Can anyone explain to me how the Tier system has changed on this site? Does it have to do with Ktkenshinx leaving?
Apparently, Lantern has changed both the data source and the tiering cutoffs. Now it seems +1% decks are Tier 2 and +3% decks are Tier 1, roughyl. No official layout and/or explanation of changes by any mod so far.
Thank you. It would be nice if the staff were more transparent about it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern RGTron UGInfect URStorm WUBRAd Nauseam BRGrishoalbrand URGScapeshift WBGAbzan Company WUBRGAmulet Titan BRGLiving End WGBogles
I think this new tiering system better reflects the uncertainty we have of all decks true positioning in the meta. This will displease those who want a clear picture of the best of the best for better spiking purposes, I believe that the way Wizards obscures data prevents us from having the resources to give iron clad tiers the way people want.
How did Sheridan manage to do this before? I believe he used more strict cut-offs and created his own weighted system of balancing online to paper data, but with so much other data being withheld (true winrates and online metashares) this was essentially the most statistically sound and objective way of creating the illusion of solid clear cut tiers. Trying to do too much with too little.
It's been pointed out a few times but I still find it funny that Divas wake up call about mtgo dailies (she herself contributed 2% to UR aggro) went largely unnoticed.
The meta information is flawed, the emperor has no clothes.
And yet, the tiering system frequently predicted the top decks at all major events, as well as the MTGO regulars. People love to believe the metagame has secret Tier 3 decks that are actually Tier 1. They love to believe they can unlock some elusive metagame system that reveals a new picture of Modern's best deck. Sadly, in almost all cases, what you saw was what you got and the top tier decks really were exactly what they seemed to be. This is true now and it was true three years ago.
Agreed. Seriously its like the salvation is taking lessons from the donald trump school of alternative facts.
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.
Agreed. Seriously its like the salvation is taking lessons from the donald trump school of alternative facts.
More like Clinton alternative facts that's why old lying Hillary lost. I don't think modern is figure out at all but the tier system does work for what it was created to do.
I thought I read one time that MTGGoldfish got some beef by wizards for some meta charts and was ask to stop posting them was that true?
I think they datamined MTGO, and saw data down to match up levels.
Regardless I think it's up to Lantern or whoever to explain the criteria, until then we are speculating on the intent.
Thanks, that was it. I agree with you.
The Goldfish case was interesting, they used bots to "watch" games and record results. I wonder how many games and how large a sample size it was. But it was large enough for WotC to strong arm them into stopping it, so the data must have been good.
I wish somebody with programming knowledge would make some new bots to do the same so that we can see the true data instead of all the guesswork and the incomplete and therefore dubious 5-0 lists.
Can't be done. Wizards changed the MTGO client and its replay function. Bot scrapers can't even access the replays to scrape them.
Hey man, I can beat your ass with facts all night on politics but right now I feel I cannot use this site as a reference for card buying. That bothers me. It feels like I'm talking to somebody selling something when I look at the tier list. WHo knows, maybe that's the way the mtg salvation wants to go but if it does, it'll be sad. We had been taking the best available information to compose the best decks possible. Now it looks like a dog and pony show where every one prances their sweet little deck around regardless of if it'll get curbstomped at the next FMN. Go back deep in the forest little elf, while you have it.
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.
Hey man, I can beat your ass with facts all night on politics but right now I feel I cannot use this site as a reference for card buying. That bothers me. It feels like I'm talking to somebody selling something when I look at the tier list. WHo knows, maybe that's the way the mtg salvation wants to go but if it does, it'll be sad. We had been taking the best available information to compose the best decks possible. Now it looks like a dog and pony show where every one prances their sweet little deck around regardless of if it'll get curbstomped at the next FMN. Go back deep in the forest little elf, while you have it.
You are the one who brought politics into the discussion were honestly it has no place.
Hey guys just a reminder to stay on the topic.
I know its easy to get off topic but the purpose of this thread is to discuss the state of modern so make sure your posts stay relevant to modern.
Thanks
Ulka
Just because someone doesnt chase the golden ring of PTs and GPs dont make them casuals. Some people thrive in local metas, make money doing it, and have no desire to go any farther, Doesnt make them casuals. I find your condescending attitude toward those who dont chase what others do sickening.
