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

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1110
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
As long as you don't care about winning...
This is not true though. You can care about winning, and still play nearly every archetype you can think of.
I mean, it still matters when you're putting money down to play. Whether it's $5 for FNM or whatever ridiculous costs they charge for Leagues these days. Winning means earning credits to play again vs losing money and having to pay out of pocket to continue. :sweat:

It's also relevant for adults with a busy schedule that make special, dedicated time to play an FNM and then get bad experience after bad experience, it greatly demotivates the desire to even make that time in the first place. Winning with 35 minutes left on the clock doesn't feel much better than losing with 35 mins left. :poop: I came here to play and enjoy my time. And I often ask myself why I even bother continuing. Then I remember how much time, effort, and money I spent dedicating myself to the format and simply push through for the fleeting hope that at least one of my matches is "fun."
The issue is, again, what are you playing AGAINST, and can you personally accept that others can play what they like, just as you can play what you like.

Thats the root of your disdain for Modern, it really is. :p
I mean, it's a nonzero attribute, but finding a deck to love and enjoy helps somewhat. At least until it gets dumpstered on week after week. :laugh:
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
The list goes on and on and on. Whats missing?
Tempo/Control, or anything reactive that's not UW.

Zorakkiller
Posts: 57
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Zorakkiller » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Zorakkiller wrote:
1 year ago
I guess I picked the wrong decks to like because they either dont exist in the format or are too bad to take to a fnm .
Like what?

I mean a quick look at the meta proves this out, there are a ton of options.

UR Phoenix - Combo/Aggro
E Tron - Big Mana/Midrange
Jund (<3) - Midrange
UW - Control
Humans - Fish/Disruptive Aggro
Burn - Aggro
R Phoenix - Aggro
Grixis/UR Urza - Prison/Combo
Tron - Big Mana
Dredge - GY/Aggro
Scales - Aggro
Infect - Aggro/Combo
Neo - Combo
Hogaak - GY/Aggro/Combo
Colourless Eldrazi - Aggro
Affinity - Aggro
Mardu - Midrange/GY
Hollow One - Aggro/Combo

The list goes on and on and on. Whats missing?
yes there are options even if many of them overlap in play style but that wasn't the original argument. maverick and zoo were my preferred deck if you must know. even then the format lacks green creature decks of the fair variety.
Last edited by Zorakkiller 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

I mean you know me. You know we had a lot of the same views, but thats what it really took for me. I could find decks that I enjoyed actually going through the motions with, even Phoenix is fun enough to actually mechanically play. Tap his, float this, cast this, sift through the deck, flip a card, these come back, bolt you, and tada, I win!

My problem has been 2 fold.

1. There is a dissonance in the format in regards to the ban list, and what is legal. I dont care what anyone says.
2. I found too many decks in Modern at various points in time absolutely putrid to sit AGAINST.

It had nothing to do with what I mechanically could play. Those 2 issues combined to prevent me from enjoying the format. Ok and a 3rd, I have an actual physical reaction to TKS.

In the end though, so that I could at least continue in a limited sense with the game (as I dont play anything really but Modern).

1. Accept the ignorance presented by the ban list.
2. Accept the decks others will play.
3. Sell out the bulk of my collection so I no longer have the feelsbad about 'investment'.
4. Win with a very large Knight on Turn 3 or at least enjoy the art and appreciate my deck for being what it is, while not playing.

You are never going to be happy with Modern, even if Twin is unbanned unless your expectations shift considerably.

[mention]Zorakkiller[/mention] have you tried Knightfall, or GW Counters with the new Giver of Runes? Expecting to actually play fair (1 card, 1 mana, nothing free cast) in Modern is...well not realistic.
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Tempo/Control, or anything reactive that's not UW.
Tempo Control fall's apart without a Combo element. We all know this. :p

Modern no longer provides a luxury (it actually never did) of playing reactive without the ability to quickly turn the corner. The only thing that allowed UR to do this, was an instant speed combo, or the fear of it.

