[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

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Assuming Stirrings should not also have been banned at some point. It should have been.
I would be totally fine with a stirrings ban myself, but lets put this into context, stirrings is typically used in more combo oriented decks that have busted and degenerate gameplay patterns. Which decks that are running OUaT actually having degenerate gameplay patterns? And is OUaT a material cause to this pattern?

From my perspective, OUaT helps smooth out midrange decks and help them to keep otherwise less keepable hands to reduce the amount of non-games that occur, I don't see what the problem is here.

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 591
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

I think oko is an odd one.
Played him jamming infect last night- Legacy infect- vs Depths and Maverick.
It either totally dominated, or did nothing. Sometimes I wished it was in hand - to pitch to Force - but other times we were wetting ourselves with how obnoxious it was - makes Mind Sculptor look like a Tibalt with a broken leg that has been smoking weed. One difference is it dropping t2, at that point the card is just unbelievable, it does so much.

I would not be happy to ban it in Legacy, because it is good vs Depths at getting above 20 life etc. Not sure about Modern. Like Urza, I sort of hope they do but get a feeling of futility, as if they will always fail because that is what Modern does.

How many times in Modern since the format start could you have answered the question ' how did you do?' with 'asked him what he is on and wrote down the score.'? Pretty much since the format started out with infect, tron, storm et al. Not sure if that will ever change.
Format seems perennially screwed.
Last edited by drmarkb 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Oko is the ultimate example of Walkers generating too much value, and taking over too quickly. Its why they should be 4+ mana, because as you say T2, its near unstoppable value.
UR Control UR

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 591
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

It is as if they misprinted it. How can those up abilities be up? Ok the life is only good vs a small number of decks, but the options it offers..... Just wow.

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 591
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

Could we just ban forests next April 1st...?

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

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
Updated post-ELD MTGO picture. This is only Challenges, Premiers, PTQs, and other higher level, non-curated events with T32 data available. N=368 decks, which isn't a terrible sample to get a metagame picture, but is also more limited than even a single GP. At least this has the benefit of spanning more time. These 19 decks represent about 80% of the metagame and in the old Modern Nexus updates would have encompassed both Tier 1 and Tier 2 decks.
Eldrazi Tron: 12.8% (n=47)
Grixis Death's Shadow: 7.9% (n=29)
Amulet Titan: 6.3% (n=23)
Burn: 6.3% (n=23)
Dredge: 5.2% (n=19)
Sultai Urza: 4.6% (n=17)
Sultai Death's Shadow: 4.3% (n=16)
Infect: 4.3% (n=16)
Jund: 3.8% (n=14)
Paradoxical Urza: 3.3% (n=12)
Humans: 3% (n=11)
Mono R Prowess: 3% (n=11)
Mono G Tron: 2.4% (n=9)
CrabVine: 2.4% (n=9)
Bant Snow Control: 2.4% (n=9)
Simic Eldrazi: 2.2% (n=8)
4C Whirza: 2.2% (n=8)
Azorius Control: 2.2% (n=8)
Gifts Storm: 2.2% (n=8)
Pretty interesting. For quite awhile now since throne dropped, we've had data from online results indicating that Eldrazi Tron and Grixis Shadow seem to be predators of the current deck-to-beat in UGb Urza and also top-tier decks in their own right. However, this did not seem to translate into paper results.

In the most recent GP Columbus, Urza outperformed these 2 decks by a pretty fair margin with regards to conversion to top 32.

I'm really curious as to why decks that have such outstanding online results can just fall flat like that in paper. Do you have any insights as to why this might be the case?