There is a difference between grinders, local players, and these so called casuals you keep talking down to. But you dont seem to understand that.
Pros dont need a tier system, they already know whats good and what they can play to money in events. The tiering system is for the lesser players, the grinders and the locals, the majority of the player in the format.
Its not about new players winning or losing, its about new players getting skewed information and basing their decisions off said skewed information.
MTGO doesnt let us see all the numbers, so using MTGO data is incomplete.
We dont get the data from local events around the world, so the data is incomplete.
Using only SCG, PPTQ's and GPQ's as the only source of data for tiering is skewed so bad it makes the tiering unrealistic.
But do as you wish, I am out on this subject. I dont agree we need a tiering system unless we use all data and weigh said data.
Can anyone explain to me how the Tier system has changed on this site? Does it have to do with Ktkenshinx leaving?
Apparently, Lantern has changed both the data source and the tiering cutoffs. Now it seems +1% decks are Tier 2 and +3% decks are Tier 1, roughyl. No official layout and/or explanation of changes by any mod so far.
Thank you. It would be nice if the staff were more transparent about it.
I am. Did you message me? Ive also been commenting on all the deck threads that asked about it.
I'm not a god, I'm not telepathic. I'm a Television Studio Producer. I work about 75 hours a week, and do this on the side. No one is paying me. And my main Mod, who I trained and have been working with for literally years is leaving me. Next time anyone requests me to magically fix everything, they can just quote this.
No offence. I've been modding this sub for literally a decade at this point, and its mostly people telling me how things are wrong. Sometimes I get thanked, most times I dont. I'm training 2 new mods now, so Maybe I can be free enough to actually do more work in the tiering.
I'll be as clear as day here... and again. Yall can quote me on this if anyone asks again, it would save me the leg work of people thinking Im shafting them.
THERE IS NO GOOD DATA FOR ME TO DRAW ON. Point blank. I can use MTG goldfish, but their data is incomplete and they only hold a month of data on file, and when they update they dump 3 weeks of data and start fresh every month. Thats pretty bad for a non rotating slow to change format.
I can use top 8, like I'm doing right now, that does 2 months of data, but has random data holes and weighs everything pretty equally. So theres problems there too.
I can use modern nexus... when they remember to update. They are always late, and depending on them lately has been like throwing a paper plane and hoping it comes back sometime. (If you are reading this modern nexus, sorry. I was extremely pleased by the site, but every update has been weeks late for about a half a year now.)
I can use mainphase's data. Even messaged them (because people assume I havent been trying to fix this problem) asking about the data and more information. Im waiting on replies.
To be clear. You are asking me to be on top of an issue that has no good answers while I also have to feed my family AND train 2 new mods and clean up a forum missing the best partner I ever had.
I'm not going to ask for sympathy over here, or call out selfishness, but I will ask for understanding and patience. Come on. Cut some slack.
I don't know, goldfish serves me well. Other than that, the real feel of the meta is gotten by actually playing and adapting your deck to what your opponents are playing. Rug scapeshift is nowhere to be seen in these types of charts and I'm having good results. When the deck is bad, it's bad, and I feel it by playing, and right now I don't feel like it's bad.
Thank you. It would be nice if the staff were more transparent about it.
I am. Did you message me? Ive also been commenting on all the deck threads that asked about it.
I'm not a god, I'm not telepathic. I'm a Television Studio Producer. I work about 75 hours a week, and do this on the side. No one is paying me. And my main Mod, who I trained and have been working with for literally years is leaving me. Next time anyone requests me to magically fix everything, they can just quote this.
No offence. I've been modding this sub for literally a decade at this point, and its mostly people telling me how things are wrong. Sometimes I get thanked, most times I dont. I'm training 2 new mods now, so Maybe I can be free enough to actually do more work in the tiering.
I'll be as clear as day here... and again. Yall can quote me on this if anyone asks again, it would save me the leg work of people thinking Im shafting them.
THERE IS NO GOOD DATA FOR ME TO DRAW ON. Point blank. I can use MTG goldfish, but their data is incomplete and they only hold a month of data on file, and when they update they dump 3 weeks of data and start fresh every month. Thats pretty bad for a non rotating slow to change format.
I can use top 8, like I'm doing right now, that does 2 months of data, but has random data holes and weighs everything pretty equally. So theres problems there too.