You can still play Blue Moon with 4 Force and some Archmage Charm, but its going to be an inferior deck now because of T3feri, and Veto.

I do think it would be possible though, but...yeah.
Last edited by idSurge 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.
UR Control UR

Zorakkiller
Posts: 57
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Zorakkiller » 1 year ago

selling most of my modern collection was what I did. if wotc doesn't want the decks I enjoy to play in the format il just move on and get my entertainment out of modern elsewhere

edit: knightfall is too bad of a deck unfortunately as I have sunk too much time and money into it. counters company brings me zero joy. you did touch on what in getting at though. there are strategies that are just unrealistic to bring into modern therefore there isn't a deck for everyone

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

I disagree that especially at FNM level, Knightfall is not good enough. I've clowned enough people on Turn 3 to know it works, but everyone's bar for 'competitive' is different.
UR Control UR

Zorakkiller
Posts: 57
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Zorakkiller » 1 year ago

my fmn is very competitive almost exclusively tier 1 decks played by former grinders. good luck comboing on turn 3 when half the field is on UW control with maindeck RIP and the other half is trying to kill on turns 2 and 3 as well

Zorakkiller
Posts: 57
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Zorakkiller » 1 year ago

50% of my fnm dont get it twisted. main offenders are neobrand, storm and Phoenix decks

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Zorakkiller wrote:
1 year ago
my fmn is very competitive almost exclusively tier 1 decks played by former grinders. good luck comboing on turn 3 when half the field is on UW control with maindeck RIP and the other half is trying to kill on turns 2 and 3 as well
Sound's like a painful format/meta to be sure. In that case, I would simply revert to my second issue.

"2. I found too many decks in Modern at various points in time absolutely putrid to sit AGAINST."

Cant win them all, but such an inbred meta certainly should be exploited by some boring linear deck.
UR Control UR

Zorakkiller
Posts: 57
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Zorakkiller » 1 year ago

for sure, but it's not worth my time or money to metagame a fnm. il just do something more entertaining that doesn't require me to jump through hoops

Zorakkiller
Posts: 57
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Zorakkiller » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
50% of your fnm trying to turn 2/3. So, what decks are those people are on? How many decks do we have on modern than can win on turn 2, besides Neobrand?
key word was trying. look at my previous posts. I do find it funny that you have twice now tried to misrepresent what I said by reducing my turns 2 and 3 to just turn 2 in your last sentence

iTaLenTZ
Posts: 217
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by iTaLenTZ » 1 year ago

IMO Wrenn and Six killed any hopes for Modern to become an interactive format. The card is completely busted. It creates so much CA on its own and by multiple angles (killing creatures, never miss landdrop while building up to gamewinning ultimate). Its also very hard to get rid of it since it basically enters the game with 4 counters and if not it means you just lost your dork. Jund is now by default the best midrange deck and the funny thing is I think its not even the best deck for Wrenn because Jund isn't a great deck. It folds vs too many things but it always has a chance to win as well so people will play it because its a safe choice in any meta.

Wrenn just recks slower decks that need buildup time AND play creatures. All Wrenn has done is cement the non-interactive goldfish turn 2-3 win meta vs big mana decks. Wrenn has pushed everything that is not Dredge, Phoenix, Trondecks, fast combodecks out of viability just by existing because its so easily splashable because his +1 already gives you back a land so playing 3-4 colors is easier and its never a dead card.

The only option you have now is to play decks that ignore a turn 2 Wrenn. The card has completely shifted the meta around itself. I didn't enjoy Modern for the past 6 months because all I played against were Loothing decks and Tron decks and with the effects of Wrenn on the format I am seriously considering getting out of Modern and selling my cards.

'Modern' Horizons has done nothing but upgrade the already existing topdecks, didn't address any of the inherent problems Modern is having for the past 2 years now and to top it off it only made things worse for the format as a whole by printing powercreep like Wrenn.