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

Post by Amalgam » 1 year ago

True-Name Nemesis wrote:
1 year ago
ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
Updated post-ELD MTGO picture. This is only Challenges, Premiers, PTQs, and other higher level, non-curated events with T32 data available. N=368 decks, which isn't a terrible sample to get a metagame picture, but is also more limited than even a single GP. At least this has the benefit of spanning more time. These 19 decks represent about 80% of the metagame and in the old Modern Nexus updates would have encompassed both Tier 1 and Tier 2 decks.
Eldrazi Tron: 12.8% (n=47)
Grixis Death's Shadow: 7.9% (n=29)
Amulet Titan: 6.3% (n=23)
Burn: 6.3% (n=23)
Dredge: 5.2% (n=19)
Sultai Urza: 4.6% (n=17)
Sultai Death's Shadow: 4.3% (n=16)
Infect: 4.3% (n=16)
Jund: 3.8% (n=14)
Paradoxical Urza: 3.3% (n=12)
Humans: 3% (n=11)
Mono R Prowess: 3% (n=11)
Mono G Tron: 2.4% (n=9)
CrabVine: 2.4% (n=9)
Bant Snow Control: 2.4% (n=9)
Simic Eldrazi: 2.2% (n=8)
4C Whirza: 2.2% (n=8)
Azorius Control: 2.2% (n=8)
Gifts Storm: 2.2% (n=8)
Pretty interesting. For quite awhile now since throne dropped, we've had data from online results indicating that Eldrazi Tron and Grixis Shadow seem to be predators of the current deck-to-beat in UGb Urza and also top-tier decks in their own right. However, this did not seem to translate into paper results.

In the most recent GP Columbus, Urza outperformed these 2 decks by a pretty fair margin with regards to conversion to top 32.

I'm really curious as to why decks that have such outstanding online results can just fall flat like that in paper. Do you have any insights as to why this might be the case?
Honestly the biggest reason is the online meta changes much faster than the paper metagame due to the ability to just jump into a league. For example back when Jund Death's Shadow first made its big impact on paper it had already been played and doing well on MTGO for a month or more prior. The paper metagame eventually will catch up

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

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 1 year ago

Amalgam wrote:
1 year ago
True-Name Nemesis wrote:
1 year ago
ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
Updated post-ELD MTGO picture. This is only Challenges, Premiers, PTQs, and other higher level, non-curated events with T32 data available. N=368 decks, which isn't a terrible sample to get a metagame picture, but is also more limited than even a single GP. At least this has the benefit of spanning more time. These 19 decks represent about 80% of the metagame and in the old Modern Nexus updates would have encompassed both Tier 1 and Tier 2 decks.
Eldrazi Tron: 12.8% (n=47)
Grixis Death's Shadow: 7.9% (n=29)
Amulet Titan: 6.3% (n=23)
Burn: 6.3% (n=23)
Dredge: 5.2% (n=19)
Sultai Urza: 4.6% (n=17)
Sultai Death's Shadow: 4.3% (n=16)
Infect: 4.3% (n=16)
Jund: 3.8% (n=14)
Paradoxical Urza: 3.3% (n=12)
Humans: 3% (n=11)
Mono R Prowess: 3% (n=11)
Mono G Tron: 2.4% (n=9)
CrabVine: 2.4% (n=9)
Bant Snow Control: 2.4% (n=9)
Simic Eldrazi: 2.2% (n=8)
4C Whirza: 2.2% (n=8)
Azorius Control: 2.2% (n=8)
Gifts Storm: 2.2% (n=8)
Pretty interesting. For quite awhile now since throne dropped, we've had data from online results indicating that Eldrazi Tron and Grixis Shadow seem to be predators of the current deck-to-beat in UGb Urza and also top-tier decks in their own right. However, this did not seem to translate into paper results.

In the most recent GP Columbus, Urza outperformed these 2 decks by a pretty fair margin with regards to conversion to top 32.

I'm really curious as to why decks that have such outstanding online results can just fall flat like that in paper. Do you have any insights as to why this might be the case?
Honestly the biggest reason is the online meta changes much faster than the paper metagame due to the ability to just jump into a league. For example back when Jund Death's Shadow first made its big impact on paper it had already been played and doing well on MTGO for a month or more prior. The paper metagame eventually will catch up
Nope, This "online meta changes faster" reason does not fly in this particular case.

In the 3 major online events in the 3 weeks leading up to Columbus, E-Tron and GDS have already been outperforming Urza. Then at Columbus itself, Urza outperformed both of them, and post Columbus, we see the reverse in the online events.

https://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=23771&f=MO
https://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=23780&f=MO
https://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=23634&f=MO

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

Post by Mtgthewary » 1 year ago

Playing urza online is hard, no matter what some of you saying. Time is to less durdle around with artefact, drawing, looking, activating, drawing again.... And it goes only away for you. People don't give up if they can see you will be maybe in timeout, so it's hard and you need a lot of concentration while in paper people often say: OK, let's go in next game while We (W-E) have time

