Health of the Standard Meta Post Metamorphosis
Standard forum
Posted on Aug. 26, 2014, 6:20 p.m. by Gidgetimer
For those who don't know here us what "The Metamorphosis" is referring to.
The stickied thread here has digressed into trying to find ulterior motivation for the change and discussion of the effect on card prices.
What I would like to discuss is what effects the change will have on the standard meta. I believe that we can all agree that the standard meta is not healthy. Of the 444 decks on MTGTop8.com representing the standard meta over the last 2 months 70% are aggro, 29% are control, and 0% are combo. Add this to the fact that the most represented deck accounts for 98 (22.1%) of those decks are the same deck archetype and you have a sick format.
As a point of comparison there are 939 decks that compose the modern meta over the last 2 months. They break down to 45% aggro, 24% control, and 32% combo. The most represented deck archetype here also has 98 copies, but because of the larger pool it is only 10.4%.
With all of the facts and figures out of the way I would like to start a discussion of what effect the Metamorphosis will have on the standard meta, please direct all other discussion to the thread in the second paragraph.
I feel that with going to a three two-set block Standard we will see a healthier meta. The card pool will be getting shallower since we will have one large set and a small set less cards in Standard. However I feel that Wizards will have the freedom to make the pool broader. They will not have to stay true to only 2 planes plus 2 sets that purposely lack complexity. They will be able to have more different styles of mechanics leading to more different styles of strong decks.And therefore to a healthier meta where a single deck is less dominant because it is difficult to deal with multiple varied decks.
So what do you guys think will be the result of this change on the meta?
Gidgetimer says... #3
I'm confused as to your opinion on the health of the current meta.
One of the three elements of the rock, paper, scissors, of Magic is almost totally missing (that 0% combo is a single Reanimator deck out of the 444) and as such the deck type it counters accounts for 70% of the meta. I feel that this is an unhealthy state of being where the options are: play aggro mediocre and win; or play control well and possibly top 8
If you could offer some insight onto your thought process I would appreciate it.
August 26, 2014 6:42 p.m.
EndStepTop says... #4
I don't play standard but from what I've heard and seen at my lgs it's awful. 100% to a T what Gidgetimer said. WotC seem to have a vendetta against combo and have hated it out of modern and standard.
August 26, 2014 7:16 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #5
I don't think that WotC hates combo persay. The thing is that combo just hasn't been able to get a good base on the last 2 planes. Adding a third plane into the mix would allow for much more freedom on wizards part to support it.
Lets assume for a minute that standard consisted of Innistrad, Avacyn Restored, Return to Ravnica, Gate Crash, Theros, and Journey into Nyx. I believe that in such an environment all 3 basic deck types could co-exist and it would make for a much better tournament going experience than "Black based Devotion, WUx control or GTFO"
August 26, 2014 7:28 p.m.
EndStepTop says... #6
I mean after Eggs being a thing they 've printed A LOT of storm/GY hate for standard + modern. And in modern storm has been neutered beyond playablity. And when was a combo deck actually viable in standard? When your MUs weren't 100% luck if you hit the perfect hand, to go off T4...
August 26, 2014 7:33 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #7
Innistrad-RTR had Reanimator as 13% of its meta. I'd say that is viable :)
August 26, 2014 7:37 p.m.
MtG Top 8 is kind of stupid with its classifications. Midrange isn't the same thing as aggro, but they still list all of the midrange decks as such. For example, Modern Jund is listed as being an aggro deck, despite being the complete epitome of midrange. It plays more removal and disruption than it does creatures.
That's why it looks like 40% to 70% of the meta is aggro (depending on the format). In reality, it's more like 30% control, 20% midrange, and 50% aggro for the Standard meta. This is in line with WotC's goals regarding what they want Standard to look like.
This article explains the shift away from traditional "draw all the cards, make all the manas, deal infinite damage, exile your library" combo decks we used to play.
