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

User avatar
Simto
Posts: 251
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Copenhagen

Post by Simto » 1 year ago

Bearscape wrote:
1 year ago
https://t.co/v4kxu8Qcmp?amp=1

The usual questionnaire is here again

Still filling in Modern as my favourite format, if only to show support
I voted modern too although I've almost only been playing Commander the last couple of months. Mostly because my group of friends have been really into that lately. And I've been too busy for FNM lately :(

I always find the questions about "expressing your personality through your deck" and other similar ones silly hehe. It's not exactly art or music trying to convey emotions and personality hehe, it's just a fun game. I mean yeah you can get some funky sleeves and have alt-art cards in your deck or whatever, but I think asking questions like that is trying to give it more meaning and weight than it actually has. I actually wish they would put out more sleeves with artwork that don't break hehe.
Maybe I'm just old and bitter hehe, I just find those questions silly and unimportant for the game itself.

DarthDrac
Posts: 22
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by DarthDrac » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
https://mtgmodernmetrics.wordpress.com/ ... t-mission/

I made some significant revisions to the GP attendance and Reddit traffic sections. I think I'll also add some images in a few spot, but I'm still figuring it out. @me with any comments, criticisms, suggestions, and general feedback.
This article is a great.

In terms of the reddit stats, given the r/PioneerMTG started around the same time s the drop off, this is likely a factor to consider. New and interesting brewing opportunities will attract more comments, even with established Modern players. Locally Most of the Modern community have also built Pioneer decks and are playing both. Pioneer hasn't effected Modern, but it has killed Standard, with FNM being Pioneer and Modern firing on Mon and Wed...

In terms of the goals, I really don't like "Consist of cards that we are willing and able to reprint", not because I don't want reprints, I do, but because it doesn't deal with what I think is the biggest barrier to just printing the dang cards we need. DRAFT! Draft is the enemy of filling a set with good needed reprints. I'd rephrase it as such: "Consist of cards that we are willing and able to reprint in Standard draft boosters and additionally in supplemental products irrespective of draft considerations." If they said something like this, then reprinting all 10 fetch lands in a single "booster" product, is no longer an issue, nor is printing powerful removal, discard and draw effects. The fact Modern Horizons was balanced for draft, was a downside in the product, certainly a Modern Masters style product shouldn't be balanced for draft...

Banning around the edges means Ancient Stirrings or Expedition Map would be potential targets from Tron/Eldrazi, I'm not sure if this is the best answer... If Heliod gets Walking Ballista banned then Tron is neutered enough in all likelihood and Eldrzi Tron doesn't really care about the Tron lands... Tron is a tentpole (admittedly boring to play) deck that makes Modern different to Pioneer, we should embrace all the differences we can.

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 1940
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
Decks that promote interaction are decks like BGx and other creature (company) decks - Knightfall etc. - and hyper aggressive decks like infect or Affinity since there's nothing faster than them, not Twin or Control for that matter.
Have been enjoying to play knightfall. Does not really raise eyebrows in my playgroup, the combo is rather weak and fair. None of the pieces are instant speed, can be interacted with via gy removal or killing the knight. Well, there was one game my knight is always a 2/2 because rip, but I casted everything in hand using the pooled mana. Combo is fun because there's something else to do if the plan to attack with a giant knight is stopped. :)

About Twin, I remember people at the mtgsalvation mono g stompy thread use vines of vastwood to stop splinter twin from enchanting the exarch. People at that thread rejoiced when twin got banned, although the weeks after that we had to deal with Eye of Ugin eldrazi. :omg:

As for the other plan of Twin, I remember some people back then use Keranos - this thing is almost never a creature and very hard to remove. Also the bounding krasis versions sometimes had tarmogoyf as a backup beater. Bolt-snap-bolt also sometimes wins games.
Last edited by The Fluff 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.
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
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 1940
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

Bearscape wrote:
1 year ago
https://t.co/v4kxu8Qcmp?amp=1

The usual questionnaire is here again

Still filling in Modern as my favourite format, if only to show support
thanks for posting that link. I filled out the survey entirely. Need to show support for the classic mtg artists.

