[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

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
f 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.
Sorry but incase you haven't seen it for yourself, for the past week or two, the entire MTG reddit has basically been co-opted by some snip ranting about some MTG novel that came out and people didn't like, good luck trying to spread awareness in that dumpster fire. And unfortunately it's the only dumpster fire we have since this is Wotc's communication/feedback platform.

Look at this recent Mark Rosewater post that got put on reddit in regards to the MTG novel situation:

"Our apology is anything but disingenuous. This last week has been a very stressful one for everyone at Wizards. We know we messed up in an area that's very important to us.

I personally have spent every day reading the letters that have been sent to me by all of you, and I can see first hand the pain that we've inadvertently caused. As someone who got in to game design to make people's lives better, I take this very seriously. We all take it very seriously.

Everyone here understands that we, as a company, have work ahead of us to regain the trust some have lost in us. I'm happy to say though that everyone here I've talked with about this topic is united in positively reflecting the diverse and inclusive community that we wish to foster around our games. We need to match our actions with our words, and we plan to. It's an ongoing process that deserves our time and attention."

I want you to read this and then re-read this, put it into perspective that this is the kind of thing that keeps Wotc employees up at night, not nuance over R&D decisions. Even looking at the recent Play Design article was them by and large shirking responsibility and playing the issues off as if they were not that big of a deal, and telling us that things wouldn't even be changing in the near future anyways.

In my opinion, the only messages that you can use to grab attention from the masses into actionable feedback are ban requests, they are fast, concise, and to the point. They easily fit into simple sound bites (e.g. "Wowf***tron") and are easily understood. Again, I have raised this issue before and will do so again, Reddit is not a platform that allows for debates, it simply is not designed for debates to occur, it is an echo chamber. If you feel you can make some giant wall of text, nuanced post on Reddit and for anyone in Wotc to give a damn about it, then go ahead.
Warning issued for inappropriate pejoratives. --CavalryWolfPack

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

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

Mtgthewary wrote:
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
SCG Opens often don't count for many people. The reasons can be that it seems like a large FNM and the other reason is that teams often skew towards the decks that they deem the best that weekend. Since they are some of the greatest players there, they will always place very well.

I kind of think it IS indeed similar to a large FNM, but it's much stronger than that (as someone who played in Opens back in the day). I played in an Open where I faced 6 UW Delver in Standard and 6-0ed them in 9 rounds. I've never had that sort of commonality with the decks I played since an Extended PTQ where I went 2-2 vs. the Storm mirror and 3-0 vs. other decks. Those are probably the 2 least diverse opponent decks that I've ever faced (and I've played a lot). I feel this is way more common in SCG Opens than GPs, where I face too much diversity. Too much diversity is always much tougher than just figuring out how to beat 1 deck, that is unless that deck is BUSTED.
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
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

If you want to get R&D attention you spam them on twitter.

As to Ursa, looking at one SCG is pointless. Let's see how the GP looks, if we had coverage.
UR Control UR

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

Post by Mtgthewary » 1 year ago

Still lying to ourselves

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 314
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

Mtgthewary wrote:
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
You keep making a simple mistake: Whenever a ban happens, inevitably the metagame changes, therefore the previous data set is next to useless. Ergo, the positive match win % of Urza is useless on your current meta because the meta that produced the recorded match win % does not exist anymore.

1 breakout weekend and another heavily skewed weekend are not relevant. You cited MCM tournaments:

Image


That's the metagame, with around 380-400 people playing Modern. Actually, the final is Jund vs UW Control Will you:

1. Cry about a ban from GDS.
2. Acknowledge you keep overreacting about Urza or
3. Keep on keeping on on your crusade of banning Opal

I think you'll choose #3, but here's to hoping I guess.

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

Why does a tiny, Euro-market tournament in the Czech Republic, hold any meaningful carry to Modern as a whole?

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

Side note: I find it incredibly insulting that, not only has Modern GP scheduling been mostly destroyed, but the only post-Looting, post-Hogaak GP for the rest of the year isn't even being covered on camera?

I am currently sorting and organizing my collection to begin selling off much of it. It's clear that Modern's health and longevity is not a priority to WOTC. And if the format is going to both lose support AND could have values crippled by reprints, seems like no better time to get out. Commander is more fun anyway, when I even have time to play at all.