That being said, Standard is....well, there's no other way to put it....Standard is fucking awful right now. It's been awful for the past few years. One or two decks typically dominate the format and force everything else down to tier two. Right now, Mono-Black Devotion, U/W/x Control, and Mono-Blue Devotion are the only decks that put up consistent first place finishes.
Hopefully, this new change will open the format up and increase the number of tier one decks at any given time in Standard. I'm skeptical because if one of the blocks is underpowered, we still run into the same problems as the current Standard. The only thing this does is change which decks are tier one, not how many decks are tier one.
August 26, 2014 7:38 p.m.
EndStepTop says... #9
I forgot about Junk reanimator back then. But they seem to not only ignore combo based decks but like I said, constantly print new hate for eternal formats in standard. Be it Scooze or Spirit of the Labyrinth WotC doesn't seem to want it to hold a candle to other archetypes.
August 26, 2014 7:50 p.m.
AngryBearTony says... #10
The majority of the problem could probably be said to be one of information flow. 10 years ago, you could not find anywhere near the same information as easily as you can today. When weeks before new sets are introduced and the cards are broken down and analyzed, players already have a hint of what others are thinking works and doesn't. That's hard to compete with. Before you may have had a handful of people at your lgs who knew what was played at GP or the Pros, but now, anyone with a phone can find out, find out the exact decklist, compare prices, and buy the same cards within minutes. Granted that's not the entirety of the problem, but it does lend itself to a trend that's hard to break.
Back to the point at hand, I would hope that with the blocks cycling faster, newer (or even older) mechanics will impact standard into different combos of effectiveness, which surely WotC must be thinking about already, based off Metamorphosis. It's hard to imagine that they're satisfied with how the standard metagame stands, when it's been stagnant and dominated by so few archetypes. Of course it may take some time before any of that even penetrates the current state, given that things aren't really changing for a full year.
August 26, 2014 7:55 p.m.
In terms of aggro vs combo vs control I think we are going to see the standard meta get healthier and healthier with the way it seems the Khans tribes have been set up. We have clear control, aggro, and combo aimed wedges so all SHOULD be viable decks to play. I hope that is the case.
That said...I am a mid range man myself most of the time. Where do I fall in this mix?
August 26, 2014 7:56 p.m.
Rasta_Viking29 says... #12
Most professional writers have the opinion of the current Standard meta I shared. I merely agree with them. There are 8 different archetypes that can win any top tournament at a given time. Different decks compose the top 8 weekly at Opens and PTQs. No dominant deck, checks and balances are plenty. Black is far from invincible. Success comes from building experience and skill with a particular deck.
I can understand the otherside. I play in a city with a large Magic scene. I play against a wide variety of players at various shops. If I played only at my LGS against the same decks or casually in a playgroup I think I'd be pulling my hair out too.
August 26, 2014 8:05 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #13
If you could provide me with a few links or even just writer's names that hold that opinion I would appreciate it. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I realy am trying to understand why MBD is played at 22% if there are 7 other posibilities with equivilent chances to win and possibly a good match against what is strictly by the numbers the dominanent deck.
I don't play standard because It doesn't seem to be worth the investment because of the apparent stagnation. I am however trying to figure out if it would be worth the investment come Tears block.
August 26, 2014 8:32 p.m.
EndStepTop says... #14
capriom85 Mid range at heart is an aggro deck playing a small number of efficient threats and disrupting your opppnent with various forms of disruption, able to fall back on removal and the previously mentioned disruption to play a control role if needed in a match.
August 26, 2014 8:36 p.m.
@Gspot: Midrange isn't an aggro deck at all. It plays value creatures, unlike aggro that wants to put out creatures that just do efficient forms of damage. Midrange will typically ramp into large threats or play things that must immediately be dealt with.