Also voted modern as favorite format. :)
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
Simto
Posts: 251
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Copenhagen

Post by Simto » 1 year ago

DarthDrac wrote:
1 year ago
Banning around the edges means Ancient Stirrings or Expedition Map would be potential targets from Tron/Eldrazi
Please nooooo :( I know tron players have Once Upon A Time as a backup in case of a banning, but still :(

I agree with your point about draft too, but I just really hate draft formats in all games hehe.

User avatar
pierreb
Posts: 266
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Up North

Post by pierreb » 1 year ago

Isn't it amusing though?

Not so long ago, people were arguing against ancient stirrings. It's now not even on the radar thanks to OuaT. That says something. Not something Wizards is able to hear, just yet, it would seem.

And for the record, I did not exactly say "combo cannot exist from a state of 'nothing' to 'I win'." But it cannot be too efficient, too consistent and too early game. The trouble is finding the right line in the sand for each of these parameters. Every combo deck is constantly hovering around it. That is why every new card printing requires to re-evaluate which combo deck might have gone over it and might need a ban-at-the-edge.

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1109
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
I have the image of a lot of Twin players finally getting an unban in a couple of years, heading enthusiastically to the LGS, only to discover the only people signed up to the event, because nobody plays Modern.
The irony behind this is that I haven't played in paper more than once since October or November, so I have no idea what the scene looks like at my store anymore. :thinking:

But you better believe I'd be there every week, after. :crazy:

DarthDrac
Posts: 22
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by DarthDrac » 1 year ago

Simto wrote:
1 year ago
I agree with your point about draft too, but I just really hate draft formats in all games hehe.
To be clear, I don't think Stirrings gets banned, even if it is better than what blue gets... Then again the Looting and Opal ban mean anything is fair game...

I actually like draft and sealed. I dislike the concept of a reprint set for Modern (be it Horizons or Masters) where draft is the excuse not to have "warping" cards at common and uncommon. If you remove concerns about draft environment then printing Inquisition of Kozelik, Fatal Push, Path to Exile, Lightning Bolt, Counter Spell (seriously why wasn't this in Horizons!) at common or uncommon doesn't matter. Never mind the fetch lands, Thoughtseize, or any number of other needed reprints...

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
I think the fringe bannings that are referred to are the type of bans that often really upset people. Some people want bans specifically not around the margins, but square and central, and fiddling around fringes, for example taking out a tron sideboard card whilst still allowing 7 mana on t3 actually fuels resentment. Lots of small bans to get a deck to the right power level can act as a drain on energy and drive people away. If you find there are lots of people wanting Tron or Amulet to be hit, you can bet your bottom dollar that a fair chunk want the archetype to get the Twin treatment. In fact I'd wager that given a choice between ten small bans over a year and two huge bans, a majority of Modern players would choose the latter, regardless of the decks involved. Perhaps a poll on this would be informative? I would be far less likely to play a format where small tools get the banhammer to pay for the sins of key parts.
I think it's just that ALL bans upset SOME people. When you ban core pillars, people are upset that their investments (financial and emotional) are suddenly devalued or worthless overnight. When you ban at the fringes, people who think the entire core strategy was broken are mad that it wasn't banned outright. This is particularly problematic when you ban the wrong card: see the disastrous Bridge ban prior to Hogaak. Bridge may have been busted and in need of a ban eventually, but banning it instead of the much more problematic Hogaak was outrageous. If Wizards can nerf less egregious decks at the edges without banning them out of existence, that's better for all players.

That said, I think it's worth adding some language in the article about not deliberately ignoring legitimate problems. If Tron really was a problem, it should get banned and we shouldn't mess around at the edges. That's not to say Tron or another deck is a problem right now. If it became a problem (or any other pillar: see Opal eating a ban), then yeah, ban it. But there are ways to nerf decks that aren't metagame-wide problems without killing them completely.
You don't mention Legacy in the article- the role of Modern as you have defined it is the same as that for Legacy, bar the reprints.
But that reprint issue is the core, central, defining issue of Legacy. Even if Legacy fulfilled every other mission of Modern and Pioneer, which I believe it does, it can't meet the reprint burden. That kills the format at any major, Wizards-supported level.
DarthDrac wrote:
1 year ago
In terms of the goals, I really don't like "Consist of cards that we are willing and able to reprint", not because I don't want reprints, I do, but because it doesn't deal with what I think is the biggest barrier to just printing the dang cards we need. DRAFT! Draft is the enemy of filling a set with good needed reprints. I'd rephrase it as such: "Consist of cards that we are willing and able to reprint in Standard draft boosters and additionally in supplemental products irrespective of draft considerations." If they said something like this, then reprinting all 10 fetch lands in a single "booster" product, is no longer an issue, nor is printing powerful removal, discard and draw effects. The fact Modern Horizons was balanced for draft, was a downside in the product, certainly a Modern Masters style product shouldn't be balanced for draft...
I think Secret Lair-style products address this, and I don't really want a Modern-focused piece to bleed too heavily into on a multi-format problem. The draft issue is a big one. It impacts all competitive formats and is a big drain on Wizards ability to influence constructed. I also don't think this is the best place to unpack it. I'll probably just add a note about encouraging Wizards to print premium cards outside of draft-based experiences, e.g. fetches in Secret Lair products or the equivalent.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

