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

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

We are not forgetting that UWR or UW Control were not actually a thing, before Jace/Teferi/FoR, right?

I mean sure, they had a brief moment when hey had a good match up against Eldrazi, but...repeat it to yourselves folks.

Reactive Blue based decks were not good during, or after, Twin's banning. Twin had NOTHING to do with UWx being a bad deck.

Remove Teferi, T3feri, and FoR, and UW returns to irrelevance.

[mention]ktkenshinx[/mention] you know what a good article would be? A historical review of Modern since it became 'Modern'. There are clearly many people who missed formative years of the format's growth, and are missing some facts.
UR Control UR

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
Technically, you don't win a control deck with interaction. You're either faster than it or go (way) above it, you don't fight something to its strengths and expect to win. So, your example works against you.
Exact same thing can be said for Urza. Go over it with Tron, go under it with infect. Playing fair with it just results in being massively outvalued. Not sure how you can put down Twin while defending Urza as a fair card.

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

True-Name Nemesis wrote:
1 year ago
Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
Technically, you don't win a control deck with interaction. You're either faster than it or go (way) above it, you don't fight something to its strengths and expect to win. So, your example works against you.
Exact same thing can be said for Urza. Go over it with Tron, go under it with infect. Playing fair with it just results in being massively outvalued. Not sure how you can put down Twin while defending Urza as a fair card.
This is a big part of my dissatisfaction and unease of with regards to consistency of the banned list. If stuff like Urza is considered OK, then so should Twin. And if stuff like Twin is not OK, then neither is Urza, and should be banned. The same could be said about Phoenix, who lived on about 6 months longer than it should have, despite having competitive dominance that Twin could only dream of. There is zero meaningful consistency and even less communication.

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

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

This thread is like watching dogs chase balls.
We keep coming back to the same point, and the dogs cannot resist the ball when it is thrown, as it always will because different people think of the deck in vastly different ways.

I think most accept that A plus B combo itself is not interactive, regardless of every other card in the deck. The question js how many interactive cards justify an A/B combo. There is no correct answer.
You can play all those support cards right now- but you cannot currently have the combo, which is the reason to play those other cards- and I don't wotc won't let that happen now, because I think that Wotc have the answer at 'no justification of A,B combo'.


Urza being broken sucks, but they will deal with Urza eventually and probably have two bites at it, making a hash on the way.

The day they unban Twin, Pod et al will be when it is low risk- when attendance is so low they manage the format for a relatively small number of players. They won't ban Brainstorm in Legacy for the same reason- popularity amongst the established players. When they unban Twin it will mean they have a small established player base who want it and just a few players who would leave. Right now I think it would not see increased attendance, or pack sales, unless attendance has dropped already to catastrophic levels. Personally an unbanning would be the signal for me to sell out of the sentimental decks I have kept, it would mean numbers are really low. With no sign of temporary recovery. It would be foolhardy to stock up on Torpor orb et al. There won't be the volume of players to sell to. I don't think the format will recover, but there is a glimmer it may be taken on with more mh sets representing an opportunity for wotc booster sales. If they are unbanning stuff I think there won't be an mh2 set. If they can shake up the format with a new set of mh they will. If they don't take that option, then unbans of anything might be on the cards, but the format is nearly dead.

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 2115
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

iTaLenTZ wrote:
1 year ago
Historically 2 card combo's have always proven to be problematic. Its like saying Dark Depths should be unbanned because it promotes interactivity because you want to play bounce and needle effects.

I really wish it became forbidden to further 'discuss' Twin because the advocates all sound like broken records repeating the same thing over and over for 4 years already without adding anything new to the discussion. All has been said.
Played a lot against dark depths in legacy, because a friend used that deck before he switched over to modern.
It's not really an oppressive deck. Although I lost one game where I was forced to swords to plowshares a token. The 20 life allowed the opponent to recover. fun times. :grin:

About twin discussions. The idiom "stop beating a dead horse" certainly applies here. However, I do respect the fact that this is a forum and everyone has the right to voice their opinions.
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
This is a big part of my dissatisfaction and unease of with regards to consistency of the banned list. If stuff like Urza is considered OK, then so should Twin. And if stuff like Twin is not OK, then neither is Urza, and should be banned. The same could be said about Phoenix, who lived on about 6 months longer than it should have, despite having competitive dominance that Twin could only dream of. There is zero meaningful consistency and even less communication.
As I had talked a bit with idsurge a few posts back. It looks like wotc or someone in wotc does not like the playstyle of twin. Since they immediately banned cat combo in pioneer.
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

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

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

True-Name Nemesis wrote:
1 year ago
Exact same thing can be said for Urza. Go over it with Tron, go under it with infect. Playing fair with it just results in being massively outvalued. Not sure how you can put down Twin while defending Urza as a fair card.
Never said Urza is a fair card. I have pointed many times the weaknesses of Urza decks are linear decks or DS, so I don't get where you're coming from.
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
So, @Tzoulis is trying to convince me that Grafdigger's Cage is interaction. Only, obviously is not. Surgical Extraction is interaction, as it is actively interacting with a card in the opponent's graveyard. Cage is not actively interacting, but passively.
I'm sure that when you play Company or Dredge you can ignore RiP or Cage since in no way affect your game plan. I'm sure you ignore Samping Sphere in your Titan deck, since it doesn't affect you, eh?

First off, you haven't defined interaction, so don't complain that my vision doesn't comply with yours. Also, lol at a flash 1/1 with deathtouch not being interaction, I'm sure it's only being played because it cantrips, it's the most efficient way to cantrip after all.

There's no point in continuing this discussion, because I never said Twin is not interactive or never defended Simic Urza. You built up a whole straw man just so you can attack it and not my main arguments as you have done before time and again.

So will you start discussing or are you going to keep ignoring me and attack something I never argued?

User avatar
robertleva
Posts: 582
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 1 year ago

You guys are talking about bans and unbans still? The only conversation that needs to be taking place in this thread is Modern: Does it have a future?

All the rest is moot at this point. Pioneer is WOTC's do over format. They are adopting it into Arena and presumably we will eventually see some kind of full MTGO / Arena hybrid at some point in the future. So what IS the future for Modern?

My opinion is that it will flail about for another year or two before fading to niche format populations. Legacy players MAY get a renaissance if Modern is properly dissolved due to format mismanagement / dissatisfaction and we just have legacy and Pioneer.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

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

The Fluff wrote:
1 year ago
As I had talked a bit with idsurge a few posts back. It looks like wotc or someone in wotc does not like the playstyle of twin. Since they immediately banned cat combo in pioneer.
And one of the issues I have is that that B&R announcements seems to have less to do with any sort of real or measurable metrics anymore, and more about social media pressure. So when you have people continually spreading myths, lies, and misrepresented information about stuff like Twin, it reduces support for its release while drumming up support for its ban from people who weren't even playing when it was legal. While this is all just some silly card game, and while there may not be a targeted, concentrated effort, disinformation campaigns in the age of social media have become extremely dangerous in pretty much every facet of life. It's just one microcosm of representation for how people can present things in whatever way they choose, in order to meet the desire they want, whether it matches with reality or not. I mean FFS, we have people today still peddling that it's impossible to interact with a fragile creature. Not some obscure permanent type or something that abuses different zones or recurs itself; a creature. One that if killed, neutralizes the main entire plan of the deck.

With regards to Twin, it had not broken any previously established criteria for banning, especially when compared to all previous diversity bans. And multiple decks since then have enjoyed freedom for doing exactly what Twin did, including Urza today and Phoenix for 2018/19. And even then, it was Hogaak that broke the camel's back, not Phoenix.

If that's the case, that they simply don't like the deck, then they should grow a pair of balls and tell us this officially instead of trying to sell us this contradictory bull crap about diversity and health. Especially since every single one of their listed justifications for ban have failed or been wrong or are completely irrelevant today.
Last edited by cfusionpm 1 year ago, edited 2 times in total.

metalmusic_4
Posts: 260
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 1 year ago

Vintage is still around and is not niche imo. Same with legacy. Modem will continue to exist in a smaller capacity and that is ok. Pioneer will get bigger. People will play Whatever format they want and for a percentage of players that will be modrn.