Zorakkiller
Posts: 57
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Zorakkiller » 1 year ago

you should not misrepresent people's statements if you want them to cool down. it matters because magic is a form entertainment and if games are over on turns 2 and 3 I get less entertainment value because you play less magic. I have played on mtgo and the situation was not much better. it's a crapshoot, sometimes you get back and forth games other times you complete a league in 30 minutes. its a incredibly inconsistent product that isn't worth it when there are better options. I have a very difficult time putting any stock into mtgo results given how they are curated

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

iTaLenTZ wrote:
1 year ago
Wrenn just recks slower decks that need buildup time AND play creatures. All Wrenn has done is cement the non-interactive goldfish turn 2-3 win meta vs big mana decks. Wrenn has pushed everything that is not Dredge, Phoenix, Trondecks, fast combodecks out of viability just by existing because its so easily splashable because his +1 already gives you back a land so playing 3-4 colors is easier and its never a dead card.
That's very interesting, as I have not seen much of that concern at all within Modern. Legacy for sure, but yeah.

I know this weekend looks to showcase Jund though, and will prove if it actually has legs or if it just beats up on the decks already struggling for viability.
UR Control UR

Zorakkiller
Posts: 57
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Zorakkiller » 1 year ago

there is no conflict in my posts the only conflict is words and your reading comprehension. games ending on turns 2 and 3 is not mutually exclusive with decks trying to win on turns 2 and 3. sometimes turn 2 and 3 decks win on turns 2 and 3.
Warning for trolling
-ktkenshinx-

iTaLenTZ
Posts: 217
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by iTaLenTZ » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
iTaLenTZ wrote:
1 year ago
Wrenn just recks slower decks that need buildup time AND play creatures. All Wrenn has done is cement the non-interactive goldfish turn 2-3 win meta vs big mana decks. Wrenn has pushed everything that is not Dredge, Phoenix, Trondecks, fast combodecks out of viability just by existing because its so easily splashable because his +1 already gives you back a land so playing 3-4 colors is easier and its never a dead card.
That's very interesting, as I have not seen much of that concern at all within Modern. Legacy for sure, but yeah.

I know this weekend looks to showcase Jund though, and will prove if it actually has legs or if it just beats up on the decks already struggling for viability.
Just look at the recent performances. SCG Open: Humans is still tier 1 because it has a decent matchup vs anything else that is not Wrenn/Jund. UW control is good because the field is so narrow it can run hate cards in the mainboard without trade offs penalties. The narrower the field the better for controldecks because it means you need less cards. Wrenn has narrowed the field thus control will thrive in this environment and all it needs to do is run hatecards vs Wrenn that are also good vs the rest of the field. Other than that no single deck that basically folds vs turn 2 Wrenn has made top8 in a big tourney since Wrenn got printed.

Decks that don't care about Wrenn:
2x Urza, Whir Prison
3x Dregde, Phoenix iterations
6x Tron iterations, valakut
2x fast combodecks and burn

Decks that do care about Wrenn:
1x Humans
1x UW control
1x Tokens

Jund didn't even made top 8 at the latest 2 big events, the SCG open and Japanese tourney. Its not even performing well in MTGO Leagues but its pushing every other value/creauture/midrange deck out of existence while the rest is praying on Jund.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Here's the thing though, you just listed the actual 'winner's meta' of Modern for the past...10 months?

Urza Prison
Dredge
UR Phoenix
R Phoenix
Burn
Humans
UW Control
Tokens (what is this one?)

I can accept your argument that Wrenn is problematic because any card that flips Legacy on its head should be given consideration, but value/creature/midrange is not really a Modern segment that has gotten much or any respect in a year+.
UR Control UR

iTaLenTZ
Posts: 217
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by iTaLenTZ » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
I can accept your argument that Wrenn is problematic because any card that flips Legacy on its head should be given consideration, but value/creature/midrange is not really a Modern segment that has gotten much or any respect in a year+.
Exactly the point I made in my first post. Wrenn has cemented this even further. If those decks were struggling then they now don't stand a chance. Meanwhile the tier 1 decks remain unchanged and got even stronger out of 'Modern' Horizons. Wrenn has divided the meta into 2 segments: Decks that can oppose it and decks that can't and the decks that can are uninteractive decks aiming for fast wins or big mana decks. The only solution is to ban Wrenn and Loothing to open up the meta again. Wrenn is unhealthy for the meta and unsustainable in the long run. They should ban it now before people keep wasting 80$ a card on them. I don't think it will survive Legacy either since the effects are even worse over there. The problem for Modern is that the effects are hidden because Wrenn itself is not making top8 finishes.