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

Post by Amalgam » 1 year ago

Mtgthewary wrote:
1 year ago
Playing urza online is hard, no matter what some of you saying. Time is to less durdle around with artefact, drawing, looking, activating, drawing again.... And it goes only away for you. People don't give up if they can see you will be maybe in timeout, so it's hard and you need a lot of concentration while in paper people often say: OK, let's go in next game while We (W-E) have time
For high level events online people play what is good to win. If Urza was truly pushing every other deck out of the format it would be the default choice online or on paper. Not to mention the current iteration of the deck doesn't even play the combo anyway which completely invalidates your argument about time constraints

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

Amalgam wrote:
1 year ago
Mtgthewary wrote:
1 year ago
Playing urza online is hard, no matter what some of you saying. Time is to less durdle around with artefact, drawing, looking, activating, drawing again.... And it goes only away for you. People don't give up if they can see you will be maybe in timeout, so it's hard and you need a lot of concentration while in paper people often say: OK, let's go in next game while We (W-E) have time
For high level events online people play what is good to win. If Urza was truly pushing every other deck out of the format it would be the default choice online or on paper. Not to mention the current iteration of the deck doesn't even play the combo anyway which completely invalidates your argument about time constraints
Players in high level events also don't want losses they would otherwise not get in paper. Like when their timer runs out after they have established infinite mana, draw their whole deck one card at a time, make infinite thopters, and gain infinite life. If the opponent refuses to concede, that could be as much as 10 minutes of clicking wasted. And that time could easily lead to unintended losses due to the clock.

If I were in an event and I was dead to rights to Urza, but I saw they only had 2 minutes left on the clock, you better believe I let them sit there and stress about clicking quickly and perfectly as I earn my undeserved win when their timer runs out.

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
ktkenshinx I think a time series of the data would also help us see more broadly the movement/evolution of the decks and if the metagame is responding to a deck and managing to contain it etc. What do you think?
Time series data is good, but I fear our N is too small to do it effectively on MTGO. We could theoretically split the sample in half and look at the decks before 11/03 and those after, which is 6 events per pool. It's a smaller N but we'd get this:

10/20/2019 - 11/03/2019
  1. Eldrazi Tron: 11.3% (n=18)
  2. Amulet Titan: 8.1% (n=13)
  3. Burn: 8.1% (n=13)
  4. Paradoxical Urza: 6.3% (n=10)
  5. Grixis Death's Shadow: 5.6% (n=9)
  6. Jund: 5% (n=8)
  7. Sultai Urza: 4.4% (n=7)
  8. Dredge: 4.4% (n=7)
  9. 4C Whirza: 3.1% (n=5)
  10. Azorius Control: 3.1% (n=5)
  11. Devoted Devastation: 2.5% (n=4)
  12. Humans: 2.5% (n=4)
11/04/2019 - Present
  1. Eldrazi Tron: 13.9% (n=29)
  2. Grixis Death's Shadow: 9.6% (n=20)
  3. Sultai Death's Shadow: 6.3% (n=13)
  4. Infect: 6.3% (n=13)
  5. Dredge: 5.8% (n=12)
  6. Amulet Titan: 4.8% (n=10)
  7. Burn: 4.8% (n=10)
  8. Sultai Urza: 4.8% (n=10)
  9. Mono R Prowess: 3.8% (n=8)
  10. Bant Snow Control: 3.8% (n=8)
  11. Humans: 3.4% (n=7)
  12. Simic Eldrazi: 2.9% (n=6)
  13. Jund: 2.9% (n=6)
  14. Mono G Tron: 2.9% (n=6)
  15. CrabVine: 2.9% (n=6)
E Tron remains on top but GDS/SDS jump significantly. Amulet Titan falls and Infect/Dredge replace it. Urza decks also decline in popularity as a whole.
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Great post. I would still add T3feri, but this is exactly the kind of aggressive format management that is required if Modern is to remain even remotely appealing.
T3feri is a good addition because it allows non-white Ux decks to compete. Right now, Izzet and Grixis are really struggling because it's just so hard to compete with T3feri (at least, that's one of many reasons). Removing T3feri improves those deck while also improving the experience of control mirrors. It's also yet another god awful 2019 design mistake that doesn't destroy entire decks if removed.
iTaLenTZ wrote:
1 year ago
I don't understand Nature's Claim. I would add Expedition Map. That card has become considerably even stronger now they can search for Blast Zone.
Claim is an unfair card masked as fair removal. It is almost exclusively used in unfair decks that don't care about life totals to remove regulatory pieces that should check those decks. The most egregious examples include Leyline/RiP against Dredge and Sphere/Moon against Tron. I don't care if people want to play unfair, minimally interactive decks in Modern or any other large, nonrotating format. I do care when the answers to these decks are relatively specialized, but the answer to those answers comes with so little cost.