You're right that it plays a lot of disruption and removal, however. The key difference is that aggro will happily play creatures like Firedrinker Satyr or Signal Pest , despite their serious drawbacks, because it lets them race their opponent to 20 damage to win the game. It will play them in large enough quantities that their drawbacks are offset. Midrange wants its bodies to win the game by themselves, like with Thragtusk or Loxodon Smiter . Then it can focus on closing out the game by protecting its threat.
August 26, 2014 9:07 p.m.
EndStepTop says... #16
Maybe in standard, in every other format midrange is playing efficient creatures. Stoneforge Goyf delver. The only ramp those decks want is a deathrite shaman. Ramping into large creatures that need to be dealt with is a control deck's thing. Like I said I don't play standard, I know my archtypes.
August 26, 2014 9:38 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #17
Please lets not fight about what the definition of certain archetypes are. It seems like WotC is now lumping them aggro->midrange->Ramp/combo->Control/disruption. I don't agree with this and it may be the reason that I think standard is in a dismal state.
I would like to see some viable combo decks and am happy to have a reason for why all formats look heavily skewed aggro when they're healthier than that. The problem remains that combo isn't represented at all though. I don't necessarily want huge turn one or 2 combos that just blow the game out. That is the realm of legacy and vintage. But I would like a way for a board to go from disadvantageous to a winning board state on turn 5-6 via a combo.
August 26, 2014 9:56 p.m.
"The card pool will be getting shallower since we will have one large set and a small set less cards in Standard."
Most of the time it's virtually the same pool of cards. Standard just had a larger range before.
At it's peak, like right now, Standard contains 2 full blocks, typically large/small/small, and 2 large core sets. When the fall set hits Standard hits its valley of 1 full block, 1 core set and 1 large set. A full size super-Standard is at 8 sets, and it low end is 5 sets.
Under the new system Standard will always be 2 full blocks, large/small, another large set and sometimes another small set. The peak is 6 sets and the valley is 5.
August 26, 2014 10:06 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #19
Large block sets and Coresets are usually about 249 cards and small block sets are around 155. This means that under current standard in a calender year the car pool goes 808, 963, 1118, 1367. This is an average of 1064 cards will be in standard at any one time. under the new system a calendar year card pool goes 808, 963, 808, 963 for an average of 885.5 cards in standard at any one time.
The card pool will loose depth. Using the problems that WotC identified with the third set (sometimes the third set is second chronologically) and Coresets being lower power than they would like. You get a "correctly" powered pool of 653, 808, 808, 808 for an average of 769.25 under current standard (and an obvious stale 9 months). Instead of the 885.5 "correctly" powered cards and a meta that shifts every 3 months. This will hopefully add breadth to the pool allowing for more different archetypes.
August 27, 2014 8:52 a.m.
Rasta_Viking29 says... #20
Gidgetimer it's all good. I was going to head over to CFB for articles as well but already spent long enough linking these from SCG.
Brian DeMars - Leverage In The Standard MetagameShaun McLaren - Keepers Sleepers And GonersBrad Nelson - Everything I Know About StandardSam Black - Keeping Up With StandardGerry Thompson - What We Learned From Pro Tour M15Adrian Sullivan - Data Mining Standard At Pro Tour Magic 2015
August 27, 2014 11:13 a.m.
ChrisHansonBiomancin says... #21
Whether the Metamorphosis results in a "healthier" Standard environment is largely a matter of opinion. However, it should at the very least make Standard more dynamic and less stale due to rotations happening every 6 months. As MaRo pointed out in the article, metagames are typically impacted more heavily by the cards that leave the format rather than new additions. The fact that the current Standard has been dominated by the same 3 decks (MUD, MBD, UWx) since Theros' release is evidence of that, as 3 new sets have failed to make a big impact.
Rasta_Viking29 says... #2
I think the current Standard meta is very healthy but stale. The changes should keep it fresh. I doubt there will be drastic differences a year and a half from now.
August 26, 2014 6:29 p.m.