DarthDrac
Posts: 22
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by DarthDrac » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
But that reprint issue is the core, central, defining issue of Legacy. Even if Legacy fulfilled every other mission of Modern and Pioneer, which I believe it does, it can't meet the reprint burden. That kills the format at any major, Wizards-supported level.
Wizards have been failing to adequately reprint cards for years and upshifting rarity of needed reprints is a bad habit. A single copy of a single rare card costing more than £20 isn't healthy and doesn't make the game approachable. Even at £20, four copies is £80, add in a few more cards of a similar value and we end up with decks which cost £400+

Admittedly, Modern, Pioneer or Legacy appeal to enfranchised players, who have built collections over time. That being said over on reddit posts about buying-into a deck aren't uncommon, sure there is burn or 8-whack and one or two other decks, but your options are decidedly limited without spending a large amount of money. Secret lair is priced suspiciously close to market rate, it isn't doing anything to reduce costs, just perhaps increase availability and it sidelines LGSs into the bargain... Your probably right though, reprints and draft and the issues around them could be an article itself.

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

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
think it's just that ALL bans upset SOME people.
Conversely all bans please some people.
ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
When you ban core pillars, people are upset that their investments (financial and emotional) are suddenly devalued or worthless overnight.
Which has never actually happened from an MTG finance standpoint, please advise which format pillar in Modern which was banned resulted in players' investments becoming worthless? Even on the topic of devaluing, I'm not sure how relevant this point is since cards in Modern will always devalue every now and then regardless of banlist updates, since the entire point of creating Modern in particular was to freely reprint anything.
ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
When you ban at the fringes, people who think the entire core strategy was broken are mad that it wasn't banned outright. This is particularly problematic when you ban the wrong card: see the disastrous Bridge ban prior to Hogaak. Bridge may have been busted and in need of a ban eventually, but banning it instead of the much more problematic Hogaak was outrageous.
This is because people are essentially robbed of their time by Wotc %$#%$# footing around the issue of bans, how many Modern tournaments, how many Modern FNM's were sacrificed on the altar of Eldrazi Winter and others like it, it didn't need to happen, we didn't need to lose so much time, time that can never be gotten back, especially in light of how much of a commitment this hobby is in the first place compared to other table top games, it is simply not acceptable to take as much time as Wotc has classically taken to fix things when we pay as much as we do.

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

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

DarthDrac wrote:
1 year ago
I actually like draft and sealed. I dislike the concept of a reprint set for Modern (be it Horizons or Masters) where draft is the excuse not to have "warping" cards at common and uncommon. If you remove concerns about draft environment then printing Inquisition of Kozelik, Fatal Push, Path to Exile, Lightning Bolt, Counter Spell (seriously why wasn't this in Horizons!) at common or uncommon doesn't matter. Never mind the fetch lands, Thoughtseize, or any number of other needed reprints...
This is all true and very important, I will say one more thing that must be acknowledged by the community at some point, the entirety of the limited formats are a burden for the future of Magic: The Gathering(tm). We see this now clearly with the digital direction that Magic is taking, and the shear struggle it has been for the Arena team to contend with adding sets backwards as well as keeping up with the current sets. The ultimate effect is that the vast number of thousands upon thousands of useless limited chaff cards prevent us from getting formats like Modern or other formats put into Arena where they possibly could if Wizards would just drop the limited junk. And going forward, lets say Wotc ever needs to do another digital overhaul in the future and they need to bring over the cards into a new program all over again, trying to code a 250 card set where only 10 cards in said set actually see play in a given format is simply not economically viable, and all of the player base loses out as a result, whereas Wotc could just grow a pair and drop limited (which fewer people actually care about anyways, see Pro tour viewership history) and we could move on with our lives.

