Nexus beats Esper in Bo1 because control has to tech against the 50+% of the field that's aggro with creatures, and even then Esper Midrange is actually pretty decent against Nexus since it naturally interacts favorably via Mortify, Deputy of Detention, and kind of Thief of Sanity. It's no different than Aetherflux Storm being good against decks tech'd against BR aggro pre rotation.
I get that mortify interacts with reclamation but why does Deputy of Detention interact favorably with Nexus?
Deputy of Detention hits reclamation unless they're simic, hits Teferi, and provides redundant ways to clear out Azcanta, while they run like 1-3x maindeck answers in Blink of an Eye.
Nexus beats Esper in Bo1 because control has to tech against the 50+% of the field that's aggro with creatures, and even then Esper Midrange is actually pretty decent against Nexus since it naturally interacts favorably via Mortify, Deputy of Detention, and kind of Thief of Sanity. It's no different than Aetherflux Storm being good against decks tech'd against BR aggro pre rotation.
I get that mortify interacts with reclamation but why does Deputy of Detention interact favorably with Nexus?
Deputy of Detention hits reclamation unless they're simic, hits Teferi, and provides redundant ways to clear out Azcanta, while they run like 1-3x maindeck answers in Blink of an Eye.
For some reason I was convinced deputy was Creature, not nonland permanent
Yes in that case absolutely I can see it being quite favorable
Idk banning nexus seems reasonable. It was pretty universally unfun to play against, what more is there to say?
Control decks full of sweepers and counterspells are also arguably unfun to play against though. A deck whose win condition is a single copy of chromium can take just as long and be just as annoying as Nexus of fate.
I don't really mind since I try not to play Bo1 except in draft (and only there because of the price structure) but I wish they would have fixed the looping issue with a game timer or a clock or something instead of just a ban.
In Bo1 simic nexus is favored against everything but mono-u and mono-r.
So then do you also want to ban mono-u and mono-r? Like, a deck being good against a lot of other decks just means it's a good deck, every deck wants to be good against a lot of other decks. That is, in fact, the bare prerequisite for a deck to be good.
I'm essentially 100% sure they're tracking win rates on mtga. And in fact, if I learned they were not, it's highly likely I would just not believe whatever source told me that.
They banned Nexus in bo1 for user experience reasons, and they left it in bo3 for authenticity reasons. That seems reasonable to me.
Wait, decks want to be good? Gosh, thanks for explaining that to me.
I think with the nexus ban in Bo1, midrange and aggressive creature strategies will do a better job of punishing those decks so no. I do not think the UI issue is why nexus was unhealthy for the meta and if they are tracking the strength of decks in Bo1 they should use that data when justifying a Bo1 ban not Bo3 tournament results.
Bo3 tournament results have nothing to do with Bo1 ladder.
Also, this ban will be good for control on ladder too. Since the decks that prey on nexus are good against control and control loses an unfavored match up. Big winners are going to be esper control and all midrange strategies. Big losers will be RDW.
Your argument was literally that nexus was too powerful because the nexus deck was favored against a large swathe of deck archetypes, but not favored against a couple other ones. That is not a very good argument, because it sounds to me like the definition of "a pretty good deck" not "a totally overpowered one"
You don't think being favored against the majority of decks is a good argument for there being a balance problem? That isn't the full picture though, because the matches were mostly either heavily unfavored or heavily favored which isn't a fun place to be. You don't want the game to feel inevitable after the first land is played.
Given the popularity of mono red and mono blue, and given that the matchup as you said was heavily unfavored, no I don't think that's a balance issue.
We'd have a balance issue if it was heavily favored against all but a couple decks, and against those decks it was only slightly unfavored. Or, if it was heavily favored against all but a couple decks, which it was heavily unfavored against but which were very uncommon.
Not wanting the game to feel inevitable after the first land is, ironically, more of an "unfun" reason to ban and less of an "overpowered" reason.
I mean, a card that creates extremely polarizing match ups is both an issue of fun and balance especially when the good match ups far outnumber the bad ones. It's also why RDW is so prevalent, because every other thing but mono-u in the meta is built to beat RDW.
The solution here is "don't push Bo1 as a competitive format", then. Unless your solution is multiple bans to prevent all-in aggro and combat decks from ever being good, there's no way to prevent the emergance of strong decks that don't care about their opponent versus decks teched very narrowly against those decks in a format with no sideboarding.
They have already stated their solution. They are going to design cards with Bo1 in mind, push a competitive Bo1 format, and maintain a Bo1 ban list.
Nexus is the first card to hit the chopping block.
Idk banning nexus seems reasonable. It was pretty universally unfun to play against, what more is there to say?
Control decks full of sweepers and counterspells are also arguably unfun to play against though. A deck whose win condition is a single copy of chromium can take just as long and be just as annoying as Nexus of fate.
I don't really mind since I try not to play Bo1 except in draft (and only there because of the price structure) but I wish they would have fixed the looping issue with a game timer or a clock or something instead of just a ban.
It really isn't the same thing though. A 60/40 match up feels a lot better than a 90/10.
The unfun argument is important, but I don't think it really does the discussion justice. Nexus was more than unfun.
God dammit. I was so close to buying 4 last night and they would have been free. (I have played nothing but Bo3 since the last update other than doing enough limited ranked to get to gold).
