Option 2. Further sub categorising as per option 1 seems a bit redundant and having a broader display of decks that have done well I think makes a more reliable resource.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH BRGKresh the BloodbraidedBRG, A box of lands and ideas.
Modern: RG Titanshift. A deck made of cards too stupid for EDH.
Retired: Lots. More than I feel you should suffer through or I should type out.
I'm a fan of option 2. Established helps to not pigeon hole players into Tier 1 (proven) decks, especially considering the power level is very similar in most established decks (including what would be defined as proven).
You vote for 2 even with it consisting of about 80 decks over a few pages? Isn't that really ungainly for navigation?
I assumed we'd see an extra separation of aggro, combo, control, midrange, and ramp similar to how the legacy forums. I do agree that if there wasn't that separation then navigating would be a bit unwieldy.
I also overlooked the 79 decks comment, so I'd definitely favor option #1 if we don't do macro archetype separation.
I’d go with option 2, I see no problem with archetype separation. Indeed it is true that decks blend archetypes, but do they not often have a primary game plan that favours one over the other? I totally concede that decks will inevitably be awkwardly placed but I think the community could vote for placements and ultimately it would be a much better system than we have now.
When it comes to Tron and other big mana decks, I’d say we can differ from the legacy forums and simply include a Big Mana archetype (or something like it). Let’s keep the number of archetypes to a minimum overall but exceptions can be made to start. I say we see how well they work before ruling it out
I'm a fan of option 2. Established helps to not pigeon hole players into Tier 1 (proven) decks, especially considering the power level is very similar in most established decks (including what would be defined as proven).
You vote for 2 even with it consisting of about 80 decks over a few pages? Isn't that really ungainly for navigation?
I think 2 is probably going to be a lot of work in the short term, to make things easier for the mods in the long term. Navigating it might be a little tricky, but navigating through perceived notions is probably just as rough.
I'd be for option 2. The truth is... Until wizards lets us get data again, the old way of doing it is dead. No "tier list" exists without bias anymore. Modern has also evolved to be as diverse as legacy, there is a stupid amount of decks now.
So my suggestion would be Option 2- Make a sticky thread that has all Decks in it, with a short overview on the deck in it. That way there is a table of contents and new users can go to that to learn more. Lets be real... returning users subscribe to X amount of threads and dont browse really, only new users looking to get info. Give them that option.
Option 1 has too much bias, and does a bad job at being a tier list. Option 2 with tier list stickys is just doing a worse version of what we have now. Theres no good way to organize those threads in option two sans a table of contents. Option 3 doesnt change anything and has been lacking anyways.
So my suggestion would be Option 2- Make a sticky thread that has all Decks in it, with a short overview on the deck in it.
I link this approach, even if there is 3 pages of proven decks you still have a one-stop for checking out what's out there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have. - René Descartes
I'd be for option 2. The truth is... Until wizards lets us get data again, the old way of doing it is dead. No "tier list" exists without bias anymore. Modern has also evolved to be as diverse as legacy, there is a stupid amount of decks now.
So my suggestion would be Option 2- Make a sticky thread that has all Decks in it, with a short overview on the deck in it. That way there is a table of contents and new users can go to that to learn more. Lets be real... returning users subscribe to X amount of threads and dont browse really, only new users looking to get info. Give them that option.
Option 1 has too much bias, and does a bad job at being a tier list. Option 2 with tier list stickys is just doing a worse version of what we have now. Theres no good way to organize those threads in option two sans a table of contents. Option 3 doesnt change anything and has been lacking anyways.
I'm working on what I'm calling the "Modern Compendium" which is essentially a database of every viable deck in the format. It's super long as you can imagine, so I'm not going to be done it anytime soon. Also with the limitations of the forums I can't sort it very user friendly which is annoying. This would be a good short term solution to the many-deck problem.
My end goal would be one on the main page with every deck you could possibly play (Modern Compendium), then on in the Proven section to list all those decks, and one in the Deck Creation section for all the decks that miss whatever cutoff we set up for the Proven section. That way any reasonable deck without many result that falls down pretty far in deck creation may not be lost forever in the sea of threads with only a few posts. Having section specific stickies would be quite easy to do. I like that idea.
