Could someone compare the performance of U/R Delver during the TC era to Grixis Delver (Tempo) in the Dig era? I can't really get TCDecks showing me what it is I'm trying to see.
Printable View
Could someone compare the performance of U/R Delver during the TC era to Grixis Delver (Tempo) in the Dig era? I can't really get TCDecks showing me what it is I'm trying to see.
TC era was a meta in flux - at the very least the ban was too soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
I did some research in response to the ban, and found that for the last three months of the TC era U/R delver was a mere 10%-11% of mar top-8s. This seems really low to be considered a dominant deck - in fact Patriot Blade was marginally higher! But that's the story we were given.
I wish they'd included more detail - maybe they had MTGO data and their numbers were different than mine? The cynic in me suspects the were not 100% forthcoming with their reasons for the ban, which makes predicting future banned list changes a much harder task.
Well it's also not as if UR Delver was the only deck running the card either. It just made a previously marginally played deck into probably a top 3 deck in the format.
Here is the official explanation:Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
Nothing about too many decks running TC - just one deck supposedly hurting format diversity.Quote:
Blue-Red Delver decks have been so successful at tournament play that they are hurting the diversity of the format.
It's okay for weak decks to become strong and for strong decks to become weak. That's how the meta shifts, and this is generally not sufficient for a ban.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
Could've also been alluding to URx decks and not limiting it to simply UR only. You said yourself that patriot surpassed UR. That means 1/4 of the meta was URx Delver with cruise. That's pretty fucking miserable.
I never thought of that! Personally I think Patriot Delver plays very differently than U/R, but at least their explanation makes more sense that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
The decks play out somewhat differently sure, but in the end they were both Delver/Lightning Boltdecks with ancestral
I remember at least one pro coming out and saying that the UWR Pyromancer/Blade deck was the way of the future for Cruise decks - i.e. that it was better than UR Delver but just hadn't reached the same level of play. I'm not sure it ever did considering the ban came soon after that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
Earthcraft does also have potential with self-untapping creatures like Nettle sentinel.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
It had been roughly on par from mid-November till the ban. I do think the ban was premature - the meta was still adjusting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral_Arzar
It's.Still a card I'm glad is gone. I don't give a shit whhether the meta was able to adjust or not. That truly made me want to just main board 4 spirit of the labyrinth
Thank you very much! Sadly the numbers are a little too low hurting statistical relevance. I remember reading such an article when Mystical Tutor ANT and Reanimator where around, it very clearly showed the need to ban the tutor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
Even though the article doesn't fully support it, I still think Dig Through Time is problematic and hope we see a ban.
It might also be time to unban Mind Twist and Black Vise.
This is a situation where it's best to read the full announcement, not just the Legacy portion. In broader context, it's pretty clear that the whole post is a huge "our bad" on Treasure Cruise in Eternal formats and Modern. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason Dig went untouched in Legacy was the (not unreasonable) assumption that the extra U in the cost would make it prohibitive enough that only some decks would it and that Dig wouldn't be a strict upgrade over other CA engines. Those assumptions turned out to be incorrect but there were reasonable arguments to the contrary and I don't blame WotC for not banning Dig at the same time they banned Cruise. The meta may have been shifting when the banhammer came down, but the direction of that shit toward ever-more-powerful Treasure Cruise decks was apparent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
As for it being too soon for action on Dig - the relative lack of video footage since SCG cut back on Legacy coverage makes us more reliant on top 8/16 data, but we've known for years how powerful "raw" card advantage is in Legacy. Shardless BUG most prominently went to extreme lengths to make the most of Ancestral Visions, but there's a long history of Legacy decks that were able to exist simply because they cracked the code of drawing extra cards while everyone else was stuck grinding out card quality. It's not like people are grabbing Siege Rhinos with Dig in this format.
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...Deck-SelectionQuote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
I've been thinking about the way Dig Through Time and I can't help but wonder if this is the new normal. Maybe the BS+Ponder+DTT engine is here for good. There seems to be little uproar compared to how good the card actually is. Hm.