PSN: Broodax- battle.net: broodax#1163
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Idk banning nexus seems reasonable. It was pretty universally unfun to play against, what more is there to say?
Control decks full of sweepers and counterspells are also arguably unfun to play against though. A deck whose win condition is a single copy of chromium can take just as long and be just as annoying as Nexus of fate.
I don't really mind since I try not to play Bo1 except in draft (and only there because of the price structure) but I wish they would have fixed the looping issue with a game timer or a clock or something instead of just a ban.
Aggro decks that kill you on turn five even when you have removal and blockers are pretty unfun to play against.
Basically, the goal of the Magic meta is not for all players to always have fun.
Idk banning nexus seems reasonable. It was pretty universally unfun to play against, what more is there to say?
Control decks full of sweepers and counterspells are also arguably unfun to play against though. A deck whose win condition is a single copy of chromium can take just as long and be just as annoying as Nexus of fate.
I don't really mind since I try not to play Bo1 except in draft (and only there because of the price structure) but I wish they would have fixed the looping issue with a game timer or a clock or something instead of just a ban.
It really isn't the same thing though. A 60/40 match up feels a lot better than a 90/10.
The unfun argument is important, but I don't think it really does the discussion justice. Nexus was more than unfun.
I don't think Nexus of fate is rocking a 90/10 win rate against much.
+1
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Idk banning nexus seems reasonable. It was pretty universally unfun to play against, what more is there to say?
Control decks full of sweepers and counterspells are also arguably unfun to play against though. A deck whose win condition is a single copy of chromium can take just as long and be just as annoying as Nexus of fate.
I don't really mind since I try not to play Bo1 except in draft (and only there because of the price structure) but I wish they would have fixed the looping issue with a game timer or a clock or something instead of just a ban.
Aggro decks that kill you on turn five even when you have removal and blockers are pretty unfun to play against.
Basically, the goal of the Magic meta is not for all players to always have fun.
While this is true, since it's never fun to lose, there are certainly ways where you lose that feel way worse and sap your desire to continue playing.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
In Bo1 simic nexus is favored against everything but mono-u and mono-r.
So then do you also want to ban mono-u and mono-r? Like, a deck being good against a lot of other decks just means it's a good deck, every deck wants to be good against a lot of other decks. That is, in fact, the bare prerequisite for a deck to be good.
I'm essentially 100% sure they're tracking win rates on mtga. And in fact, if I learned they were not, it's highly likely I would just not believe whatever source told me that.
They banned Nexus in bo1 for user experience reasons, and they left it in bo3 for authenticity reasons. That seems reasonable to me.
Wait, decks want to be good? Gosh, thanks for explaining that to me.
I think with the nexus ban in Bo1, midrange and aggressive creature strategies will do a better job of punishing those decks so no. I do not think the UI issue is why nexus was unhealthy for the meta and if they are tracking the strength of decks in Bo1 they should use that data when justifying a Bo1 ban not Bo3 tournament results.
Bo3 tournament results have nothing to do with Bo1 ladder.
Also, this ban will be good for control on ladder too. Since the decks that prey on nexus are good against control and control loses an unfavored match up. Big winners are going to be esper control and all midrange strategies. Big losers will be RDW.
Your argument was literally that nexus was too powerful because the nexus deck was favored against a large swathe of deck archetypes, but not favored against a couple other ones. That is not a very good argument, because it sounds to me like the definition of "a pretty good deck" not "a totally overpowered one"
You don't think being favored against the majority of decks is a good argument for there being a balance problem? That isn't the full picture though, because the matches were mostly either heavily unfavored or heavily favored which isn't a fun place to be. You don't want the game to feel inevitable after the first land is played.
Given the popularity of mono red and mono blue, and given that the matchup as you said was heavily unfavored, no I don't think that's a balance issue.
We'd have a balance issue if it was heavily favored against all but a couple decks, and against those decks it was only slightly unfavored. Or, if it was heavily favored against all but a couple decks, which it was heavily unfavored against but which were very uncommon.
Not wanting the game to feel inevitable after the first land is, ironically, more of an "unfun" reason to ban and less of an "overpowered" reason.
I mean, a card that creates extremely polarizing match ups is both an issue of fun and balance especially when the good match ups far outnumber the bad ones. It's also why RDW is so prevalent, because every other thing but mono-u in the meta is built to beat RDW.
The solution here is "don't push Bo1 as a competitive format", then. Unless your solution is multiple bans to prevent all-in aggro and combat decks from ever being good, there's no way to prevent the emergance of strong decks that don't care about their opponent versus decks teched very narrowly against those decks in a format with no sideboarding.
They have already stated their solution. They are going to design cards with Bo1 in mind, push a competitive Bo1 format, and maintain a Bo1 ban list.
Nexus is the first card to hit the chopping block.
Sure, that's their solution to improving Bo1 in general. But it doesn't solve your problem, which is the existence of linear decks that don't really care what their opponent does and have polarized matchups. Combo and aggro will always have a home in their most all-in form in a Bo1 format.