User avatar
Arkmer
Opinionated and Wrong
Posts: 325
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Minnesota

Post by Arkmer » 1 year ago

Discussion
Show
ktkenshinx wrote:
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.
That's fine, I can accept that even abstractly as a psychological affect of always being around negative conversation. Bans are inherently a bad thing. What I'd like to get to though is how does WotC actually lower the power level (or sculpt a meta away from what is now) without bans. In a way, I'd like to see (not that I am any authority on discussion) discussion shift from "what can we remove to make improvements" to "what can we add to make improvements", but the "Print this so I can play it in Modern" thread doesn't feel suited for that level of discussion as it's often a line of cards with little discussion*. Naturally, I'll move back to my little goblin example and ask how we print something to fix that situation (with a start simple and grow mentality).

I think many of us simply don't know what to print, be it one card or forty, to push the format either down in power or to a place where fair decks are viable (or whatever fixes people would like to see).

I'm trying to be nonspecific to the end result so others can pick it up and try to apply it to things they'd like to see opposed to just quick labeling it as "a mission to make Modern more [very specific thing I like]", so I apologize if I continue coming off as moderately vague as to the end goal.
*This evolved into a multi-paragraph footnote:
Show
Sorta odd thought that crept in my head. Specific custom cards are a difficult thing to derive deep conversation from because they are obviously completely irrelevant so trying to drum up conversation about them receives a naturally negative response almost unanimously facilitated by silence. Bans are just the other side of the coin and actually talk about real cards and the difference in responses generated is clearly staggering.

This issue is perpetuated even in just idea that this thread is pinned to the top and designated as "official" while the custom card thread is simply understood to be official and not pinned. I don't think that should change because that thread has its own identity and changing it is likely going to be more work than it's worth despite it not having any posts for 2 months. Instead it may be a useful idea to create a thread specifically for encouraging a "print this" creative space but for format fixes with the intent of highlighting and having discussion about the meta and the affects of cards dreamed up by users. Or maybe the opposite approach; highlight a card (or meta issue in general) that people think is a problem in the meta but does not have the numbers to elicit a ban, push people to build a series of cards to help resolve that issue.
Last edited by Arkmer 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

True-Name Nemesis
Posts: 156
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
Actually, the final is Jund vs UW Control
Did you jump to this conclusion by watching the broadcast of a past event? Because as of this post, the top 8 just started.

Edit: Top 8 according to a mod on twitch chat: 2x Jund, Scapeshift, Devoted Combo, UWG Control, Urza Oko, Nogaak, Eldrazi Tron
Last edited by True-Name Nemesis 1 year ago, edited 2 times in total.

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

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
I guess I have adjusted and I have been killing it with Amulet Titan during the last weeks, having crazy win rates. The deck is also a blast to play.
Mtgthewary, you just have to accept Modern has changed, it is what it is, it's an unfair format, and it has nothing to do with 2014/2015 Modern's Golden Age, where you one see such matches.
You and I have something in common. I also watch those old videos when I want to see a fun match to watch in Modern. Now when I need to watch a video to learn from others or analyze routes of play for newer decks, I have to watch those, but those are indeed not as fun as the times when Shaun McLaren won the Pro Tour (and I'm ambivalent to him as a player; neither a favorite nor someone I don't like).

As for Amulet, I'm glad you're killing it with the deck. I think the deck is really strong and people like myself are more likely (than with other decks) to lose due to misplays than actual being dead on board. I have been a sad, sad 4-5 with the deck recently, playing it for the first time since Once Upon a Time. If you have any videos of playing the newer version, could you show me? I also am looking for Sideboard advice, as I know I've done terrible. A good clue of not doing too well at sideboarding is always cutting only 1 or 2 of a 4-of. That shows indecision, although I realize sometimes it is indeed good to cut. But for the most part, it shows indecision because I am unfamiliar. FWIW, I've been siding out OUaT when I put in non creature spells galore.
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

Aazadan
Posts: 547
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Aazadan » 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, 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.
I totally agree with this, and the rest of your post (didn't want to quote all of it), but I do think bans are going to be required in the short term. There's very little that I think needs banned from Modern currently, but I'm concerned about the future. If we take what was written about Play Design alongside the most recent ban announcement, it sounds like they first became aware of a failure in the process a year ago at the earliest. This means, that given the usual time table to release cards we're probably in for another years worth of strong threats and weak answers.