Little uproar? Everyone at my store pretty much agrees the card is busted. I think it's miserable. People have been bitching in this thread for months about thefucking card
FTFY.Quote:
Originally Posted by amon amarth
Regrettably, I think you're right.
I've completely stopped playing after DTT continued to stay in the format, making it miserable. The card is busted and it's a bad joke that it stays in the format that long. It dodged to chances to ban it already twice, so maybe the third time is the charm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amon Amarth
Thanks for the link.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
This is why the DTB section doesn't scale decks according to meta-penetration.Quote:
Ideally, the DTBF should provide a reasonably accurate model for creation of a testing gauntlet when preparing for an unknown metagame at a large, competitive tournament.
If you want to know which decks are the strongest compare results to the penetration. If you want to know which decks you are likely to face so you can meta accordingly, meta penetration (volume) is actually more significant than each deck's positioning.
Since you reject my explanation, how is it you can explain a deck meeting the criteria for DTB but not being tier one?Quote:
A DTB is typically (but not always) considered to be Tier 1. These decks are the most popular, prevalent decks in the format, and in many ways they help to define the rest of the metagame.
The numbers do show one thing with certainty - an archetype making top eight isn't necessarily indicative that that archetype is actually performing well. That's why we can have DTBs which are not actually tier one. And a single counter-example is sufficient to dispel that myth.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpoCk0nd0pe
Most event data doesn't incorporate meta-penetration. But anytime I've seen such data it tells a similar story - the supposed top decks are often average or under performers, while many more neglected decks (even blue-less decks) perform better than you might guess by looking at top8s alone. There's data like this on Reddit from time to time.
I've yet to see any data which suggests that the best blue-less decks perform significantly worse (accounting for penetration) than the best decks which do run blue (usually I see the opposite).
I beg to differ, Grixis is higher represented in Top8's than UR Delver ever was. UR Delver even never catched the highpoint of Miracles but nothing ever gets done against that deck because hard stack control is as much a sacred cow as Brainstorm (both go hand in hand actualy). I also don't know where your data is coming from but Patriot didn't even come close to UR Delver's numbers during TC. My data comes from TCDecks. See the chart here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7d...ew?usp=sharingQuote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
Ouch that's pretty revealing data. Seems like DTT might actually be better than Cruise after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nielsie
DTT has always been better than TC, ever since the day both got spoiled I thought DTT was going to be the first to get the banhammer in Modern. And it could well have happened if Jeskai Ascendancy wasn't such a stupid card. The same translates to Legacy, the fact that one is a Sorcery and the other an Instant makes for a pretty massive difference. TC was only really playable in decks that didn't care about what cards they got since drawing off TC was a crapshoot and much worse when you were behind. TC was a beastly snowball engine and not much else while DTT is basically a blank check to get whatever you need to get yourself out of a compromising situation, thus making whatever deck it uses extremely reliable in the late game regardless of current boardstate.
But I STILL don't think DTT is good enough to warrant the banhammer. It's never played as a 4-of unlike TC was, and you can't pull the game out of the opponent's reach just by chaining cantrips early like you can with TC. It adds reliability lategame, but so do many of the cards formerly played in the format, like KotR in Maverick and Liliana + Loam in 4c Loam. DTT just does it... a little bit better than the competition.
Decks w/ 8-16 other cantrips don't need more reliability.
Omnitell and Grixis Control both play DTT as a 4-of, at least most of the time, so saying it's "never" played as a 4-of is flagrantly false. It's a 3-of in many of the 4-color Delver lists.Quote:
Originally Posted by frenadol
The problem I have with DTT isn't so much that it's so powerful on its own, but that it's powerful on top of what's already the most powerful strategy in the game, which is to spam cantrips and fetches until time immemorial.
It would be interesting to see a card that had the same effect, but cost 1 MORE for each card in your GY on top of UU or something. Though i guess you probably just play RIP/Helm with it and use it to find the other piece.