As for Map, this is the kind of ban that is deceptively crippling to Tron decks. I know people here are outspoken Tron critics, but the goal of my nerf bans is not to hurt decks that badly. It's to remove problematic corner elements of those decks that eliminate counterplay.
In honestly, if you really want to fix the problem: Ban Tronlands, Urza, Emry, Oko, Veil of Summer, Creeping Chill, Devoted Druid, Cavern of Souls, Scale Up, OUAT, Ancient Stirrings and suddenly we would have a slower and more healthier meta and traditional decks like GBx midrange and UWx control are viable again. But we all know this will never happen. Next announcement: No changes.
Again, this is the kind of outrageous, heavy-handed, and biased ban suggestion that does is neither realistic nor particularly helpful. If you want to play midrange and control battles, there are other formats for that. This is a powerful, non-rotating format where people are allowed to play things like Tron, Dredge, Devoted Devastation, etc. Nothing should be banned that hurts the identity of those decks. Cards like Veil, however, are much better ban targets that trim the margins of these decks and open up competition.
Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
Not to stir up a hornets nest really, but why exactly would you ban Once Upon a time and Oko? You say that OUaT would be banned in your hypothetical scenario due to it adding "unnecessary consistency" but which decks is it making more consistent, are those decks the actual problem decks? And if by that logic how is OUaT more powerful than Ancient Stirrings?
I'm ambivalent about OUaT and think cards like Veil/Lattice/Claim/etc. are much better nerf ban options. I will say it's absurd that green gets BOTH Stirrings and OUaT while blue is stuck on Opt/SV/Sleight. That's incredibly unjust and Preordain should be an option as well.
Next in terms of Oko, how exactly does it invalidate counterplay? I get that in lower powered formats like Standard where they have no good anti-planeswalker tools, Oko seems busted, but in terms of Modern what exactly is Oko doing that is heinous? It can elk your opponents Artifacts combo pieces? It can give you main board life gain for matchups like burn? Honestly in terms of Modern, Oko is a semi-versatile answer more than it is a threat, so I just don't really get the clamor for it to be banned.
Specifically, Oko invalidates midrange and control counterplay. Combo decks ignore it. Aggro decks are fast enough in Modern to overwhelm it (unlike Standard). But the grindier decks can't outgrind Oko effectively, especially when accelerated out on T2. The window to answer Oko is tiny, and unanswered Okos at any point in the game completely take over the board. Again, as with the other nerf bans, these are unprecedented suggestions that are not driven by the traditional ban drivers (e.g. metagame share, MWP, matchup spectrum, etc.). These are quality of life bans that nerf a subset of top decks while not destroying them. I am entertaining them because Modern is in significant trouble right now whether or not people admit it, and we need some type of unprecedented (but not heavy-handed) action to reverse/slow that course. It's just a matter of deciding on what that unprecedented action is.
True-Name Nemesis wrote:
1 year ago
I'm really curious as to why decks that have such outstanding online results can just fall flat like that in paper. Do you have any insights as to why this might be the case?
One of the biggest factors is that two of Modern's top decks play very differently online than in paper: Sultai Urza and Devoted Devastation. There are so many activations that the clock becomes a real issue, especially over these longer, larger events when you are getting tired and playing multiple matches. Infinite loops don't even work. We saw the same thing in 2018 when KCI was everywhere at the GP T8 level but relatively scarce at the MTGO level. We all know how that turned out for KCI. This means decks can function and succeed at different levels on MTGO vs. paper; we should be mindful of those differences. I suspect Urza's relative absence from MTGO influences all the other differences between paper and online.
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
I'm ambivalent about OUaT and think cards like Veil/Lattice/Claim/etc. are much better nerf ban options. I will say it's absurd that green gets BOTH Stirrings and OUaT while blue is stuck on Opt/SV/Sleight. That's incredibly unjust and Preordain should be an option as well.
Not to keep harping on this, but you still did not actually name specific decks that are playong OUaT and how exactly it promotes unfair gameplay and to what extent, if that is even what you are arguing. Also people can say that it is absurd that green gets both Stirrings and OUaT but those cards, while doing similar things, can only be played in very fundamentally different kinds of decks. Stirrings is for combo decks, OUaT appears to be for fairer midrange decks, would you say this is not the case?
ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
Specifically, Oko invalidates midrange and control counterplay. Combo decks ignore it.
Next in terms of your Oko rebuttal, can you delve a bit deeper into these points. How exactly (if you can give specific matchup based examples) does Oko invalidate midrange and control counterplay? Also can we really say that Combo decks get to outright ignore Oko? I mean if I'm going against Urza, I can use my Oko to elk their thopter foundry or ensnaring bridge, doesn't this mean that Oko at least has the potential to absolutely interact with combo decks in a positive way?