Although, even that outlook is optimistic, as Wizards said they were aware of these problems and were changing course all the way back in Kaladesh when Fatal Push was revealed. Yet, there has been very little since then as far as answers go. And, all of this of course still misses the biggest issue, which is that even if we get removal that's more efficient than threats, those threats still win. A 3 mana 2 for 1 threat runs about a 50% chance of being playable. Yet, our bar to a good removal spell is 1 or maybe 2 mana, that trades 1 for 1 and sometimes such as in the cases of Path to Exile, Declaration in Stone, and so on, it trades 1 for 2. Because of that, even our high power level answers don't trade evenly. A format full of removal on the efficiency of Swords to Plowshares and Fatal Push is still going to lose out to a field of threats with the efficiency of Gilded Goose, Ice-Fang Coatl, Tireless Tracker, Seasoned Pyromancer, and Urza.

1 for 1 answers, even at a tempo advantage are simply not going to deal with an onslaught of 2 for 1 threats.

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
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Side note: I find it incredibly insulting that, not only has Modern GP scheduling been mostly destroyed, but the only post-Looting, post-Hogaak GP for the rest of the year isn't even being covered on camera?

I am currently sorting and organizing my collection to begin selling off much of it. It's clear that Modern's health and longevity is not a priority to WOTC. And if the format is going to both lose support AND could have values crippled by reprints, seems like no better time to get out. Commander is more fun anyway, when I even have time to play at all.
Agreed. What could it take for you to say "Yes, Wizards cares about Modern at last!" in terms of bannings/unbannings?
If you say Twin, Pod, we agree, but it's not that those two decks will help Modern become healthy again, it's just that they are safe to unban now. And by safe, I mean ultra safe.
I am currently skewed by a hectic schedule teaching and much of my free time taken up by the baby (turning 1 next week!). Honestly, I don't think anything will make me feel that. They have shown that they don't really care what kind of cesspool Modern turns into, as long as you have multiple flavors of things in the cesspool (even if they're all essentially linear/aggro/big mana, and are orders of magnitude better than 'the rest').

Unbanning Twin and Pod? Meh, maybe? Then at least I would get to play a deck I like in a sea of sh*tty decks I hate? At this point, I'm probably beyond redemption. I have my Sultai and Grixis Shadow decks on MTGO and a few other pieces in case Twin ever is banned, but for the most part, Modern has shown me time and time again that it wants to punish players who want to play reactive or interactive games and keep them at a considerable disadvantage at all times. The best decks all produce toxic, terrible, and boring gameplay to me. It's a race to do their thing and a race for me to find a hate card. Those kinds of matches, over and over and over again, make me not want to bother wasting my time in paper ever again. Over the past 3 FNMs I have been to, I have had 2 matches out of 15 that were rich, engaging, and interactive games of back and forth. That's an average less than one per night. Why bother continuing? Why not just sleeve up Titanshift or Tron and just go through the motions to rack up store credit? Gameplay experiences be damned? Thanks, no thanks.

But I also don't really like Pioneer. I feel like it is the worst of Standard over the past few years (which itself has been fairly awful the majority of that time), the worst of Modern (huge threats, terrible answers), and terrible/clunky manabases due to lack of fetchlands.

I look at my piles of cards that sit in boxes for things that "one day might impact Modern" and I see literally thousands of dollars sitting, waiting, hoping for the day they might be relevant again (or relevant at all). Why continue to hold onto them when they will never be relevant to play, and they will only ever go down in value?

Long ramblings, but for the most part, I can't express in words how over this format I am (maybe Magic in general, outside of Commander?). But between work and baby and the few brief moments of free time I DO have being taken up by more social games, board games, and D&D, I just care less and less about a format that has done little more than disappoint me for years on end.

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

Post by Mtgthewary » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
Mtgthewary wrote:
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
You keep making a simple mistake: Whenever a ban happens, inevitably the metagame changes, therefore the previous data set is next to useless. Ergo, the positive match win % of Urza is useless on your current meta because the meta that produced the recorded match win % does not exist anymore.