Delve is a stupid mechanic though, I'm glad there are a couple more playable big black beaters, and resolving Become Immense is fun, but the mechanic is nearly impossible to balance. Either dreck or Recall.
QFT. If they ban DTT, people will eventually discover that Temporal Trespass is also OP.Quote:
Originally Posted by maharis
Banning DTT is just more appeasement from WotC. It didn't work for Necro, it isn't working here.
Trespass isn't particularly good though. I don't think time walk is that great of an effect in general as a strategy. Chaining time walks, is, but still quite fragile and mostly just masturbating.Quote:
Originally Posted by rufus
I'd rather just kill them.
Temporal Trespass didn't exactly break Modern after TC and DTT got banned there. It sees zero play.Quote:
Originally Posted by rufus
I compiled it myself (at the time) from events listed n SCG's website and MTGtop8. The data is a bit different in it's timing, but similarly shows U/R was crazy at first but settled down to being pretty much at par with Patriot (eventually being surpassed by the time of the ban).Quote:
Originally Posted by Nielsie
Yeah, I caught that. I just don't think the evidence supported that view with regards to Legacy specifically. I think TC was banned as an apology more for PR than anything else, and that their explanation was a stretch.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
That's how I feel about the TC ban - it was done hastily to appease angry players. This is also why I think DTT might end up being banned too.Quote:
Originally Posted by nedleeds
I played it in a UB control deck in DTK/FRF draft tonight. All it did was cycle itself, except the one time I got a token out of it from that enchantment that makes Wind Drakes for 1U when you play a noncreature spell. That time it ended the game I pulled ahead in a turn earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barook
Then there was the time I cast it and then had no cards left in my graveyard so the "Counter spell unless opponent pays :1: for each card in your GY" I drew was completely worthless.
Wizards was so afraid of making this card too good but they let the dumb draw cards slip. Trespass should've been closer to 5UUU, but TC more like 12U and DTT 10UU.
While I would've liked to see the meta sort itself out amd find the best Treasure Cruise deck, I don't understand how the ban wasn't justified. We're not locked in some kind of purely empirical prison where we can't or shouldn't use theory to make decisions, and it isn't a great leap from empirical evidence to suggest that 'Draw three cards' for U (or 1U) is too powerful for the format. Banning Treasure Cruise was an atypically proactive move by WotC, but I can't take someone seriously who doubts the fundamental correctness of the action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
TC was legal for less time than MM, despite the MM era being less diverse in terms of competitive strategies (I do not accept that running cantrips defines a deck's strategy). I'm not saying the card didn't need to go, but I dislike in principle a "proactive" hands on banned list management. In fact I despise it.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
And the card isn't really draw three for :1::u: or :u: - if it were we wouldn't be even discussing it (and I seriously hope you understand that).
Also, the meta "sorting itself out" doesn't equate to a single best deck emerging! I hope you understand that also. We might have gotten a very narrow meta, but not necessarily one best deck.
Edit - my biggest problem with the TC ban was that they cited (imo) flimsy empirical data. Theory based bans are uncommon. Generally a card isn't banned for being too powerful in a vacuum, but there are exceptions...
When Legacy was born WotC had to decide which restricted Vintage needed to stay banned. Three types of effects were banned by principle - top quality fast mane, tutors, and card draw. When Mystical Tutor was banned there was little evidence of an unhealthy meta. Rather WotC reassessed it as a tier one tutor and banned it on principle.
If WotC had made s similar pitch for the TC ban, I don't think I'd have a problem with it. They hinted on it:
But I don't like this explanation because it relied on empirical evidence which I believe to be wrong. The decks that thrived without TC were indeed interactive, plus the format was still reacting and might have developed more interactive answers to the meta game. If they'd just said card draw of this caliber is too strong and left out any questionable analyses of the meta that would have been okay. Same goes for DTT.Quote:
The decks that draw cards so efficiently push out many other decks, limiting the field to the strong decks that best use those card drawers and decks that don't play in interactive games with those strong decks. In that case, the best option might be to ban the overly efficient card drawer.
