I guess I don't see the benefit in making the Tier system a glorified participation trophy. There's no reason huge, prevalent, powerful decks that have put up months worth of relevant results in big events should be placed in the same category as fringe <2% that had a few MTGO League 5-0s. It does nothing to clarify the placement and expectation of decks to see, nor does it represent any deck's actual strength.
He would be the best to answer that but he's still posting. I believe he is no longer a moderator or in charge of any tiering done on the site. I haven't seen anything "official"; it's just being tossed around with the new tier talk.
I for one think his statistical approach was a terrific way to view the format and am worried where this could all head without it.
I guess I don't see the benefit in making the Tier system a glorified participation trophy. There's no reason huge, prevalent, powerful decks that have put up months worth of relevant results in big events should be placed in the same category as fringe <2% that had a few MTGO League 5-0s. It does nothing to clarify the placement and expectation of decks to see, nor does it represent any deck's actual strength.
This of course raises the question of how the tiers are being determined exactly. Was the old tiering structure the result of one Mod's opinion? Is the new system the result of one Mod's opinion? Is there any effort to build consensus amongst the powers that be so that we can be presented with a consistent tiering structure that isn't going to change overnight once a new opinion gets to the top?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
FREE MODERN. Break the Standard link.
I play Magic: the Gathering, not Magic: the Commandering.
I guess I don't see the benefit in making the Tier system a glorified participation trophy. There's no reason huge, prevalent, powerful decks that have put up months worth of relevant results in big events should be placed in the same category as fringe <2% that had a few MTGO League 5-0s. It does nothing to clarify the placement and expectation of decks to see, nor does it represent any deck's actual strength.
This of course raises the question of how the tiers are being determined exactly. Was the old tiering structure the result of one Mod's opinion? Is the new system the result of one Mod's opinion? Is there any effort to build consensus amongst the powers that be so that we can be presented with a consistent tiering structure that isn't going to change overnight once a new opinion gets to the top?
I believe it was a calculated percentage based on overall presence, day 2 presence, and some other data. They were combined and weighted accordingly and then separated by cutoff points (like 4% and up T1, 1.5-3.9% T2, <1.5% T3, etc). It wasn't perfect, but it gave a relevant picture of what decks to expect to play against at top tables (Tier 1), what decks could spike a tournament on a good weekend or be seen a decent amount at local FNMs (Tier 2) and fun brews that haven't gained much popularity, and may have a good day, but ultimately struggle against the field more often than not (Tier 3).
With so many decks in the top two tiers what would people's opinions be of going to established and developing in similar ways to vintage/legacy lists are on here? Or do the tier lists add something more worth retaining?
Most of the decks in the top 2 tiers at the moment could very easily be called 'decks that aren't going anywhere' or 'decks you're likely to see at a large tournament'.
I'm not sure about the new system's specifics, but if the site uses an established, replicable, and transparent scoring/grading system, then tiers are fine. In my opinion, tiering should be as objective as possible and also use the best statistical methods available given the data. If this can happen, the subjective "established" and "proven" division should not return; Modern did this years ago when I first got here and we moved away from it.
On the other hand, if the system doesn't make sense or doesn't meet those above benchmarks, then tiering becomes much less helpful. I am not as familiar with current format data as I was with it in the past, but I sincerely doubt there are truly this many Tier 1 decks. The most I ever saw when doing updates was maybe 8-9 (estimate; don't quote me). With so many Tier 1 decks, I suspect it's because the new system uses a very broad definition of Tier 1 that might not be as helpful as people think it is. Personally, I prefer narrower definitions that establish tiers with more confidence. No system is perfect without the full dataset, but I'd be cautious about a system that had so many Tier 1 decks; it's unlikely all Tier 1 decks are truly as viable as each other if the tiering is so wide.
I completely agree so long as the list is completely not subjective. But with the current listing I have a problem with 8 rack and bant eldrazi being in the same tier and maybe worse UW control and knightfall being tier 1, especially given the discrepancy between the comprehensive modern tiered list.
UW Control and Knightfall has been performing amazingly well online though recently so I don't have any issues with those getting bumped up. My main criticism with how the old Tier system worked before was that it took at least a month to show any changes. A deck could have been dominating everything and wouldn't be bumped up for a long time - which is where hard statistics fall short. Quantitive data is amazing overall but falls short when not matched with qualitative data too. Tiers need to be maintained on a very regular basis if they are to be accurate guideline of the metagame as a whole; otherwise decks that should be bumped up (or decks that should be dropped down) much sooner than they should be disrupt the Tier standings, significantly sometimes.
