My goal is to establish the decks you can ALWAYS expect to haunt the metagame. Everything else is in the same class.
Good idea for an article, thread, or post. Bad idea for forum structure. We are already pushing the boundaries of acceptability with 4 subforums for different Modern decks. Most forums have no more than 3 and some just have 2. We not only have 4, but we also label them in a way that isn't always immediately intuitive to new users. And they definitely don't know how we tier decks.
So overall, there wouldn't be much benefit for having a Tier 0 subforum with just 1-2 decks in it. But I can see lots of benefit to conducting some analysis that suggested a deck was Tier 0.
My goal is to establish the decks you can ALWAYS expect to haunt the metagame. Everything else is in the same class.
Good idea for an article, thread, or post. Bad idea for forum structure. We are already pushing the boundaries of acceptability with 4 subforums for different Modern decks. Most forums have no more than 3 and some just have 2. We not only have 4, but we also label them in a way that isn't always immediately intuitive to new users. And they definitely don't know how we tier decks.
So overall, there wouldn't be much benefit for having a Tier 0 subforum with just 1-2 decks in it. But I can see lots of benefit to conducting some analysis that suggested a deck was Tier 0.
Speaking of making an article about that (sorry I'm going a bit off topic on this). I really like the website you made Modern Nexus, the articles have been really well done so far.
Um lets not forget that having an effective deck that is also easy to pilot is going to be pretty attractive to mass amounts of people (ie Burn, Twin, Scapeshift, Pretty much every Tier 1 deck?!). It makes a lot of sense to play a deck that you personally can play at maximum effectiveness over a deck that MIGHT be better positioned to fight the meta, but that same person wouldnt be as good with it.
I've been considering the Tier 1/Tier 2 status. Based on the criteria used on this site, decks are scored by being above average in a certain number of catergories, and get extra points by being above average by one or two standard deviations. By definition, 50% of decks will be above average in any category, but only ~16% will be above average by a standard deviation, and only ~2% will be above average by two standard deviations. In addition, the categories are very likely incredibly strongly correlated (a high paper prevalence is correlated with a high online prevalence, and both are correlated with GP day 2 prevalence). I haven't attempted a robust analysis or even a rough back-of-the-envelope "worst case" calculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if the current selection criteria puts an upper bound on how many decks can plausibly end up in the Tier 1 category at any given time, and I wouldn't be surprised if that bound is fairly close to the current number of 5 Tier 1 decks. (Anyone deeper in the analysis have anything concrete on this, that would be interesting).
I'm not saying the criteria are not useful, nor that they need to be changed. But Wizards of the Coast have stated about their visions for Modern that they want something like "3 good decks of each archetype". My point with the above is to point out that it may not be possible to have that many tier 1 decks, and if that is the case, we need to take into account that Wizards definition of "Good deck" may be very different from this sites' definition of a "Tier 1" deck.
It may still be the case that Wizards are looking to boost diversity and improve certain archetypes, but they may be a lot closer to having their desired number of "good" decks than a Tier1/Tier2 analysis might imply.
This was posted in the banlist thread but that's not the place to discuss it, so I'm responding to it here.
There is probably an upper limit on the number of tier 1 decks, but I don't think we have hit it yet, and I don't think we are in danger of having too many "good decks" that aren't fitting in tier 1. In short, we need to run this system for at least 6 months, and probably longer, to know how it really interacts with the metagame. So far, it has not produced any false positives or false negatives; it even identified a number of decks as tier 1 before other people were accepting them as such. Moreover, it's the only tiering system to my knowledge that updates monthly, so we need to see how that date range affects the end result.
In short, we are not adjusting it until we have more data. More to the point, there isn't an urgent need to adjust it because we haven't made any major misclassifications yet. If the system starts producing screwy results then that's more worrisome, but until then, we just need to keep updating things and keep looking at the data we have.
