There are no Tier 0 decks in current Modern. They aren't even close. I struggle to look at the rest of what might be a decent project because that's such a glaring misclassification: a Tier 0 deck would never make up 11% of the format.
EDIT; It's particularly bizarre to call those decks Tier 0 when you have only 11 tournaments in your dataset. If anything, such a small N would lead to a runaway lead for a Tier 0 deck, but 11% ia hardly runaway. This is a classic case of a good dataset with good math that produced a strange and statistically unsupportable conclusion. If you just reclasssified those decks, the results would be much more sensible.
EDIT2: I think the main error is in your scale, where you seem to assign arbitrary point values to different finishers. 32nd place gets 1 point and 1st gets 2.5? Where do those values come from? Why do T8 wins give +1 point, the same as an additional 32nd place finish? The value choices and weightings feel completely made up.
There are no Tier 0 decks in current Modern. They aren't even close. I struggle to look at the rest of what might be a decent project because that's such a glaring misclassification: a Tier 0 deck would never make up 11% of the format.
Where to break into tiers is arbitrary. I could order them all in a straight line. But there are definite jumps in the data where there is clear separation. Also, I'm not wed to historical definitions. The data is what it is.
Also, maybe this should go in my thread. Don't want to derail here.
How many events are covered in the scope of your review?
Please discuss on my thread, again don't want to derail here. Will be 13 events, realized I was missing two GPs - Kobe and Copenhagen - while reviewing stuff. I have the data curated and read to go now, will re-run the code and update tomorrow, don't have it at home unfortunately.
There are no Tier 0 decks in current Modern. They aren't even close. I struggle to look at the rest of what might be a decent project because that's such a glaring misclassification: a Tier 0 deck would never make up 11% of the format.
Where to break into tiers is arbitrary. I could order them all in a straight line. But there are definite jumps in the data where there is clear separation. Also, I'm not wed to historical definitions. The data is what it is.
Also, maybe this should go in my thread. Don't want to derail here.
I don't know how other people did it in their meta reviews, but I always used standard deviations over the average. This is significantly less arbitrary than other methods. It's still arbitrary because all stats are secretly kind of arbitrary, but it's at the much more objective end of arbitrariness.
Again, it's a good analysis and awesome you did it. You just run into big trouble with your point scale, where you are assigning super arbitrary values to various finishes without really thinking through their meaning. For example, a 32nd place finish gets 1 point and a 1st place finish gets 2.5 points. Why not 1 point vs. 1.5 points? Or .5 vs. 3? In essence, you've made up values by assigning numbers there, which warps the entire scale. Another issue; a win in the T8 gets you a point. Does that mean winning one T8 match is really weighted the same as a 32nd place finish? That's a strange weighting I could never explain, and yet it's a weird effect of the system you decided on.
The meta share is objective. 11% is twice as much share as 5.5%. 5.5% is more than twice as much as 2%. Etc. But the other score you give doesn't really function like that, even though you set it up as if it does. I think this is because you are trying to make a scale to suggest performance, but a) your data is too limited to do that, and b) you've assigned arbitrary values to measure that performance. The result is data where one column makes sense (share) and would be the same no matter how many people crunched your numbers. The score column, however, is just your personal scoring method with personally selected numbers. It would change depending on who assigned those values, so it's basically useless for ranking decks.
It's easy to pick apart things when you add qualifiers like "shadowless." Actually though the most successful "shadowless" URx deck runs no maindeck big mana hate cards and wins via grapeshot.
Calling storm a blue red deck is like calling infect "blue green stompy" or dredge a grixis aggro. Storm is another weirdo that only abuses one keyword 'storm', it doesn't care color identity almost at all.
Except it does care about color identity. A combo deck like storm greatly benefits from cheap cantrips (found in blue), mana rituals (in red), spell-matters enablers such as cost reduction (in blue and red), not to mention the finishers themselves (in red). Storm is undeniably a UR deck, and arguably the most successful URx deck not running Shadow.