Don't you think that kind of waiting process is actually better on an online forum? It would probably be confusing and disorienting for casual forum-goers if threads were moved between different sections every couple of weeks.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
Regarding the new tiering structure: This sucks. We had a system in place that broke down the best decks viability in a said meta with statistical and real world information and they take it way for a veritable kitchen table love fest. WTF? Seriously.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
All this talk but the Tier system is just a popularity contest nothing more nothing less.
It is based on percentages, when a deck is played above a certain percentage it is called Tier 1.
Is it a strong deck, but it does not say it is the best deck just the most played deck.
I play Infect and at my local store I see a lot of Tron and Bant Eldrazi. My deck now is so low you can call it untiered but that that makes it a useless weak deck? Hell no Infect is a very powerful and fast strategy so I have no problem competing with all the so called Tier 1 decks.
I am beating up Affinity, all sorts of Tron and also Bant Eldrazi with it.
So what I want to say is that people take the Tier sysye way to serious.
Sure if you go to a large tournament these are the decks you will see the most because they are the most popular. A popularity contest nothing more nothing less.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Reanimator
Modern - Burn
EDH - Neheb the Eternal
EDIT: at local tournaments with 6 or less rounds before a top 8, tier system is less relevant.
That's because fewer games = less variance.
So we should ignore most of the events on MTGO, dailies specifically.
And why should we discount the events the majority of people will be playing in? The majority of the player base only plays those smaller local events and never strives to go to PTQ's or GPQ's. For most players States is the biggest event they play in or even want to play.
I personally think using mainly the larger events for Tiers and decks viability is the wrong way to go about it.
Tap dancing your way through a larger event and missing all your bad match ups skews the numbers. Luck plays a huge factor in larger events. More so then smaller ones. Granted, you possibly may not see as many types of decks in a smaller event.
One of the reasons we should look at data in aggregate is to try and reduce as much of the statistical variance as possible. Luck/Individual Skill/Tournament Bias/etc are all things we remove as extraneous factors the larger our data set gets and the less biased it becomes.
Where I agree everything should be looked at, it should be weighted. I dont think the bigger events should dictate viability of a deck. Since we dont get all the MTGO data its hard justify its data as being truly helpful. Wotc could allow the data they wish to skew data points. We dont get full data from all the smaller events that happen across the globe on a weekly basis. Until we get all data, we need to weigh the data we get carefully.
I've never understood why players insist that there are these non-Tier 1 decks that are secretly Tier 1 and are just underplayed. It's super rare; basically just Amulet Bloom (which we had as Tier 2 for a year before its breakout PT) and Lantern Control (legit out of nowhere). Just go back and look at the historical Tier 1 lists on these forums. It's a who's who of Modern regulars that consistently have great showings. The list have very few misses (i.e. a deck was secretly amazing and the tiers missed it for a long period of time, or a deck was actually bad and stayed Tier 1 too long).
Exactly right. Add to that that the decks like Amulet Bloom and Lantern Control, while flying under the radar, broke out as lights out meta calls. Good decks get played more. Its a simple, easily measured metric, that just so happens to be very accurate. You shouldn't try and re-engineer the wheel. With the limited information available, I think we have just gone through one of the most accurate periods in judging mtg decks in the game's history. It would be a shame to lose that or belittle it in anyway.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
What about Death Shadow Jund which existed in its entirety before popping up over night?
It only popped out overnight because Probe and GGT got banned. Those two bans totally changed the format, hurting Dredge and removing both Infect and Death's Shadow Zoo from Tier 1. That fundamental shift made the new DS variants, DSJ and Grixis Shadow, viable, even if all the cards in the deck were legal beforehand.
What about Death Shadow Jund which existed in its entirety before popping up over night?
Death Shadow Jund would barely have even made it into the developing subthread though, it was played here and there, crazy obscure. Amulet Bloom was more established but oddly misplaced in it's tier. It was mainly after the Probe ban when that Shadow deck won a modo tournament and remained ignored that it'd fall into this, "secret best deck" realm. It caught my attention and I bought the baubles before Vancouver.
You can pull out some instances, but regardless, it's still rare. Tiers are often driven by hard numbers and stats, there's rarely a, "no, my deck is super good and secretly tier 1".
I think there are definitely decks that are better than people realize. We don't have access to as much data anymore because WotC likes to obfuscate everything, but when MTGGoldfish did their 28k games of Modern analyzed back in mid 2015, Bant Company was the deck with the highest win rate in Modern. I doubt anyone would have guessed that back then. It's possible that the average skill level of the pilot was higher for the deck for the period over which they collected their data, but I think the slow rise of Knightfall has justified those numbers over the past two years, and it's probably still being underestimated.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
What about Death Shadow Jund which existed in its entirety before popping up over night?
