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

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

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

Yawgmoth wrote:
1 year ago
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.
First off, my bad in regards to the Counterspell thing, I've just been doing these forums discussions in regards to Modern for years so I've become a little jaded over time.

In terms of whether other older formats have formed a consensus or not, I would say at least for Legacy's sake it has, the proof would be Brainstorm. Brainstorm as a card, looking at purely from a data driven perspective, has been one of the most obvious bannable cards in Legacy as a format, and yet Wotc has not done so, and this is the same Wotc that has restricted it in Vintage. An action (or inaction) of this kind only could have come about because of a conensus that was reached by the players involved and for Wotc to acknowledge it. Just my 2 cents.


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

Post by Mtgthewary » 1 year ago

Bad times playing modern and people still defend most unfair decks. Is this still modern without uw? You all defend your mox and ask strange questions like if it's still modern after banning it and don't see we allready lost our modern

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

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

Mtgthewary wrote:
1 year ago
Bad times playing modern and people still defend most unfair decks. Is this still modern without uw? You all defend your mox and ask strange questions like if it's still modern after banning it and don't see we allready lost our modern
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
I think the answer is that people who would normally care about Modern being so bad, have made the transition to Pioneer already.
And yes, Modern seems unhealthy enough, as it is Mox Opal/Urza oriented and big mana oriented(E-Tron, Tron, Amulet oriented).
Also, playing fair in Modern at the moment is a lost cause. You can if you like it, you will get crushed though.
We will see how the GP shapes out, but at the moment, Control is low, non GDS midrange(like BGx) is low, aggro is low, toolbox is low, tempo is low on meta. Modern has been taken over by high synergy strategies and is all about finding pseudo combo and playing with it. No fair decks, no good cards collection. decks at all.
Are you two even self aware?

Of course I'm gonna defend against a Mox Opal ban based on feelings and especially when such a ban will crush a (macro) archetype. You are what's wrong with Modern. People who constantly complain about decks and cards based on how they make them feel instead of taking a look at the data. If you're not enjoying Modern fine, I understand that, but don't hide your dissatisfaction behind a veneer of "improving" Modern. You just want to see whole archetypes gone just because either:

1. Your pet deck isn't viable
2. You hate a card/deck/(macro)archetype

At least admit it.

I mean [mention]Mtgthewary[/mention] just posted a tweet saying that there isn't a Colonnade in the last MTGO 5-0 lists. Well, big woop? Not that he ignored that there are: a Rock and a Jund deck, along with 3 Taxes decks, multiple Snow-Based Control/Midrange decks, several StoneBlade decks, some toolbox deck, a freaking G-Devotion deck, 3-4 DS variants, a freaking UR control deck, a mono-B Zombies list and 2 5-Color Niv decks. So the majority of decks are "fair". But yeah, OH MY GOD NO COLONNADES!1!111!

Understand this: There never was a "fair" era in Modern, and there never will be. Modern must and should have "unfair" decks. If you don't like it go play Standard, because Pioneer isn't "fair".

And for the Nth time: Modern doesn't need bans at the moment. It needs unbans and a shift in design philosophy. Urza decks MIGHT be in the danger zone, but the data isn't there.

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

Post by Amalgam » 1 year ago

It's getting kind of sad how badly people are being affected by the honeymoon period of Pioneers pushed release. Has anyone actually looked at the format, it feels like playing standard on speed where there is no answers to and threats your opponent lays down. It's basically the perfect example of a format that is just race, race, race and solitaire matches. Heck the latest challenge event had 6 mono black decks in it's top 8.