My big concern isn't what does and does not get banned. I just hate to see cards banned for the wrong reasons; lest we creep slowly towards a hands-on banned list and a micro-managed format.
While I would love WotC to manage Legacy's banned list as aggressively as they manage Modern's, I recognize that the economic concerns there are insurmountable - people can't be expected to have to shell out for an ever-rotating list of Duals and other reserved list staples every other year or so. And WotC understands this. But the alternative is to let problem cards like Treasure Cruise fester until we reach Misstep-like metagames where there is massive archetype consolidation and an obvious problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
Of course it's not printed as Sorcery-speed Ancestral Recall. It does require decks like Ur Delver to tap out for their first three turns to play a threat and get the cost down to U, but subsequent Cruises are seldom difficult to cast for U or 1U, even on the turn after the first Cruise.Quote:
And the card isn't really draw three for :1::u: or :u: - if it were we wouldn't be even discussing it (and I seriously hope you understand that).
I explicitly said (and you quoted me as saying!) 'best Treasure Cruise deck'. You've pointed out that Ur Delver's meta share was falling by the time it was banned, but ignore the fact that the main decks eating in to its meta share were UWr Pyroblade and Grixis Pyromaner Control - and those decks are all remarkably similar aside from how controlling they are. Cantrips aside, they just want to trade 1-for-1 until they can Cruise, which lets them 1-for-1 their oppoments some more. The reason those decks even existed is that they beat Ur Delver at its own game by trading in creatures for additional removal and Daze for discard and hard counters. That wasn't the case pre-Cruise when the Tier 1 decks with the biggest overlap were BUG Delver and Shardless BUG - decks that had significantly different playstyles and divergent game plans. At the time, BUG Delver was actually a macro-archetype that described the core of two different decks!Quote:
Also, the meta "sorting itself out" doesn't equate to a single best deck emerging! I hope you understand that also. We might have gotten a very narrow meta, but not necessarily one best deck.
This appears to be the real heart of your problem with banning both Cruise and Dig so I'll spend some more time on it.Quote:
Edit - my biggest problem with the TC ban was that they cited (imo) flimsy empirical data. Theory based bans are uncommon. Generally a card isn't banned for being too powerful in a vacuum, but there are exceptions...
...
My big concern isn't what does and does not get banned. I just hate to see cards banned for the wrong reasons; lest we creep slowly towards a hands-on banned list and a micro-managed format.
First, R&D pays next to no attention to Legacy and Vintage, meaning that most B/R decisions are based on a cursory reading of tournament results combined with intuition, which is then held up against what the players are precieved to want. It's why Brainstorm is untouchable despite it being the best card in the format by a wide margin (as an aside, I'm in complete agreement with WotC on the Brainstorm issue, so let's not get sidetracked by that). But when it comes to the Cruise banning, we don't need a ton of empirical data ans neither did WotC - they realized what was happening and took the correct action even if it was based on flawed reasoning, which I don't think it was. I'll quote the same thing you did:
I fail to see how this didn't describe the Cruise meta - the major archetypes were the Urx decks: Ur Delver, Pyroblade, and Grixis Pyromancer decks that played what amounts to conventional Legacy against each other because they could all Cruise well , Lands, which the Urx decks could either try to race or beat with Blood Moon before Lands got Wasteland and Port, Punishing Fire, or Stage/Depths online and couldn't significantly interact with once any of those things happened, Miracles, which won most of its games in the Cruise era on the back of CounterTop rather than the interactive portions of its deck, and Storm variants that capitalized on, wait for it - the fact that the Urx decks were running fewer cards that interacted with their plan than the BUG and RUG decks that they largely displaced. Those decks put up a handful of results in that era ( here and here for examples), but even a cursory glance at those decklists shows the effects of Cruise: BUG Delver with 2 Dimir Cham maindeck, and RUG Delver with Kird Ape replacing Nimble Mongoose. You might say 'that's just good metagaming', which is true, but when metagaming results in running cards that are strict downgrades on the 'normal' choices for those slots, it's at least somewhat indicative of a problem.Quote:
Sometimes, a card-drawing card can be too efficient. The decks that draw cards so efficiently push out many other decks, limiting the field to the strong decks that best use those card drawers and decks that don't play in interactive games with those strong decks. In that case, the best option might be to ban the overly efficient card drawer.