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Vintage, I have never seen played, Legacy sees almost no local play.

If that's not niche, I don't know what is.
UR Control UR

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
ktkenshinx you know what a good article would be? A historical review of Modern since it became 'Modern'. There are clearly many people who missed formative years of the format's growth, and are missing some facts.
This would be a valuable project, but I also think there are more valuable forward-looking projects that need to be tackled. Modern has a serious identity/existential crisis right now and I'm more interested in demonstrating the effects of that problem and suggesting ways to fix it. I wrote some "Fixing Modern" articles back in 2016 and there was some (likely indirect) Wizards response to at least one of them when Forsythe wrote his "Where Modern Goes From Here" piece. That's the kind of high-level Wizards publication we need to see.
robertleva wrote:
1 year ago
You guys are talking about bans and unbans still? The only conversation that needs to be taking place in this thread is Modern: Does it have a future?

All the rest is moot at this point. Pioneer is WOTC's do over format. They are adopting it into Arena and presumably we will eventually see some kind of full MTGO / Arena hybrid at some point in the future. So what IS the future for Modern?

My opinion is that it will flail about for another year or two before fading to niche format populations. Legacy players MAY get a renaissance if Modern is properly dissolved due to format mismanagement / dissatisfaction and we just have legacy and Pioneer.
I largely agree with this and will continue to push against the constant ban/unban talk. Again, I fully believe Modern needs some combination of bans/unbans to improve from its current state. But despite what some vocal thread participants may say, the specific ban/unban formula is much less obvious or accepted than many claim. It will likely take multiple rounds over multiple months. That makes it a good next step for Modern management and rehabilitation, but it doesn't address the existential issues Modern is facing due to Pioneer's competition. Wizards needs to speak to those distinct format identities first so players have confidence about where Modern is going. Pioneer has been a mess for months with numerous bans, and yet players will continue to be optimistic about its future because it is hopeful and bright. Modern's future is very uncertain, which is why we have seen a precipitous decline in coverage, support, and interest. Without a clear identity or road map, Modern will wither and die even if Wizards nails the perfect combination of bans/unbans (which it is unlikely to do in the first place). Players need long-term confidence to sit through a 2020 full of Modern adjustments.
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
[
And one of the issues I have is that that B&R announcements seems to have less to do with any sort of real or measurable metrics anymore, and more about social media pressure. So when you have people continually spreading myths, lies, and misrepresented information about stuff like Twin, it reduces support for its release while drumming up support for its ban from people who weren't even playing when it was legal. While this is all just some silly card game, and while there may not be a targeted, concentrated effort, disinformation campaigns in the age of social media have become extremely dangerous in pretty much every facet of society. It's just one microcosm of representation for how people can present things in whatever way they choose, in order to meet the desire they want, whether it matches with reality or not. I mean FFS, we have people today still peddling that it's impossible to interact with the a fragile creature. Especially one that isn't some obscure permanent type or abuses different zones or something.
I don't understand why you keep saying that R&D's ban decisions aren't data driven. Every ban this year was predicted and data-driven except Looting (which was more social media-driven, and even then, there was still a solid chunk of data to back it). Every lack of ban for the last 2 years (all the "No changes" announcements) were similarly predictable and data-driven. I think you're still just so completely hung up on Twin that you can't separate that decision from ensuing decisions. Was Twin the wrong ban? Absolutely. Was Twin unjustified? Almost certainly. But does Twin's ban invalidate all ensuing no-changes and ban decisions since then? Definitely not, especially because we predicted most of those based off known metrics.
metalmusic_4 wrote:
1 year ago
Vintage is still around and is not niche imo. Same with legacy. Modem will continue to exist in a smaller capacity and that is ok. Pioneer will get bigger. People will play Whatever format they want and for a percentage of players that will be modrn.
Vintage and Legacy have distinct format identities. Vintage is your P9 high-roller format. Legacy is your blue-focused, play every card ever except the super expensive stuff format. And even there, those formats don't see as much play as a powerhouse like Modern. At least, until today. That's because Modern and Pioneer fill the exact same space and have no distinguishable identity right now. This is a huge problem because it means the formats are effectively interchangeable from a strategic, long-term perspective. That means Wizards can freely dump Modern and still fulfill the Modern promise (a diverse nonrotating format not burdened by the Reserved List) with Pioneer. Until Wizards addresses this, Modern will continue to wither away.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