Also just to add will some people not be happy in this thread till we have a format of just jund style decks punching eachother? With wizards current design philosophy of threats > answers this will never happen. At least be happy Urza turned into a more midrange deck with artifacts instead of combo based while Tron/Humans/GDS are all doing rather well for themselves at the moment. Heck there was even an infect deck in one of the latest challenge/PTQ results

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

Post by Amalgam » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
Amalgam , I mean this is true, up to a point. But, at least is a fair format. People are going to play T3 Courser of Kruphix against you and that's a totally legit and strong play. Indeed, one of the strongest plays on the format.
In Modern, at the moment, it's like Turn 3 or 4 Urza and you lose, Turn 3 Primeval Titan, Turn 3 Karn Liberated, or Eldrazi Tron that if you are trying to play fair, good luck with that.
It's funny you mention things like this because looking from data of all recent pioneer events none of the top decks right now even run Courser of Kruphix. Heck what does courser even do in a meta like that where your answer to them almost killing you is a 2/4 vanilla creature in most situations. They are all as previously explained hyper aggro decks or solitaire based decks that don't even care about what your opponent is doing. Also there must be some form of rose tinted glasses going as Modern has always featured decks that did mostly what you have explained above. Surely you remember how many cards storm had banned or turn 2 deaths from infect or your example of Turn 3 Karn even back in 2013. Modern is a powerful format which has it's meta shaken up quite often by new printed cards. This has lead to some formats such as the dreaded Eldrazi Winter or Hogaak Summer of recent. Modern right now is not one of those formats

Let's get this straight, Pioneer is not a fair format at all and it will only get worse and worse with time. That format has zero safety valves and is started at the time wizards changed their design philosophy to favor threats over answers. Pioneer will the same ban mania all over again and I would argue could even have more hysteria in this regard than modern. Give that format 12 months and you will see how people truly feel about it rather than 'The grass is always greener on the other side'

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

Post by Mtgthewary » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
Mtgthewary wrote:
1 year ago
Bad times playing modern and people still defend most unfair decks. Is this still modern without uw? You all defend your mox and ask strange questions like if it's still modern after banning it and don't see we allready lost our modern
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
I think the answer is that people who would normally care about Modern being so bad, have made the transition to Pioneer already.
And yes, Modern seems unhealthy enough, as it is Mox Opal/Urza oriented and big mana oriented(E-Tron, Tron, Amulet oriented).
Also, playing fair in Modern at the moment is a lost cause. You can if you like it, you will get crushed though.
We will see how the GP shapes out, but at the moment, Control is low, non GDS midrange(like BGx) is low, aggro is low, toolbox is low, tempo is low on meta. Modern has been taken over by high synergy strategies and is all about finding pseudo combo and playing with it. No fair decks, no good cards collection. decks at all.
Are you two even self aware?

Of course I'm gonna defend against a Mox Opal ban based on feelings and especially when such a ban will crush a (macro) archetype. You are what's wrong with Modern. People who constantly complain about decks and cards based on how they make them feel instead of taking a look at the data. If you're not enjoying Modern fine, I understand that, but don't hide your dissatisfaction behind a veneer of "improving" Modern. You just want to see whole archetypes gone just because either:

1. Your pet deck isn't viable
2. You hate a card/deck/(macro)archetype

At least admit it.

I mean Mtgthewary just posted a tweet saying that there isn't a Colonnade in the last MTGO 5-0 lists. Well, big woop? Not that he ignored that there are: a Rock and a Jund deck, along with 3 Taxes decks, multiple Snow-Based Control/Midrange decks, several StoneBlade decks, some toolbox deck, a freaking G-Devotion deck, 3-4 DS variants, a freaking UR control deck, a mono-B Zombies list and 2 5-Color Niv decks. So the majority of decks are "fair". But yeah, OH MY GOD NO COLONNADES!1!111!

Understand this: There never was a "fair" era in Modern, and there never will be. Modern must and should have "unfair" decks. If you don't like it go play Standard, because Pioneer isn't "fair".