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

Post by Arkmer » 1 year ago

Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
trying to code a 250 card set where only 10 cards in said set actually see play
The issue with that is that it's a self fulfilling prophecy. If you only give the option to use 10 cards, then when will the others ever get a chance? Now I'm not about to argue that we need every single wall and 6 mana 5/5 (or whatever), but 10 is an incredibly small number. Many people like playing obscure cards. I had a blast for awhile (a year or more ago now) playing Curse of the Cabal in Modern. Hell, I've played nearly entire decks of obscure cards that wouldn't make it past that kind of limit on implementation. Would Curse of the Cabal get into "Arena Modern" under a 10 card limit? Even 20? 30? Somehow I doubt it and the argument would likely come back that I should "just play Liliana of the Veil, it's the same and batter".

I understand the logistical issues of implementing every card into the system, but you honestly should be looking to import 90% not 10%, the greater the number the better. Thing is as well, that those simple creatures that are considered draft fodder are also the easiest ones to program. They have no special text on them, so once the game understands power, toughness, mana cost, types, and image then you can create dozens of them in minutes. It's when they start having to implement new mechanics, complex interactions, and lengthy verbiage that programming these becomes difficult.

So when you say that all the player base loses out, I think you're forgetting a massive part of the player base that plays wonky cards, niche things, and spicy singles all from off the beaten trail.
I've boxed my cards up for long term storage.

Maybe I will return... Maybe not.

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

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

Arkmer wrote:
1 year ago
The issue with that is that it's a self fulfilling prophecy. If you only give the option to use 10 cards, then when will the others ever get a chance? Now I'm not about to argue that we need every single wall and 6 mana 5/5 (or whatever), but 10 is an incredibly small number.
Firstly I picked 10 just as an example, hell I could probably look at a lot of recent sets and find such a small number of cards seeing play in Modern if I wanted to put the effort in, it was simply an example. Secondly, I would rather have a self fulfilling prophecy rather than no prophecy at all if Wotc simply chooses not to add sets backwards at all.
Arkmer wrote:
1 year ago
I understand the logistical issues of implementing every card into the system, but you honestly should be looking to import 90% not 10%, the greater the number the better.
I mean sure, in a perfect world the more the better, but I don't know one single set in Magic's history where 90% would need to be converted to digital to bring all the relevant Modern cards, not even close.

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

Post by Arkmer » 1 year ago

Right, that's why I threw in the extra 20 and 30 numbers. I know you picked an arbitrary number and I gave you the benefit of the doubt by expanding it myself. I even switched to a percentage to bring a wider variety of measurements.

You are forgetting that not all Modern players are competitive and it's not right to just push out the majority of players. Because we know for fact that the majority of players are not that level of competitive, so says the mighty WotC.

And like I said, complex cards like Thassa's Oracle are the reason things would take time to implement, not because there are 5 different 2/3 vanillas. Think about the code logic that it would take to construct Heliod. Are all the life gain triggers currently properly triggering? For example, if Kaya's wrath is functionally correct but not programmatically correct you could trigger Heliod once for each of your creatures instead of once. All of those things need to be tested in order to properly implement a card like Heliod; there might be some precedent that helps, but it may also not be perfect. To implement a card like Colossal Dreadmaw, you need some pretty well instantiated things that are already in Arena.
I've boxed my cards up for long term storage.

Maybe I will return... Maybe not.

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

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

Arkmer wrote:
1 year ago
Right, that's why I threw in the extra 20 and 30 numbers. I know you picked an arbitrary number and I gave you the benefit of the doubt by expanding it myself. I even switched to a percentage to bring a wider variety of measurements.