1 breakout weekend and another heavily skewed weekend are not relevant. You cited MCM tournaments:

Image


That's the metagame, with around 380-400 people playing Modern. Actually, the final is Jund vs UW Control Will you:

1. Cry about a ban from GDS.
2. Acknowledge you keep overreacting about Urza or
3. Keep on keeping on on your crusade of banning Opal

I think you'll choose #3, but here's to hoping I guess.
Man, you really make a lot of mistakes without seeing it. So I will tell you something, in the hoogak time mkm tournament where I played 8:2 had 3% hoogak while it braked any other big tournament everywhere. My last fight versus goblins for top 8 I lost. In Europa near Germany people like playing jund / Bg decks and uw, no matter how bad it is. 3% hoogak, same tournament you linked here... 2 weeks bevore it was banned. By the way, finals in this time was uw versus jund, (so hoogak was fine? Some people sayed the same bullsh...to me in this time because only 3%) just saying. I talked about mkm in posting bevore and calling only one deck is urza with 8:0, because it has so less metashare and still beat them all for 8:0. It's broken and people like you can't never see this simple thinks. If meta could be everywhere like in middle Europe, we had no problems, except of urza won 3 times more as his metashare which is still unfair

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

Post by Mtgthewary » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Why does a tiny, Euro-market tournament in the Czech Republic, hold any meaningful carry to Modern as a whole?
It does not. He understood my posting wrong. I didn't say urza is on this mkm series with a lot of meta, I sayed its the strongest deck till 8:0 (after I didn't watched anymore). So he argued for me without seeing it. Less Meta for the best deck as usual in mkm and still undefeated till 8:0 (maybe finished even 10:0 after, but I don't knew it.). So funny. Look at meta, it should be shadow, after bg after burn... But it was urza even it has only 5%. And hey, it's in top 8 again. Anyone is surprised? 5%, strongest deck till now, top 8...surprise

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 314
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

True-Name Nemesis wrote:
1 year ago
Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
Actually, the final is Jund vs UW Control
Did you jump to this conclusion by watching the broadcast of a past event? Because as of this post, the top 8 just started.

Edit: Top 8 according to a mod on twitch chat: 2x Jund, Scapeshift, Devoted Combo, UWG Control, Urza Oko, Nogaak, Eldrazi Tron
I just had it open on twitch, it didn't say any 9-0 or something, it had rankings next to their names and a 90min clock and they were commentating properly with around 1.5k viewers. If so, my bad but I REALLY tried to find if it was really their finals or a top 8 match. For reference it looked exactly like the image linked in the spoiler tag, and when the match finished the commentators were talking about UW taking revenge from Jund for the previous finals.
Spoiler
Show
Untitled.jpg
So my bad on that, but my overall point still stands.
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Why does a tiny, Euro-market tournament in the Czech Republic, hold any meaningful carry to Modern as a whole?
It doesn't, but that's what [mention]Mtgthewary[/mention] doesn't get. He cites SCG Opens AND Invitationals as some relevant data points against Urza.
Mtgthewary wrote:
1 year ago
[...] He understood my posting wrong
I didn't. You just can't see any parallels.

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

Post by Mtgthewary » 1 year ago

Please not only half, I called too gp in hoogak time. You remember? Or gp doesn't count too now? It's really only some less months bevore. It has there a win percentage near hoogak and far more as any other deck. Allways cherry picking... Only to lying again yourselves guys

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

Mtgthewary wrote:
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
There have been three individual SCG Modern Opens since the bans:

https://old.starcitygames.com/events/12 ... polis.html
https://old.starcitygames.com/events/310819_dallas.html
https://old.starcitygames.com/events/26 ... lanta.html

If we compare Day 2 prevalence to T8 conversion, we see Urza variants made up a collective 17% of all Day 2s and about 21% of all T8s, which represents a slight overperformance. They also comprised about 27% of all T16s, which is a more alarming overperformance. But this is actually heavily influenced by just SCG Open Atlanta, which had the best Urza performance by a landslide. If we separate all three events out, we see two relatively normal Modern events and one where Urza was rampant.