And for the Nth time: Modern doesn't need bans at the moment. It needs unbans and a shift in design philosophy. Urza decks MIGHT be in the danger zone, but the data isn't there.
LOL, I think you even not understood how this 5:0 results exist. For you : you can have 55755 urza decks, with 5:0 and 9 other decks with 5:0 and you will see only one result of each. So I don't get it what you talking about mono black, Niv m. Or other results. You will see today our meta and then please, for God's will, please stop this defending %$#% of cards which destroys still format with most players in magic after commander

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

Post by iTaLenTZ » 1 year ago

There won't be any bans in Modern any time soon. Pioneer was the biggest ban announcement for Modern already. Where else do people go with their Mox Opals, Tronlans, Urza, Ancient Stirrings, Amulets etc.? This is their format and if you want to play midrange and value/creature based decks you have Pioneer.

Also what is to gain if you ban everything degenerate from Modern? It would turn Modern into Pioneer 2.0 while the whole idea after Pioneer is to have clearly distinctive formats with their own identity. Innistrad was left out for a reason.

Lastly, even if everything linear and degenerate would get banned would the format really improve for midrange/control/creature/value decks? As long as W6 exists their is no way any midrange deck will be able to beat Jund. Turn 1 discard, turn 2 W6/Goyf, turn 3 Liliana, turn 4 BBE is just as miserable to play against as turn 3 Tron assembled, Turn 3 Urza, Turn 4 Primeval Titan for lethal. Jund only adds the illusion the game isn't over when it actually is. Other midrange decks can't recover from the turns I just mentioned, its just that the game proceeds for a few more turns without any reasonable way to get back in the game. The powerlevel of BGx and UWx has simply gone up but versus the wrong matchups. They have become even stronger vs other midrange decks while these decks ceased to exists therefore there aren't good matchups for BGx and UWx to prey on. This is why they are underperforming.

The fate of Modern has been sealed. Just give players tools to fight versus the degenerate stuff. Maybe even unban a bunch of cards because who cares any more. Birthing Pod and GSZ are just jokes compared to what Urza has been doing for 6 months and what Tron and Amulet have been doing for years. Not to even mention all the graveyarddecks.

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

Post by Mtgthewary » 1 year ago

Arguing with Pioneer is bad. We have legacy, modern and now Pioneer. Each of them is individual. For modern you compare it please with modern. I played it since starting and never had so often bad feelings and I am not alone there. So what cares Pioneer if I want modern like it was for most of his history in my opinion? P. S THIS IS NOT vintage where you can say let the cards in and play anything else if you think it's unfair. Even there we get often bannings or restrictions. So please stop arguing play anything else if you don't like it. Unfair is unfair, no matter which format and this we need to solve... NO matter where

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
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.
First off, my bad in regards to the Counterspell thing, I've just been doing these forums discussions in regards to Modern for years so I've become a little jaded over time.

In terms of whether other older formats have formed a consensus or not, I would say at least for Legacy's sake it has, the proof would be Brainstorm. Brainstorm as a card, looking at purely from a data driven perspective, has been one of the most obvious bannable cards in Legacy as a format, and yet Wotc has not done so, and this is the same Wotc that has restricted it in Vintage. An action (or inaction) of this kind only could have come about because of a conensus that was reached by the players involved and for Wotc to acknowledge it. Just my 2 cents.
No hard feelings! I thought it was perfectly emblematic of the fractured nature of the Modern community.

Interesting point regarding Brainstorm. To a person like myself, who does not play legacy, Brainstorm seems like a central part of the format. In that sense, I think you are very right about the need for a consensus in Modern. There are cards which probably "should" be bd banned from an objective point of view but that doesn't necessarily mean that Modern players want them banned. At the end of the day it is a game and playing with bannably powerful cards is a lot of Modern players' idea of fun apparently.

Ironically, none of my Modern decks would be effected by the bans being discussed here. I am not defending a pet deck. I pretty much only play "fair" decks but I like playing against unfair decks. It is super satisfying to watch Amulet Titan lose to Goblins!

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

Post by Mtgthewary » 1 year ago

That's wrong. People don't like playing against to powerful cards. modern community is emblematic fractured? Because they think it's funny like you say after? Makes less sense to me. No it's not funny, it's bad and this is the reason we are angry now since 1 year. We hate this power creep! No way it feels fun. I even understand how you can believe this in this situation where modern Is just awfully

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 1945
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

somehow this thread got wilder in the last day or two. Some walls of texts are just the usual volatile issues.