You are forgetting that not all Modern players are competitive and it's not right to just push out the majority of players. Because we know for fact that the majority of players are not that level of competitive, so says the mighty WotC.
You are drastically over estimating the number of cards needed to implement Modern onto digital even taking casual untiered decks into account. If you don't believe, go through any Modern legal set in existence, and count the total number of cards you would feel would need to be implemented to get your bare minimum viable product, it won't be nearly as many as you think.
Arkmer wrote:
1 year ago
nd like I said, complex cards like Thassa's Oracle are the reason things would take time to implement, not because there are 5 different 2/3 vanillas. Think about the code logic that it would take to construct Heliod. Are all the life gain triggers currently properly triggering? For example, if Kaya's wrath is functionally correct but not programmatically correct you could trigger Heliod once for each of your creatures instead of once. All of those things need to be tested in order to properly implement a card like Heliod; there might be some precedent that helps, but it may also not be perfect. To implement a card like Colossal Dreadmaw, you need some pretty well instantiated things that are already in Arena.
The issue I have with a statement like this is that it makes a lot of assumptions about the actual production and programming of the game itself that I don't think we can make at this point without actual quotes and citations from the developers themselves to back it up.

See this excerpt from the Nov. 13, 2019 state of the game Arena update from the devs:

"Later next year, we plan to begin adding "remastered" versions of older sets to Magic: The Gathering Arena. The MTG Arena team, in conjunction with Magic R&D, will be looking at multiple sets and condensing them into a single larger set that only includes the most relevant cards, and adding that to the game. This will allow us to focus on what made these sets fun and exciting for players while delivering on the content much more quickly."

This clearly contradicts your opinion on the matter of the limited chaff cards being "easy" to implement.

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

Post by Arkmer » 1 year ago

Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
This clearly contradicts your opinion on the matter of the limited chaff cards being "easy" to implement.
No, it really doesn't contradict my statement at all. No where in there does it say that a 2/3 vanilla is hard to code. What that statement tells me is that they've just made a choice not to code those cards. There is nothing "clearly contradicting". It also matches pretty perfectly with what I said about not arguing for "every wall and 6 mana 5/5 (or whatever)" in my original response.

While I don't think those cards are necessary to be brought into the game, I will still stand on the idea that they aren't complicated to code. If they are (and I'm not closing off that possibility), then they need to seriously fire their lead architects. Regardless, I bring up their ease to create as a contrast for the difficulty in creating the more complicated cards, not as evidence they should be spending time on draft fodder. You're just mistaking the direction I'm taking the conversation. So regardless of the difficulty it takes to create a vanilla 3/4, Heliod would be much more difficult, so if they are struggling with that vanilla card I can only assume many of the more text heavy cards are massive tasks. However you want to scale the logistical issue, arguing that a 5/5 is difficult is not really changing my argument that complex cards are significantly harder to implement.

I'm glad you can throw the number 10 out and call me for "enforcing" your example, which I already showed I was not doing, but my 90% has to be rock solid and you can claim I'm overestimating. Can we not play these word games? My point is that you need to be adding more of these cards than "just the meta" because people play much more than that so by using terms like "relevant" and "meta" you are by default excluding players.
I've boxed my cards up for long term storage.

Maybe I will return... Maybe not.

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

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

Arkmer wrote:
1 year ago
No, it really doesn't contradict my statement at all. No where in there does it say that a 2/3 vanilla is hard to code. What that statement tells me is that they've just made a choice not to code those cards. There is nothing "clearly contradicting". It also matches pretty perfectly with what I said about not arguing for "every wall and 6 mana 5/5 (or whatever)" in my original response.
If I asked you to move 10 feathers from one room to another, that task would be both simple and easy. If I asked you to move 100,000 feathers from one room to another it would be utterly cumbersome, whether the task is still easy or not doesn't change the fact that it would be very time consuming. Also lets not characterize all limited chaff as vanilla 2/3's, there are plenty of entire mechanics that Wotc makes for sets that are driven for limited in particular which could vastly increase the complexity to code and implement them.
Arkmer wrote:
1 year ago
While I don't think those cards are necessary to be brought into the game, I will still stand on the idea that they aren't complicated to code. If they are (and I'm not closing off that possibility), then they need to seriously fire their lead architects.
I am not going to sit here defending Wotc, I have routinely claimed that they are incompetent and are bad at their jobs, I stand by that claim, but claiming that one of their lead tech people should just be fired as a result is a non-starter, it isn't going to happen so why bother making the request, instead the requests need to be shaped to better fit the environment we know we have.
Arkmer wrote:
1 year ago
So regardless of the difficulty it takes to create a vanilla 3/4, Heliod would be much more difficult, so if they are struggling with that vanilla card I can only assume many of the more text heavy cards are massive tasks. However you want to scale the logistical issue, arguing that a 5/5 is difficult is not really changing my argument that complex cards are significantly harder to implement.
So why add to their already high workload then if you admit that cards like Heliod take a lot of time to implement? You are not really respecting the factor of time here.
Arkmer wrote:
1 year ago
I'm glad you can throw the number 10 out and call me for "enforcing" your example, which I already showed I was not doing, but my 90% has to be rock solid and you can claim I'm overestimating. Can we not play these word games? My point is that you need to be adding more of these cards than "just the meta" because people play much more than that so by using terms like "relevant" and "meta" you are by default excluding players.
I'm not playing word games at all, I also never claimed that only the meta cards could be added, I simply asked you to actually prove your point, go through any particular Modern set, and actually count the percentage of cards it would take for you to reach your minimum viable product and defend the position.

