or a fair format NOW. I really don't get where you're basing it on.

[mention]idSurge[/mention] No card is problematic in a vacuum. This goes for both Stirrings and Opal. However, without Opal, Affinity (Robots) and Scales cease to exist. Completely. They can't compete in Modern without the speed and consistency that Opal gives them because modern design philosophy has nuked artifact mana to the ground (arguably for the better). If there were other avenues of artifact ramp (if Mox Tantalite had Suspend 1 instead of 3 for example) , then I'd be open to discussing an Opal ban, but there isn't. As such, without Opal artifact strategies will either cease to exist (Lantern/Affinity/Scales) or morph into something even more degenerate and meme-tastic, like Emry Ascendancy. Lastly, it matters whether a card enables different play styles, Wizards cited that specific reason for NOT banning Opal or Stirrings during their KCI ban announcement.

Of course, they go on and say if decks consolidate around these cards and the best cards that support those, then they'll change their stance (see Faithless Looting). However, even now with Urza decks being the hot thing, there are 3 distinct playstyles under that category. Plus, the online metagame seems to have adjusted to Urza decks in general. Especially the past couple of weeks.

That's why I see an Opal ban as silly -at the moment-, even though it can be considered "problematic". I'm not even calling for a Stirrings ban, the card sure is stupid, but the numbers don't support a banning, only the feelings do.

Edit:
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
Ban Urza's Tower, Mox Opal, Faithless Looting(this happened).
Unban Splinter Twin, Birthing Pod.
In such a meta, I fear about GDS being too good a little bit, but probably not. It's going, with Twin, check most unfair decks.
Unfair decks will still exist: Storm, Amulet, Scales Affinity, Ad Naus, Burn, etc.
Fair decks like BGx, Pod(I think it's fair, but whatever), Twin(it's a fair card. People saying it's an unfair combo are wrong, because the shell itself is fair), will also exist.
Diversity will also be the case, with many other decks being viable.
Lol, at chopping Tron and Opal decks, while leaving Amulet alive. As said, Opal getting banned kills off Affinity AND Scales, so grats on "increasing" diversity. More like "kill off decks I don't like".
Last edited by Tzoulis 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
No card is problematic in a vacuum. This goes for both Stirrings and Opal. However, without Opal, Affinity (Robots) and Scales cease to exist. Completely. They can't compete in Modern without the speed and consistency that Opal gives them because modern design philosophy has nuked artifact mana to the ground (arguably for the better). If there were other avenues of artifact ramp (if Mox Tantalite had Suspend 1 instead of 3 for example) , then I'd be open to discussing an Opal ban, but there isn't. As such, without Opal artifact strategies will either cease to exist (Lantern/Affinity/Scales) or morph into something even more degenerate and meme-tastic, like Emry Ascendancy. Lastly, it matters whether a card enables different play styles, Wizards cited that specific reason for NOT banning Opal or Stirrings during their KCI ban announcement.

Of course, they go on and say if decks consolidate around these cards and the best cards that support those, then they'll change their stance (see Faithless Looting). However, even now with Urza decks being the hot thing, there are 3 distinct playstyles under that category. Plus, the online metagame seems to have adjusted to Urza decks in general. Especially the past couple of weeks.

That's why I see an Opal ban as silly -at the moment-, even though it can be considered "problematic". I'm not even calling for a Stirrings ban, the card sure is stupid, but the numbers don't support a banning, only the feelings do.
Thats all fair. I am mostly OK with Opal because as you say its a critical card in a number of decks, none of which, even in totality of 'opal decks' is really an issue.
UR Control UR

iTaLenTZ
Posts: 216
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by iTaLenTZ » 1 year ago

If you follow the price trends its pretty clear Pioneer is eating a lot of Modern's share. I believe Wizards wants Modern and Pioneer to be distinctive formats that attract different people just like Legacy and Vintage do. The meta has been played out. Decks become more linear and streamlined every year. Also Modern has been amortized. There isn't much more money to gain for Wizards after several Modern Masters and recently Modern Horizons. Modern's popularity peak was 2 years ago. MH renewed interest but its awful effect on the meta has made a lot of people give up on Modern.