I understand why they don't want to ban Loothing though because it enables so many decks but its OP. At this point there is no denying FL is as powerful for Modern as Ancestral Recall is for Vintage. IMO the biggest problem is that Faithless Loothing has flashback for just 3 mana. That means its resilient to traditional counterspells and discard while also giving you fuel in midgame by taking a mini-mulligan. This is what makes the card broken. If it didn't have flashback it would still be a great card but not as overbearing and thus more in line with the powerbudget of Modern. I believe they should ban it and print a new version more in line with this powerbudget.
Last edited by iTaLenTZ 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

Zorakkiller
Posts: 57
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Zorakkiller » 1 year ago

it's way to early to even consider banning w6. If we are concerned about w6 pushing out other midrange decks we should bolster them up or bring decks that punish midrange as a whole down. decks like tron and dredge hurt midrange way more than w6. modern just doesn't facilitate a bunch of midrange decks anymore

Zorakkiller
Posts: 57
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Zorakkiller » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
Correction: It probably is not the day 1 metagame breakdown, as some people claimed on twitter. A really good picture of Modern during the last few weeks, by Frank Karsten.

Link here: https://magic.wizards.com/en/events/cov ... 2019-07-24
metas after a ban or format shift are when the players explore the format. it will be fun to watch what rises to the top. my money is on Phoenix

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 819
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

Goblins at 3%? What mad man (men) played that at the Mythic Invitational? Seems like a slower, more midrangey Humans deck to me, but I can certainly be wrong.
Standard - Will pick up what's good when paper starts
Pre Modern - Do not own anymore
Pioneer - MBA, UB Inverter
Modern - Amulet Titan, Elementals, Yawmoth Chord, Uroza
Legacy - No more cards, will rebuy Sneak Show when I can
Limited - Will start when paper starts
Commander - Nope

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

iTaLenTZ wrote:
1 year ago
I believe they should ban it and print a new version more in line with this powerbudget.
A direct swap with Careful Study, is what I would have liked.

EDIT: That image was since deleted. Its just a messaged/curated data set of what could be. No way in Urborg does that turn out to be the meta, let alone the 'winners meta'.
UR Control UR

Zorakkiller
Posts: 57
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Zorakkiller » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
iTaLenTZ wrote:
1 year ago
I believe they should ban it and print a new version more in line with this powerbudget.
A direct swap with Careful Study, is what I would have liked.

EDIT: That image was since deleted. Its just a messaged/curated data set of what could be. No way in Urborg does that turn out to be the meta, let alone the 'winners meta'.

you dont even need to print a substitute card. there is no shortage of ways to get cards from your hand into the graveyard. some of which have already seen or currently do see play . insolent neonate, izzet charm and cathartic reunion come to mind

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

Boy, this thread really blew up in the last few pages. Going to respond to some of these posts out of order to highlight some thread-wide points. Sorry in advance for the text wall!

To start...
FOR ALL THREAD USERS: Please refrain from format bashing. Per the Modern forum rules, bashing is defined as "severe criticism with the purposes of attacking or complaining about a subject."
Format bashing includes, but is not limited to; categorically negative generalizations about the format experience, its decks, or its players; venting frustrations without evidence and/or constructive suggestions; specific hostile comments and/or insults on Modern decks/cards/elements; and many others. If your post includes sweeping statements (e.g. "All Modern is ....") and aggressive/negative verbiage (e.g. "garbage," "trash", "braindead," etc.), especially without specific evidence to support your claim, there is a good chance it may be format bashing. Modern criticism is always welcome. Critical posts will propose solutions, seek alternate opinions, provide evidence proportionate to the claim, and use language that encourages counterpoints.