At this point, I prefer either option 1 with a strict enough criteria that Established only has about 1 page worth of decks, or option 2 given some form of organization to make looking through decks relatively painless for newer users. Given that organizing the decks into Aggro, Midrange, Control, Combo and Other seems very unpopular, Lantern's idea of creating a sort of Table of Contents seems like a great way to give newer players a quick 1-page guide to potential Tier 1-2 decks without worrying about older players potentially spending days arguing semantics
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks
Modern: UWUW Control UBRGrixis Shadow URIzzet Phoenix
I think SCG data is to be used, but there is still an issue of a deck showing up once, especially out of an SCG event, and then being in 'Established' or whatever when maybe it shouldnt be.
I think SCG data is to be used, but there is still an issue of a deck showing up once, especially out of an SCG event, and then being in 'Established' or whatever when maybe it shouldnt be.
I believe we're using a lot of data. Last time I checked, www.tcdecks.net was one of the websites involved but nowhere close to the only one.
There are two major problems with data-based tiering right now. The first is that Wizards has deliberately throttled our data access, which means we cannot use MTGO events and no longer have Day 2 prevalances. That said, this isn't a huge hurdle. We still have plenty of smaller events reporting to about 15 different tournament sites. People love to say we don't have enough data to describe deck prevalence, but that's flatly untrue. There is a lot of paper tournament data out there, and it's more than enough to define a paper metagame.
The second problem is much bigger in practice: no one wants to collect this data and maintain a dataset. I used to do it but stopped after I left Nexus. Since then, I've seen literally a half dozen people claim to start the next definitive metagame project, but for whatever reason they stop posting/updating after a few months. It's a lot of work and is generally a thankless job, so I don't blame them much. But this means there is no data continuity from update to update, and there's a lot of knowledge and labor lost between distinct update projects.
These factors really limit the effectiveness of a data-driven tiering or organizational system. In light of them, it's easier to use a system that isn't driven by major analysis and is instead driven by more high profile finishes and performances.
There are two major problems with data-based tiering right now. The first is that Wizards has deliberately throttled our data access, which means we cannot use MTGO events and no longer have Day 2 prevalances. That said, this isn't a huge hurdle. We still have plenty of smaller events reporting to about 15 different tournament sites. People love to say we don't have enough data to describe deck prevalence, but that's flatly untrue. There is a lot of paper tournament data out there, and it's more than enough to define a paper metagame.
The second problem is much bigger in practice: no one wants to collect this data and maintain a dataset. I used to do it but stopped after I left Nexus. Since then, I've seen literally a half dozen people claim to start the next definitive metagame project, but for whatever reason they stop posting/updating after a few months. It's a lot of work and is generally a thankless job, so I don't blame them much. But this means there is no data continuity from update to update, and there's a lot of knowledge and labor lost between distinct update projects.
These factors really limit the effectiveness of a data-driven tiering or organizational system. In light of them, it's easier to use a system that isn't driven by major analysis and is instead driven by more high profile finishes and performances.
Slightly off topic, why would a pay to use system not work to continually update and tier the metagame? I know people pay for assistance in the financial world.
Just to give my 2 cents: option 2 with the sub-classification in archetypes is the best idea in my mind.
Yes, people will complain about some decks being in some spots. It is clear that zoo and affinity are aggro decks, but what about elves? It definitely can win an aggro game... however, it plays much 'as if' it were a combo deck, trying to set up a board state in such a manner as to win in one turn. Wherever you throw it, some players might be unhappy about it. The same is true for death & taxes... is it midrange or control? What about merfolk? It is an aggro deck, but sometimes it runs counterspells and plays like a midrange/tempo deck. People will be unhappy with some classifications, sure. However... so what?
Will it trouble anyone here that much if they see tron, lantern, 8-rack and u/w in control? Death's Shadow in midrange? I have no quarrel with that at all. These are just umbrella terms to help organize decks that, while imperfect, certainly solve the issue of tier classification. Everything that has had more than one random sporadic result goes to Established, and the other whacky ideas and brews go to Developing.