[mention]Mtgthewary[/mention]

this is modern, the home of powerful cards so you have no escape. Sadly, you have no choice but to play against powerful cards here. If you are not happy with that. WoTC created Pioneer where the cards are less strong.
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

True-Name Nemesis
Posts: 156
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
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.
You might want to correct your timelines. DRS was banned very early in 2014 (February). If you're arguing that BGx was OP in 14/15 because of DRS, then it's simply a technicality. Jund was pretty good for most of 2014 and 2015 without DRS. Eldrazi Winter was early 2016 with the release of Oath of the Gatewatch. Storm's heyday came with the release of Baral in Aether Revolt which was 2017. It was pretty fringe before.

Outside of the 4 months of treasure cruise and pod domination from 2015 to 2016, and i guess 2 months of DRS Jund on early 2014. Even at the last 2 or 3 months of 2015 when amulet titan was a broken in half, it did not actually see that much play. 2014 and 2015 were pretty good state for Modern mostly.

T2 infect kills were also outside of 2014/2015 time period. It was pretty dominant in 2016 when interactive decks were performing horribly (partly due to the axing of twin) and it took a ban early 2017.

2014 and 2015 golden age of Modern? Maybe not, but it was definitely miles more interactive and palatable than anything we've had since.
Last edited by True-Name Nemesis 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

Aazadan
Posts: 516
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

Yawgmoth wrote:
1 year ago
Interesting point regarding Brainstorm. To a person like myself, who does not play legacy, Brainstorm seems like a central part of the format. In that sense, I think you are very right about the need for a consensus in Modern. There are cards which probably "should" be bd banned from an objective point of view but that doesn't necessarily mean that Modern players want them banned. At the end of the day it is a game and playing with bannably powerful cards is a lot of Modern players' idea of fun apparently.
By the data, Brainstorm should 100% be banned. However, the reason why it isn't banned goes a bit deeper than that. Legacy is well known for being able to handle just about anything thrown at it. Everyone always says that that's because the format has strong answers, and while that's true it's also because the format has a higher level of consistency in finding those answers and making most hands playable. This comes from Brainstorm. Thus, the card ends up amplifying the power of answers, and helps to keep the format stable. This doesn't come without other costs to the format, but not banning brainstorm lets them avoid having to ban a bunch of other cards.

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

Post by Mtgthewary » 1 year ago

And again fluff, this is NOT modern as usually it was over years and years and years. That's wrong! It's like going to work and immediately you have a new desk, new people which works with you, new chef, new working times, less money you earn for more work, Even a new company and someone say: this is your work, deal with it because this is your work. No man, it's not my work! That's not so easy man, it's unreal and we can change it. Powercreep is new and we need to change it

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
Powercreep is new and we need to change it
This conversation has gone a little off the rails over the last few pages with a lot of unsubstantiated claims about Modern/MTG, but this is something I want to respond to. On the one hand, I completely agree with this statement. Magic design has fundamentally changed in the past few years resulting in significant, multi-format problems at the design and development level. It is critical Wizards does something to address this. On the other hand, it is just as critical we push back against two ridiculous narratives that are going to guarantee years of dissatisfying Magic across all formats.

First is the notion that bans solve this problem. These are short-term fixes that just patch small issues until the next issue arises, at the considerable cost of confidence, buy-in, and format unity. Bans invalidate investments, create fear, and lead to an environment where players don't try to adapt to change and instead just call for bannings. Bans also just lead to more bans if we race to the bottom of the most powerful deck. Fair Magic players are fine with them when they hit Opals and Towers, but will be extremely unhappy when an emergent 10%-15% fair deck gets its own bans because it's "too dominant" and other players can't execute their gameplan. Much more importantly, bans obscure the real design/development problems and give Wizards a pass on significant game design failures. Every time we rant on Twitch/Reddit/Twitter/articles/social media/etc. about banning cards, Wizards gets to shift the conversation towards banning cards, not fixing their awful design/development/testing process. Just look at Standard. Standard has seen something like 14 bans in two years, more than double Modern. There is no clearer and more alarming sign that design/development/testing has failed at a foundational level. Calling for bans allows Wizards to ignore this problem and think they will fix their image and formats by banning problems. They won't. They will keep designing significant problems and keep sinking format confidence.