Of all the decks, Sultai Midrange with no assassin's trophy versus Simic Reclamation is probably the worst matchup, and I'm pretty sure it's still at worst 75-25, maybe 80-20 since you put them on a halfway decent clock and Vivien can just dunk them.
milski on
I ate an engineer
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I'm pretty sure you could find a 90-10 matchup online with a deck of just lands because a tenth of the time your opponent just gets mad and concedes.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Sure, that's their solution to improving Bo1 in general. But it doesn't solve your problem, which is the existence of linear decks that don't really care what their opponent does and have polarized matchups. Combo and aggro will always have a home in their most all-in form in a Bo1 format.
This is an important point and I'm not sure how you solve for it. I think about the most degenerate game 1 decks in eternal formats (Dredge, Belcher, etc.) and the prospect of a BO1 format full of those sounds miserable.
Sure, that's their solution to improving Bo1 in general. But it doesn't solve your problem, which is the existence of linear decks that don't really care what their opponent does and have polarized matchups. Combo and aggro will always have a home in their most all-in form in a Bo1 format.
This is an important point and I'm not sure how you solve for it. I think about the most degenerate game 1 decks in eternal formats (Dredge, Belcher, etc.) and the prospect of a BO1 format full of those sounds miserable.
As an outsider to competitive magic, how does a "game 1 deck" win? They crush the first game, then each player sideboards, you assume the opponent has a much better sideboard than the game one deck. Does the original deck basically just hope to win a coin flip on one of the next two or do they usually have a robust enough sideboard to be able to hold their own against other decks that they might be up against?
Uhh, I think a few of you missed the entire point of the ban. It was banned in Bo1 because it takes forever to resolve in the client, and that was unfun to deal with.
It was left in for traditional because it's less likely to be an issue in traditional since you'll be able to board against it.
If it takes forever to deal with in the client, why would you not ban it in Bo3 in Arena as well?
It's not like the opponent in the first game in Bo3 can deal with it any better than Bo1, nor is it going to take any less time to resolve.
If it takes forever to deal with in the client, why would you not ban it in Bo3 in Arena as well?
It's not like the opponent in the first game in Bo3 can deal with it any better than Bo1, nor is it going to take any less time to resolve.
Because, as quoted, they want Bo3's primary objective to be authentic magic experience.
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Idk banning nexus seems reasonable. It was pretty universally unfun to play against, what more is there to say?
Control decks full of sweepers and counterspells are also arguably unfun to play against though. A deck whose win condition is a single copy of chromium can take just as long and be just as annoying as Nexus of fate.
I don't really mind since I try not to play Bo1 except in draft (and only there because of the price structure) but I wish they would have fixed the looping issue with a game timer or a clock or something instead of just a ban.
If it takes forever to deal with in the client, why would you not ban it in Bo3 in Arena as well?
It's not like the opponent in the first game in Bo3 can deal with it any better than Bo1, nor is it going to take any less time to resolve.
Because, as quoted, they want Bo3's primary objective to be authentic magic experience.
Also in Bo3 once you know you're up against nexus you can concede match 1 and go into match 2 with a gameplan, without feeling like you've "lost". This is impossible in bo1.
Idk banning nexus seems reasonable. It was pretty universally unfun to play against, what more is there to say?
Control decks full of sweepers and counterspells are also arguably unfun to play against though. A deck whose win condition is a single copy of chromium can take just as long and be just as annoying as Nexus of fate.
I don't really mind since I try not to play Bo1 except in draft (and only there because of the price structure) but I wish they would have fixed the looping issue with a game timer or a clock or something instead of just a ban.
I mean theyve nerfed counterspells historically but I think its a different problem when comparing archetypes to a specific card
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
If it takes forever to deal with in the client, why would you not ban it in Bo3 in Arena as well?
It's not like the opponent in the first game in Bo3 can deal with it any better than Bo1, nor is it going to take any less time to resolve.
Because, as quoted, they want Bo3's primary objective to be authentic magic experience.
Also in Bo3 once you know you're up against nexus you can concede match 1 and go into match 2 with a gameplan, without feeling like you've "lost". This is impossible in bo1.
I still conceded every time the second nexus hit the board tho
Uhh, I think a few of you missed the entire point of the ban. It was banned in Bo1 because it takes forever to resolve in the client, and that was unfun to deal with.
It was left in for traditional because it's less likely to be an issue in traditional since you'll be able to board against it.
The ban announcement mentioned power level in it, though as an example of something that didn't justify the ban. We're following up on that aspect, not ignoring the rest of the reasoning.
I ate an engineer
+1
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Sure, that's their solution to improving Bo1 in general. But it doesn't solve your problem, which is the existence of linear decks that don't really care what their opponent does and have polarized matchups. Combo and aggro will always have a home in their most all-in form in a Bo1 format.
This is an important point and I'm not sure how you solve for it. I think about the most degenerate game 1 decks in eternal formats (Dredge, Belcher, etc.) and the prospect of a BO1 format full of those sounds miserable.
As an outsider to competitive magic, how does a "game 1 deck" win? They crush the first game, then each player sideboards, you assume the opponent has a much better sideboard than the game one deck. Does the original deck basically just hope to win a coin flip on one of the next two or do they usually have a robust enough sideboard to be able to hold their own against other decks that they might be up against?