Well I do realize that Storm cares blue as a color since it gives you decent amount of cantrips and library manipulation but also Bloom Titan fetched for creatures and played ramping spells but no one didn't call it having the identity of green deck even tho it had playset of Primeval Titans.
It only happens to abuse cantrips because of the keyword 'storm' which doesn't have any actual color related identity. Blue as a color isn't just cantrip, cantrip, cantrip into win by some degenerate interaction created by cantrips (storm, ad nauseam, ascendancy). Storm has some aspects of a blue but it is no way a blue deck.
How many events are covered in the scope of your review?
Please discuss on my thread, again don't want to derail here. Will be 13 events, realized I was missing two GPs - Kobe and Copenhagen - while reviewing stuff. I have the data curated and read to go now, will re-run the code and update tomorrow, don't have it at home unfortunately.
This is a thread about the meta. Why would discussing some research about the meta derail this thread? Seems right on topic. I understand what you tried to do with your scoring system. Seems like you wanted to show how a deck like D&T might not be a huge share of the meta but still can take down a major tournament or at least, get close to doing that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WoTC, thank you for finally announcing the Modern format, an eternal format where everyone can participate.
Further, I am still surprised bloodbraid elf is banned, and main thought is that functions very similar to collected company. However, collected company is quite strong, and similar to birthing pod and just keeps getting better with new creatures. So I can understand why wizards could hesitant on blood-braid elf. I also honestly think collected collected company is stronger, and the main reason is you get to choose from the top 6 cards. Bloodbraid elf gives you no choice you could flip a removal spell on an empty board.
Stoneforge Mystic is a turn 3 batterskull game ending? No, but tron can drop some pretty game ending cards on turn 3. I can't see this being banned at the moment. I guess if I were wizard's part of my reason would involve limiting the design space for high CMC equipment cards. However, I don't see that as a good reason personally. Unless wizards has such a card in the works right now, I would say it being a problem would be years away.
Green Sun's Zenith, My only concern are the COCO decks, but they do have Chord of Calling and it can get any creature at instant speed. The fact it can only fetch green creatures makes it a lot weaker. Chord of Calling also can be quite mana efficient since it has convoke. Even more so after M15 allowing the colored part of the cards cost to be reduced. Oh let's also not forget summoner's pact which arguable more powerful for any all-in combo decks that needs to tutor a green creature, but it does not put it into play at least.
Chrome Mox, it sad this card has never been legal. The only deck I can think off the top my head that may worries me is Ad nauseam. Storm may use it. Also no affinity would not want this you have to exile a colored card to use it. It also see less play than other mana sources in legacy.
Chrome mox would make a really good and consistent rw prison deck and it would he able to produce many turn 1 blood moons.
Chrome mox has a tomb in its name.
Chrome mox would make a really good and consistent rw prison deck and it would he able to produce many turn 1 blood moons.
Chrome mox has a tomb in its name.
I mean we already have 1 mox in the format
It's significantly less broken and is just one strong element of a longtime Tier 1 deck that has never been oppressive or problematic.
Chrome mox would make a really good and consistent rw prison deck and it would he able to produce many turn 1 blood moons.
Chrome mox has a tomb in its name.
I mean we already have 1 mox in the format
It's significantly less broken and is just one strong element of a longtime Tier 1 deck that has never been oppressive or problematic.
I was getting at the "Chrome mox has a tomb in its name" I wouldn't say it's any less broken but it has more deck building constraints. As for oppressive and problematic that just depends on your definition of those words in the context of modern
Chrome mox would make a really good and consistent rw prison deck and it would he able to produce many turn 1 blood moons.
Chrome mox has a tomb in its name.
All-In Red could produce turn 1 Blood Moons with even greater regularity in Extended than is possible in Modern, and it was never any kind of dominant deck. While this could be frustrating, I don't see it as an actual problem worth something being banned.