Dallas: 12% Urza Day 2 --> 12.5% T16 -- >12.5% T16
Indy: 19.5% Urza Day 2 --> 12.5% T16 --> 12.5% T8
Atlanta: 20% Urza Day 2 --> 56% T16 --> 62.5% T8

The only thing I'd conclude about this is that Urza is seeing an upward trend over three SCG events, which suggest it could have a breakout performance at the GP this weekend. But the three opens together do not paint any picture of significant Urza dominance. It actually underperformed at two of them. It's only SCG Atlanta where Urza was completely unreasonable, but we should never, ever make ban conclusions based on a single SCG Open with 443 players.
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

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Long ramblings, but for the most part, I can't express in words how over this format I am (maybe Magic in general, outside of Commander?). But between work and baby and the few brief moments of free time I DO have being taken up by more social games, board games, and D&D, I just care less and less about a format that has done little more than disappoint me for years on end.
I'm going to emphasize the observation you are hinting at. These issues we are all talking about and around are not specific to Modern. These are global problems shared between all contemporary formats. Standard, Brawl, Historic, and Pioneer are all going to suffer as a result of some fundamental problems that Wizards is not addressing and, potentially, trying to hide. Ban talk just deflects attention to less significant issues and allows Wizards to keep avoiding the biggest problems.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
Simto
Posts: 323
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Simto » 1 year ago

I'm enjoying the Card Market stream right now. Good games and good commentary. It's some good %$#% and it makes me want to play some modern right now, but it's late lol.

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
It's a positive thing that multiple people openly express their concerns about Modern, being in a bad shape. Pioneer dredged those issues, indeed. It's the broken format, where more bans will keep hapenning. 2019 is not the only thing to blame in Modern. In fact, I consider this a terrible statement. It's the large card pool. It's 8th/9th edition, it's some cards from Mirrodin, or other weird sets that is the problem.
I'm going to continue to push back against this suggestion that Modern is "THE broken format," as you said. Modern is just more obviously broken than other formats because a) games are literally ending earlier because decks are faster, and b) veteran Moderners (and jaded Moderners) are more inclined to concede games and recognize they are over. But Modern is just one of many broken, profoundly wrecked contemporary formats. Standard, Brawl, Historic, and Pioneer will all continue to face similar issues both now and in the future due to bad decisions at the design/dev/testing level. Since 2017, Modern has seen six bans (GGT, Probe, KCI, Bridge, Hogaak, Looting). Since 2017, Standard has seen 13 (!!) bans, 14 if you count Nexus in BO1 Arena. If anything, Standard is "THE" broken format of the last two years. More bans are not going to solve this issue, and more ban soundbytes on social media won't solve it either. Content creators and players need to be outraged about the design-level issues that create these problems, not the after-the-fact bandages.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

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

Post by Mtgthewary » 1 year ago

Really simto? OK, that's good for you if you can still enjoy. At the moment I only see Bant oko versus urza oko in halffinals. Powercreep oko is in modern. Another new pushed Bad design card

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

In a rare example of data sharing, we have Day 1 GP Columbus stats! At least, the top 10 most played decks:



Remember that these numbers barely matter on their own. They will matter a lot more once we have Day 2 #s and beyond to calculate conversion rates.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

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

Post by Mtgthewary » 1 year ago

Tzoulis, by the way, your 5% urza is now in finals. Time to be surprised. But I knew it doesn't count... People still will selflying its OK.

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

Post by Amalgam » 1 year ago

Mtgthewary wrote:
1 year ago
Tzoulis, by the way, your 5% urza is now in finals. Time to be surprised. But I knew it doesn't count... People still will selflying its OK.
So using your logic the deck cant top 8 any tournaments or its considered over powering and stifling the format then. It may be in the top 8 but so are a bunch of other different modern decks. Also in case you missed it the top8 of the MCM you mentioned only has a single urza deck while there is 2 jund decks
Just calm down wait for some more results and stop tunnelvisioning on a single scg tournament.

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

Post by Mtgthewary » 1 year ago

I allready explained this. Please read it again. Nature of mkm series is allways bg decks and control like it was only 3% hoogak on mkm series short bevore it was banned, in the hoogak timeline. Urza has only 5% and goes into top 8 as the best result deck and now it's on finals. Think about this please
Last edited by Mtgthewary 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”