Pioneer is being presented to us as the 'fair' format and Wizards is willing to ban aggressively to reach that goal and keep it that way. Modern will be the degenerated format to satisfy demand of comboplayers, tron players etc. Each type of player will have a format that meets its demands. Therefore Modern will continue to exist but with a lower metashare. This is completely fine and the reason why Modern won't be policed actively by Wizards. If you want to play fair midrange decks go to Pioneer. That is the clear message they have sent.

Yawgmoth
Posts: 170
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Yawgmoth » 1 year ago

Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
Yawgmoth wrote:
1 year ago
@Tomatotime Yes to all of that. I tried to express a similar sentiment earlier in this thread about whether or not Modern was becoming a sort of "new Legacy."

In that case Modern would be a format where there are massively powerful decks that many average players would consider unfun/unfair but that the entrenched player base considers the bread and butter of the game. I'm all for this realization/evolution as I like how powerful Modern feels compared to Standard and I don't want to see the format disappear/change to the point that all of the iconic Modern decks are banned.

Meanwhile, Pioneer will become a more fair alternative which is essentially at the same power level as Standard but with more cards. Obviously more cards makes for more possible interactions and thus power. However, if game designers are actively curating the format regularly I can imagine a world where Pioneer is more akin to an "extended" version of Standard (like modern originally was).

There will be player movement back and forth initially but eventually people will settle on which format they like best. I think this will lead to greater player satisfaction overall as the people who find Modern unfair and what to ban something every other week will just play Pioneer and the people who like broken decks will play Modern and not have to worry about the constant threat of ban destroying their decks. Legacy players as a whole seam pretty happy because I think all of the unhappy players stopped playing it. I hope something similar happens to Modern but I a way where everyone gets to play the type of Magic that they enjoy.
And this opinion is completely fine, and I can either agree with it or disagree with it which is also fine. The issue at play is that without a method for actually drawing an actual consensus of a large section of the Modern player base, the chain of ban manias or format defenses will never actually reach an equilibrium like Legacy and Vintage has. Those formats achieved their consensus during periods of greater community consolidation where the standards could actually be defined, unfortunately in the current state the community is in, these standards will be much harder to define in Modern. And as such, the constant repetitions in arguments and counter-arguments will never end, even just a page or two prior in this thread we have people re litigating Counterspell in Modern AGAIN.
Were Legacy and Vintage defined by the players or by WotC? I'm not being facetious, I don't know the answer. Did Legacy players really reach a consensus? Or, did the unhappy players just stop playing? It seems to me that trying to reach a consensus about modern is a pretty lofty goal. Unless there was structural reform which allowed players to directly communicate with WotC (ie a forum or polling mechanism) i think it is very unlikely that players will reach a consensus.

Lol at the Counterspell comment. Im the one who started the Counterspell debate a few pages back. :laugh:

We can disagree about Counterspell but I ask you to consider this, for me, it's not "relitigating" anything, this is my first time engaging in a public forum discussing Magic. Until the past few years I've mostly played casually and we usually ignore bans/make up our own house formats. I played modern when it was first formed but took a long hiatus from any competitive play. I've lurked on forums for 10yr but only with the launch of Nexus and my recent return to competitive Magic did I ever feel like expressing my opinion on the game. It was less intimidating for me to join the conversation because it was started "fresh" with this thread. I didn't feel like was "out of the loop."

If we want to reach a consensus like you claim we need to be able to have a dialogue that is built on some assumptions but it's not like there is a "definitive history of modern vol I-IV." We are all coming from different perspectives with different information. For example, I thought my Counterspell suggestion was clever, I honestly was curious what other people thought about it. Meanwhile you are not even interested because you've already had a discussion elsewhere and made up your mind. Things like this are what make "reaching a consensus" very difficult in reality despite sounding great in theory.

Yawgmoth
Posts: 170
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Yawgmoth » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
Are you OK with someone telling you to ban Amulet or Cryptic or Terminus or Goyf or Liliana or Shadow or whatever random cards from T1, just because you don't like their playstyle or lines that they have? Where's your call for bans on Infect or Storm?
This is how I feel about most ban talk. Would it even be Modern anymore if Liliana and Tarmo were banned? At what point is it just better to make a new format? I really think Pioneer will relieve a lot of this dissatisfaction in modern as unhappy players have something else to try. Either they'll like it or they won't but then maybe they'll appreciate what makes modern unique.

That's an interesting thought. I wonder how everyone here would define what they think makes Modern unique.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”