На Сорсе один из сторонников Биг Зуу так описал достоинства и недостатки даного архетипа в сравнении с классической быстрой версией:
I think that's a reasonable assessment (in general, there are exceptions), and the implication is "you want to strengthen your bad matchups, rather than your good ones".
That implication isn't entirely accurate though. First of all, you want to strengthen your matchups against the expected metagame, weighting according to how much you expect a given archetype to be represented. But my second contention is that it's more important to strengthen those matchups that can go either way. In other words, assuming decks A, B, and C are equally represented, you don't gain much by improving your deck A matchup (per-game) from 90% to 100%, but you also don't gain much by improving your matchup against B from 0% to 10%. Even if you do fluke into a win against B or a loss against A, the other two games in the match are likely to go as expected. Moreover, you probably have to devote a disproportionate number of resources (maindeck and sideboard choices) to improving matchup B for such a small incremental gain. It's better to focus on making matchup C (a 50-50 matchup) a slightly favorable one.
Advantages of Big Zoo
As for the individual archetypes, I'd say Big Zoo is stronger the following:
- Merfolk: Still a great matchup, but now you're less likely to lose to manascrew.
- Goblins: See above. Note, however, both have the caveat that you are much more reliant on green creatures than before, so your games 2 and 3 become substantially weaker if they're splashing for Perish.
- Zoo (pseudomirror): This usually comes down to whoever can stick the big creature or planeswalker, and you simply run more.
- Counterbalance: You run a higher curve (helps against Counterbalance and Engineered Explosives) and more guys that survive Firespout. Planeswalkers are hard to deal with. I've found this more than offsets fast Zoo's speed advantage.
- Control decks: You don't need to overextend as much, so in general, this is in Big Zoo's advantage. Note, however, that Thopter decks is more of a "combo" that almost locks you out immediately unless you have dedicated hate, so to that extent, I'd rather be playing fast Zoo (at least preboard before I bring in my hate). I also think this is where decks running Punishing Fires (I'd hesitate to even call them Zoo at this point) have an additional advantage because they have inevitability that cannot get removed, but obviously, running that tech introduces weaknesses in other matchups.
- Stompy decks: A higher curve gets around Chalices much more easily, and is less susceptible to Trinisphere. In addition, Noble Hierarch > Blood Moon effects.
- Lands decks: Being able to run Wasteland to get rid of that annoying Tabernacle or Glacial Chasm can mean the difference in the game. Noble Hierarch pays for itself even under a Tabernacle and slides under Ensnaring Bridges. Elspeth and Ajani are hard to drop, but pretty much not removable outside of EE at 4 or recurring Barbarian Rings, which are unlikely, and they will single-handedly own the Lands deck with their ultimate abilities. More lands means they'll have to work harder to Wastelock you out. I find that this combination works better than the speed of Big Zoo (unless you're running Price of Progress, which is amazing in this matchup).
- Tempo decks: You run more lands, Noble Hierarchs, and Knight of the Reliquaries, and you're not as reliant on running a fetchland into a Stifle to satisfy Steppe Lynx, so you have some inherent advantage against their strategy.
Advantages of regular Zoo
- Merfolk and Goblins with the black splash, after games 2 and 3. Sometimes, you just get blown out by Perish because you may or may not run Lavamancer, and you generally don't have the Steppe Lynxes, Kird Apes, Loam Lions, Figures of Destiny, and Stoneforge Mystics (or at least not as many).
- Fast combo. I'm actually 2-0 against good storm players with Big Zoo, whereas I've never beaten one with Fast Zoo, even with amazing draws (Nacatl, Steppe Lynx for 4, multiple burn), but that comes at the expense of dedicating more hate cards in the sideboard against Tendrils combo and less against "fair" decks. But the problem is that my hate cards of choice, until recently (Leyline of Sanctity and Null Rod, the latter of which is very versatile) aren't very good against other combo decks (Reanimator, Show and Tell, High Tide combo, etc.).
I wouldn't say Fast Zoo is a full turn faster in goldfishing, but I'd say it's capable of goldfishing a turn faster maybe 30-50% of the time than Big Zoo (esp. with Steppe Lynxes and Fireblasts), which can certainly be the difference. Moreover, fast Zoo "frontloads" that damage whereas Big Zoo only sort of catches up by swinging a turn later with bigger creatures (or more creatures, powered out by Hierarch). This means that even in those games where Big Zoo might goldfish in the same turn as fast Zoo, fast Zoo might be able to bring an Ad Nauseam deck out of range faster (note: similar reasoning applies for Doomsday combo).
Note: Meddling Mage is a very versatile card that can provide some level of hate against every combo deck in the format, but it's generally not crippling as crippling as a Gaddock Teeg or Null Rod can be. If you have a lot of diverse combo in your format, then I don't know why you're running Zoo, but if you had to run Zoo, Big Zoo can give you reliable access to Meddling Mage, which fast Zoo can't. troopatroop has much more experience with this.
Tossup?
- Dredge: I'm not sure this goes one way or another, and it really comes down to ripping your gravehate, but if I had to guess, I think this is slightly better for fast Zoo. This is because it's more likely to burn through or swarm for the final damage despite a bunch of Zombies, and the smaller Apes and Lions actually are useful because you can kill them more easily to remove their Bridges.
Conclusion
I'm a proponent of Big Zoo in the current metagame, because at least locally, it comes down to beating the Tribal decks, the mirror, and Counterbalance.