It only popped out overnight because Probe and GGT got banned. Those two bans totally changed the format, hurting Dredge and removing both Infect and Death's Shadow Zoo from Tier 1. That fundamental shift made the new DS variants, DSJ and Grixis Shadow, viable, even if all the cards in the deck were legal beforehand.
I also feel the removal of Gitaxian Probe essentially killed Grixis Delver as we know it. People with the leftover pieces began experimenting with Death's Shadow instead of Young Pyromancer, and eventually dropped Delver of Secrets entirely to create the Grixis Shadow/Wraith/Discard/Stubborn package we have today.
So, much like how Jund Shadow came after the destruction of Zooicide and cannibalized traditional Jund, Grixis Shadow came after the destruction of Delver, cannibalizing Grixis Delver AND Control. But neither of these current deck configurations would have been popular if the format was still killing you on turn 3 with enough regularity. And it's no surprise that the ones that try (Burn, Affinity, etc) are getting better with the rise of Death's Shadow decks.
I don't see the relevance of the tier system. it's a reflection of player numbers. this is fine in Standard when there are a couple decks objectively better in every way and no reason to play anything but Jeskai Twin in a format with crasp removal, but in Modern, I think the tier system actively hurts the format. Not only does it discourage brewing and finding unrealized decks, but when a newbie asks 'what is the best deck to bring to an event?' the answer is generally something like 'the deck that you are most experienced with'. Putting in the time to learn every angle of your deck will serve you a lot better than clicking 'Add to Cart' on a TCG event topping DSJ list. I played the deck, in my hands it's nothing special. but hopefully not sounding too arrogant, I'm pretty darn good with Burn. ever since Bloom went away, I can't remember the last time i played a match that ever felt hopeless. don't pick a deck because someone says it is the best in the format, or T1, or anything else. Pick a deck that is your favored style, adapt to the meta. knowing what you are using and what you should be ready for will do a lot more for you than 'DSJ is super good, if i play it, I'll do well!'
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Project Booster Fun makes it less fun to open a booster.
I don't think Modern really needs a tier System. Modern is wide open compared to standard honestly . I can win modern tourneys with about any modern deck depending on match ups. I also play against a lot of different decks in modern, Which makes it a little more exciting. I play against decks all the time that I had know clue even existed.
I don't see the relevance of the tier system. it's a reflection of player numbers. this is fine in Standard when there are a couple decks objectively better in every way and no reason to play anything but Jeskai Twin in a format with crasp removal, but in Modern, I think the tier system actively hurts the format. Not only does it discourage brewing and finding unrealized decks, but when a newbie asks 'what is the best deck to bring to an event?' the answer is generally something like 'the deck that you are most experienced with'. Putting in the time to learn every angle of your deck will serve you a lot better than clicking 'Add to Cart' on a TCG event topping DSJ list. I played the deck, in my hands it's nothing special. but hopefully not sounding too arrogant, I'm pretty darn good with Burn. ever since Bloom went away, I can't remember the last time i played a match that ever felt hopeless. don't pick a deck because someone says it is the best in the format, or T1, or anything else. Pick a deck that is your favored style, adapt to the meta. knowing what you are using and what you should be ready for will do a lot more for you than 'DSJ is super good, if i play it, I'll do well!'
Can't agree more mate.
Modern is a format that rewards knowing your deck in and out.
When I started Modern I played Gruul Zoo, was the only Modern deck I had at the time, and I was cleaning house with it.
It got bored after a while so I switched around and now I am playing Infect for some time and loving it. It is the strategy that keeps me the most interested of any deck I ever played.
I don't care what Tier it is I am learning more and more about the deck every time I play it and I am still able to clean house with it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Reanimator
Modern - Burn
EDH - Neheb the Eternal
I've never understood why players insist that there are these non-Tier 1 decks that are secretly Tier 1 and are just underplayed. It's super rare; basically just Amulet Bloom (which we had as Tier 2 for a year before its breakout PT) and Lantern Control (legit out of nowhere). Just go back and look at the historical Tier 1 lists on these forums. It's a who's who of Modern regulars that consistently have great showings. The list have very few misses (i.e. a deck was secretly amazing and the tiers missed it for a long period of time, or a deck was actually bad and stayed Tier 1 too long).
I don't think Modern really needs a tier System. Modern is wide open compared to standard honestly . I can win modern tourneys with about any modern deck depending on match ups. I also play against a lot of different decks in modern, Which makes it a little more exciting. I play against decks all the time that I had know clue even existed.