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

Post by Amalgam » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Amalgam wrote:
1 year ago
Mtgthewary wrote:
1 year ago
Playing urza online is hard, no matter what some of you saying. Time is to less durdle around with artefact, drawing, looking, activating, drawing again.... And it goes only away for you. People don't give up if they can see you will be maybe in timeout, so it's hard and you need a lot of concentration while in paper people often say: OK, let's go in next game while We (W-E) have time
For high level events online people play what is good to win. If Urza was truly pushing every other deck out of the format it would be the default choice online or on paper. Not to mention the current iteration of the deck doesn't even play the combo anyway which completely invalidates your argument about time constraints
Players in high level events also don't want losses they would otherwise not get in paper. Like when their timer runs out after they have established infinite mana, draw their whole deck one card at a time, make infinite thopters, and gain infinite life. If the opponent refuses to concede, that could be as much as 10 minutes of clicking wasted. And that time could easily lead to unintended losses due to the clock.

If I were in an event and I was dead to rights to Urza, but I saw they only had 2 minutes left on the clock, you better believe I let them sit there and stress about clicking quickly and perfectly as I earn my undeserved win when their timer runs out.
It helps if you actually read my post in full before replying. You need to understand most people don't even play the combo anymore. The deck now plays more like a midrange deck that uses urza for value instead of comboing. The current versions run karn instead
ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
True-Name Nemesis wrote: ↑17 hours ago
I'm really curious as to why decks that have such outstanding online results can just fall flat like that in paper. Do you have any insights as to why this might be the case?
One of the biggest factors is that two of Modern's top decks play very differently online than in paper: Sultai Urza and Devoted Devastation. There are so many activations that the clock becomes a real issue, especially over these longer, larger events when you are getting tired and playing multiple matches. Infinite loops don't even work. We saw the same thing in 2018 when KCI was everywhere at the GP T8 level but relatively scarce at the MTGO level. We all know how that turned out for KCI. This means decks can function and succeed at different levels on MTGO vs. paper; we should be mindful of those differences. I suspect Urza's relative absence from MTGO influences all the other differences between paper and online.
The most popular version of the deck doesn't even play the infinite thopter/sword combo though. So please for the last time can we drop this argument of time constraints with this deck online as it's not a valid argument. People were also playing the 4 color whirza version online without issue prior and even won events with it over the last few months. The only version of the deck time constraints really hurt is the Jeskai Ascendancy version which is currently not even played.
As someone who has played both this and Kci online let me tell you this is nothing like KCI and I would never dream of playing a deck as durdly as KCI online ever again.
Not to mention I can pull up results of the deck from months ago when it was heavily played online and can see it as 1-3 copies in multiple MTGO PTQ level events. People would be playing this deck online right now if it was an easy win like it was only months prior

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
Not to keep harping on this, but you still did not actually name specific decks that are playong OUaT and how exactly it promotes unfair gameplay and to what extent, if that is even what you are arguing. Also people can say that it is absurd that green gets both Stirrings and OUaT but those cards, while doing similar things, can only be played in very fundamentally different kinds of decks. Stirrings is for combo decks, OUaT appears to be for fairer midrange decks, would you say this is not the case?
I don't recall saying OUaT "promotes unfair gameplay." I just said it adds a lot of consistency that the decks using it don't need. Amulet and Infect would be the biggest two in this category, which already had consistency through existing cantrips or redundancy. Incidentally, these decks are also quite unfair. Simic Eldrazi is a fairer deck that uses OUaT, but it's still not particularly interactive and already benefited from Stirrings in earlier incarnations.