I can use modern nexus... when they remember to update. They are always late, and depending on them lately has been like throwing a paper plane and hoping it comes back sometime. (If you are reading this modern nexus, sorry. I was extremely pleased by the site, but every update has been weeks late for about a half a year now.)
I can use mainphase's data. Even messaged them (because people assume I havent been trying to fix this problem) asking about the data and more information. Im waiting on replies.
To be clear. You are asking me to be on top of an issue that has no good answers while I also have to feed my family AND train 2 new mods and clean up a forum missing the best partner I ever had.
I'm not going to ask for sympathy over here, or call out selfishness, but I will ask for understanding and patience. Come on. Cut some slack.
People are always going to ask for more. I can understand the outcry: we had the internet's most coveted Modern sorted method on MTGS and now we're transitioning to something much lazier (no offense back). It's disappointing for me, too.
Hopefully when/if you get more time we'll begin a transition back, but I don't see why the onus has to be entirely on you. Of those in this thread throwing their spaghetti bowls at the wall, I haven't seen one user offer to help with data collection or with porting/maintaining kt's old system in the new era. IMO you don't have to apologize to anyone until that sentiment of entitlement becomes tangible participation.
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.
You're the one who answered. Think about it. And actually what I said wasn't even political, you made it so. I just stated facts. Infraction for ignorning mod text. We have a sub for politics, please dont derail the modern sub any further. ~Lantern
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.
Just because someone doesnt chase the golden ring of PTs and GPs dont make them casuals. Some people thrive in local metas, make money doing it, and have no desire to go any farther, Doesnt make them casuals. I find your condescending attitude toward those who dont chase what others do sickening.
There is a difference between grinders, local players, and these so called casuals you keep talking down to. But you dont seem to understand that.
Pros dont need a tier system, they already know whats good and what they can play to money in events. The tiering system is for the lesser players, the grinders and the locals, the majority of the player in the format.
Its not about new players winning or losing, its about new players getting skewed information and basing their decisions off said skewed information.
MTGO doesnt let us see all the numbers, so using MTGO data is incomplete.
We dont get the data from local events around the world, so the data is incomplete.
Using only SCG, PPTQ's and GPQ's as the only source of data for tiering is skewed so bad it makes the tiering unrealistic.
But do as you wish, I am out on this subject. I dont agree we need a tiering system unless we use all data and weigh said data.
If people are thriving in their local meta and making money and never plan on playing in an unknown meta then what could a tier system possibly provide them?
Me saying you can't have your cake and eat it too, and that there may not actually be any cake at all, is not condescending at all, it is being realistic. I actually credit you largely with changing my opinion on ban announcements, I had an unrealistic view and I was constantly being disappointed. Your comments did a large part in putting my view in perspective. I'd love to return the favor here but if you'd rather feel sick from my comments and continue to be disappointed then that is on you.
I play mostly local FNMs and with friends. I play mono red goblins online because I don't want to put large sums of money into both digital and paper product. I am the player you are attempting to defend here.
We all know Ktkenshinx was a madman, why would we expect it to get better after he left? Lantern has stated he has no good way to collect data in the first place, how can we possibly start to make it meta dependent?
We could call every deck that can win any match "tier 1" and that would solve this skewed information problem for new players because any of those decks COULD be a good call in their meta. The tier system is meant to be an aggregate of all meta's so you can make the most informed decision possible. If you already know the meta then you can make a more informed decision without considering tiers.
Making the tiers bigger doesn't give new players better information, it gives them worse information. When they can look at the sultai delirium thread and think it is tier two and therefore in as good of a position as bant eldrazi; every single person here knows that is misleading at best.
I also want the tiers to be as applicable to the most players as possible and to not misinform new players, but I also think it is important that the tiers are most useful to those that will use them the most.
What you are asking for is more difficult to accomplish than the system we are losing, which already didn't meet what you wanted. We have lantern saying he is losing his best statistics person and is having trouble replacing him, I'm just pointing out how completely unrealistic it is to ask for the system to all of a sudden get more complete and regional and personal and more broad at the same time.
You are stating what you want and completely ignoring the path it would take to get to that point. Theory is all well and good but we are in an actual period of turmoil in this regard and it is much more beneficial to discuss real possibilities rather than ideals at this point.