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

Post by Arkmer » 1 year ago

Thus far you've backed away from your initial claims entirely, posted a quote calling it clear evidence when there was none, and routinely strawman my points despite me explaining them further.

I was never arguing to include all the vanilla creatures. Talking about all the extra little cards that do have mechanics that may be difficult are where we start actually making our disagreement. You think they are irrelevant or cumbersome or not worth including for whatever reason; I disagree because I have used quite a few of them in my time playing Modern and the ability to use those unexpected cards with niche interactions is a reason I deeply enjoy this game. I'm sure many feel the same. It is because of this disagreement that I again say that making a judgement call about what is "relevant" or "meta" or "actually see play" is by default excluding players. You claim you never made that claim yet it's the only thing I quoted in my original response to you.

Clearly we are not going to agree. Thank you for the discourse.
I've boxed my cards up for long term storage.

Maybe I will return... Maybe not.

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

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

Look if you don't want to talk about this anymore than so be it, but lets not mischaracterize my statements.
Arkmer wrote:
1 year ago
Thus far you've backed away from your initial claims entirely, posted a quote calling it clear evidence when there was none, and routinely strawman my points despite me explaining them further.
I have not backed away from anything, my original claim was that the entirety of the limited formats presented a burden to the game that would get in the way of current and future digital integration, I stand by that.
Arkmer wrote:
1 year ago
I was never arguing to include all the vanilla creatures.
Arkmer wrote:
1 year ago
I understand the logistical issues of implementing every card into the system, but you honestly should be looking to import 90% not 10%, the greater the number the better.
Hmmm
Arkmer wrote:
1 year ago
Talking about all the extra little cards that do have mechanics that may be difficult are where we start actually making our disagreement. You think they are irrelevant or cumbersome or not worth including for whatever reason; I disagree because I have used quite a few of them in my time playing Modern and the ability to use those unexpected cards with niche interactions is a reason I deeply enjoy this game.
Look at some point in order to convince people of your argument it requires that you actually give concrete examples so people can actually debate your position.
Arkmer wrote:
1 year ago
I'm sure many feel the same. It is because of this disagreement that I again say that making a judgement call about what is "relevant" or "meta" or "actually see play" is by default excluding players.
It doesn't even matter if I am making that judgement call, as per my prior evidence, Wotc already is.
Arkmer wrote:
1 year ago
You claim you never made that claim yet it's the only thing I quoted in my original response to you.
Actually I never denied the claim that my approach would exclude some amount of players, I freely admit it whole heatedly, my argument stems from the fact that if you went to the Arena dev team and demanded for 90-100% of the Modern legal cards to be implemented into the game, they would flatly say no and go about their day, this would exclude a much higher proportion of players compared to simply finding a compromise and putting competitive or semi competitive cards that see play as a priority for adoption to actually give something workable to start with. Maybe that ends of being 20% of total Modern legal cards, maybe a bit higher. It represents a goal that the dev team we have might actually agree to in the first place.

Also let me be clear, when I said earlier that you were oversimplifying how easy or difficult it was to put a card into Arena, even the vanilla ones, I was referring to the entire implementation process, not simply coding. There is a lot that goes into it, not simply making sure the card mechanically works according to the rules, but also the related graphical and sound effects, mind you its not like I myself need or even want those aspects but this is the standard of quality that the current dev team has set, whether it is fully relevant to the entire playerbase or not. This means that again, even if you are implementing a lot of admittedly vanilla cards, it still becomes of a burden when they are in the hundreds, if not thousands.