If we're fine with those decks having added consistency, that's okay, but then let's give other decks their consistency tools back. There's nothing realistically "limiting" about Stirrings or OUaT because the types they work with (colorless and lands/creatures) are omnipresent. If those decks get Stirrings/OUaT, give blue decks back Preordain.
Next in terms of your Oko rebuttal, can you delve a bit deeper into these points. How exactly (if you can give specific matchup based examples) does Oko invalidate midrange and control counterplay? Also can we really say that Combo decks get to outright ignore Oko? I mean if I'm going against Urza, I can use my Oko to elk their thopter foundry or ensnaring bridge, doesn't this mean that Oko at least has the potential to absolutely interact with combo decks in a positive way?
The classic case is Sultai Urza vs. Azorius Control where the UW player either loses to the Urza/Emry value engine, Karnlock, or to unanswered Oko beatdown. Oko is one of many reasons this matchup is unfavorable. Oko is even more brutal against decks like Stoneblade and Jund that depend more heavily on efficient creatures, as opposed to UW which is more planeswalker oriented. When all of your creatures can be taken and/or Elked, there's less incentive to play those strategies and more incentive to just shift towards Oko decks. Overall, there's no reason for yet another badly designed 2019 to card to flatten competitive diversity when it's not a core identity of any given deck.

Urza is a combo deck the same way Twin was a combo deck. Some builds have a combo finish, but it has an equally (if not more) robust midrange gameplan it can easily pivot into. The best Urza decks today don't even have the combo finish! They just grind much better than the existing grindy decks. Incidentally, Urza matches are often decided by who can leverage Oko more effectively. Other combo decks, or decks with combo elements, like Titanshift and Storm can just play past Oko in most board states. Modern actually doesn't have a lot of combo decks now, so even if Oko did regulate combo (which it really doesn't), the overall effect would be very small.

I'm going to emphasize again, in case it was unclear the first few times, that Oko is not a data-driven ban. I have no data to suggest Oko is broken by metagame share, MWP, matchup spectrum, or any of the other known Modern ban criteria. I am saying that Modern is a sinking ship and I'd rather Wizards take more drastic, unprecedented corrective action than just let it sink further. Oko is just one of a few 2019 problems that has reduced strategic diversity in Modern.
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
If we're fine with those decks having added consistency, that's okay, but then let's give other decks their consistency tools back. There's nothing realistically "limiting" about Stirrings or OUaT because the types they work with (colorless and lands/creatures) are omnipresent. If those decks get Stirrings/OUaT, give blue decks back Preordain.
Yup I'm fine with this reply, personally I don't mind consistency tools since those like OUaT especially have (in my play experience at least) cut down on the number of non-games via crappy starting hands so I am okay with it.
ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
I'm going to emphasize again, in case it was unclear the first few times, that Oko is not a data-driven ban. I have no data to suggest Oko is broken by metagame share, MWP, matchup spectrum, or any of the other known Modern ban criteria. I am saying that Modern is a sinking ship and I'd rather Wizards take more drastic, unprecedented corrective action than just let it sink further. Oko is just one of a few 2019 problems that has reduced strategic diversity in Modern.
Thanks for this reply, I was not trying to give you or anyone else a hard time for these ideas, I think this to some extent comes down to a difference in ban philosophy that occupies the Modern community and has for a while, do you ban the problem (if you can even identify it), or do you ban the cards that support the problem? I think a lot of people are simply on different pages in this regard even though they both might fundamentally want similar ends.