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

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
I don't understand why you keep saying that R&D's ban decisions aren't data driven.
I didn't say they're not data-driven, I said they're not measurable. To this day, we still don't have any idea what constitutes being worthy of a ban or not, under any circumstances, using any data, whether that data is available to us or not.

What. We. Think. Does. Not. Matter. WOTC does what they want, when they want, for whatever reason they want. Then they will find the data needed to support their decision, not the other way around.

It's this exact "feature" that has scared the living piss out of me from ever buying into any "good" deck ever again.
Last edited by cfusionpm 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 2115
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
With regards to Twin, it had not broken any previously established criteria for banning, especially when compared to all previous diversity bans. And multiple decks since then have enjoyed freedom for doing exactly what Twin did, including Urza today and Phoenix for 2018/19. And even then, it was Hogaak that broke the camel's back, not Phoenix.

If that's the case, that they simply don't like the deck, then they should grow a pair of balls and tell us this officially instead of trying to sell us this contradictory bull crap about diversity and health. Especially since every single one of their listed justifications for ban have failed or been wrong or are completely irrelevant today.
with regards to looting. I feel that the card was already under pressure from Phoenix even before Hogaak came into the scene. I've been seeing some mtg personalities on scg voting whether to ban looting or not. Hogaak was simply the final straw, along with the shame wotc experienced when they caged the wrong animal, Bridge from Below. They apologized with Sfm, so this fiasco was a happy happy ending for me. wohoo $_$

as for Twin. I don't have the data gathering abilities of ktken... so can't say much. Although my opinion is that it became too widespread. In it's last days, I've been seeing rw twin and even living end decks with twin combo grafted into them. So the authorities decided to ban twin along with the broken Bloom Titan deck. Twin died, but Bloom Titan lived on as the still powerful Amulet Titan.
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

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

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

robertleva wrote:
1 year ago
You guys are talking about bans and unbans still? The only conversation that needs to be taking place in this thread is Modern: Does it have a future?

All the rest is moot at this point. Pioneer is WOTC's do over format. They are adopting it into Arena and presumably we will eventually see some kind of full MTGO / Arena hybrid at some point in the future. So what IS the future for Modern?

My opinion is that it will flail about for another year or two before fading to niche format populations. Legacy players MAY get a renaissance if Modern is properly dissolved due to format mismanagement / dissatisfaction and we just have legacy and Pioneer.
Actually if you dig round my posts, there is intermittent discussion of the format's future or rather lack of. Ditto ktk and others.

To sum up...
I have referred to Lando with a microphone' levels of screwed- evacuation imminent. I have referred to Norweigan blue parrots. I base most of my analysis on the prices, taking into account the usual December softening, and something is off now. Not panic selling, just drift- downwards. You need to exclude the cards used in edh and Pioneer, but the trends are there. People are buying, but inevitably on cards used elsewhere. You can move those Vials, but at prices you would not have expected 6 months ago. Modern only cards just don't move.

Legacy outside of the US is very much a format played without a tour. It is very independent of wotc and healthy. It is a player's format. Niche, but healthy.
Modern I think will fail and flounder. I don't think it will enjoy the support of the players, you can see how diverse the aims are of the people here. It is a format that does not serve a need from the moment Pioneer was announced. Legacy is more balanced as a players' format, people play what they want because of the way it is played in paper. Online it can suffer as do all formats whete you can move easily under the 2019 pushed paradigm. Bans are worth discussion, but direction and balance between answers and threats, and especially wotc lack of support, are of more importance.

Incidentally, I lost to a b/w 8 rack home brew in Legacy last month. Would not have predicted that 6 months ago either....)
Last edited by drmarkb 1 year ago, edited 2 times in total.