Basically this. There are a few reasons for this, but one of them is that the combo decks also have to run combo-hate cards in their sideboard, so the fair decks by definition have more slots to devote to hate cards than the combo decks do to anti-hate cards. There's also the fact that combo decks, by definition, require you to draw a certain combination of cards to go off. Legacy and Modern being high-powered formats means they can basically fill every slot with the card draw, tutor, or mana effects they need to make that as consistent as possible, but every one of those cards you replace with an anti-hate card makes the deck less consistent. Meanwhile the fair decks in those formats often only need to resolve one card to kill you in a few turns.
Idk banning nexus seems reasonable. It was pretty universally unfun to play against, what more is there to say?
Control decks full of sweepers and counterspells are also arguably unfun to play against though. A deck whose win condition is a single copy of chromium can take just as long and be just as annoying as Nexus of fate.
I don't really mind since I try not to play Bo1 except in draft (and only there because of the price structure) but I wish they would have fixed the looping issue with a game timer or a clock or something instead of just a ban.
(gosh maybe we should ban those too...)
Nah, I'd prefer if there were viable archetypes besides midrange soup, which is the end result of "ban Nexus/combo, ban aggro, ban control."
I ate an engineer
+2
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Now what do I do with all these extra Mythic WCs?
(The answer is nothing because anything I crafted with them would need a comparable # of rares and lol I don't have those.)
In Bo1 simic nexus is favored against everything but mono-u and mono-r.
So then do you also want to ban mono-u and mono-r? Like, a deck being good against a lot of other decks just means it's a good deck, every deck wants to be good against a lot of other decks. That is, in fact, the bare prerequisite for a deck to be good.
I'm essentially 100% sure they're tracking win rates on mtga. And in fact, if I learned they were not, it's highly likely I would just not believe whatever source told me that.
They banned Nexus in bo1 for user experience reasons, and they left it in bo3 for authenticity reasons. That seems reasonable to me.
Wait, decks want to be good? Gosh, thanks for explaining that to me.
I think with the nexus ban in Bo1, midrange and aggressive creature strategies will do a better job of punishing those decks so no. I do not think the UI issue is why nexus was unhealthy for the meta and if they are tracking the strength of decks in Bo1 they should use that data when justifying a Bo1 ban not Bo3 tournament results.
Bo3 tournament results have nothing to do with Bo1 ladder.
Also, this ban will be good for control on ladder too. Since the decks that prey on nexus are good against control and control loses an unfavored match up. Big winners are going to be esper control and all midrange strategies. Big losers will be RDW.
Your argument was literally that nexus was too powerful because the nexus deck was favored against a large swathe of deck archetypes, but not favored against a couple other ones. That is not a very good argument, because it sounds to me like the definition of "a pretty good deck" not "a totally overpowered one"
You don't think being favored against the majority of decks is a good argument for there being a balance problem? That isn't the full picture though, because the matches were mostly either heavily unfavored or heavily favored which isn't a fun place to be. You don't want the game to feel inevitable after the first land is played.
Given the popularity of mono red and mono blue, and given that the matchup as you said was heavily unfavored, no I don't think that's a balance issue.
We'd have a balance issue if it was heavily favored against all but a couple decks, and against those decks it was only slightly unfavored. Or, if it was heavily favored against all but a couple decks, which it was heavily unfavored against but which were very uncommon.
Not wanting the game to feel inevitable after the first land is, ironically, more of an "unfun" reason to ban and less of an "overpowered" reason.
I mean, a card that creates extremely polarizing match ups is both an issue of fun and balance especially when the good match ups far outnumber the bad ones. It's also why RDW is so prevalent, because every other thing but mono-u in the meta is built to beat RDW.
The solution here is "don't push Bo1 as a competitive format", then. Unless your solution is multiple bans to prevent all-in aggro and combat decks from ever being good, there's no way to prevent the emergance of strong decks that don't care about their opponent versus decks teched very narrowly against those decks in a format with no sideboarding.
i mean, Bo1 is the format I play... and i'm pretty sure i'm not the only one who doesn't always have time for a Bo3 match. I don't think it's fair to say "Nexus makes Bo1 games frustrating, therefore the proper thing to do is get rid of Bo1". This is not about the deck being too strong, it's about the implementation not working in MTGA. The deck gets a number wins because people would rather concede than play it out.
In Bo1 simic nexus is favored against everything but mono-u and mono-r.
So then do you also want to ban mono-u and mono-r? Like, a deck being good against a lot of other decks just means it's a good deck, every deck wants to be good against a lot of other decks. That is, in fact, the bare prerequisite for a deck to be good.
I'm essentially 100% sure they're tracking win rates on mtga. And in fact, if I learned they were not, it's highly likely I would just not believe whatever source told me that.
They banned Nexus in bo1 for user experience reasons, and they left it in bo3 for authenticity reasons. That seems reasonable to me.
Wait, decks want to be good? Gosh, thanks for explaining that to me.
I think with the nexus ban in Bo1, midrange and aggressive creature strategies will do a better job of punishing those decks so no. I do not think the UI issue is why nexus was unhealthy for the meta and if they are tracking the strength of decks in Bo1 they should use that data when justifying a Bo1 ban not Bo3 tournament results.
Bo3 tournament results have nothing to do with Bo1 ladder.
Also, this ban will be good for control on ladder too. Since the decks that prey on nexus are good against control and control loses an unfavored match up. Big winners are going to be esper control and all midrange strategies. Big losers will be RDW.