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
If we're fine with those decks having added consistency, that's okay, but then let's give other decks their consistency tools back. There's nothing realistically "limiting" about Stirrings or OUaT because the types they work with (colorless and lands/creatures) are omnipresent. If those decks get Stirrings/OUaT, give blue decks back Preordain.
Yup I'm fine with this reply, personally I don't mind consistency tools since those like OUaT especially have (in my play experience at least) cut down on the number of non-games via crappy starting hands so I am okay with it.
Totally agree. Wizards has this bizarre notion that consistency leads to repetitive, boring gameplan. To some extent, this is true. If every single game plays out the same way, that's not great Magic. But to a greater extent, it's critical that decks be allowed to execute their gameplans and not lose on mulligans, bad draws, inability to find a redundant answer to a rare haymaker, etc. Lower variance gameplay means players are winning on skill, margins, card/deck choice, and experience. Magic will never be entirely a game of skill because it's inherently a card game, but we can and should do what we can to ensure all decks have equal access to consistency tools. Currently, these are disproportionately green in Stirrings and OUaT.
Thanks for this reply, I was not trying to give you or anyone else a hard time for these ideas, I think this to some extent comes down to a difference in ban philosophy that occupies the Modern community and has for a while, do you ban the problem (if you can even identify it), or do you ban the cards that support the problem? I think a lot of people are simply on different pages in this regard even though they both might fundamentally want similar ends.
In general, I prefer banning the problem itself. The issue here is that it's hard to identify exactly what the problem is. There is certainly a vocal online group that despises Tron, but I don't think there's good data to suggest Tron is a problem. Tron itself just seems to be one of many powerful things you can do in a powerful, nonrotating format. The problem is when Tron leverages its inherent strength to close out games out of the blue with the Karnlock, or when it fights through hate with ultra-efficient countermeasures to specific answers (e.g. Claim on Sphere). I don't even think a majority of players across the Modern world necessarily dislike Tron; at least, no such survey has been done (to my knowledge). We should play a format where core decks remain largely unchanged but decks get powered down around the fringes. This would have been the equivalent of banning Exarch instead of Twin if Wizards really wanted to hit that deck. Banning GGT is a great example of hitting decks on the fringes. So is banning Veil and OUaT in newer formats.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

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

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
If we're fine with those decks having added consistency, that's okay, but then let's give other decks their consistency tools back. There's nothing realistically "limiting" about Stirrings or OUaT because the types they work with (colorless and lands/creatures) are omnipresent. If those decks get Stirrings/OUaT, give blue decks back Preordain.
Yup I'm fine with this reply, personally I don't mind consistency tools since those like OUaT especially have (in my play experience at least) cut down on the number of non-games via crappy starting hands so I am okay with it.
ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
I'm going to emphasize again, in case it was unclear the first few times, that Oko is not a data-driven ban. I have no data to suggest Oko is broken by metagame share, MWP, matchup spectrum, or any of the other known Modern ban criteria. I am saying that Modern is a sinking ship and I'd rather Wizards take more drastic, unprecedented corrective action than just let it sink further. Oko is just one of a few 2019 problems that has reduced strategic diversity in Modern.
Thanks for this reply, I was not trying to give you or anyone else a hard time for these ideas, I think this to some extent comes down to a difference in ban philosophy that occupies the Modern community and has for a while, do you ban the problem (if you can even identify it), or do you ban the cards that support the problem? I think a lot of people are simply on different pages in this regard even though they both might fundamentally want similar ends.
I don't mind OUaT that much personally, although it's something didn't need. Apart from Amulet I've seen it being tried in Eldrazi and Jund decks. I just find it hypocritical that they print such a card in green -of all colors -_-, but they don't dare print or unban half decent cantrips.

As for Oko, as I've said a few times before, it helps against too many strategies, completely shuts down Burn, and is a hatepiece against both creatures and artifacts Oftentimes aggro/tribal can't really be rid of him fast enough. All of that with just his +1. The only way to combat Oko is either play him yourself - and as fast as possible - or just ignore him via combo.

If anything Oko can be banned on the argument of homogenizing/warping the meta and/or pushing the format to 2 extremes: Oko decks and decks designed to ignore him. I see him as similar to and more warping than Faithless Looting.

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

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
Totally agree. Wizards has this bizarre notion that consistency leads to repetitive, boring gameplan. To some extent, this is true. If every single game plays out the same way, that's not great Magic. But to a greater extent, it's critical that decks be allowed to execute their gameplans and not lose on mulligans, bad draws, inability to find a redundant answer to a rare haymaker, etc. Lower variance gameplay means players are winning on skill, margins, card/deck choice, and experience. Magic will never be entirely a game of skill because it's inherently a card game, but we can and should do what we can to ensure all decks have equal access to consistency tools. Currently, these are disproportionately green in Stirrings and OUaT.
I agree it would be great for all colors to be given OUaT level consistency tools. I think WoTC was very afraid of doing this in the past specifically for blue because they did not want to risk allowing Modern to turn out like Legacy did, which on some level I can kind of understand, I personally wouldn't mind Modern becoming Legacy-Lite at this point though, I think after so many years all I really want is just reliable engaging game play.