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
ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
I don't understand why you keep saying that R&D's ban decisions aren't data driven.
I didn't say they're not data-driven, I said they're not measurable. To this day, we still don't have any idea what constitutes being worthy of a ban or not, under any circumstances, using any data, whether that data is available to us or not.

It's this exact "feature" that has scared the living piss out of me from ever buying into any "good" deck ever again.
I don't think that's a problem though. Wizards can't set precise goal posts for bannability because it restricts their ability to respond to format problems. Imagine if they said "We're banning all decks that have >5% metagame share and win on T3 or earlier in 18%+ of games," releasing that metric to the world. Then we get a deck that has a 7% metagame share that wins on T3 or earlier in 16% of all games (measured in a full MTGO sample). That deck is probably violating the spirit of T4 rule but it's not violating the exact constraints of Wizards' metric. We can have the same discussion about any other narrow metrics like MWP, metagame share, G1 vs. G2/G3 win percentage, etc. It's just too complicated to put exact numbers on, and even as a data person, I admit that.

I'll also emphasize that banning uncertainty has very little to do with Modern's issues. Pioneer has the highest banning uncertainty of any format and it's doing just fine. The problem is Modern players have virtually no confidence in its future and fear Pioneer replacing it. If Wizards doesn't address that, no number of ban/unban decisions will save a format that is largely indistinguishable from Pioneer.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

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

The Fluff wrote:
1 year ago
with regards to looting. I feel that the card was already under pressure from Phoenix even before Hogaak came into the scene. I've been seeing some mtg personalities on scg voting whether to ban looting or not. Hogaak was simply the final straw, along with the shame wotc experienced when they caged the wrong animal, Bridge from Below. They apologized with Sfm, so this fiasco was a happy happy ending for me. wohoo $_$
Looting should have been banned months before it was. And it wasn't until Hogaak needed a second banning did they finally pull the trigger.

My hope is that they ban Oko and Veil in January and then apologize with Twin.
ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
It's just too complicated to put exact numbers on, and even as a data person, I admit that
I edited a portion after posting that I think better encapsulates my views:
What. We. Think. Does. Not. Matter. WOTC does what they want, when they want, for whatever reason they want. Then they will find the data needed to support their decision, not the other way around.
To add to this, this gives them the freedom to ignore things they don't care about, or focus on things they do care about, regardless of their respective violations.

User avatar
robertleva
Posts: 582
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
I largely agree with this and will continue to push against the constant ban/unban talk. Again, I fully believe Modern needs some combination of bans/unbans to improve from its current state. But despite what some vocal thread participants may say, the specific ban/unban formula is much less obvious or accepted than many claim. It will likely take multiple rounds over multiple months. That makes it a good next step for Modern management and rehabilitation, but it doesn't address the existential issues Modern is facing due to Pioneer's competition. Wizards needs to speak to those distinct format identities first so players have confidence about where Modern is going. Pioneer has been a mess for months with numerous bans, and yet players will continue to be optimistic about its future because it is hopeful and bright. Modern's future is very uncertain, which is why we have seen a precipitous decline in coverage, support, and interest. Without a clear identity or road map, Modern will wither and die even if Wizards nails the perfect combination of bans/unbans (which it is unlikely to do in the first place). Players need long-term confidence to sit through a 2020 full of Modern adjustments.
The bolded part is the problem that in my opinion is not going away and is insurmountable. Let's say for fun they keep both formats around. Picture Pioneer vs Modern card pool 10 years down the road. The differences won't make any sort of sense to a new player at that time, hell they don't make much sense now. Legacy has an identity, Vintage has an identity, Commander even. But Pioneer is currently holding the reigns of the "low powered eternal format". We don't need two of those. We don't want two of those in the long run.

Eventually WOTC will have to publiclly admit to this and dissolve Modern support product and design resources. At that point, Modern will be a true graveyard format, in a couple ways.

On top of all of that you have to consider it would probably take them years of bans and unbans to get the format to anything approaching the levels of fun Pioneer had from day 1...