It's been happening for a couple of pages, but I'm still struggling to understand this sentiment. Is the idea that since decks don't regularly exceed 10% metagame shares in Modern due to the format's wide-open nature (enforced by the good fellows over at Wizards), metagame representation is just irrelevant to anyone's interests? Personally, I find tier lists very helpful when preparing for events, while building sideboards and deciding what I most want to beat, or after brief lapses from Modern. Not to mention how infinitely valuable metagame statistics are to balanced discussions in this very thread about... well, metagame statistics, since Modern bans are almost always based on those to some degree.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
For me the tier system turns modern into a Popularity contest. When a new player wants to get into the game the first thing they look at is the tier system, and think, Oh! this is the deck I'm supposed to play. Tier 1 decks aren't necessarily the best decks just the most popular at the time. Meta game is really an illusion since its just a snap shot of how popular decks are not how good they are. I get why serious players want a rock paper scissors format as it makes it easier for them to meta game against each other. Just imagine what it would be like to have 50 different decks in a tourney of a 100 players.
Jesus, this thread is frustrating. No one here is claiming you can't win a 47 round tournament with your tribal mouse deck if you get perfect match ups.
The whole point of tiering was trying to use data to best eliminate the effects of pilot skill and match up variance so that players could make informed decisions about what they could expect to face in large events and then prepare accordingly. Knowing your deck and how to pilot it against different decks has always been far more important than just buying a deck, and when it isn't that deck is banned and for good reason.
Sometimes, smart people would take advantage of this by playing a deck really good against the most frequently seen decks. We've seen 8-rack, skred, and lantern win tournaments before. We aren't telling you they are bad decks. We are telling you that over 10,000 matches of random matchups and pilots the deck is objectively worse than other decks.
If you were ever using the tier system for any other purpose then you were using it wrong. This new system does nothing other than complicate preparation by lumping a ton of unequal decks together. Clearly there has to be some sort of cutoff for tiers but I much preferred the more exclusive ones.
I've played BW midrange decks forever and I feel if I correctly judged the expected meta then I have as good a chance as anyone to win a given tournament. There is something to be said about surpriseblowouts and unexpectedgiantbeatsticks
I don't see the point in changing the perception of our format to outsiders by making it look like more decks are viable; thus confusing the people who actually play the formats ability to prepare for events.
I did not realize they changed the tier structure. The new structure... is abysmal.
Tiers should be based on both a combination of popularity + consistency + top table performance.
It looks like this site shifted to a popularity rating only. Which is BAD IMO.
UR storm is seriously a tier 1 deck while Jund is not? 0_o This new "ranking" system is awful.
It really should go back to the way it was before.
I did not realize they changed the tier structure. The new structure... is abysmal.
Tiers should be based on both a combination of popularity + consistency + top table performance.
It looks like this site shifted to a popularity rating only. Which is BAD IMO.
UR storm is seriously a tier 1 deck while Jund is not? 0_o This new "ranking" system is awful.
It really should go back to the way it was before.
...Storm is putting up better results (online, at least) than Jund is. Why not have it tier 1?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Well, I can saw a woman in two, but you won't wanna look in the box when I'm through.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Please Lantern, just copy paste whatever criteria you are using.
Spirits
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I for one think his statistical approach was a terrific way to view the format and am worried where this could all head without it.
This of course raises the question of how the tiers are being determined exactly. Was the old tiering structure the result of one Mod's opinion? Is the new system the result of one Mod's opinion? Is there any effort to build consensus amongst the powers that be so that we can be presented with a consistent tiering structure that isn't going to change overnight once a new opinion gets to the top?
I play Magic: the Gathering, not Magic: the Commandering.
I believe it was a calculated percentage based on overall presence, day 2 presence, and some other data. They were combined and weighted accordingly and then separated by cutoff points (like 4% and up T1, 1.5-3.9% T2, <1.5% T3, etc). It wasn't perfect, but it gave a relevant picture of what decks to expect to play against at top tables (Tier 1), what decks could spike a tournament on a good weekend or be seen a decent amount at local FNMs (Tier 2) and fun brews that haven't gained much popularity, and may have a good day, but ultimately struggle against the field more often than not (Tier 3).
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I completely agree so long as the list is completely not subjective. But with the current listing I have a problem with 8 rack and bant eldrazi being in the same tier and maybe worse UW control and knightfall being tier 1, especially given the discrepancy between the comprehensive modern tiered list.