Second is the notion that Modern has unique problems with power-level, non-interactive games, powercreep, etc. This is, quite frankly, nonsense. Again, just look at Standard, and by extension, Pioneer and Historic. Although these formats don't have games ending as frequently around T4 with scoops and actual wins, they are ending just as early by virtue of board states. Wizards has pushed threats so hard that quick threats are always going to result in virtually insurmountable advantages that outpace weak answers. Wizards created this multi-format problem with design/development/playtesting, not with a lack of bans. Anyone who thinks Pioneer or Historic look better than Modern is simply not playing those formats. The top-tier of these formats is bleaker than Modern because answers are even worse. The only difference is that in Modern, we know to scoop to certain T3-T4 board states and lines. We also know to play those powerful decks. Pioneer/Historic have a honeymoon phase that tricks players into brewing worse decks, but T2 Oko and T3 Nissa are still just as decisive, even if the game isn't technically "over" until many turns later.

Players, both in this thread and across the web, need to stop calling for bans and pretending Modern is some uniquely screwed up format. Bans distract from the real design/development/testing issue that must be at the focus of our conversation. Similarly, all contemporary formats are struggling under the weight of Wizards mismanagement, not just Modern. Blaming Modern allows Wizards to shift the conversation to Standard/Historic/Pioneer, where the exact same problems will persist as long as the underlying design/development/testing issues aren't on the agenda.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

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

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
The only difference is that in Modern, we know to scoop to certain T3-T4 board states and lines. We also know to play those powerful decks.
Emphasis added, this part is highly dubious and in my opinion are large factor in the current identity crisis facing Modern as a format. The bolded statement is not a given.
ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
Players, both in this thread and across the web, need to stop calling for bans and pretending Modern is some uniquely screwed up format. Bans distract from the real design/development/testing issue that must be at the focus of our conversation. Similarly, all contemporary formats are struggling under the weight of Wizards mismanagement, not just Modern. Blaming Modern allows Wizards to shift the conversation to Standard/Historic/Pioneer, where the exact same problems will persist as long as the underlying design/development/testing issues aren't on the agenda.
Its fine to say that all aspects of MTG are having the similar issues, but it is not the Modern communitie's obligation to lobby on behalf of all these other formats they don't even play, it is perfectly reasonable for Modern plays to lobby for Modern interests and to be utterly ambivalent to the other formats, after all, for a long stretch of time, the rest of the formats were ambivalent to Modern as well.

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

Post by Mtgthewary » 1 year ago

We can say bannings doesn't solve problems in long term, but this doesnt mean we should not ban. Look at hoogak as example. Should we wait till wotc change philosophy or print good answers? Sometimes we MUST ban, even we agree on failures of wotc

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

Post by Mtgthewary » 1 year ago

By the way, I watch at this moment mkm series and urza is ahead with 8:0. Are anyone here, really anyone is here surprised about? Maybe we should explain them mtgo has less urza since 1 week? Or maybe his opponents they just need selling their modern decks for Pioneer?