Modern is dead and buried. I don't care about card values so I just keep all my cards. But I full expect the non Pioneer playable Modern cards in my collection to drop like a rock if they havent already.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

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
I edited a portion after posting that I think better encapsulates my views:
What. We. Think. Does. Not. Matter. WOTC does what they want, when they want, for whatever reason they want. Then they will find the data needed to support their decision, not the other way around.
To add to this, this gives them the freedom to ignore things they don't care about, or focus on things they do care about, regardless of their respective violations.
That makes more sense and I largely agree with this, but probably in a less sinister way than you may be suggesting. I don't think, for example, that R&D/design+devs are in cahoots with the Arena team and trying to kill Modern with suboptimal management and busted new sets. Rather, I think there is top-down pressure to push esports, Arena, Standard, etc. which means Modern focus goes by the wayside. It's very unlikely there is a hidden agenda to kill Modern. It's very likely there is an open agenda to promote Pioneer, Arena's solution to the rotation problem, and that this open agenda will have the side effect of hurting Modern. If we apply that to bans/unbans (again, a strategically less important topic for Modern's future), we would see R&D devoting their limited time/resources to Standard and Pioneer, not to Modern. The end result hurts Modern but it's more incidental than deliberate. If the marching order is to focus on Standard and Pioneer, they can willfully look away from Modern datapoints that would support any combination of bans/no bans/unbans/no unbans.
robertleva wrote:
1 year ago
ktkenshinx wrote: Without a clear identity or road map, Modern will wither and die even if Wizards nails the perfect combination of bans/unbans (which it is unlikely to do in the first place). Players need long-term confidence to sit through a 2020 full of Modern adjustments.
The bolded part is the problem that in my opinion is not going away and is insurmountable. Let's say for fun they keep both formats around. Picture Pioneer vs Modern card pool 10 years down the road. The differences won't make any sort of sense to a new player at that time, hell they don't make much sense now. Legacy has an identity, Vintage has an identity, Commander even. But Pioneer is currently holding the reigns of the "low powered eternal format". We don't need two of those. We don't want two of those in the long run.

Eventually WOTC will have to publiclly admit to this and dissolve Modern support product and design resources. At that point, Modern will be a true graveyard format, in a couple ways.
I also don't have any clear solutions to this issue. Even if R&D put me and a team of passionate Moderners in charge of writing a Modern and Pioneer mission statement to distinguish the formats, I don't think we could do it. The end products would still be too similar.

For reference, look at Forsythe's excellent (but increasingly irrelevant) "Where Modern Goes From Here" article in 2016: https://magic.wizards.com/en/events/cov ... 2016-04-24. In that article, he laid out a bunch of Modern identities that were, at the time, distinct to Modern. But now, every single one of those identities also applies to Pioneer. Just look at his big five "Modern should..." bullet points and see how all of them are completely interchangeable with Pioneer identities:
  • Be a fun way to play Magic (first, and easy to forget, but very important!)
  • Let you tap into your collection to expand upon established decks and familiar strategies from Magic's recent past
  • Offer different types of decks and gameplay than what you typically see in Standard
  • Not rotate, allowing you to keep a deck for a long period of time
  • Consist of cards that we are willing and able to reprint
In 2016, Modern was the only format that fulfilled these promises. Legacy sure didn't because its cards couldn't be reprinted and its power level was generally prohibitive of strategies from Magic's "recent past." But now, Pioneer also meets every single one of those identities to a letter. That's an existential disaster for Modern and it puts our format in direct competition with Pioneer in what I fear is a (more or less) zero-sum game.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
robertleva
Posts: 582
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 1 year ago

Ktk, and Dr mark sounding the alarm bells but no one's really listening. Those who will ride the Modern wave blindly til the end won't be moved. These are your Twin-Unban, Hogaak and Looting are fine folks. So, those of you who can see the writing on the wall, what are you waiting for, come on over to Pioneer forum here. We need moar peoples developing that Forum. Pioneer is the future and we have bright minds from modern that can fill in the gaps!