I am going to update the forum and thread rules with some of this additional verbiage and start heavily enforcing this tomorrow. Modern criticism is okay. Modern format bashing is not.
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
I'd be willing to look into it, but only at the GP Top 8 level. We had no reason to believe at that time (Twin Ban) that SCG or MTGO had much of an impact, and a few reasons to believe it was competitive Top 8 level success at the GP and (sigh) Pro Tour level, even with muddy water from Draft portions.

My proposal would be.

"Was Twin suppressing Top 8 Diversity leading to an increase in Deck Archetype diversity post Ban".

Tier 1/2, would be near impossible to differentiate as there is no large scale data set easily searchable, that is going to show this. If we had Top 32's and Day 2's for every Modern GP since 'Modern' became a defined format, perhaps then we could get somewhere?
This seems reasonable, as GP/PT and GP/MC T8 diversity is the only consistent metric between 2015 and 2018-2019. MTGO was obviously present in both eras, but it's tough to compare the MTGO data and events from 2015 with those of 2018-2019. The whole format changed, both for presentation and actual MTGO play. As for SCG events, although Wizards did cite SCG results in the Amulet ban, showing they do pay attention, it's unclear how these weigh relative to GP/PT/MC datasets.
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
TLDR: Some times bannings, make some decks better, if those cards that are banned suppress one or more (macro)archetypes. Those decks that are being suppressed, are not buffed, because they automatically get a new card when their arch rival is banned. But when a wide array of decks has no longer a deck to suppress it, this macro archetype can breath again and move up the scale of Tiers.
This is true, and I agree with this assessment. I would simply note, which we seem to agree on, that opening up the field to less-played decks should not be the ONLY offense for a bannable deck. For instance, Humans at its current levels is probably taking up some metagame share from other aggro decks that are otherwise just bad Humans decks. But Humans is not individually offensive by any known banlist metrics. Case in point, the deck made up 9.4% of 2018 GP (ahead of Gx Tron at 8.6% and UW Control at 7%), and is at 9.7% for 2019 GP/MC so far (ahead of Titanshift at 6.9% and way behind Dredge at 13.9% and Izzet Phoenix at 19.4%). It would be wrong to say something like Humans is bannable because it is stifling the diversity of other aggro or tribal decks with no other offenses. I think you and I agree on this point, but I'm just writing it out so others can see it in action. On the other hand, if Humans had been at 20% for 2018 and 2019, now it is both dominant AND stifling other decks; let's chop it down for both reasons.
iTaLenTZ wrote:
1 year ago
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
I can accept your argument that Wrenn is problematic because any card that flips Legacy on its head should be given consideration, but value/creature/midrange is not really a Modern segment that has gotten much or any respect in a year+.
Exactly the point I made in my first post. Wrenn has cemented this even further. If those decks were struggling then they now don't stand a chance. Meanwhile the tier 1 decks remain unchanged and got even stronger out of 'Modern' Horizons. Wrenn has divided the meta into 2 segments: Decks that can oppose it and decks that can't and the decks that can are uninteractive decks aiming for fast wins or big mana decks. The only solution is to ban Wrenn and Loothing to open up the meta again. Wrenn is unhealthy for the meta and unsustainable in the long run. They should ban it now before people keep wasting 80$ a card on them. I don't think it will survive Legacy either since the effects are even worse over there. The problem for Modern is that the effects are hidden because Wrenn itself is not making top8 finishes.
The W6 ban talk is beyond premature. The card has been legal in Modern for less than 1.5 months, has zero GP success (partially because there's been one post-MH1 GP), and has extremely tame MTGO results. A card having hidden effects on Modern below the T8 level is often a shaky argument, because it is very hard to prove and very easy to subjectively make. The pre-MC4 Modern metagame Karsten posted and GK posted shows Jund, the primary W6 deck, at an incredibly acceptable 4.1% of the metagame. Barring significant metagame shifts, there is nothing wrong with the card in Modern and ban talk about W6 is largely unjustifiable at this time.