I feel like people are giving too much importance to the discontent of some with a system of classification. Classifications are never perfect. At least I would suggest seeing how an archetype-sorted list would look like before making a call about choosing option 1 or 2. Aggro/Midrange/Combo/Control definitely covers in a satisfactory way most types of decks that pop up in Magic, but I would be willing to see other sort of archetype classifications being given, as long as it doesn't go overboard in the number of categories.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
.
Would you like to read Commander stories? Check my latest stories, coming from Lorwyn and Innistrad: Ghoulcaller Gisa and Doran, The Siege Tower! If you like my writing, ask me to write something for your commander as well!
I'm working on what I'm calling the "Modern Compendium" which is essentially a database of every viable deck in the format. It's super long as you can imagine, so I'm not going to be done it anytime soon. Also with the limitations of the forums I can't sort it very user friendly which is annoying. This would be a good short term solution to the many-deck problem.
My end goal would be one on the main page with every deck you could possibly play (Modern Compendium), then on in the Proven section to list all those decks, and one in the Deck Creation section for all the decks that miss whatever cutoff we set up for the Proven section. That way any reasonable deck without many result that falls down pretty far in deck creation may not be lost forever in the sea of threads with only a few posts. Having section specific stickies would be quite easy to do. I like that idea.
I like this idea, and a good way to implement it may be creating a locked thread only you can post in. The first post of the thread is a Table of Contents of all the different Modern decks, organized by archetype, and then alphabetically by name. Each one of the Table of Contents listings links to another post in the thread that gives a small blurb on what the deck does, as well as linking to the main discussion thread within the forums.
I don't know all the tools you have access to as a mod, but this to me seems like a reasonable way to go about things.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
I was thinking something like this as far as a table of contents.
Burn - RW or RWG - A deck which plays aggressive red creatures, and a multitude of spells doing 3 damage, focused on killing the player as quickly as possible.
That would give new players a quick idea of what each deck is doing, and the colour base in case they already have some format staples.
We could do option 2, and instead of trying to cull the "established" decks to <= 25, we could group them by greater archetype in a kind of tree. So you could have Established -> Tron Decks -> Eldrazi Tron, Gx Tron, Mono U Tron; Established -> B(G)x Rock Decks -> Jund, Abzan, GB Rock, Jund Death Shadow, Grixis Death Shadow; Established -> UWx -> UW Control, UWR Control, UWR Midrange, Esper Control; etc. With a little creativity you could probably get the number of established "nodes" to 25 or less. And some decks like burn or whatever will just be threads in the established section itself, and that's fine.
Wouldn't the Table of Contents idea lead to faster look ups than the node idea? The node idea requires multiple clicks to browse through each deck description, whereas the ToC would require going to just 1 page and still allow a user to look at descriptions of all the decks, and then it only takes another click. The ToC also avoids worrying about deck classification, which for a large number of users is a large concern
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks
Modern: UWUW Control UBRGrixis Shadow URIzzet Phoenix
A node idea is fine in Legacy, where you have far more options available.
A ToC with a layout similar to what I typed up (in seconds) would be more than sufficient for organization and aiding new users I would think, and you could easily put headers above each 'section'
Aggro, Combo, Control, Midrange.
Yes, people quibble over groupings, but in a ToC its not going to kill anyone but the most pedantic of us nerds.
I still don't understand what's the problem of having both the Table of Contents and the classification under archetypes. If someone wants to be 'one-click' away from the deck of their choice, let them see the table and click on the link for whatever deck they want.
If they want to browse the forum archetype for archetype instead of reading an entire list, then let them do that too. These options are not mutually exclusive people.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
.
Would you like to read Commander stories? Check my latest stories, coming from Lorwyn and Innistrad: Ghoulcaller Gisa and Doran, The Siege Tower! If you like my writing, ask me to write something for your commander as well!
Less overhead for the Mod/Admin team if you dont have the top level node, and less pedantic fighting over 'My decks not Combo, its Control Combo!' type situations?
