I've already said in a few posts that all of those are good arguments against Twin. IDS said the same thing. All we are saying is that anti-Twin arguments should not and cannot cite incorrect facts. The arguments you made that I just quoted here are all legitimate ones to discuss. The following arguments are not:gkourou wrote: ↑2 years ago@ktk I made a huge wall post explaining the situation about twin.
As they see it(not you and me):
There is just no upside to unban it; it could reduce the diversity a bit, or again, not.
Either way, there is a Ux reactive deck at the tier 1 status. Wizards does not have to have a second deck up there.
So either they unban it and have a small Diversity problem (or not), but the gain is minimal.
If there was no ux reactive deck at the top, I think that it would be possible i guess.
MYTH: Twin suppressed blue decks. FACT: Twin either didn't suppress them at all OR 2018 blue diversity was identical to 2015 blue diversity. Either way, that rationale was either wrong at the time or never panned out in the future.
MYTH: Twin kept down decks with bad Twin matchups. FACT: Affinity, Amulet Bloom, and G Tron had bad Twin matchups throughout 2015 and were all very successful, especially Affinity which had the second-most GP T8s after Twin despite a 30/70 matchup and Bloom that was so good it got banned despite a 40/60 Twin matchup.
MYTH: Jund/Abzan were highly favored anti-Twin decks. FACT: Both decks were calculated at 50/50 in N>95 samples (N>120 for Abzan) with confidence intervals no worse than 40/60 <-> 60/40 (Jund) and 45/60 <-> 60/45 (Abzan). The decks were statistically even.
We can use any arguments we want to talk about how Wizards should not or will not unban Twin. But every time anyone uses these disproven myths, I'm going to react very strongly and I imagine others will too. Note that I'm fine if we explore the data behind those myth/fact pairings; data exploration is good. But people should not be saying the myths as if they are facts without presenting new data we haven't seen.
cfusionpm wrote: ↑2 years agoI can't speak for others, but my interpretation is that, while they have this data, they are utterly horrible at evaluating it. They get predictions and evaluations wrong all the time. Whether it's a ban decision hitting the wrong target or embarrassingly safe unban targets, whether it's stupidly broken new cards that slipped under the radar of people designing cards specifically for this format, or those very same people providing weak and inept attempts at answers, while outright ignoring the need for things that could easily be included, WOTC has shown time and time again that they are completely terrible at understanding and managing Modern.
I agree with FCG here more than CFP. On the one hand, Wizards is not always good at deciding what to ban out of a deck, and they are really bad at designing cards at appropriate power levels. On the other hand, Wizards is very good at stepping back and letting things play out even when vocal community pillars and subsets are screaming for bans. It's a mixed bag and I'm glad for the pros but very annoyed with the cons of this strategy.FoodChainGoblins wrote: ↑2 years agoIn fairness, they have also made a lot of good ban and unban decisions as well. Even if Bloodbraid Elf did take a while to come off, at least it eventually DID come off and doesn't have the "Stoneforge Mystic" treatment of just never freaking coming off.
I can't disagree that they are terrible at evaluating it. I just can't disagree with that, even if I want to. But I'm just saying that their outlook is based ona worldwide metagame, whereas most of us could care less about what happens in Modern 1,000 mi. from us. Maybe we do care if some other place is infested with Hogaak, but we don't have much of a viewpoint from multiple areas across the world. The best we can do is knowing the MTGO meta that we face (which I personally don't know because I've never used it).
As an example, you can see it in posts like "Burn should be banned" every once in a while. People care about what happens at their 24 person FNM much more than the health of the whole Modern meta occasionally. Not always, but occasionally you'll see this...