You admit MTGO data is incomplete and that local event data isn't reported, so these large events are the only "complete" picture we ever get of any part of the format. How is the most complete data set we have not the best place to start? From what I can tell Ktkenshinx did incorporate MTGO and local data in less weighted fashion.
The best possible tier system could be made if we had literally all the data. Then the tier system would truly be the average meta of every single player because it would be based strictly on what they actually see. That doesn't mean it will ever describe what a single player would see in a tournament, but all the players in that tournament averaged together would be close. It's like the Daniel Tosh joke about the 15 minutes of fame saying, It's an average. That means 20 years for him and 0 minutes for us here.
So the ideal, completely 100% data driven and unattainable tier system still doesn't meet your desired goals. There is simply no way you can ever make a tier system fluid enough so that it can depict bias' such as regional, paper vs online, local and casual vs large unknown metas while also keeping the tiers exclusive enough to actually be of use for tournament preparation while wide enough to keep this "skewed information" shtick from appearing (I think you are flat out wrong about this point and every goal you state when discussing it is in exact opposition to what you claim to want from the tier system).
Again, I clearly hear that you want a tier system that works for everyone and does not misrepresent the meta to new players; I just don't hear anything other than that and you calling me elitist.
I put these questions here clearly because I would like to understand how to get to the system you describe. I invite you to educate me on how these specific points could be addressed to get there. If any of these seem misleading or loaded then I misunderstood the point you were attempting to make and would appreciate if they were clarified.
1) What can local players in a mostly known meta gain from a tier system?
2) What does this majority of players you are referencing gain from tiering in general?
If the majority of the players gains very little from the tiers, but the minority gains a lot, then the comparison is completely dependent on the size of each group and the weight associated with each. If the majority is weighted at zero or close to zero then they are deriving no benefit from the tier system regardless of how heavily it is skewed in their direction. I am failing to see how we can weight this majority of players as anything other than close to zero benefit derived from any tier system, regardless of how it is defined. I believe this is where you and I are farthest apart; if you could better elaborate on this it would help me greatly in seeing your point of view.
3) How specialized should the tier system be? Just paper vs online? Or FNM level events vs top 8 style events? By state? By store? Per player?
4) What do you actually want measured to define tiers?
5) How does having more broadly defined tiers do new players any service when it comes to choosing a deck?
6) What is your ideal use of a tier system?
I'm having trouble seeing how what you are proposing is in any way realistic or useful to the people you seem to want it skewed toward. I'd genuinely like to see your point of view; or you can continue to call me condescending and say what you would like but not how or why.
@ Lantern
We're all being pretty critical here but that's only because we all feel passionate about this. I appreciate your work here and I don't mean any of this to be a criticism of you at all but more so what people are actually expecting.
Also we know that wizards does not post all the 5-0's, just some of them, correct?
If that is the case it may just be random which are shown, but a cautious observer could easily accuse them of cherry picking to falsify diversity.
Over on the Source the other day, a poster had some pretty good evidence that Wizards is cherry picking them because the 5-0's weren't at all matching thread activity, card interest (rising and falling in prices), or general player preferences. It looked a lot like the post SDT 5-0's were being manipulated to show more exotic builds than anything else.
Can anyone explain to me how the Tier system has changed on this site? Does it have to do with Ktkenshinx leaving?
Apparently, Lantern has changed both the data source and the tiering cutoffs. Now it seems +1% decks are Tier 2 and +3% decks are Tier 1, roughyl. No official layout and/or explanation of changes by any mod so far.
Thank you. It would be nice if the staff were more transparent about it.
I am. Did you message me? Ive also been commenting on all the deck threads that asked about it.
I'm not a god, I'm not telepathic. I'm a Television Studio Producer. I work about 75 hours a week, and do this on the side. No one is paying me. And my main Mod, who I trained and have been working with for literally years is leaving me. Next time anyone requests me to magically fix everything, they can just quote this.
No offence. I've been modding this sub for literally a decade at this point, and its mostly people telling me how things are wrong. Sometimes I get thanked, most times I dont. I'm training 2 new mods now, so Maybe I can be free enough to actually do more work in the tiering.
I'll be as clear as day here... and again. Yall can quote me on this if anyone asks again, it would save me the leg work of people thinking Im shafting them.