I will say again that I enjoy the new system. It's far better than having something like Griselbrand Reanimator in deck creation. I think what people are getting hung up on is that Tier isn't indicative to power level. Boogles, Scapeshift, Living End, and Amulet Bloom all have the power to be tier one, and several of these decks have been at one time, but we aren't seeing the meta shares to put these decks in the top tier. I think a lot of people just want their decks to be "tier one".
Instead of looking at Tier 1 decks as the best decks, people need to look at them as the most prevalent. These are the decks you need to study, know inside and out, and have the majority of your sideboard for. Tier two decks, while at times, just as powerful, are less popular. I would still attempt to study these match ups, but unless you just fold to one of these decks, save your sideboard for something else. Tier three, or Developing Competitive is full of the Modern Decks of yeter-year. Decks that haven't put of results, but if left unchecked, are powerful. Your sideboard cards should do something to most of these decks, as they tend to be very linear, but you don't have to side with them in mind. I wouldn't study these decks to much, if at all. Then there is deck creation, which is full of budget brews, rouge decks, and regular brews. You can't really prepare for these decks, so don't try.
Tier 1 has always been an indication of the most prevalent decks. We have had many threads where people try to argue that because they are prevalent that automatically makes them the best decks in the format. This is a trap and a misuse of the data. I am very glad to see so many folks on this thread eschewing the trap and accepting the data for what it actually is. That said, maybe they could rename the "tiers" into something more intuitive that lets people know its just a meta game projection. ie Tier 1 becomes "Popular Tournament decks" or something better that I cant come up with right now.
It might be more a problem with how "Developing Competitive" section is named. It might give the impression that the tiers are a function of Competitiveness rather than Prevalence.
I'd suggest that renaming Developing Competitive to Tier 3 would actually help the situation so as to remove the word "Competitive" from the forum titles. I think it even makes more sense as the Tiers are measuring Prevalence rather than Competitiveness.
Other options to replace "Developing Competitive" are :
Fringe
Established
Developing
edit: Furthermore, we could help the description below the title of the subforums.
Tier 1
The Decks to Beat: Archetypes with the most top-placing finishes
Tier 2
Metagame Staples: Archtypes with consistent notable finishes
Tier 3
Fringe: Archtypes with a few notable finishes
Creation
New Decks or decks with little or no known top-placing finishes
I think rewording the descriptions might help adjust expectations for proper use of the forums.
I appreciate the way in which you have constructed the Tiers and reading this makes more sense now. I think this is actually the best way to help players see what they need to prepare for.
It might be more a problem with how "Developing Competitive" section is named. It might give the impression that the tiers are a function of Competitiveness rather than Prevalence.
I'd suggest that renaming Developing Competitive to Tier 3 would actually help the situation so as to remove the word "Competitive" from the forum titles. I think it even makes more sense as the Tiers are measuring Prevalence rather than Competitiveness.
Other options to replace "Developing Competitive" are :
Fringe
Established
Developing
edit: Furthermore, we could help the description below the title of the subforums.
Tier 1
The Decks to Beat: Archetypes with the most top-placing finishes
Tier 2
Metagame Staples: Archtypes with consistent notable finishes
Tier 3
Fringe: Archtypes with a few notable finishes
Creation
New Decks or decks with little or no known top-placing finishes
I think rewording the descriptions might help adjust expectations for proper use of the forums.
The problem with your Tier 3 description is that some decks that actually have generated quite some results (Faeries, U-torn, BW tokens) are now left with almost results. The Developing Competitive name initiated by ktkenshinx is much better in that respect.
TL;DR I dont know why people get so butt hurt when their deck isnt tier one according to the forum. No one is 'out to get' your deck. Discussion of decks still continue which subforum its in. To go about tiering in a way other than just using the available data just lets things become skewed in the view of whoever makes those choices.
Good idea for an article, thread, or post. Bad idea for forum structure. We are already pushing the boundaries of acceptability with 4 subforums for different Modern decks. Most forums have no more than 3 and some just have 2. We not only have 4, but we also label them in a way that isn't always immediately intuitive to new users. And they definitely don't know how we tier decks.
So overall, there wouldn't be much benefit for having a Tier 0 subforum with just 1-2 decks in it. But I can see lots of benefit to conducting some analysis that suggested a deck was Tier 0.