As for the Looting ban talk, I encourage you to read my recent article on the Bridge ban here (articles/1018-unpacking-the-bridge-from-below-ban). In summary, Wizards notably, conspicuously omits this card from the article. This is not an oversight. This is a signal that the card is fine and Wizards is comfortable with the current level of GY strategies. They don't even give it a watchlist style mention unlike Ancient Stirrings in the KCI ban. Could FL be a problem in the future? Sure, just like any number of strong, top-tier cards COULD hypothetically be problems. But the current FL prevalence at this moment in time is not problematic. Wizards does not and should not base bans on hypothetical future risks without current data to support a ban. FL is no exception.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 819
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

Wrenn and Six is fine in Modern. Modern is too quick a format for something like that to have that big an impact. Now in Legacy, Wrenn and Six with Wasteland is starting to get pretty %$#% annoying.

*Also I hope those players that didn't want Force of Will in Modern because it would be Legacy lite enjoy Force of Negation. See, we're our own format!
Standard - Will pick up what's good when paper starts
Pre Modern - Do not own anymore
Pioneer - MBA, UB Inverter
Modern - Amulet Titan, Elementals, Yawmoth Chord, Uroza
Legacy - No more cards, will rebuy Sneak Show when I can
Limited - Will start when paper starts
Commander - Nope

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1110
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
I will note again that matchup variance is not actually a thing as I have demonstrated in a number of past analyses; the better players consistently perform regardless of the matchups, and Modern/Standard/Legacy performances are virtually identical for the best players. Variance is not a real factor in Modern more than anywhere else when I last checked in 2018, and unless there have been significant changes in 2019 relative to 2016, 2017, and 2018, I expect that's still the case. We can lament T3feri's effect on control and Modern without bringing in this debunked concept.
I will reiterate my same concerns the last time this came up; namely the methodology and how byes/drops were factored into it. As well as which players were used in the data set (IE someone could come in with 3 byes, lose 3 matches, and drop with an extremely misleading 3-3 record. I don't remember how that was weighted or if the opportunity cost of matches post-drop factored either).

But more specifically to the illustration I was trying to make, regardless of the methodology, any individual game or match can and will be heavily dependent on the matchup. That's why we specifically say things like "how do I sure up some of my bad matchups?" There are simply decks that you are statistically more likely to lose to than win against, due to the construction of your deck and their deck. And if that discrepancy is high enough, you can see people fumble and stumble their way through misplays and sloppy decisions completely crush someone playing a terrible deck at its highest capabilities. Additionally, players are heavily rewarded for playing decks with a highly swingy set of matchups instead of something "50/50" as shown in this recent CFB article, so long as you can predict/dodge/minimize the poor matchups.

Perhaps I am skewed by the stuff I teach middle schoolers, especially about choices and representation in data sets. But what specifically seems to bug me is that the average statistics don't take into account how the games played out. For example one could quantify each of the wins and losses on some metric that demonstrates how swingy the game was (IE was someone crushed out of existence quickly and decisively, or was it a long, slow, grindfest of difficult decisions; not sure how to do this other than something like weighing each win and loss with a turn count, and making some compound between match/game win % and turns per game). I could imagine how that data spread (MAD/IQR) would look for different formats. Perhaps Standard looks much more clumped together and low in this metric, where Modern would be more spread across the gamut. Even if their averages ended up the same, the data distribution could be wildly different. I would give my left arm to be able to pull these kinds of numbers from MTGO and crunch them myself. And as much as I would love to do a grass roots effort like the turn-count hero, school starts up again in a month and I simply couldn't undergo such a project.

Forgive the lengthy ramblings, with a 7 month old I pretty much haven't slept in half a year either. :sleepy: :woozy: :crazy:

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”