The opportunity for turn 1 blood moon on the play should be kept to an absolute minimum. This isn't a force of will format and would produce non-games.
I think I'll pass on the mox thanks.
The opportunity for turn 1 blood moon on the play should be kept to an absolute minimum. This isn't a force of will format and would produce non-games.
I think I'll pass on the mox thanks.
Further, I am still surprised bloodbraid elf is banned, and main thought is that functions very similar to collected company. However, collected company is quite strong, and similar to birthing pod and just keeps getting better with new creatures. So I can understand why wizards could hesitant on blood-braid elf. I also honestly think collected collected company is stronger, and the main reason is you get to choose from the top 6 cards. Bloodbraid elf gives you no choice you could flip a removal spell on an empty board.
Stoneforge Mystic is a turn 3 batterskull game ending? No, but tron can drop some pretty game ending cards on turn 3. I can't see this being banned at the moment. I guess if I were wizard's part of my reason would involve limiting the design space for high CMC equipment cards. However, I don't see that as a good reason personally. Unless wizards has such a card in the works right now, I would say it being a problem would be years away.
Green Sun's Zenith, My only concern are the COCO decks, but they do have Chord of Calling and it can get any creature at instant speed. The fact it can only fetch green creatures makes it a lot weaker. Chord of Calling also can be quite mana efficient since it has convoke. Even more so after M15 allowing the colored part of the cards cost to be reduced. Oh let's also not forget summoner's pact which arguable more powerful for any all-in combo decks that needs to tutor a green creature, but it does not put it into play at least.
Chrome Mox, it sad this card has never been legal. The only deck I can think off the top my head that may worries me is Ad nauseam. Storm may use it. Also no affinity would not want this you have to exile a colored card to use it. It also see less play than other mana sources in legacy.
Chrome Mox enables a Modern Belcher deck. Trust me, you don't want that.
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
How does everyone feel about dark depth. It would enable some land based decks and make knight of the reliquary more of a player in modern. It's not really any more broken than what we currently have in modern
How does everyone feel about dark depth. It would enable some land based decks and make knight of the reliquary more of a player in modern. It's not really any more broken than what we currently have in modern
At its most broken it is a turn 2 20/20 indestructible flyer. It will almost always be a turn 4 20/20 flying indestructible and with Life from the Loam in the format it is just to good at grinding out a win.
How does everyone feel about dark depth. It would enable some land based decks and make knight of the reliquary more of a player in modern. It's not really any more broken than what we currently have in modern
At its most broken it is a turn 2 20/20 indestructible flyer. It will almost always be a turn 4 20/20 flying indestructible and with Life from the Loam in the format it is just to good at grinding out a win.
Sounds pretty interesting and vulnerable to grave yard hate which is plentiful at the moment
How does everyone feel about dark depth. It would enable some land based decks and make knight of the reliquary more of a player in modern. It's not really any more broken than what we currently have in modern
At its most broken it is a turn 2 20/20 indestructible flyer. It will almost always be a turn 4 20/20 flying indestructible and with Life from the Loam in the format it is just to good at grinding out a win.
Sounds pretty interesting and vulnerable to grave yard hate which is plentiful at the moment
The recursion part is vulnerable, but the combo itself doesn't care about the GY. One of the reasons why Dark Depths was paired with the Thopter Sword combo was because GY hate was only effective against half your strategy. It really is just too effective at doing what it does.
Dark Depths, as much as I'd love to have it in Modern, is probably never coming off.
Do you want RG Scapeshift and Amulet Titan being able to drop a Titan and grab the two for a 20/20 indestructible flying for the rest of the game?
To be fair if your opponent resolves primeval titan you are most likely still going to lose. It's not like people already aren't winning games on turn 3 sometimes or turn 4 consistently
Chrome Mox enables a Modern Belcher deck. Trust me, you don't want that.