THERE IS NO GOOD DATA FOR ME TO DRAW ON. Point blank. I can use MTG goldfish, but their data is incomplete and they only hold a month of data on file, and when they update they dump 3 weeks of data and start fresh every month. Thats pretty bad for a non rotating slow to change format.
I can use top 8, like I'm doing right now, that does 2 months of data, but has random data holes and weighs everything pretty equally. So theres problems there too.
I can use modern nexus... when they remember to update. They are always late, and depending on them lately has been like throwing a paper plane and hoping it comes back sometime. (If you are reading this modern nexus, sorry. I was extremely pleased by the site, but every update has been weeks late for about a half a year now.)
I can use mainphase's data. Even messaged them (because people assume I havent been trying to fix this problem) asking about the data and more information. Im waiting on replies.
To be clear. You are asking me to be on top of an issue that has no good answers while I also have to feed my family AND train 2 new mods and clean up a forum missing the best partner I ever had.
I'm not going to ask for sympathy over here, or call out selfishness, but I will ask for understanding and patience. Come on. Cut some slack.
Do you adjust for MTGO figures? The challenge is MTGO does not have top 8. As a result if you try to apply a top 8 methodology to both MTGO and paper magic equally... it's going to skew results.
For example, in Legacy D&T sees little to no play on MTGO due to the cost. As a result if you were to look at the top 8 statistics including MTGO it looks like D&T is only 3-5% of the meta (when in fact, it is far more popular in paper). When you look at paper only events, the meta of D&T raises to 7%. Which is a substantial increase.
Also we know that wizards does not post all the 5-0's, just some of them, correct?
If that is the case it may just be random which are shown, but a cautious observer could easily accuse them of cherry picking to falsify diversity.
Over on the Source the other day, a poster had some pretty good evidence that Wizards is cherry picking them because the 5-0's weren't at all matching thread activity, card interest (rising and falling in prices), or general player preferences. It looked a lot like the post SDT 5-0's were being manipulated to show more exotic builds than anything else.
That's really good to know and exactly what I was worried about. They have no transparency therefore they are free to make it seem like the format is whatever they want it to look like. If true, I just wish they would devote those resources to actually testing and improving the format instead of just improving the appearance of it.
THERE IS NO GOOD DATA FOR ME TO DRAW ON. Point blank. I can use MTG goldfish, but their data is incomplete and they only hold a month of data on file, and when they update they dump 3 weeks of data and start fresh every month. Thats pretty bad for a non rotating slow to change format.
Would it be possible for mtgs to build it's own data pool over time? For example storing others data and using it to build trends after a few months?
I think getting on Lantern about this is wrong, wizards is actively trying to mask the data and that's not his fault.
Personally I don't care about the tiering system because I think results (top 8s, 16s, and 32s if the tournament is big enough) matter more than anything when it comes to what needs balance. Popularity is fine if you're going with MTGO because it is easier to change with lower prices and higher availability but in paper how many people can afford Tarmogoyfs? I have a set and can easily play jund but i'm in the minority.
Y'all need to get off Lanterns back, I disagree with some of his moderation decisions but I don't think attacking someone doing volunteer work is wise.
That's really good to know and exactly what I was worried about. They have no transparency therefore they are free to make it seem like the format is whatever they want it to look like. If true, I just wish they would devote those resources to actually testing and improving the format instead of just improving the appearance of it.
Ya. I'm starting to think that it's time for Wizards to start posting all 5-0's again for Modern and Legacy. They can continue to obfuscate the Standard meta if they want, but having accurate access to information is something I think the non rotating formats need at this point.
How about instead of a tier system, you just have a proven section for deck that have top whatever( the mods can decide the cut off point) and the decks have a percentage next to their name showing how often they have been in that top part of the events they get data from. If its the SCG, PTQ, and GPQ so be it. Update the percentages or have them for the last 30 days or 90 days.
I think this way people can see what is being played, no one is saying one deck is better then another, and people can figure out what they wish to play.
Just my thinking.
Just to be clear, there would be proven and developing as the only 2 sections. 1 has percentages of tops the other has decks that were seen but have not topped.
@ Lantern, I was never happy with the old system either. I am not bashing you, I am bashing the idea of a tiered system with incomplete data. I am not bashing on you.
