For the first time that I can remember, the 1st and 2nd place decks and pilots were identical for both SPDC and MPDC, with amnaremotoas' Air Support taking the prize and AfroDwarf's BG Control as the runner up. As I've written about recently, BG Control continues to be the deck to beat in the format right now, so it's great to see another archetype consistently placing well against it. Rounding out the Top 4 of both events are two more BG Control builds, with only slight variations among them in card choice while retaining an almost identical core. The last two spots were taken by two more unusual choices: the first, a BW Allies deck by a player named restore in SPDC; and the second, a Gruul Thunder Ramp deck by Teclar in MPDC.
These eight decks lead to a few interesting points of data:
- Seven of the eight decks played Green (although in Air Support it's basically just a splash), giving Green an amazing resurgence of popularity in the metagame.
- Among the eight, Pulse of Murasa was the card played most often, thanks to four copies in each of the BG Madness decks plus another three in Thunder Ramp.
- With the exception of Air Support, the metagame is firmly tilted towards the Control end of the spectrum. One might make the argument that these are probably all more midrange than true control, more so for Thunder Ramp and BW Allies than the others. Air Support, on the other hand, is clearly Aggro, playing more like a White Weenie deck than anything else.
And as a closing thought, if you haven't already, check out my post earlier this week about the potential of creating new weekly Standard Pauper videos, supported through Patreon. Vote and make your voice heard. Thanks for reading.
Please reconsider calling this format 'Standard Pauper,' because it isn't truly an all-common Standard format experience. We should give mad shout-outs to amnaremotoa, because their deck had all common-rarity representatives. Adding 'Grasp of Darkness' and 'Pilgrim's Eye' negate our ability to really call it a Standard Pauper deck. Perhaps these inclusions have allowed such decks to crush other decks, moreso like a peasant deck versus a pauper deck.
ReplyDeleteI'm all for having player-supported decisions to add new cards, but at that point, it jumps the shark and ceases to be Standard Pauper. Please make such a deck, take it into any MTGO room, type 'Standard Pauper - Commons Only, Please' in the comments section, and wait for the backlash when you drop 'Fiery Conclusion' or another named, uncommon-rarity cards. Having this format disguise itself as 'Standard Pauper' (which would never work if we still had the Standard Pauper filter) hurts others' chances at practicing for the metagame: either duel all-commons, or falsely advertise matches, or forego that commentary and face dragons and plansewalkers as you attempt to perfect your all-common deck for competition. Not everyone will practice against PDC decks, and we shouldn't have to be buddies with everyone in the PDC groups just to experiment with a new deck.
Call the format: PDC Pauper, or something similar, but please...stop pretending it's Standard Pauper. It's a disservice to the community who would otherwise seek out your advise and insight in a skewed format, because of the name. Would Alex Ullman advertise or write about the format as-is? Would any other 'Standard Pauper' writer tackle this format?
You wanted some direction about your blog. Start with being honest with yourself and your fans. This isn't about Standard Pauper- it's about PDC leagues. We see no other content outside PDC for 'Standard Pauper' (yes, we get other posts not about Standard Pauper, but that's cool, too). Be honest. You'll be a better writer because of it.
Without the filter, there is no definition of Standard Pauper outside of what our small community says it is. I still contend that the way it is now is *less* confusing than the alternatives for new players. I would love to have the filter so that we had an "official" stance on this issue. But we do not.
DeleteAre your objections hypothetical, or have these things actually happened to you? Have you advertised matches for Standard Pauper and then had players yell at your when you played one of these Uncommons? Have you had content writers refuse to write about Standard Pauper because of the presence of Uncommons in the set?
You wrote:
ReplyDelete"Without the filter, there is no definition of Standard Pauper outside of what our small community says it is."
Since Standard Pauper is no longer supported, even the name is slightly misleading. Adding an uncommon that was once common fits the bill for "Pauper," but the "Standard" adjective modifies the format to current printings. I see these two words at odds when introducing an upshifted once-common card. I'm just asking to rename the format. I imagine someone grabbed a bunch of cards and wanted to play pauper, but with just a few uncommons...*poof* Peasant Magic is born. Just rename the format to be really customized for your events.
You wrote:
"Are your objections hypothetical, or have these things actually happened to you? Have you advertised matches for Standard Pauper and then had players yell at your when you played one of these Uncommons?"
I feel you may get better results by asking other players, perhaps by poll. How many Standard Pauper Matches do you advertise that are truly Standard Pauper (NOT PDC Standard Pauper). I imagine some regular visitors match their buddies and have practice teams and avoid random games. I filed a report to WotC over 22 matches hosted as "Standard Pauper - Commons Only, Please" without one honest Standard Pauper match. Don't take my word for it- ask around.
You wrote:
"Have you had content writers refuse to write about Standard Pauper because of the presence of Uncommons in the set?"