Your argument was literally that nexus was too powerful because the nexus deck was favored against a large swathe of deck archetypes, but not favored against a couple other ones. That is not a very good argument, because it sounds to me like the definition of "a pretty good deck" not "a totally overpowered one"
You don't think being favored against the majority of decks is a good argument for there being a balance problem? That isn't the full picture though, because the matches were mostly either heavily unfavored or heavily favored which isn't a fun place to be. You don't want the game to feel inevitable after the first land is played.
Given the popularity of mono red and mono blue, and given that the matchup as you said was heavily unfavored, no I don't think that's a balance issue.
We'd have a balance issue if it was heavily favored against all but a couple decks, and against those decks it was only slightly unfavored. Or, if it was heavily favored against all but a couple decks, which it was heavily unfavored against but which were very uncommon.
Not wanting the game to feel inevitable after the first land is, ironically, more of an "unfun" reason to ban and less of an "overpowered" reason.
I mean, a card that creates extremely polarizing match ups is both an issue of fun and balance especially when the good match ups far outnumber the bad ones. It's also why RDW is so prevalent, because every other thing but mono-u in the meta is built to beat RDW.
The solution here is "don't push Bo1 as a competitive format", then. Unless your solution is multiple bans to prevent all-in aggro and combat decks from ever being good, there's no way to prevent the emergance of strong decks that don't care about their opponent versus decks teched very narrowly against those decks in a format with no sideboarding.
i mean, Bo1 is the format I play... and i'm pretty sure i'm not the only one who doesn't always have time for a Bo3 match. I don't think it's fair to say "Nexus makes Bo1 games frustrating, therefore the proper thing to do is get rid of Bo1". This is not about the deck being too strong, it's about the implementation not working in MTGA. The deck gets a number wins because people would rather concede than play it out.
They made the right choice imo.
This is in no way a reply to my post, which made no commentary about the banning of Nexus. The general sentiment I was replying to was disliking decks that led to polarizing matchups (and specifically RDW), which is exactly what Bo1 deckbuilding creates
Sure, that's their solution to improving Bo1 in general. But it doesn't solve your problem, which is the existence of linear decks that don't really care what their opponent does and have polarized matchups. Combo and aggro will always have a home in their most all-in form in a Bo1 format.
This is an important point and I'm not sure how you solve for it. I think about the most degenerate game 1 decks in eternal formats (Dredge, Belcher, etc.) and the prospect of a BO1 format full of those sounds miserable.
As an outsider to competitive magic, how does a "game 1 deck" win? They crush the first game, then each player sideboards, you assume the opponent has a much better sideboard than the game one deck. Does the original deck basically just hope to win a coin flip on one of the next two or do they usually have a robust enough sideboard to be able to hold their own against other decks that they might be up against?
Basically this. There are a few reasons for this, but one of them is that the combo decks also have to run combo-hate cards in their sideboard, so the fair decks by definition have more slots to devote to hate cards than the combo decks do to anti-hate cards. There's also the fact that combo decks, by definition, require you to draw a certain combination of cards to go off. Legacy and Modern being high-powered formats means they can basically fill every slot with the card draw, tutor, or mana effects they need to make that as consistent as possible, but every one of those cards you replace with an anti-hate card makes the deck less consistent. Meanwhile the fair decks in those formats often only need to resolve one card to kill you in a few turns.
This is thrown around as an unsolvable problem for MTGA Bo1 but...
After this ban I think the meta will be pretty healthy and other games have also solved this problem. Yes, it means that MTG cannot have archetypes that are only balanced when hate cards and sideboards are involved.
When they stated that nexus wasn't as much of a problem in Bo3 because of sideboards, they indirectly confirmed that's why nexus just got banned. All the issues of client resolution are still the case in Bo3.
How will they solve linear combo decks in Bo1? Banning cards. See nexus of fate.
My only issue with the ban is that they dance around this in the B&R announcement instead of explicitly stating it.
If they start banning out multiple cards to make linear decks (which includes aggro) less powerful, that's a pretty huge problem. They can't design the game around Bo3 and just ban multiple cards per season in Bo1 to try to keep things where they want them.
Also, what games have actually "solved" Bo1 play in a competitive setting? Hearthstone is a trash fire where every expansion either makes the game worse or literally has zero impact on the meta and Eternal just made threats super fat and answers mostly suck.
If they start banning out multiple cards to make linear decks (which includes aggro) less powerful, that's a pretty huge problem. They can't design the game around Bo3 and just ban multiple cards per season in Bo1 to try to keep things where they want them.
Also, what games have actually "solved" Bo1 play in a competitive setting? Hearthstone is a trash fire where every expansion either makes the game worse or literally has zero impact on the meta and Eternal just made threats super fat and answers mostly suck.
Ideally they avoid the slippery slope and are very sparing with their bans and/or restrictions.
If they start banning out multiple cards to make linear decks (which includes aggro) less powerful, that's a pretty huge problem. They can't design the game around Bo3 and just ban multiple cards per season in Bo1 to try to keep things where they want them.
Also, what games have actually "solved" Bo1 play in a competitive setting? Hearthstone is a trash fire where every expansion either makes the game worse or literally has zero impact on the meta and Eternal just made threats super fat and answers mostly suck.
Ideally they avoid the slippery slope and are very sparing with their bans and/or restrictions.