Yawgmoth
Posts: 170
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Yawgmoth » 1 year ago

Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
.
ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
When you ban core pillars, people are upset that their investments (financial and emotional) are suddenly devalued or worthless overnight.
Which has never actually happened from an MTG finance standpoint, please advise which format pillar in Modern which was banned resulted in players' investments becoming worthless? Even on the topic of devaluing, I'm not sure how relevant this point is since cards in Modern will always devalue every now and then regardless of banlist updates, since the entire point of creating Modern in particular was to freely reprint anything.
I disagree. With the Looting ban and the simultaneous creation of Pioneer virtually all Modern staples depreciated in value.

For me, personally, banning looting made all of the cards in my Mardu Pyro deck worthless to me. This was an incredibly frustrating experience as a hobbyist who had invested all of my "hobby budget" into game pieces which were banned overnight.

More broadly, the Pioneer announcement had an almost unilaterally negative effect on Modern finance. Essentially all Modern cards have gone down in value since Sept. A handful of cards which are also playable in Pioneer have appreciated in value but this is not the same as half of your Modern cards going up while the other half go down. Those non-Pioneer legal Modern staples will never go back to where they were.

The reprint policy in Modern means that cards can fluctuate in price but you are conflating a change in demand with a change in supply. We have lots of evidence that demand and NOT supply is what sets the prices in Modern. For example, Tarmogoyf has been reprinted a half dozen times in the past 7 years and while its price initially decreased it stabilized over the past 5 years in spite of reprints. The demand for Tarmogoyf was always higher than demand even with regular reprints. With the announcement of Pioneer, the price of Tarmogoyf tanked. I don't think it will ever go back up. The introduction of Pioneer has substantially reduced demand for Tarmogoyf and that is the main driver of price.

Because WotC essentially controls demand (by setting the rules of the game) they have the ability to vaporize the value of people's collections without warning. This is why the reserve list was created and as much as it sucks to pay $200 for a Badlands it's much less likely that a Legacy player will see their collection become worthless because of an unannounced ban or a new format.

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

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

Yawgmoth wrote:
1 year ago
I disagree. With the Looting ban and the simultaneous creation of Pioneer virtually all Modern staples depreciated in value.
Well the point you were referencing was strictly in regards to banlist policy, but as you said the creation of Pioneer has fundamentally changed Modern from a finance perspective. Lets be real though, the looting ban did not dumpster the value of much in Modern outside of maybe Arclight Phoenix, the fetches and everything were still holding strong after that, it was specifically Pioneer that trashed the Modern MTG finance scene overnight since no one actually believe Wotc would forgo rotating decks and start rotating entire eternal formats.
Yawgmoth wrote:
1 year ago
Because WotC essentially controls demand (by setting the rules of the game) they have the ability to vaporize the value of people's collections without warning. This is why the reserve list was created and as much as it sucks to pay $200 for a Badlands it's much less likely that a Legacy player will see their collection become worthless because of an unannounced ban or a new format.
Agree to disagree, I believe at this point the casual crowd is what is propping up the bulk of MTG finance and will continue to do so in future years, wotc has less control over them than us.

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

Post by Arkmer » 1 year ago

Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
Look if you don't want to talk about this anymore than so be it, but lets not mischaracterize my statements.
It's not that I don't want to talk about it any more it's that for some reason you latched onto some development cycle commentary when the point I was trying to make was that you are excluding a ton of people by excluding cards and until your most recent response to me refused to even acknowledge it.