We could do option 2, and instead of trying to cull the "established" decks to <= 25, we could group them by greater archetype in a kind of tree. So you could have Established -> Tron Decks -> Eldrazi Tron, Gx Tron, Mono U Tron; Established -> B(G)x Rock Decks -> Jund, Abzan, GB Rock, Jund Death Shadow, Grixis Death Shadow; Established -> UWx -> UW Control, UWR Control, UWR Midrange, Esper Control; etc. With a little creativity you could probably get the number of established "nodes" to 25 or less. And some decks like burn or whatever will just be threads in the established section itself, and that's fine.
I already disagree with a few of your node selections. Given its high blue cantrip density, I find that Grixis Death's Shadow plays a lot more like Delver decks or that newfangled UR Young Pyromancer Thing in the Ice Field of Ruin midrange deck than any of those B(G)x Rock decks. I'd therefore remove Grixis Death's Shadow from the B(G)x Rock node. And then I find that UB Control and Grixis Midrange/Control play enough like those UWx Midrange/Control decks that I'd lump those in and rename the category Ux Midrange-to-Control.
Established (GP Winning type decks, community voted?)
Proven (Decks that have got Top 8 potential, always in Day 2, etc, community voted?)
Developing (Anything new)
I dont see a point in organizing budget decks...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
UW Spirits
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
BRGKresh the BloodbraidedBRG, A box of lands and ideas.
Modern:
RG Titanshift. A deck made of cards too stupid for EDH.
Retired: Lots. More than I feel you should suffer through or I should type out.
I assumed we'd see an extra separation of aggro, combo, control, midrange, and ramp similar to how the legacy forums. I do agree that if there wasn't that separation then navigating would be a bit unwieldy.
I also overlooked the 79 decks comment, so I'd definitely favor option #1 if we don't do macro archetype separation.
When it comes to Tron and other big mana decks, I’d say we can differ from the legacy forums and simply include a Big Mana archetype (or something like it). Let’s keep the number of archetypes to a minimum overall but exceptions can be made to start. I say we see how well they work before ruling it out
I think 2 is probably going to be a lot of work in the short term, to make things easier for the mods in the long term. Navigating it might be a little tricky, but navigating through perceived notions is probably just as rough.
So my suggestion would be Option 2- Make a sticky thread that has all Decks in it, with a short overview on the deck in it. That way there is a table of contents and new users can go to that to learn more. Lets be real... returning users subscribe to X amount of threads and dont browse really, only new users looking to get info. Give them that option.
Option 1 has too much bias, and does a bad job at being a tier list. Option 2 with tier list stickys is just doing a worse version of what we have now. Theres no good way to organize those threads in option two sans a table of contents. Option 3 doesnt change anything and has been lacking anyways.
Spirits
I link this approach, even if there is 3 pages of proven decks you still have a one-stop for checking out what's out there.
My end goal would be one on the main page with every deck you could possibly play (Modern Compendium), then on in the Proven section to list all those decks, and one in the Deck Creation section for all the decks that miss whatever cutoff we set up for the Proven section. That way any reasonable deck without many result that falls down pretty far in deck creation may not be lost forever in the sea of threads with only a few posts. Having section specific stickies would be quite easy to do. I like that idea.
MTGO/MTGA: Tyclone
My Primers ~ GWx Vizier Company ~ Knightfall ~ RG Eldrazi ~ Green's Sun's Zenith
More Brews ~ Modern Four Horsemen ~ Gitrog Dredge
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
Modern:
UWUW Control
UBRGrixis Shadow
URIzzet Phoenix
Spirits
I believe we're using a lot of data. Last time I checked, www.tcdecks.net was one of the websites involved but nowhere close to the only one.
The second problem is much bigger in practice: no one wants to collect this data and maintain a dataset. I used to do it but stopped after I left Nexus. Since then, I've seen literally a half dozen people claim to start the next definitive metagame project, but for whatever reason they stop posting/updating after a few months. It's a lot of work and is generally a thankless job, so I don't blame them much. But this means there is no data continuity from update to update, and there's a lot of knowledge and labor lost between distinct update projects.