How about instead of a tier system, you just have a proven section for deck that have top whatever( the mods can decide the cut off point) and the decks have a percentage next to their name showing how often they have been in that top part of the events they get data from. If its the SCG, PTQ, and GPQ so be it. Update the percentages or have them for the last 30 days or 90 days.
I think this way people can see what is being played, no one is saying one deck is better then another, and people can figure out what they wish to play.
Just my thinking.
Just to be clear, there would be proven and developing as the only 2 sections. 1 has percentages of tops the other has decks that were seen but have not topped.
Wouldn't you want three sections? Established? Established would be for deck's that have been "proven" before, but may no longer be as viable.
How about instead of a tier system, you just have a proven section for deck that have top whatever( the mods can decide the cut off point) and the decks have a percentage next to their name showing how often they have been in that top part of the events they get data from. If its the SCG, PTQ, and GPQ so be it. Update the percentages or have them for the last 30 days or 90 days.
I think this way people can see what is being played, no one is saying one deck is better then another, and people can figure out what they wish to play.
Just my thinking.
Just to be clear, there would be proven and developing as the only 2 sections. 1 has percentages of tops the other has decks that were seen but have not topped.
Wouldn't you want three sections? Established? Established would be for deck's that have been "proven" before, but may no longer be as viable.
Nope, just 2. Those that have data that shows they have topped and have a percentage to show, and those we see in events but have not topped so they dont have a percentage to show.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thank you. It would be nice if the staff were more transparent about it.
RGTron
UGInfect
URStorm
WUBRAd Nauseam
BRGrishoalbrand
URGScapeshift
WBGAbzan Company
WUBRGAmulet Titan
BRGLiving End
WGBogles
And yet, the tiering system frequently predicted the top decks at all major events, as well as the MTGO regulars. People love to believe the metagame has secret Tier 3 decks that are actually Tier 1. They love to believe they can unlock some elusive metagame system that reveals a new picture of Modern's best deck. Sadly, in almost all cases, what you saw was what you got and the top tier decks really were exactly what they seemed to be. This is true now and it was true three years ago.
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.
Can't be done. Wizards changed the MTGO client and its replay function. Bot scrapers can't even access the replays to scrape them.
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.
I know its easy to get off topic but the purpose of this thread is to discuss the state of modern so make sure your posts stay relevant to modern.
Thanks
Ulka
Just because someone doesnt chase the golden ring of PTs and GPs dont make them casuals. Some people thrive in local metas, make money doing it, and have no desire to go any farther, Doesnt make them casuals. I find your condescending attitude toward those who dont chase what others do sickening.
There is a difference between grinders, local players, and these so called casuals you keep talking down to. But you dont seem to understand that.
Pros dont need a tier system, they already know whats good and what they can play to money in events. The tiering system is for the lesser players, the grinders and the locals, the majority of the player in the format.
Its not about new players winning or losing, its about new players getting skewed information and basing their decisions off said skewed information.
MTGO doesnt let us see all the numbers, so using MTGO data is incomplete.
We dont get the data from local events around the world, so the data is incomplete.
Using only SCG, PPTQ's and GPQ's as the only source of data for tiering is skewed so bad it makes the tiering unrealistic.
But do as you wish, I am out on this subject. I dont agree we need a tiering system unless we use all data and weigh said data.
I am. Did you message me? Ive also been commenting on all the deck threads that asked about it.
I'm not a god, I'm not telepathic. I'm a Television Studio Producer. I work about 75 hours a week, and do this on the side. No one is paying me. And my main Mod, who I trained and have been working with for literally years is leaving me. Next time anyone requests me to magically fix everything, they can just quote this.
No offence. I've been modding this sub for literally a decade at this point, and its mostly people telling me how things are wrong. Sometimes I get thanked, most times I dont. I'm training 2 new mods now, so Maybe I can be free enough to actually do more work in the tiering.
I'll be as clear as day here... and again. Yall can quote me on this if anyone asks again, it would save me the leg work of people thinking Im shafting them.
THERE IS NO GOOD DATA FOR ME TO DRAW ON. Point blank. I can use MTG goldfish, but their data is incomplete and they only hold a month of data on file, and when they update they dump 3 weeks of data and start fresh every month. Thats pretty bad for a non rotating slow to change format.