In what way? Belcher wasn't a thing in Modern even when we had more accelerants than we would have in the present format with an unbanned Chrome Mox. Heck, I don't think we'd see an actually competitive Belcher deck even if Rite of Flame, Seething Song, and Chrome Mox were all unbanned.
Chrome Mox enables a Modern Belcher deck. Trust me, you don't want that.
In what way? Belcher wasn't a thing in Modern even when we had more accelerants than we would have in the present format with an unbanned Chrome Mox. Heck, I don't think we'd see an actually competitive Belcher deck even if Rite of Flame, Seething Song, and Chrome Mox were all unbanned.
Chrome Mox enables a Modern Belcher deck. Trust me, you don't want that.
In what way? Belcher wasn't a thing in Modern even when we had more accelerants than we would have in the present format with an unbanned Chrome Mox. Heck, I don't think we'd see an actually competitive Belcher deck even if Rite of Flame, Seething Song, and Chrome Mox were all unbanned.
Seems legit, I have a very hard time believing jeskai is t1 and that there is any t0 deck but sure.
There are no Tier 0 decks in current Modern. They aren't even close. I struggle to look at the rest of what might be a decent project because that's such a glaring misclassification: a Tier 0 deck would never make up 11% of the format.
EDIT; It's particularly bizarre to call those decks Tier 0 when you have only 11 tournaments in your dataset. If anything, such a small N would lead to a runaway lead for a Tier 0 deck, but 11% ia hardly runaway. This is a classic case of a good dataset with good math that produced a strange and statistically unsupportable conclusion. If you just reclasssified those decks, the results would be much more sensible.
EDIT2: I think the main error is in your scale, where you seem to assign arbitrary point values to different finishers. 32nd place gets 1 point and 1st gets 2.5? Where do those values come from? Why do T8 wins give +1 point, the same as an additional 32nd place finish? The value choices and weightings feel completely made up.
Where to break into tiers is arbitrary. I could order them all in a straight line. But there are definite jumps in the data where there is clear separation. Also, I'm not wed to historical definitions. The data is what it is.
Also, maybe this should go in my thread. Don't want to derail here.
How many events are covered in the scope of your review?
Please discuss on my thread, again don't want to derail here. Will be 13 events, realized I was missing two GPs - Kobe and Copenhagen - while reviewing stuff. I have the data curated and read to go now, will re-run the code and update tomorrow, don't have it at home unfortunately.
I don't know how other people did it in their meta reviews, but I always used standard deviations over the average. This is significantly less arbitrary than other methods. It's still arbitrary because all stats are secretly kind of arbitrary, but it's at the much more objective end of arbitrariness.
Again, it's a good analysis and awesome you did it. You just run into big trouble with your point scale, where you are assigning super arbitrary values to various finishes without really thinking through their meaning. For example, a 32nd place finish gets 1 point and a 1st place finish gets 2.5 points. Why not 1 point vs. 1.5 points? Or .5 vs. 3? In essence, you've made up values by assigning numbers there, which warps the entire scale. Another issue; a win in the T8 gets you a point. Does that mean winning one T8 match is really weighted the same as a 32nd place finish? That's a strange weighting I could never explain, and yet it's a weird effect of the system you decided on.
The meta share is objective. 11% is twice as much share as 5.5%. 5.5% is more than twice as much as 2%. Etc. But the other score you give doesn't really function like that, even though you set it up as if it does. I think this is because you are trying to make a scale to suggest performance, but a) your data is too limited to do that, and b) you've assigned arbitrary values to measure that performance. The result is data where one column makes sense (share) and would be the same no matter how many people crunched your numbers. The score column, however, is just your personal scoring method with personally selected numbers. It would change depending on who assigned those values, so it's basically useless for ranking decks.
Well I do realize that Storm cares blue as a color since it gives you decent amount of cantrips and library manipulation but also Bloom Titan fetched for creatures and played ramping spells but no one didn't call it having the identity of green deck even tho it had playset of Primeval Titans.