In terms of Wotc's hatred of consistency I agree it is bizarre and unfounded on their part. I think WoTc needs to learn that consistency and decision trees are not mutually exclusive concepts, they can both exist, and consistency tools can be used to execute varied decision trees within a deck if they are allowed to, I think Brainstorm in Legacy is the ultimate example of this taken to it's complete apex, and I don't think its a bad thing myself.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

I really disagree that all colors should have these tools.

If you want to be consistent, you should be playing the colors of cantrips.

"Its really unfair that Blue doesn't get efficiently costed, (aka pushed) dumb beaters, why can't I also just turn em sideways."
UR Control UR

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

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
I really disagree that all colors should have these tools.

If you want to be consistent, you should be playing the colors of cantrips.

"Its really unfair that Blue doesn't get efficiently costed, (aka pushed) dumb beaters, why can't I also just turn em sideways."
I don't know how much this logic really holds anymore, it may have at one point in Magic's history but lets look at the current state of affairs. Fetchlands exist, in every color combination, they increase consistency. The same exists for dual lands of various types across all color combinations, they increase consistency. Also please note that when I say that all colors could have a OUaT equivalent, this does not mean that it literally has to be the same exact card but color shifted, consistency is fairly open ended concept that can take a lot of shapes and can be more creative then the dual lands or fetches.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Right, and thats all fair, but I see the same arguments about card advantage, and thats wrong too.

If someone wishes to be consistent, they should be playing the color about card advantage and consistency. These are not concepts that are 'required' anymore. Card Advantage was a running joke in Modern for years, because it was irrelevant.

Lands are lands. I'm all about that consistent mana base, but it SHOULD be easier for Green to develop its mana, just as it should be easier for blue to consistently control its card advantage, just as it should be easier for black to kill things, and red to burn face.
UR Control UR

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

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Lands are lands. I'm all about that consistent mana base, but it SHOULD be easier for Green to develop its mana, just as it should be easier for blue to consistently control its card advantage, just as it should be easier for black to kill things, and red to burn face.
Okay but is that not the case right now? On the topic of OUaT, it basically does the above, it helps develop mana, except also helping you find a creature, which doesn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary for green and has plenty of precedent.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Lands are lands. I'm all about that consistent mana base, but it SHOULD be easier for Green to develop its mana, just as it should be easier for blue to consistently control its card advantage, just as it should be easier for black to kill things, and red to burn face.
Okay but is that not the case right now? On the topic of OUaT, it basically does the above, it helps develop mana, except also helping you find a creature, which doesn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary for green and has plenty of precedent.
Then I look forward to my free Impulse for Instant/Sorc/Land.

Then again, that would be absurd.
UR Control UR

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

Amalgam wrote:
1 year ago
Players in high level events also don't want losses they would otherwise not get in paper. Like when their timer runs out after they have established infinite mana, draw their whole deck one card at a time, make infinite thopters, and gain infinite life. If the opponent refuses to concede, that could be as much as 10 minutes of clicking wasted. And that time could easily lead to unintended losses due to the clock.

If I were in an event and I was dead to rights to Urza, but I saw they only had 2 minutes left on the clock, you better believe I let them sit there and stress about clicking quickly and perfectly as I earn my undeserved win when their timer runs out.
It helps if you actually read my post in full before replying. You need to understand most people don't even play the combo anymore. The deck now plays more like a midrange deck that uses urza for value instead of comboing. The current versions run karn instead[/quote]
Online or in paper? There was a PTQ 5 days ago that ran the singleton each Thopter Foundry and Sword of the Meek: https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/2565349#paper

It's hard to get any meaningful data or representation, since we have effectively nothing in paper, and MTGO results could be skewed by people unwilling to click through an infinite combo.

Whether it's better or not, *shrug* I honestly haven't played pretty much at all in nearly 2 months because of my massive dissatisfaction with the format. Is that the best version now? Because it looks awesome and fun. I would love to buy into it if I wasn't terrified about losing another thousand dollars buying into a deck that gets banned and then becomes irrelevant.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”