Ideally, yes, but furbat's suggestion and criticism of RDW in Bo1 points to their desire for Wizards to ban very aggressively.
Idk banning nexus seems reasonable. It was pretty universally unfun to play against, what more is there to say?
Control decks full of sweepers and counterspells are also arguably unfun to play against though. A deck whose win condition is a single copy of chromium can take just as long and be just as annoying as Nexus of fate.
I don't really mind since I try not to play Bo1 except in draft (and only there because of the price structure) but I wish they would have fixed the looping issue with a game timer or a clock or something instead of just a ban.
Aggro decks that kill you on turn five even when you have removal and blockers are pretty unfun to play against.
Basically, the goal of the Magic meta is not for all players to always have fun.
Yeah but then it's done. It doesn't hold you hostage for an hour to finish the game.
In non-nexus news I played several paper magic games with kiddos using the Magic Game Night decks and PW decks.
It was fun. It's a great set of precons that meme a bit yet are a touch stronger than the PW decks thanks to a few unique cards and some non-standard cards that complete the meme.
+2
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Since we can actually do Bo3 with a coin flip, do we wanna actually try and do a tourney again?
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
0
Options
KwoaruConfident SmirkFlawless Golden PecsRegistered Userregular
It seems like a pretty even handed ban?
Treating Bo1 as a different format from Bo3 isn't too crazy and the concern is that Nexus is having an outsized negative impact on the Bo1 format because of the limitations of the client and not because its overly strong
It isnt degenerate in Bo3 so it isn't banned there
If they start banning out multiple cards to make linear decks (which includes aggro) less powerful, that's a pretty huge problem. They can't design the game around Bo3 and just ban multiple cards per season in Bo1 to try to keep things where they want them.
Also, what games have actually "solved" Bo1 play in a competitive setting? Hearthstone is a trash fire where every expansion either makes the game worse or literally has zero impact on the meta and Eternal just made threats super fat and answers mostly suck.
Ideally they avoid the slippery slope and are very sparing with their bans and/or restrictions.
Ideally, yes, but furbat's suggestion and criticism of RDW in Bo1 points to their desire for Wizards to ban very aggressively.
Wasn't RDW an issue in Bo3 last standard? And many of the pros are calling for nexus to be banned in Bo3 too. Let's not pretend that Bo3 is immune to the same linear strategies.
I think the meta will be healthy post ban, but if not ban more cards. Admittedly, I haven't played hearthstone in almost a year but they did a fair job of balancing the meta in Bo1. As fair a job as MTG does of Bo3.
Balance in Bo1 isn't that far off, if they make it a priority it will happen. The idea that it can't is just hogwash. I think everything on the ladder right now save nexus decks and mono U has a positive win rate vs RDW. The problem with RDW has more to do with it making up a stupid amount of the meta and that being annoying.
furbat on
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Sure, that's their solution to improving Bo1 in general. But it doesn't solve your problem, which is the existence of linear decks that don't really care what their opponent does and have polarized matchups. Combo and aggro will always have a home in their most all-in form in a Bo1 format.
This is an important point and I'm not sure how you solve for it. I think about the most degenerate game 1 decks in eternal formats (Dredge, Belcher, etc.) and the prospect of a BO1 format full of those sounds miserable.
As an outsider to competitive magic, how does a "game 1 deck" win? They crush the first game, then each player sideboards, you assume the opponent has a much better sideboard than the game one deck. Does the original deck basically just hope to win a coin flip on one of the next two or do they usually have a robust enough sideboard to be able to hold their own against other decks that they might be up against?
Basically this. There are a few reasons for this, but one of them is that the combo decks also have to run combo-hate cards in their sideboard, so the fair decks by definition have more slots to devote to hate cards than the combo decks do to anti-hate cards. There's also the fact that combo decks, by definition, require you to draw a certain combination of cards to go off. Legacy and Modern being high-powered formats means they can basically fill every slot with the card draw, tutor, or mana effects they need to make that as consistent as possible, but every one of those cards you replace with an anti-hate card makes the deck less consistent. Meanwhile the fair decks in those formats often only need to resolve one card to kill you in a few turns.
This is thrown around as an unsolvable problem for MTGA Bo1 but...
After this ban I think the meta will be pretty healthy and other games have also solved this problem.
I don't think any of your points are wrong, per say, but Magic is better than all those games. Bo3 Magic (when the formats are good) is still the best CCG experience you can have*.
Idk banning nexus seems reasonable. It was pretty universally unfun to play against, what more is there to say?
Control decks full of sweepers and counterspells are also arguably unfun to play against though. A deck whose win condition is a single copy of chromium can take just as long and be just as annoying as Nexus of fate.
I don't really mind since I try not to play Bo1 except in draft (and only there because of the price structure) but I wish they would have fixed the looping issue with a game timer or a clock or something instead of just a ban.
Aggro decks that kill you on turn five even when you have removal and blockers are pretty unfun to play against.
Basically, the goal of the Magic meta is not for all players to always have fun.
Yeah but then it's done. It doesn't hold you hostage for an hour to finish the game.
I would agree with this if the concede button didn't exist.
Tournament Hearthstone is pretty different from bo1 ladder Hearthstone. Its mostly a format called Conquest. You bring a deck for 3-5 classes, each ban a deck from your opponents lineup, and the winning deck of each game is out for the rest of the match. Historically its much more favorable for slow decks than ladder is.