Speaking of making an article about that (sorry I'm going a bit off topic on this). I really like the website you made Modern Nexus, the articles have been really well done so far.
This was posted in the banlist thread but that's not the place to discuss it, so I'm responding to it here.
There is probably an upper limit on the number of tier 1 decks, but I don't think we have hit it yet, and I don't think we are in danger of having too many "good decks" that aren't fitting in tier 1. In short, we need to run this system for at least 6 months, and probably longer, to know how it really interacts with the metagame. So far, it has not produced any false positives or false negatives; it even identified a number of decks as tier 1 before other people were accepting them as such. Moreover, it's the only tiering system to my knowledge that updates monthly, so we need to see how that date range affects the end result.
In short, we are not adjusting it until we have more data. More to the point, there isn't an urgent need to adjust it because we haven't made any major misclassifications yet. If the system starts producing screwy results then that's more worrisome, but until then, we just need to keep updating things and keep looking at the data we have.
Instead of looking at Tier 1 decks as the best decks, people need to look at them as the most prevalent. These are the decks you need to study, know inside and out, and have the majority of your sideboard for. Tier two decks, while at times, just as powerful, are less popular. I would still attempt to study these match ups, but unless you just fold to one of these decks, save your sideboard for something else. Tier three, or Developing Competitive is full of the Modern Decks of yeter-year. Decks that haven't put of results, but if left unchecked, are powerful. Your sideboard cards should do something to most of these decks, as they tend to be very linear, but you don't have to side with them in mind. I wouldn't study these decks to much, if at all. Then there is deck creation, which is full of budget brews, rouge decks, and regular brews. You can't really prepare for these decks, so don't try.
Cheeri0sXWU
Reid Duke's Level One
Who's the Beatdown
Alt+0198=Æ
I think this is what I was trying to say with way too many words.
Cubetutor Peasant'ish-Funbox
Project: Khans of Tarkir Cube (cubetutor)
I'd suggest that renaming Developing Competitive to Tier 3 would actually help the situation so as to remove the word "Competitive" from the forum titles. I think it even makes more sense as the Tiers are measuring Prevalence rather than Competitiveness.
Other options to replace "Developing Competitive" are :
Fringe
Established
Developing
edit: Furthermore, we could help the description below the title of the subforums.
Tier 1
The Decks to Beat: Archetypes with the most top-placing finishes
Tier 2
Metagame Staples: Archtypes with consistent notable finishes
Tier 3
Fringe: Archtypes with a few notable finishes
Creation
New Decks or decks with little or no known top-placing finishes
I think rewording the descriptions might help adjust expectations for proper use of the forums.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB
2 years ago I would've said that Jund, American control, Tron, and Pod will always be tier 1 decks.
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB
You ignore the printing of new cards and their (sometimes) tremendous effect on the metagame.
The problem with your Tier 3 description is that some decks that actually have generated quite some results (Faeries, U-torn, BW tokens) are now left with almost results. The Developing Competitive name initiated by ktkenshinx is much better in that respect.
DECKS:
UB Faeries [Midrange/Tempo]
RWUGB Affinity[Aggro]
FAERIES TOO STRONK!!!1111
- Fae Prophecy, 201
5678Nah, people just love abzan and twin mirrors. And also losing to burn.
Modern Junk Primer
Legacy ANT Primer
L1 Judge
Mimeoplasm Midrange, CHAINER CHAINER HIGH VOLTAGE
Rafiq of the Astral Slide, 67land.dec Child of Alara, Gisela <3 Sunforger
TRADE!?WUBRGMy Pauper Cube
Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper, Phage the Uncastable, Azusa Lost but Stompy, Crosis Combo Breaker, All-In-Skullbriar, Rafiq/Jenara ETB army, Hazezon Swarm, Glissa Voltron!, Jarad Zombie Tribal, Zedruu Pillowfort, Reaper King Artifact Shenanagains
I wonder why that is?
Modern has many decks. Not all can be number 1.