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
The only difference is that in Modern, we know to scoop to certain T3-T4 board states and lines. We also know to play those powerful decks.
Emphasis added, this part is highly dubious and in my opinion are large factor in the current identity crisis facing Modern as a format. The bolded statement is not a given.
I should be more specific. I should specify that more players in Modern know to play the powerful decks than in other formats (except Standard). I'm mostly talking about Pioneer here, where we'll see awesome League dumps, similar to Modern, even if we know at the competitive level we should all be playing only a few powerful options. In Modern, that means playing stuff like G Tron, E Tron, Urza, Amulet, GDS, etc. In Pioneer, this means playing Green Devotion, Black Aggro, Bant Field, and a few others. In both formats, players will play other decks for fun or because they have the reps on them, but that doesn't make those optimal choices. We just recognize the best, optimal choices more in Modern than in Pioneer.
Its fine to say that all aspects of MTG are having the similar issues, but it is not the Modern communitie's obligation to lobby on behalf of all these other formats they don't even play, it is perfectly reasonable for Modern plays to lobby for Modern interests and to be utterly ambivalent to the other formats, after all, for a long stretch of time, the rest of the formats were ambivalent to Modern as well.
Don't lobby on those issues for the sake of other formats. Lobby on those issues for the sake of Modern and look for evidence of the widespread problem in other formats. Design/development/testing failures are Modern issues. Players focusing unwarranted criticism on Modern under the illusion that other contemporary formats are healthier is also a Modern issue. The former leads to increasingly unhealthy metagame and overpowered threats. The latter leads to format decline.
Mtgthewary wrote:
1 year ago
We can say bannings doesn't solve problems in long term, but this doesnt mean we should not ban. Look at hoogak as example. Should we wait till wotc change philosophy or print good answers? Sometimes we MUST ban, even we agree on failures of wotc
There's a significant difference between lobbying for a Hogaak ban, which I loudly did for most of the summer, and lobbying for many of the other bans I've seen over the past few pages. Hogaak's ban case had overwhelming data to support it. There is no similar case for a Tron piece or Opal with the current data. It's always okay to make data-driven ban cases to request Wizards ban egregious issues. Once we start taking chip shots at disliked decks without good data, even if those decks aren't really provable "problems," that should be a signal for us to look elsewhere. In these smaller cases, the uproar should be about design/development/testing failures, not bans.

Modern has some undiagnosable health issues which feel very subjective. For instance, it's hard to make a data-driven case about why something like Tron is a problem. Its win rates are fine, its metagame share is fine, it has plenty of bad matchups, it doesn't have recent, high profile finishes. It just feels bad. That puts us in the Justice Stewart position of identifying problems: "I know it when I see it." I want us to look past "Tron feels bad" to "Wizards continues to ninja-buff proactive decks with overly pushed stuff like Ulamog, Ballista, Karn Creator, Blast Zone, etc. while answers are stagnant or worse." That's the real issue to focus on.
Mtgthewary wrote:
1 year ago
By the way, I watch at this moment mkm series and urza is ahead with 8:0. Are anyone here, really anyone is here surprised about? Maybe we should explain them mtgo has less urza since 1 week? Or maybe his opponents they just need selling their modern decks for Pioneer?
As I and others have said for months, Urza is the secret/not-so-secret best deck in Modern. But that is irrelevant at this time because Modern will always have such a deck, and there has been no major event to test its true power. This weekend will change that with GP Columbus. EVEN IF Urza ends up busted at the GP, that doesn't mean we should preemptively go after decks with bannings because they feel busted. Dozens of Modern decks have felt broken before they were proven acceptable in larger proving grounds. We must always wait for the data to ban cards.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
Arkmer
Opinionated and Wrong
Posts: 287
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Minnesota

Post by Arkmer » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
First is the notion that bans solve this problem. These are short-term fixes that just patch small issues until the next issue arises...
I agree that another issue will arise in the future, but if power levels are high (by whatever measure you prefer) how do you lower that level without banning the high power cards? Printing higher level removal just invalidates more things below those high level threats and forces people to play the things you were trying to counter in the first place.

I don't feel like I can get my thoughts out right without an example so bear with me while I use waaay overly simple cards to try to make my point: If I (pretending to be the authority of all MtG) want to rein in Goblin Guide because it's too good and feel Raging Goblin is the appropriate level of card I want to have, what am I designing to make Goblin Guide bad that doesn't affect Raging Goblin without being overly engineered?