Sideboard bo3 is still a better format than conquest or 'dual standard' bo1.
I suck enough conceding to a nexus deck without a wincon is too much. Most nexus decks have a wincon but the fact someone could decide to stall perpetually was a problem unique to nexus.
If they start banning out multiple cards to make linear decks (which includes aggro) less powerful, that's a pretty huge problem. They can't design the game around Bo3 and just ban multiple cards per season in Bo1 to try to keep things where they want them.
Also, what games have actually "solved" Bo1 play in a competitive setting? Hearthstone is a trash fire where every expansion either makes the game worse or literally has zero impact on the meta and Eternal just made threats super fat and answers mostly suck.
Ideally they avoid the slippery slope and are very sparing with their bans and/or restrictions.
Ideally, yes, but furbat's suggestion and criticism of RDW in Bo1 points to their desire for Wizards to ban very aggressively.
Wasn't RDW an issue in Bo3 last standard? And many of the pros are calling for nexus to be banned in Bo3 too. Let's not pretend that Bo3 is immune to the same linear strategies.
I think the meta will be healthy post ban, but if not ban more cards. Admittedly, I haven't played hearthstone in almost a year but they did a fair job of balancing the meta in Bo1. As fair a job as MTG does of Bo3.
Balance in Bo1 isn't that far off, if they make it a priority it will happen. The idea that it can't is just hogwash. I think everything on the ladder right now save nexus decks and mono U has a positive win rate vs RDW. The problem with RDW has more to do with it making up a stupid amount of the meta and that being annoying.
The calls for Nexus bans in Bo3 were absolutely not on a power level/no linear strategies basis like you're calls for future bans are, so it's pretty dishonest to cote them as if they support you. And pre-rotation RDW was strong, but it was also naturally tuning itself to be more and more midrange to stay competitive: heavier reliance on Chainwhirlers, Phoenixes, Pia Nalaar, Unlicensed Disintegration, and lighter on hasty beats. In Bo1 on Arena it remained much more focused on speed, from my own personal recollection.
Hearthstone's balance is a goddamn joke compared to pretty much anything but the worst parts of Magic, and they're chained to pretty horrific design decisions like an unrotating core set and literally having to design every card around whether its mana cost is odd or even.
Anyway, my point was that your expressed desires paint a picture of Magic very aggressively banning to weaken RDW (which you've complained about), Nexus style infinites (which you've complained about), and combo in general (which you've complained about), with some pretty spiteful suggestions like not giving wildcards for Nexus that imply you personally hate people playing those decks. I think that future sounds very grim indeed.
Posts
Deputy of Detention hits reclamation unless they're simic, hits Teferi, and provides redundant ways to clear out Azcanta, while they run like 1-3x maindeck answers in Blink of an Eye.
For some reason I was convinced deputy was Creature, not nonland permanent
Yes in that case absolutely I can see it being quite favorable
Control decks full of sweepers and counterspells are also arguably unfun to play against though. A deck whose win condition is a single copy of chromium can take just as long and be just as annoying as Nexus of fate.
I don't really mind since I try not to play Bo1 except in draft (and only there because of the price structure) but I wish they would have fixed the looping issue with a game timer or a clock or something instead of just a ban.
They have already stated their solution. They are going to design cards with Bo1 in mind, push a competitive Bo1 format, and maintain a Bo1 ban list.
Nexus is the first card to hit the chopping block.
It really isn't the same thing though. A 60/40 match up feels a lot better than a 90/10.
The unfun argument is important, but I don't think it really does the discussion justice. Nexus was more than unfun.
Aggro decks that kill you on turn five even when you have removal and blockers are pretty unfun to play against.
Basically, the goal of the Magic meta is not for all players to always have fun.
I don't think Nexus of fate is rocking a 90/10 win rate against much.
While this is true, since it's never fun to lose, there are certainly ways where you lose that feel way worse and sap your desire to continue playing.
Sure, that's their solution to improving Bo1 in general. But it doesn't solve your problem, which is the existence of linear decks that don't really care what their opponent does and have polarized matchups. Combo and aggro will always have a home in their most all-in form in a Bo1 format.
This is an important point and I'm not sure how you solve for it. I think about the most degenerate game 1 decks in eternal formats (Dredge, Belcher, etc.) and the prospect of a BO1 format full of those sounds miserable.
Path of Exile: snowcrash7
MTG Arena: Snow_Crash#34179
Battle.net: Snowcrash#1873
As an outsider to competitive magic, how does a "game 1 deck" win? They crush the first game, then each player sideboards, you assume the opponent has a much better sideboard than the game one deck. Does the original deck basically just hope to win a coin flip on one of the next two or do they usually have a robust enough sideboard to be able to hold their own against other decks that they might be up against?
It was left in for traditional because it's less likely to be an issue in traditional since you'll be able to board against it.
Steam ID: Obos Vent: Obos
It's not like the opponent in the first game in Bo3 can deal with it any better than Bo1, nor is it going to take any less time to resolve.
Because, as quoted, they want Bo3's primary objective to be authentic magic experience.
(gosh maybe we should ban those too...)