No one gives a crap about how long it takes to put cards into Arena, we all just want to play the game, so you latching onto the former instead of the latter felt very disingenuous given that I was very clear about people wanting to use as many of the cards as possible and that some arbitrary decision to exclude a large percentage of them is very disenfranchising to non-competitive players.
Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
Hmmm
If you want to talk about mischaracterizing statements, then this is the king of them. "Hmmm" is not a response. Also you seem to have missed the following mischaracterizations:
Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
trying to code a 250 card set where only 10 cards in said set actually see play
What I was originally responding to and solely quoted.
Arkmer wrote:
1 year ago
If you only give the option to use 10 cards, then when will the others ever get a chance? Now I'm not about to argue that we need every single wall and 6 mana 5/5 (or whatever), but 10 is an incredibly small number.
This is where I say I'm not defending every single card like you stawman to with. Not quoted, as it spans two paragraphs, is me expanding your 10 cards to greater numbers giving you the benfit of the doubt that you didn't actually mean 10 cards.
Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
Firstly I picked 10 just as an example
This is exactly where you back away from your original claim.
Arkmer wrote:
1 year ago
Right, that's why I threw in the extra 20 and 30 numbers. I know you picked an arbitrary number and I gave you the benefit of the doubt by expanding it myself. I even switched to a percentage to bring a wider variety of measurements.
Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
You are drastically over estimating the number of cards needed to implement Modern onto digital even taking casual untiered decks into account.
Arkmer wrote:
1 year ago
I'm glad you can throw the number 10 out and call me for "enforcing" your example, which I already showed I was not doing, but my 90% has to be rock solid and you can claim I'm overestimating. Can we not play these word games? My point is that you need to be adding more of these cards than "just the meta" because people play much more than that so by using terms like "relevant" and "meta" you are by default excluding players.
As you can see, I gave you plenty of room to navigate with your statement of 10 cards per set, but you cannot grant me the same courtesy. If you will not grant me the same courtesy, then you are vastly incorrect in stating that 10 cards from each set is sufficient to support Modern and you should admit to it instead of diverting the conversation to some irrelevant secondary commentary about coding cards. I made those comments fairly off handedly because I work in development and the topic is interesting to me. They are irrelevant in upholding my original argument that an arbitrary exclusion of cards is a direct disenfranchisement of players.
Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
Actually I never denied the claim that my approach would exclude some amount of players
So we agree, but you couldn't lead with that. Instead you've been incredibly dismissive through the whole thing and I don't much appreciate the rampant mischaracterizations. Like I said before, I gave you the benefit of the doubt plenty with your 10 comment, but you would not do the same for me with 90. And you refuse to acknowledge it to instead cram some "90-100%" demand (I never claimed 100% but here you are mischaracterizing me again) down my throat.
I've boxed my cards up for long term storage.

Maybe I will return... Maybe not.

Yawgmoth
Posts: 170
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Yawgmoth » 1 year ago

Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
Yawgmoth wrote:
1 year ago
I disagree. With the Looting ban and the simultaneous creation of Pioneer virtually all Modern staples depreciated in value.
Well the point you were referencing was strictly in regards to banlist policy, but as you said the creation of Pioneer has fundamentally changed Modern from a finance perspective. Lets be real though, the looting ban did not dumpster the value of much in Modern outside of maybe Arclight Phoenix, the fetches and everything were still holding strong after that, it was specifically Pioneer that trashed the Modern MTG finance scene overnight since no one actually believe Wotc would forgo rotating decks and start rotating entire eternal formats.
Yawgmoth wrote:
1 year ago
Because WotC essentially controls demand (by setting the rules of the game) they have the ability to vaporize the value of people's collections without warning. This is why the reserve list was created and as much as it sucks to pay $200 for a Badlands it's much less likely that a Legacy player will see their collection become worthless because of an unannounced ban or a new format.
Agree to disagree, I believe at this point the casual crowd is what is propping up the bulk of MTG finance and will continue to do so in future years, wotc has less control over them than us.
On your first point, I do agree. The looting ban itself did not effect modern finance. I used that as a jumping off point for my argument. My memory might be off but I associate that ban (and the SFM unban) with the pioneer announcement. A lot changed in September.

However, I don't think that most modern players were aware of the risk of a new format suddenly appearing. There is always the risk that a card could get banned but I think most people don't expect a new format to pop up without warning. That completely changes the financial aspect of modern (and any other non-RL format).

That said, modern prices were out of control. I'm glad they are less than they were a year ago. I took a hiatus from modern in 2015 and when I started again in 2018 the prices were insane in comparison. There is no reason that cards which can reprinted any day should be so expensive.

I am ok with mtg finance cooling down, I don't have that much money in cardboard but I do think that WotC needs to not take for granted the non-casual players. Particularly if they want to push a competitive e-sports model. You can't simultaneously promote a pro circuit while also punishing people for trying to play the game competitively (well you can but it's bad business).

The irony to it all is that the Looting and Opal bans don't matter if no one plays modern anymore because Pioneer replaced it. That was sort of my point. Discussing bans is pointless in light of the existential threat that modern is facing.

Trazaeth
Posts: 11
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Trazaeth » 1 year ago

Are we ever going to get a reset on this thread at some point? I would like it to be archived for ease of use.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”