I can use top 8, like I'm doing right now, that does 2 months of data, but has random data holes and weighs everything pretty equally. So theres problems there too.
I can use modern nexus... when they remember to update. They are always late, and depending on them lately has been like throwing a paper plane and hoping it comes back sometime. (If you are reading this modern nexus, sorry. I was extremely pleased by the site, but every update has been weeks late for about a half a year now.)
I can use mainphase's data. Even messaged them (because people assume I havent been trying to fix this problem) asking about the data and more information. Im waiting on replies.
To be clear. You are asking me to be on top of an issue that has no good answers while I also have to feed my family AND train 2 new mods and clean up a forum missing the best partner I ever had.
I'm not going to ask for sympathy over here, or call out selfishness, but I will ask for understanding and patience. Come on. Cut some slack.
Hopefully when/if you get more time we'll begin a transition back, but I don't see why the onus has to be entirely on you. Of those in this thread throwing their spaghetti bowls at the wall, I haven't seen one user offer to help with data collection or with porting/maintaining kt's old system in the new era. IMO you don't have to apologize to anyone until that sentiment of entitlement becomes tangible participation.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Well said! I think Modern is the most dynamic and thought provoking format in Magic right now.
Infraction for ignorning mod text. We have a sub for politics, please dont derail the modern sub any further. ~Lantern
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.
If people are thriving in their local meta and making money and never plan on playing in an unknown meta then what could a tier system possibly provide them?
Me saying you can't have your cake and eat it too, and that there may not actually be any cake at all, is not condescending at all, it is being realistic. I actually credit you largely with changing my opinion on ban announcements, I had an unrealistic view and I was constantly being disappointed. Your comments did a large part in putting my view in perspective. I'd love to return the favor here but if you'd rather feel sick from my comments and continue to be disappointed then that is on you.
I've played in exactly ONE modern PTQ, where I was in second heading into the top 8 with this abysmal budget version of a non-tiered deck. http://www.mtgmintcard.com/mtg/decks/eventdecks/khans-of-tarkir-ptq-roanoke/jason-freischlag/wb-midrange
I play mostly local FNMs and with friends. I play mono red goblins online because I don't want to put large sums of money into both digital and paper product. I am the player you are attempting to defend here.
We all know Ktkenshinx was a madman, why would we expect it to get better after he left? Lantern has stated he has no good way to collect data in the first place, how can we possibly start to make it meta dependent?
We could call every deck that can win any match "tier 1" and that would solve this skewed information problem for new players because any of those decks COULD be a good call in their meta. The tier system is meant to be an aggregate of all meta's so you can make the most informed decision possible. If you already know the meta then you can make a more informed decision without considering tiers.
Making the tiers bigger doesn't give new players better information, it gives them worse information. When they can look at the sultai delirium thread and think it is tier two and therefore in as good of a position as bant eldrazi; every single person here knows that is misleading at best.
I also want the tiers to be as applicable to the most players as possible and to not misinform new players, but I also think it is important that the tiers are most useful to those that will use them the most.
What you are asking for is more difficult to accomplish than the system we are losing, which already didn't meet what you wanted. We have lantern saying he is losing his best statistics person and is having trouble replacing him, I'm just pointing out how completely unrealistic it is to ask for the system to all of a sudden get more complete and regional and personal and more broad at the same time.
You are stating what you want and completely ignoring the path it would take to get to that point. Theory is all well and good but we are in an actual period of turmoil in this regard and it is much more beneficial to discuss real possibilities rather than ideals at this point.
You admit MTGO data is incomplete and that local event data isn't reported, so these large events are the only "complete" picture we ever get of any part of the format. How is the most complete data set we have not the best place to start? From what I can tell Ktkenshinx did incorporate MTGO and local data in less weighted fashion.
The best possible tier system could be made if we had literally all the data. Then the tier system would truly be the average meta of every single player because it would be based strictly on what they actually see. That doesn't mean it will ever describe what a single player would see in a tournament, but all the players in that tournament averaged together would be close. It's like the Daniel Tosh joke about the 15 minutes of fame saying, It's an average. That means 20 years for him and 0 minutes for us here.
