|
13 months ago ::
Jun 20, 2012 - 4:47PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2012
|
I've quit standard again (I've only done it in response to Jace) until delver drops down to under 30-40% of the meta. I'm done for now, not buying any m13 and I won't spend a dime on standard. I know several players doing the same and chances are this will not be a localized occurence. 90% of the people I hear say "delver isn't a problem" are all playing delver so the arguments seem moot.
Auto-pilot: If I hear one more delver player try to explain to me about how since they have 3 1 drops they can't decide which to play first, hence making the deck not auto-pilot I will tear their face off and eat it. You want to think? Play legacy or anything other than delver. Whenever I see a delver player play I see them just sit and contemplate for like 10 minutes on which land they drop first, when all their one drops cost U, its laughable when anyone tries to explain an auto-pilot aggro deck like its a game of Shougi. Its also funny when you hear people explain the "best" delver players. I have actially heard this: "he showed his true delver skills by flipping it on turn 2"... that is not skill, but nice try.
Enjoy the meta spikes, the prize pool is about to dwindle as more and more players sit at home. and BTW, DCI YOU DONE MESSED UP.
Raven
If anyone tells you that is the reason for delver not being auto-pilot they are being ridiculous.
If you are getting so upset about delver it usually means that you don't know how to play against it. I have played delver and i have played pod and solar flare, esper etc. None of them are truely difficult to play and all of them have a good matchup against delver. If you hate delver so much just play something that beats it instead of whining about it.
As far as the deck being auto-pilot, I would suggest you play it; when you lose with it(and you will), don't try and blame it on bad luck, just admit that it takes some skill to know when to cast each of your spells. Know that just because it might be a good time to cast it doesn't mean that it is the optimal time.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 20, 2012 - 7:07PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2011
|
The people saying Delver is an auto-pilot deck clearly have no idea what they're talking about, and it prevents anything they say in their post from being taken seriously.
Delver is like a World of Warcraft: Burning Crusade Hunter in PVP... an experienced person who plays to the fullest will do very well, but in the hands of an amateur you will get crushed as often as not. Others have said it already: its not so much about what spell to play, but when to play them. There is a very high skill curve on this deck, and it shows in player performance. I've been playing Delver since the Illusion days, and it is one of the more skill-intensive decks I've used. When I am on my A-game, I am very hard to beat. Likewise, when I'm not on my A-game, the skilled players at my local shop trample me. You cannot just "dial it in" with Delver and expect to do well.
Also, sideboarding with Delver can be pretty challenging, and is another skill-intensive area of the deck. With such a flexible sideboard, you have access to many different answers. Picking the correct ones for your meta, and understanding what to board out is an art. It can be tough since Delver relies so much on its cantrips... just how many can you board out before you start to get mana screwed? Again, not easy or simple decisions, and anyone saying otherwise is either deluding themself, or is a pro who can't remember what it was like to be a less experienced player.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 20, 2012 - 9:47PM
#53
|
|
|
But you can't just act like the tempo involved in properly executing a Delver deck is some kind of secret. The truth is, any deck played properly is dangerous, especially with the proper draw. Just as any amatuer can make a decent Delver decklist look like garbage, the same can be said for a Solar Flare or Naya Pod list, hell even a RDW list. You can't back up the strength of a decklist based on its playerbase. If all the pros were playing Zombies right now, they would still be hitting top 8's and people would be raving about how strong Zombies are (and subsequently calling for bans of Gravecrawler  or something). The fact of the matter is, that so many Magic players are brainless and unoriginal. When they see a deck catching on the pro circuit (like Delver variants have) they all start to play them. I refuse to believe Delver is such a dominating force, however; at least not in comparison to things we've seen before (such as CAWBLADE). It's a good deck, with many variants, but I wouldn't be worried about it unless the Pros themselves started crying foul that the archetype was too strong. Which, it isn't. It's beatable, very much so. Wizards recognized this and therefore refused to ban anything. I hope this trend continues, because maybe it will make better deckbuilders out of everyone, instead of just Google-searching the latest Top 8 lists, buying decks, and crying when they lose at FNM. Meanwhile I'll be having fun with my own original builds that treat Delver like a red-headed step child.
Residual energetic and psychic emenations from the spark of planewalkers going in and out of the blind eternities like it was a windmill eventually coalesced into beings named eldrazi who by their very nature could not consume mundane sources of nourishment to sustain their existence.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 20, 2012 - 11:48PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Feb 28, 2008
|
But you can't just act like the tempo involved in properly executing a Delver deck is some kind of secret. The truth is, any deck played properly is dangerous, especially with the proper draw. Just as any amatuer can make a decent Delver decklist look like garbage, the same can be said for a Solar Flare or Naya Pod list, hell even a RDW list.
True, but there are definitely a lot of decks out there that are far easier to play. Humans, for example. With Humans, any idiot can slap down creatures as they draw them and turn them sideways for a win. I know this, because I played humans pretty extensively during the time while I was trading for the cards to turn my Mono-U Illusions deck into a UW Delver deck.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 21, 2012 - 2:45AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Oct 13, 2004
|
News about the unbanning: Updated: The Effective Date for this change has been modified to be Friday, June 29, 2012. The new Legacy banned list will be effective for Grand Prix Atlanta.