Also in Bo3 once you know you're up against nexus you can concede match 1 and go into match 2 with a gameplan, without feeling like you've "lost". This is impossible in bo1.
Steam ID: Obos Vent: Obos
I mean theyve nerfed counterspells historically but I think its a different problem when comparing archetypes to a specific card
I still conceded every time the second nexus hit the board tho
The ban announcement mentioned power level in it, though as an example of something that didn't justify the ban. We're following up on that aspect, not ignoring the rest of the reasoning.
Basically this. There are a few reasons for this, but one of them is that the combo decks also have to run combo-hate cards in their sideboard, so the fair decks by definition have more slots to devote to hate cards than the combo decks do to anti-hate cards. There's also the fact that combo decks, by definition, require you to draw a certain combination of cards to go off. Legacy and Modern being high-powered formats means they can basically fill every slot with the card draw, tutor, or mana effects they need to make that as consistent as possible, but every one of those cards you replace with an anti-hate card makes the deck less consistent. Meanwhile the fair decks in those formats often only need to resolve one card to kill you in a few turns.
Nah, I'd prefer if there were viable archetypes besides midrange soup, which is the end result of "ban Nexus/combo, ban aggro, ban control."
(The answer is nothing because anything I crafted with them would need a comparable # of rares and lol I don't have those.)
i mean, Bo1 is the format I play... and i'm pretty sure i'm not the only one who doesn't always have time for a Bo3 match. I don't think it's fair to say "Nexus makes Bo1 games frustrating, therefore the proper thing to do is get rid of Bo1". This is not about the deck being too strong, it's about the implementation not working in MTGA. The deck gets a number wins because people would rather concede than play it out.
They made the right choice imo.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
This is in no way a reply to my post, which made no commentary about the banning of Nexus. The general sentiment I was replying to was disliking decks that led to polarizing matchups (and specifically RDW), which is exactly what Bo1 deckbuilding creates
This is thrown around as an unsolvable problem for MTGA Bo1 but...
After this ban I think the meta will be pretty healthy and other games have also solved this problem. Yes, it means that MTG cannot have archetypes that are only balanced when hate cards and sideboards are involved.
When they stated that nexus wasn't as much of a problem in Bo3 because of sideboards, they indirectly confirmed that's why nexus just got banned. All the issues of client resolution are still the case in Bo3.
How will they solve linear combo decks in Bo1? Banning cards. See nexus of fate.
My only issue with the ban is that they dance around this in the B&R announcement instead of explicitly stating it.
Also, what games have actually "solved" Bo1 play in a competitive setting? Hearthstone is a trash fire where every expansion either makes the game worse or literally has zero impact on the meta and Eternal just made threats super fat and answers mostly suck.
Ideally they avoid the slippery slope and are very sparing with their bans and/or restrictions.
Ideally, yes, but furbat's suggestion and criticism of RDW in Bo1 points to their desire for Wizards to ban very aggressively.
Yeah but then it's done. It doesn't hold you hostage for an hour to finish the game.
It was fun. It's a great set of precons that meme a bit yet are a touch stronger than the PW decks thanks to a few unique cards and some non-standard cards that complete the meme.
Treating Bo1 as a different format from Bo3 isn't too crazy and the concern is that Nexus is having an outsized negative impact on the Bo1 format because of the limitations of the client and not because its overly strong
It isnt degenerate in Bo3 so it isn't banned there
Wasn't RDW an issue in Bo3 last standard? And many of the pros are calling for nexus to be banned in Bo3 too. Let's not pretend that Bo3 is immune to the same linear strategies.
I think the meta will be healthy post ban, but if not ban more cards. Admittedly, I haven't played hearthstone in almost a year but they did a fair job of balancing the meta in Bo1. As fair a job as MTG does of Bo3.
Balance in Bo1 isn't that far off, if they make it a priority it will happen. The idea that it can't is just hogwash. I think everything on the ladder right now save nexus decks and mono U has a positive win rate vs RDW. The problem with RDW has more to do with it making up a stupid amount of the meta and that being annoying.
I don't think any of your points are wrong, per say, but Magic is better than all those games. Bo3 Magic (when the formats are good) is still the best CCG experience you can have*.
*at some point I would've said Netrunner but
I would agree with this if the concede button didn't exist.
Sideboard bo3 is still a better format than conquest or 'dual standard' bo1.
The calls for Nexus bans in Bo3 were absolutely not on a power level/no linear strategies basis like you're calls for future bans are, so it's pretty dishonest to cote them as if they support you. And pre-rotation RDW was strong, but it was also naturally tuning itself to be more and more midrange to stay competitive: heavier reliance on Chainwhirlers, Phoenixes, Pia Nalaar, Unlicensed Disintegration, and lighter on hasty beats. In Bo1 on Arena it remained much more focused on speed, from my own personal recollection.
Hearthstone's balance is a goddamn joke compared to pretty much anything but the worst parts of Magic, and they're chained to pretty horrific design decisions like an unrotating core set and literally having to design every card around whether its mana cost is odd or even.
Anyway, my point was that your expressed desires paint a picture of Magic very aggressively banning to weaken RDW (which you've complained about), Nexus style infinites (which you've complained about), and combo in general (which you've complained about), with some pretty spiteful suggestions like not giving wildcards for Nexus that imply you personally hate people playing those decks. I think that future sounds very grim indeed.