There is almost nothing written about Standard Pauper. Perhaps this revelation and the decision to call Standard Pauper whatever you (collectively) say it is will give you direction in future writing. Honestly, a declaration of "Standard Pauper is DEAD. Long Live PDC Pauper" or something like it would clearly identify all of the changes in the format, reasons why changes were made, and direction and health of the format going forward.
In summary, I see PDC events dropping in attendance. This week, we had less than two dozen decks in TWO FREE Tournaments with prizes. Sometimes, we are literally one person away from maybe NOT having supported events. Something seems broken. The definition of insanity may apply here- we're doing the same things (and have enough historic data to measure the inclusion of uncommons-as-commons) and getting worse results. We can blame the lack of a filter. We can blame adding uncommons. So what?! What are we going to do to change things?
I suggest rebranding the format. I am asking for suggestions on how I can practice for events via MTGO that will better ensure I don't have to square off against Planeswalkers (maybe we should add them too? Just one? We're already sliding down a slippery slope, so what's one PW, in an environment poised to push more PWs in future sets.)? In the Pauper format, I am outclassed by many more cards than I would in just the Standard format. In Standard, I am far outclassed by uncommons and mythic rares. My Standard Pauper deck falsely advertises itself if I add an uncommon (and yeah, I get yelled at in game as a result, and shared with WotC Customer Support).
How do you use MTGO to practice? Are you honestly telling your audience that you encounter NO problems finding matches? Please share how you avoid this pitfall in light of the problems I and others (we chat) encounter.
You wrote:
ReplyDelete"Without the filter, there is no definition of Standard Pauper outside of what our small community says it is."
Since Standard Pauper is no longer supported, even the name is slightly misleading. Adding an uncommon that was once common fits the bill for "Pauper," but the "Standard" adjective modifies the format to current printings. I see these two words at odds when introducing an upshifted once-common card. I'm just asking to rename the format. I imagine someone grabbed a bunch of cards and wanted to play pauper, but with just a few uncommons...*poof* Peasant Magic is born. Just rename the format to be really customized for your events.
You wrote:
"Are your objections hypothetical, or have these things actually happened to you? Have you advertised matches for Standard Pauper and then had players yell at your when you played one of these Uncommons?"
I feel you may get better results by asking other players, perhaps by poll. How many Standard Pauper Matches do you advertise that are truly Standard Pauper (NOT PDC Standard Pauper). I imagine some regular visitors match their buddies and have practice teams and avoid random games. I filed a report to WotC over 22 matches hosted as "Standard Pauper - Commons Only, Please" without one honest Standard Pauper match. Don't take my word for it- ask around.
You wrote:
"Have you had content writers refuse to write about Standard Pauper because of the presence of Uncommons in the set?"
There is almost nothing written about Standard Pauper. Perhaps this revelation and the decision to call Standard Pauper whatever you (collectively) say it is will give you direction in future writing. Honestly, a declaration of "Standard Pauper is DEAD. Long Live PDC Pauper" or something like it would clearly identify all of the changes in the format, reasons why changes were made, and direction and health of the format going forward.
In summary, I see PDC events dropping in attendance. This week, we had less than two dozen decks in TWO FREE Tournaments with prizes. Sometimes, we are literally one person away from maybe NOT having supported events. Something seems broken. The definition of insanity may apply here- we're doing the same things (and have enough historic data to measure the inclusion of uncommons-as-commons) and getting worse results. We can blame the lack of a filter. We can blame adding uncommons. So what?! What are we going to do to change things?
I suggest rebranding the format. I am asking for suggestions on how I can practice for events via MTGO that will better ensure I don't have to square off against Planeswalkers (maybe we should add them too? Just one? We're already sliding down a slippery slope, so what's one PW, in an environment poised to push more PWs in future sets.)? In the Pauper format, I am outclassed by many more cards than I would in just the Standard format. In Standard, I am far outclassed by uncommons and mythic rares. My Standard Pauper deck falsely advertises itself if I add an uncommon (and yeah, I get yelled at in game as a result, and shared with WotC Customer Support).
How do you use MTGO to practice? Are you honestly telling your audience that you encounter NO problems finding matches? Please share how you avoid this pitfall in light of the problems I and others (we chat) encounter.
D'oh! Would you please delete the double post?
DeleteI just want to say 'Thanks,' gwyned, for what you do to promote the community. I think we disagree about the name of the format as being accurate, but otherwise, you're far smarter than me about MTG in general. I apologize if I come across as adversarial; I have a lot of respect for you (which is why I write- I like to think you read and consider what your audience shares, especially when you invite commentary). If I didn't care about this topic, I wouldn't even visit, let alone comment. You'll do what you'll do, and my two-cents carries that real-world worth, I suppose.
I predict that Standard Pauper, as currently constituted, will continue to evolve in name and scope of included cards (beyond mere rotation). I hope it also grows in attendance for PDC tournaments, too, but I feel overwhelmed by having to account for the uncommons in MTGO practice matches.
Thank you, and be well. Good luck in the future, and with the format. I don't think I have anything further to contribute to the blog, to the format, or to competitive competition as is stands.