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
It is based on percentages, when a deck is played above a certain percentage it is called Tier 1.
Is it a strong deck, but it does not say it is the best deck just the most played deck.
I play Infect and at my local store I see a lot of Tron and Bant Eldrazi. My deck now is so low you can call it untiered but that that makes it a useless weak deck? Hell no Infect is a very powerful and fast strategy so I have no problem competing with all the so called Tier 1 decks.
I am beating up Affinity, all sorts of Tron and also Bant Eldrazi with it.
So what I want to say is that people take the Tier sysye way to serious.
Sure if you go to a large tournament these are the decks you will see the most because they are the most popular. A popularity contest nothing more nothing less.
Modern - Burn
EDH - Neheb the Eternal
Where I agree everything should be looked at, it should be weighted. I dont think the bigger events should dictate viability of a deck. Since we dont get all the MTGO data its hard justify its data as being truly helpful. Wotc could allow the data they wish to skew data points. We dont get full data from all the smaller events that happen across the globe on a weekly basis. Until we get all data, we need to weigh the data we get carefully.
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
It only popped out overnight because Probe and GGT got banned. Those two bans totally changed the format, hurting Dredge and removing both Infect and Death's Shadow Zoo from Tier 1. That fundamental shift made the new DS variants, DSJ and Grixis Shadow, viable, even if all the cards in the deck were legal beforehand.
Death Shadow Jund would barely have even made it into the developing subthread though, it was played here and there, crazy obscure. Amulet Bloom was more established but oddly misplaced in it's tier. It was mainly after the Probe ban when that Shadow deck won a modo tournament and remained ignored that it'd fall into this, "secret best deck" realm. It caught my attention and I bought the baubles before Vancouver.
You can pull out some instances, but regardless, it's still rare. Tiers are often driven by hard numbers and stats, there's rarely a, "no, my deck is super good and secretly tier 1".
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
I also feel the removal of Gitaxian Probe essentially killed Grixis Delver as we know it. People with the leftover pieces began experimenting with Death's Shadow instead of Young Pyromancer, and eventually dropped Delver of Secrets entirely to create the Grixis Shadow/Wraith/Discard/Stubborn package we have today.
So, much like how Jund Shadow came after the destruction of Zooicide and cannibalized traditional Jund, Grixis Shadow came after the destruction of Delver, cannibalizing Grixis Delver AND Control. But neither of these current deck configurations would have been popular if the format was still killing you on turn 3 with enough regularity. And it's no surprise that the ones that try (Burn, Affinity, etc) are getting better with the rise of Death's Shadow decks.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Can't agree more mate.
Modern is a format that rewards knowing your deck in and out.
When I started Modern I played Gruul Zoo, was the only Modern deck I had at the time, and I was cleaning house with it.
It got bored after a while so I switched around and now I am playing Infect for some time and loving it. It is the strategy that keeps me the most interested of any deck I ever played.
I don't care what Tier it is I am learning more and more about the deck every time I play it and I am still able to clean house with it.
Modern - Burn
EDH - Neheb the Eternal
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
The whole point of tiering was trying to use data to best eliminate the effects of pilot skill and match up variance so that players could make informed decisions about what they could expect to face in large events and then prepare accordingly. Knowing your deck and how to pilot it against different decks has always been far more important than just buying a deck, and when it isn't that deck is banned and for good reason.
Sometimes, smart people would take advantage of this by playing a deck really good against the most frequently seen decks. We've seen 8-rack, skred, and lantern win tournaments before. We aren't telling you they are bad decks. We are telling you that over 10,000 matches of random matchups and pilots the deck is objectively worse than other decks.
If you were ever using the tier system for any other purpose then you were using it wrong. This new system does nothing other than complicate preparation by lumping a ton of unequal decks together. Clearly there has to be some sort of cutoff for tiers but I much preferred the more exclusive ones.
I've played BW midrange decks forever and I feel if I correctly judged the expected meta then I have as good a chance as anyone to win a given tournament. There is something to be said about surprise blowouts and unexpected giant beat sticks
I don't see the point in changing the perception of our format to outsiders by making it look like more decks are viable; thus confusing the people who actually play the formats ability to prepare for events.
I did not realize they changed the tier structure. The new structure... is abysmal.
Tiers should be based on both a combination of popularity + consistency + top table performance.
It looks like this site shifted to a popularity rating only. Which is BAD IMO.
UR storm is seriously a tier 1 deck while Jund is not? 0_o This new "ranking" system is awful.
It really should go back to the way it was before.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
...Storm is putting up better results (online, at least) than Jund is. Why not have it tier 1?