These factors really limit the effectiveness of a data-driven tiering or organizational system. In light of them, it's easier to use a system that isn't driven by major analysis and is instead driven by more high profile finishes and performances.
Slightly off topic, why would a pay to use system not work to continually update and tier the metagame? I know people pay for assistance in the financial world.
Yes, people will complain about some decks being in some spots. It is clear that zoo and affinity are aggro decks, but what about elves? It definitely can win an aggro game... however, it plays much 'as if' it were a combo deck, trying to set up a board state in such a manner as to win in one turn. Wherever you throw it, some players might be unhappy about it. The same is true for death & taxes... is it midrange or control? What about merfolk? It is an aggro deck, but sometimes it runs counterspells and plays like a midrange/tempo deck. People will be unhappy with some classifications, sure. However... so what?
Will it trouble anyone here that much if they see tron, lantern, 8-rack and u/w in control? Death's Shadow in midrange? I have no quarrel with that at all. These are just umbrella terms to help organize decks that, while imperfect, certainly solve the issue of tier classification. Everything that has had more than one random sporadic result goes to Established, and the other whacky ideas and brews go to Developing.
I feel like people are giving too much importance to the discontent of some with a system of classification. Classifications are never perfect. At least I would suggest seeing how an archetype-sorted list would look like before making a call about choosing option 1 or 2. Aggro/Midrange/Combo/Control definitely covers in a satisfactory way most types of decks that pop up in Magic, but I would be willing to see other sort of archetype classifications being given, as long as it doesn't go overboard in the number of categories.
Read my other stories as well (some ongoing):
Reaper King (a horror story), Kaalia of the Vast (an origin story), Sequels for Innistrad (Alternative sequels for Inn), Grey Areas (Odric's fanfic), Royal Succession (goblins),The Tracker's Message (eldrazi on Innistrad) and Ugin and his Eye (the end of OGW).
I like this idea, and a good way to implement it may be creating a locked thread only you can post in. The first post of the thread is a Table of Contents of all the different Modern decks, organized by archetype, and then alphabetically by name. Each one of the Table of Contents listings links to another post in the thread that gives a small blurb on what the deck does, as well as linking to the main discussion thread within the forums.
I don't know all the tools you have access to as a mod, but this to me seems like a reasonable way to go about things.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Burn - RW or RWG - A deck which plays aggressive red creatures, and a multitude of spells doing 3 damage, focused on killing the player as quickly as possible.
That would give new players a quick idea of what each deck is doing, and the colour base in case they already have some format staples.
Spirits
Modern:
UWUW Control
UBRGrixis Shadow
URIzzet Phoenix
A ToC with a layout similar to what I typed up (in seconds) would be more than sufficient for organization and aiding new users I would think, and you could easily put headers above each 'section'
Aggro, Combo, Control, Midrange.
Yes, people quibble over groupings, but in a ToC its not going to kill anyone but the most pedantic of us nerds.
Spirits
If they want to browse the forum archetype for archetype instead of reading an entire list, then let them do that too. These options are not mutually exclusive people.
Read my other stories as well (some ongoing):
Reaper King (a horror story), Kaalia of the Vast (an origin story), Sequels for Innistrad (Alternative sequels for Inn), Grey Areas (Odric's fanfic), Royal Succession (goblins),The Tracker's Message (eldrazi on Innistrad) and Ugin and his Eye (the end of OGW).
Spirits
I already disagree with a few of your node selections. Given its high blue cantrip density, I find that Grixis Death's Shadow plays a lot more like Delver decks or that newfangled UR Young Pyromancer Thing in the Ice Field of Ruin midrange deck than any of those B(G)x Rock decks. I'd therefore remove Grixis Death's Shadow from the B(G)x Rock node. And then I find that UB Control and Grixis Midrange/Control play enough like those UWx Midrange/Control decks that I'd lump those in and rename the category Ux Midrange-to-Control.
See?
Established (GP Winning type decks, community voted?)
Proven (Decks that have got Top 8 potential, always in Day 2, etc, community voted?)
Developing (Anything new)
I dont see a point in organizing budget decks...
Spirits