Tzoulis wrote: ↑
1 year ago
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
- Eldrazi Tron: 11.3% (n=18)
- Amulet Titan: 8.1% (n=13)
- Burn: 8.1% (n=13)
- Paradoxical Urza: 6.3% (n=10)
- Grixis Death's Shadow: 5.6% (n=9)
- Jund: 5% (n=8)
- Sultai Urza: 4.4% (n=7)
- Dredge: 4.4% (n=7)
- 4C Whirza: 3.1% (n=5)
- Azorius Control: 3.1% (n=5)
- Devoted Devastation: 2.5% (n=4)
- Humans: 2.5% (n=4)
11/04/2019 - Present
- Eldrazi Tron: 13.9% (n=29)
- Grixis Death's Shadow: 9.6% (n=20)
- Sultai Death's Shadow: 6.3% (n=13)
- Infect: 6.3% (n=13)
- Dredge: 5.8% (n=12)
- Amulet Titan: 4.8% (n=10)
- Burn: 4.8% (n=10)
- Sultai Urza: 4.8% (n=10)
- Mono R Prowess: 3.8% (n=8)
- Bant Snow Control: 3.8% (n=8)
- Humans: 3.4% (n=7)
- Simic Eldrazi: 2.9% (n=6)
- Jund: 2.9% (n=6)
- Mono G Tron: 2.9% (n=6)
- 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.