So the ideal, completely 100% data driven and unattainable tier system still doesn't meet your desired goals. There is simply no way you can ever make a tier system fluid enough so that it can depict bias' such as regional, paper vs online, local and casual vs large unknown metas while also keeping the tiers exclusive enough to actually be of use for tournament preparation while wide enough to keep this "skewed information" shtick from appearing (I think you are flat out wrong about this point and every goal you state when discussing it is in exact opposition to what you claim to want from the tier system).
Again, I clearly hear that you want a tier system that works for everyone and does not misrepresent the meta to new players; I just don't hear anything other than that and you calling me elitist.
I put these questions here clearly because I would like to understand how to get to the system you describe. I invite you to educate me on how these specific points could be addressed to get there. If any of these seem misleading or loaded then I misunderstood the point you were attempting to make and would appreciate if they were clarified.
1) What can local players in a mostly known meta gain from a tier system?
2) What does this majority of players you are referencing gain from tiering in general?
If the majority of the players gains very little from the tiers, but the minority gains a lot, then the comparison is completely dependent on the size of each group and the weight associated with each. If the majority is weighted at zero or close to zero then they are deriving no benefit from the tier system regardless of how heavily it is skewed in their direction. I am failing to see how we can weight this majority of players as anything other than close to zero benefit derived from any tier system, regardless of how it is defined. I believe this is where you and I are farthest apart; if you could better elaborate on this it would help me greatly in seeing your point of view.
3) How specialized should the tier system be? Just paper vs online? Or FNM level events vs top 8 style events? By state? By store? Per player?
4) What do you actually want measured to define tiers?
5) How does having more broadly defined tiers do new players any service when it comes to choosing a deck?
6) What is your ideal use of a tier system?
I'm having trouble seeing how what you are proposing is in any way realistic or useful to the people you seem to want it skewed toward. I'd genuinely like to see your point of view; or you can continue to call me condescending and say what you would like but not how or why.
@ Lantern
We're all being pretty critical here but that's only because we all feel passionate about this. I appreciate your work here and I don't mean any of this to be a criticism of you at all but more so what people are actually expecting.
Over on the Source the other day, a poster had some pretty good evidence that Wizards is cherry picking them because the 5-0's weren't at all matching thread activity, card interest (rising and falling in prices), or general player preferences. It looked a lot like the post SDT 5-0's were being manipulated to show more exotic builds than anything else.
Do you adjust for MTGO figures? The challenge is MTGO does not have top 8. As a result if you try to apply a top 8 methodology to both MTGO and paper magic equally... it's going to skew results.
For example, in Legacy D&T sees little to no play on MTGO due to the cost. As a result if you were to look at the top 8 statistics including MTGO it looks like D&T is only 3-5% of the meta (when in fact, it is far more popular in paper). When you look at paper only events, the meta of D&T raises to 7%. Which is a substantial increase.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
That's really good to know and exactly what I was worried about. They have no transparency therefore they are free to make it seem like the format is whatever they want it to look like. If true, I just wish they would devote those resources to actually testing and improving the format instead of just improving the appearance of it.
Would it be possible for mtgs to build it's own data pool over time? For example storing others data and using it to build trends after a few months?
Personally I don't care about the tiering system because I think results (top 8s, 16s, and 32s if the tournament is big enough) matter more than anything when it comes to what needs balance. Popularity is fine if you're going with MTGO because it is easier to change with lower prices and higher availability but in paper how many people can afford Tarmogoyfs? I have a set and can easily play jund but i'm in the minority.
Y'all need to get off Lanterns back, I disagree with some of his moderation decisions but I don't think attacking someone doing volunteer work is wise.
Ya. I'm starting to think that it's time for Wizards to start posting all 5-0's again for Modern and Legacy. They can continue to obfuscate the Standard meta if they want, but having accurate access to information is something I think the non rotating formats need at this point.
I think this way people can see what is being played, no one is saying one deck is better then another, and people can figure out what they wish to play.
Just my thinking.
Just to be clear, there would be proven and developing as the only 2 sections. 1 has percentages of tops the other has decks that were seen but have not topped.
@ Lantern, I was never happy with the old system either. I am not bashing you, I am bashing the idea of a tiered system with incomplete data. I am not bashing on you.
Wouldn't you want three sections? Established? Established would be for deck's that have been "proven" before, but may no longer be as viable.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
Nope, just 2. Those that have data that shows they have topped and have a percentage to show, and those we see in events but have not topped so they dont have a percentage to show.