It only happens to abuse cantrips because of the keyword 'storm' which doesn't have any actual color related identity. Blue as a color isn't just cantrip, cantrip, cantrip into win by some degenerate interaction created by cantrips (storm, ad nauseam, ascendancy). Storm has some aspects of a blue but it is no way a blue deck.
Modern
WUBRG
This is a thread about the meta. Why would discussing some research about the meta derail this thread? Seems right on topic. I understand what you tried to do with your scoring system. Seems like you wanted to show how a deck like D&T might not be a huge share of the meta but still can take down a major tournament or at least, get close to doing that.
Further, I am still surprised bloodbraid elf is banned, and main thought is that functions very similar to collected company. However, collected company is quite strong, and similar to birthing pod and just keeps getting better with new creatures. So I can understand why wizards could hesitant on blood-braid elf. I also honestly think collected collected company is stronger, and the main reason is you get to choose from the top 6 cards. Bloodbraid elf gives you no choice you could flip a removal spell on an empty board.
Stoneforge Mystic is a turn 3 batterskull game ending? No, but tron can drop some pretty game ending cards on turn 3. I can't see this being banned at the moment. I guess if I were wizard's part of my reason would involve limiting the design space for high CMC equipment cards. However, I don't see that as a good reason personally. Unless wizards has such a card in the works right now, I would say it being a problem would be years away.
Ponder, and Preordain really? Especially, since green has cards like ancient stirrings, and Traverse the ulvenwald, Oath of Nissa
More Risky Cards
Green Sun's Zenith, My only concern are the COCO decks, but they do have Chord of Calling and it can get any creature at instant speed. The fact it can only fetch green creatures makes it a lot weaker. Chord of Calling also can be quite mana efficient since it has convoke. Even more so after M15 allowing the colored part of the cards cost to be reduced. Oh let's also not forget summoner's pact which arguable more powerful for any all-in combo decks that needs to tutor a green creature, but it does not put it into play at least.
Chrome Mox, it sad this card has never been legal. The only deck I can think off the top my head that may worries me is Ad nauseam. Storm may use it. Also no affinity would not want this you have to exile a colored card to use it. It also see less play than other mana sources in legacy.
I loathe creatures! Praise Prison and Land Destruction!
My Peasant Cube (looking for feedback)
I mean we already have 1 mox in the format
It's significantly less broken and is just one strong element of a longtime Tier 1 deck that has never been oppressive or problematic.
I was getting at the "Chrome mox has a tomb in its name" I wouldn't say it's any less broken but it has more deck building constraints. As for oppressive and problematic that just depends on your definition of those words in the context of modern
I think I'll pass on the mox thanks.
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT
Non games are a integral part of 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
At its most broken it is a turn 2 20/20 indestructible flyer. It will almost always be a turn 4 20/20 flying indestructible and with Life from the Loam in the format it is just to good at grinding out a win.
Sounds pretty interesting and vulnerable to grave yard hate which is plentiful at the moment
Do you want RG Scapeshift and Amulet Titan being able to drop a Titan and grab the two for a 20/20 indestructible flying for the rest of the game?
The recursion part is vulnerable, but the combo itself doesn't care about the GY. One of the reasons why Dark Depths was paired with the Thopter Sword combo was because GY hate was only effective against half your strategy. It really is just too effective at doing what it does.
To be fair if your opponent resolves primeval titan you are most likely still going to lose. It's not like people already aren't winning games on turn 3 sometimes or turn 4 consistently
Belcher would easily be a deck at that point.
I don't think it would be that great though. Especially, without elvish spirit guide, Lotus petal, Lions Eye Diamond and Land Grant. Thoughtseize also is pretty brutal or a counter spell even if it's a remand.
I don't think chrom mox would put elf belch
I loathe creatures! Praise Prison and Land Destruction!
My Peasant Cube (looking for feedback)