There are 3 kinds of people in the world: Those who know math and those who don’t.
There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 21, 2012 - 7:53AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Jul 16, 2007
|
Should the DCI ban cards just because people like playing a certain deck? Isn't an aim of r&d to make cards that people will want to play?
A. people who play delver
B. people who don't play delver and don't like playing against it
C. people who don't play delver but don't mind playing against it
(I didn't break up A into two categories because no matter what deck you play, you have to accept that you will get a mirror match. If you hate mirrors, don't play the most popular deck.)
If A is greater than B, then the DCI pleases more people by not banning cards than by banning them. If B is greater than A, then Delver is less than half the meta (even if C is a tiny fraction of players) so on average you get to play against non Delver decks more often than not, so what's the problem?
In reality C is not a tiny fraction anyway (else how do you explain the high attendance). By banning cards you not only upset A, you might also upset C who think the bannings violate player trust in general, or who liked playing against delver because they'd customised their deck to beat it, or because a new force becomes even more dominant in the meta now that delver doesn't exist (unlikely but possible).
If you want to quit Standard until rotation, that is up to you. The DCI can't please everyone all of the time.
It becomes a situation of hate the players don't hate the game. Of course if you play in PTQs you are going to play against Spike-like players and many of them inexplicably favor blue. R&d is doing a lot to tone down the belief that blue is the smart color and that you're dumb for playing anything else, but it takes a few years for attitudes to change. (Note, I don't know if this is true or if that attitude even exists it's just random thoughts on my part).
It's not because players are uncreative or unoriginal, either. Who gets into Magic without ever making their own decks? At different times Standard has had more or less net decking. There have been times where decks have been clearly underpowered for the meta or at least un-tested and still played in great numbers. Standard players, no matter how much they say they want to win, are still very motivated by what kind of decks they like playing - and why not? If you have to play the same deck 20 times in every tournament for three months of course you want to choose one that's fun to play. So don't look down at people for netdecking - they only netdeck because they like the play style of the deck.
About Modern, it's still a young format. It's still diverse and changing, there is no need to have unbannings. The purpose of unbannings is to make the format fresh, not to treat the cards fairly (they don't have feelings).
About Legacy... LAND TAX well this is gonna be interesting. Looks like the forum for discussing how interesting it might be has been overshadowed by the Standard-lack-of-a-banning.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 21, 2012 - 8:06AM
#57
|
|
|
The big problem is that the metric used to judge was totally wront.
you cannot judge a deck from the "MTGO standard" win percentage, simply because many bad players playing delver will decrease the winning percentage.
And in MTGO there are a lot of bad delver players.
they should check which percentage of pro play delver or which percentage of Top 8 or Top 16 in large tournaments play delver and their winning percentage. It might not be super high, but that is the statistic they should check.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 21, 2012 - 8:41AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2004
|
The big problem is that the metric used to judge was totally wront.
you cannot judge a deck from the "MTGO standard" win percentage, simply because many bad players playing delver will decrease the winning percentage.
And in MTGO there are a lot of bad delver players.
they should check which percentage of pro play delver or which percentage of Top 8 or Top 16 in large tournaments play delver and their winning percentage. It might not be super high, but that is the statistic they should check.
It's you the one that's completely wrong.
The fact that the bad players supposedly decrease the win percentage is the whole point of the result and the (non)banning decision.
The test you present would not rate the win percentage of the Delver deck, but the win % of the combination of good player + Delver deck. That's survivorship bias. To see if the deck itself has a incredible win % you need to eliminate the player factor, and to do that you need to have a big enough random sample of all kinds of players (or just use all the player population). That is exactly what they did by (supposedly) not excluding any players.
It is irrelevant what happens when a good player plays Delver, because good players are not the whole player population. In fact, by saying that "in MTGO there are a lot of bad players" you admit that. What matters is what happens when the current magic population plays with Delver, and what happens is that it doesn't have a crushing win % at all. If the population were mostly pro players, then you could have different results (which you also point at), but that is not our world.
The most you could do to preserve the results is doing the win % of good Delver players vs. other good players, eliminating bad players completely. But again, that's still not representative unless good players are a huge percentage of the total population. Assuming that WoTC operates to the mayority, which I assume because one of their stated goals is "keep the mayority of players happy with the game".
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 21, 2012 - 8:49AM
#59
|
|
|
Suppose a deck is played by 100% of the magic players.
What would its winning percentage be? To the extreme case, that is why that metric is not the correct one.
You have to adjust for the player skills when making comparison among decks: banning happens when a deck is superior to another, not when a deck let bad players win against a better player.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 21, 2012 - 8:54AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
Seriously dissappinted by the lack of modern unbannings. Neither jace nor valakut would be format warping, and give us back either ponder or preordain not both.
i agree with this. i am curious as to how jace would do in modern, as he might make control actually viable. as for valakut, i think scapeshift will be a problem, but i think banning the more narrow card (scapeshift) is better.
Are you implying control isn't Viable in modern?
|
|
|