I'll recount the exact moment I realized they'd ban Mystical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
*Rewinds time to the only Legacy tournament I can remember that was held in Carousel Mall on the first floor*
I was playing ANT against ... some blue deck. Can't remember, besides the point. Anyway, two of the games were decided by the same course of actions - I Mystical for AdN, and he Mysticals for a counterspell in response to my AdN, and then cantrips into it.
Side note: I was matched up with a Belcher player that day... our entire match was three games, with four total turns being taken.
Maybe... but it's the only other similar effect I could find (Dig 7, keep 2). As Arzar pointed out though, Dig is cheaper than Memories and instant speed. It also puts the cards on the bottom of your library instead of in the graveyard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Seth
We have a very different opinion/tatstes here, but I can respect yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
Yes, but that's because of the decks which can run it in the first place, and the fact that they already held off on the first. Sorcery recall could be cast in multiples right away. High Tide could conceivably cast multiple copies on turn three - Storm on turn two. The Delve is a trivial cost only because the spell was relegated to decks which make it trivial.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
I guess I assumed you meant that the best TC deckQuote:
Originally Posted by btm10
would be the top deck of the format.
I played exclusively Lands during the TC era and I found those matches very different; especially when taking the control route.
I think Shardless was more like Jund than TA!Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
The R&D team are not paid to think very much about Legacy - and perhaps their bosses aren't interested in how that team feels a card will effect Legacy. But I have a hard time believing that there are no hard-core Legacy fans whoo are working for R&D, even if that exceeds their job expectations.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
Had they said the card was simply too strong as card draw, and sited that as one of the few established points on which a card is banned in theory, I would be okay. When they say a single deck was too big and hurting diversity, I think that reasoning is flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
For one, the meta was still changing lot. :r::u: Petal-Burn was just hitting the scene, as was Ascendancy combo. It's unknown how the meta would react and which weaker decks would emerge to prey on those new ones etc. One cannot apply synchronic analysis to such a meta, nor can it's evolution be reliably extrapolated.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
I aggre about Storm - but lands and Miracles are the most reactive (and hence interactive) decks in the format. STD either set-up CB (interactive), or often another answer (STP, etc). With Lands, my matches against Delver decks (besides RUG, which is a breeze) where often struggles t contrl their board before I would win (or lose trying). I can't agree with you at all on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
Kird Ape is only a downgrade if you consider the threshold to be trivial. The fact that Mongoose's threshold and TC's delve step on each other's feet is exactly why neither of those conditions are trivial at all!Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
Honestly I think Legacy will be healthier without DDT - and I'll personally (probably) enjoy it even more than I do now. I just hope if it's banned they dwell on it being overly efficient card-draw (and possibly tutoring) rather than some bull shit about a meta not being diverse.
People seem to be clamoring to have both of these cards banned. They say these warp the format too much, and cause games to be less competitive and more about who resolves DTT first. I don't find this to nearly be the case at all. Dig isn't anywhere what cruise was and brainstorm is a staple for blue based decks and imo makes legacy what it is.
Thoughts?
Dig is more widespread than Cruise was.
Brainstorm is a simple case of play it or suffer. You want just about any other effect in the game, you have a choice - all manner of removal, threats, and so on. Card selection, the cantrip shell rules supreme.
Then again, we have a 500 page thread for this, so might as well go there, no?
EDIT: Nath'd.
Check your facts first: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7d...ew?usp=sharingQuote:
Originally Posted by critchkn
Oh and BTW: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...te-speculation