It's much harder to print something to fit that bill without hammering 30 other things than it is to just ban Goblin Guide.

Now, I'm not disagreeing about the consumer confidence. It's absolutely a fact that bans hurt that and people get upset losing decks/cards/whatever. I'm talking purely about sculpting a meta (from whatever end goal perspective).

What is the best tool to sculpt a meta with from WotC's seat on high?
I've boxed my cards up for long term storage.

Maybe I will return... Maybe not.

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

Arkmer wrote:
1 year ago
ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
First is the notion that bans solve this problem. These are short-term fixes that just patch small issues until the next issue arises...
I agree that another issue will arise in the future, but if power levels are high (by whatever measure you prefer) how do you lower that level without banning the high power cards? Printing higher level removal just invalidates more things below those high level threats and forces people to play the things you were trying to counter in the first place.

I don't feel like I can get my thoughts out right without an example so bear with me while I use waaay overly simple cards to try to make my point: If I (pretending to be the authority of all MtG) want to rein in Goblin Guide because it's too good and feel Raging Goblin is the appropriate level of card I want to have, what am I designing to make Goblin Guide bad that doesn't affect Raging Goblin without being overly engineered?

It's much harder to print something to fit that bill without hammering 30 other things than it is to just ban Goblin Guide.

Now, I'm not disagreeing about the consumer confidence. It's absolutely a fact that bans hurt that and people get upset losing decks/cards/whatever. I'm talking purely about sculpting a meta (from whatever end goal perspective).

What is the best tool to sculpt a meta with from WotC's seat on high?
I'm not saying you can't ban cards. There's a lot of broken %$#% that probably needs to be banned in a few formats. For example, Veil of Summer. What a god awful design, regardless of the data that supports its bannability. Here's what I am saying a few things about the constant, clamorous ban mania in this thread and elsewhere.

1. Constant cries for bans hurt format confidence, even if they are done for what seem like individually justifiable reasons.

2. Bans do not sculpt metagames. They nerf/nuke a single deck that creates problems. From a metagame perspective, they lead to uncertain effects with unintended consequences. Wizards can't even sculpt Standard to look like what they want. Good luck doing that with a decade-plus larger card pool.

3. Bans tend to lead to more bans in larger formats, because best decks tend to give way to best decks.

4. Constant ban discussion obscures much larger, more impactful issues and allows Wizards to ignore those issues and trick players into thinking they are solving problems with bans. Unfortunately, all the underlying problems remain.

If people want to talk about bans, that's fine. But they really should do so in the context of those larger issues, not as standalone ban cases. If Modern/Magic players dedicated all the time spent spitballing about bans to hammering the abysmal design/development/testing failures of Wizards, we'd be much more likely to see changes. Similarly, ban proponents need to make cases using data from real events, not just gut feelings about their format experience.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

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

Post by Mtgthewary » 1 year ago

And what if all data says it's broken and still people like you, sorry ktkenshinx, can't accept it? We have data... And if I hear you talking it feels allways like it doesnt exist. This feels to me ignorance

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
And what if all data says it's broken and still people like you, sorry ktkenshinx, can't accept it? We have data... And if I hear you talking it feels allways like it doesnt exist. This feels to me ignorance
I can't respond to this if you don't actually cite your data. What data do we allegedly have? When I called for an emergency Hogaak banning, we had overwhelming data including win rates and metagame prevalence from MC4 and two solo GP events. We haven't had a solo GP until this weekend, we haven't had a Modern MC, I haven't seen a single reliable win rate analysis over a large, meaningful sample (please cite one if you have one) in months, and MTGO results are highly curated.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

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

Post by Mtgthewary » 1 year ago

Scg doesn't count for you? This is cherry picking to me as example. Overwhelming data and results exist there in tournaments with hundreds of people and not only 1 time. What about data on hoogak time even bevore emry and oko which made it a lot stronger again? Urza was not far behind winrate of hoogak in this time area. Far about place 3.Doesn't count? That's what I ment with data everywhere and still talking about no data

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”