The sooner y'all put those big Modern brains of yours towards Pioneer the sooner you can clean up on all the scrubs! Cmon over, there's fun inside!
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

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

robertleva wrote:
1 year ago
Ktk, and Dr mark sounding the alarm bells but no one's really listening. Those who will ride the Modern wave blindly til the end won't be moved. These are your Twin-Unban, Hogaak and Looting are fine folks. So, those of you who can see the writing on the wall, what are you waiting for, come on over to Pioneer forum here. We need moar peoples developing that Forum. Pioneer is the future and we have bright minds from modern that can fill in the gaps!

The sooner y'all put those big Modern brains of yours towards Pioneer the sooner you can clean up on all the scrubs! Cmon over, there's fun inside!
I hope you're not lumping me in there. I have been trying to sell out of my collection for months, and have been limited by my time to list and sell individually, as well as my desire to take massive losses selling at bulk. Make no mistake, I want out.

Edit: LOL!
Last edited by cfusionpm 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

I have contributed a little to Pioneer. My decks of choice in that format are prison ish, and tempo

Two tempo- wu and mono u, two prison, an enchantment heavy doom foretold./starfield, and a uw enchantment/sphere of safety/second sun-heliod-starfield deck.

I have put together burn, mono b and mono g. I don't want Modern go die, but I would rather it go than Legacy. For now in Modern I retain two enchantment control, one martyr proc and skred red (currently worthless bar Chandra tod), plus gw ramp/nidrange with a ton of landkill. Basically the decks I enjoy. I won't play the enchantment decjs if tron is about.
Last edited by drmarkb 1 year ago, edited 3 times in total.

metalmusic_4
Posts: 260
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Vintage, I have never seen played, Legacy sees almost no local play.

If that's not niche, I don't know what is.
I have played in paper legacy, vintage and even pauper events at different LGS's over the years. About an hour from here there is a LGS that runs monthly legacy and modern events, that is the same frequency. My closest local game store is trying modern and pioneer with the same frequency now but no legacy. And obviously they both have multiple standard and edh events through the week. Not to mention online events, you can play mtgo legacy, Vintage, modern, pioneer, pauper, draft, edh, block and many other formats today, multiple times today if you like. People will play what they want and there are ways to do it relatively easily.

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Sure, of course, but then what is your definition of niche?

Its fine for you to believe that 'no format is niche' but...when I compare the opportunity, the investment, and the scene, from Vintage, to Legacy, to Modern, to Standard, to Commander?

You can draw some pretty clear lines, at least I think, on what would fall into 'niche'.
UR Control UR

Mapccu
Posts: 89
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Mapccu » 1 year ago

I think that 5th bullet is has some meat to it for discussion. The capable part is obviously a nod to the reserve list and legacy's mana woes. The willing part is where I'm gonna dig for a minute, and where I think the identity has changed course slightly.

Obviously with modern masters sets they've been willing to reprint any card, including the largest and worst offenders from Magic's history. Horizons even gave us a pile or new things to shake up the format (and they have). They have NOT been willing to print cards in standard with some of the CMC or shuffling effects we've seen in the past. We've seen a good deal of design undulation in standard with power swings, but certain effects have consistently been priced higher (3 damage to any target) and shown up less frequently (shuffling) for example.

I don't think prices are going to free fall into the dirt. Commander, modern side events, etc will continue to prop them up. If popularity shifts to pioneer, then that is where reprint efforts are going to be spent and staples will hold value over time after hitting a low because supply will be static.

Given the esports focus, I'd be surprised if we don't see less modern product released. Maybe we see modern support shift in the print to order model they used for secret lair. Yeah it'll bypass the rest of the distribution channel but no one ends up carrying unwanted product. This will help alleviate price cratering in the market, because the market demand will only absorb up to that price point they set it at.

metalmusic_4
Posts: 260
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 1 year ago

When I think niche, i remember a guy I saw in my shop a few months ago with his tiny leaders deck. Seriously, niche formats imo would include block, cube (but this is growing), tiny leaders, old school 1994, NBL modern and several other mtgo only formats that most people can't name without looking them up. And then there is extended and a few others which are actually dead.

There is nothing wrong with these formats, but they are played by extremely small numbers of people at this point. I am not sure modern's player base size will ever be comparable to tiny leaders base size.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”