I did not realize they changed the tier structure. The new structure... is abysmal.
Tiers should be based on both a combination of popularity + consistency + top table performance.
It looks like this site shifted to a popularity rating only. Which is BAD IMO.
UR storm is seriously a tier 1 deck while Jund is not? 0_o This new "ranking" system is awful.
It really should go back to the way it was before.
...Storm is putting up better results (online, at least) than Jund is. Why not have it tier 1?
Online is also theoretically a completely different meta than paper tournaments. Moreover - UR storm is SUPER cheap for a modern deck (on MTGO). Which means a higher frequency of players are playing it.
Now UR storm "could" be tier one again. But we don't actually have conversion statistics to back that up (unless we convert the tier system into simply a popularity contest). I would say UR storm is probably tier 1.5 at the moment. We need more data before we can actually say it's tier 1.
In the last two months of LIVE tournaments the following statics hold true
UR Storm - 3%. 14 top 8 appearances. An average place of 3rd.
Jund - 3%. 12 top 8 appearances. An average place of 3rd. (slightly higher than UR storm, but not by much).
I don't see the relevance of the tier system. it's a reflection of player numbers. this is fine in Standard when there are a couple decks objectively better in every way and no reason to play anything but Jeskai Twin in a format with crasp removal, but in Modern, I think the tier system actively hurts the format. Not only does it discourage brewing and finding unrealized decks, but when a newbie asks 'what is the best deck to bring to an event?' the answer is generally something like 'the deck that you are most experienced with'. Putting in the time to learn every angle of your deck will serve you a lot better than clicking 'Add to Cart' on a TCG event topping DSJ list. I played the deck, in my hands it's nothing special. but hopefully not sounding too arrogant, I'm pretty darn good with Burn. ever since Bloom went away, I can't remember the last time i played a match that ever felt hopeless. don't pick a deck because someone says it is the best in the format, or T1, or anything else. Pick a deck that is your favored style, adapt to the meta. knowing what you are using and what you should be ready for will do a lot more for you than 'DSJ is super good, if i play it, I'll do well!'
Tiering doesn't hinder brewers. It actually helps them by them giving them a target to hit. A completely unrefined metagame where anything goes is really hard to strategically target. You more or less just go for the most broken thing you can. An established metagame like Modern's allows a deck creator to make intelligent strategic decisions about which cards to include and for which matchups.
My only issue with the tier system is its weighed heavily on large weekend events that the majority of players will never play in that meta. Its very misleading to someone looking for a deck to play. I cant tell you how many times I have seen some newer player go out and buy the flavor of the month deck and show up to a local event and go 0-2 drop and be pissed this top deck failed them. Its one thing for a company to mislead players, its something much different (and in my opinion worse) when the player base who creates these tier systems mislead fellow players.
My only issue with the tier system is its weighed heavily on large weekend events that the majority of players will never play in that meta. Its very misleading to someone looking for a deck to play. I cant tell you how many times I have seen some newer player go out and buy the flavor of the month deck and show up to a local event and go 0-2 drop and be pissed this top deck failed them. Its one thing for a company to mislead players, its something much different (and in my opinion worse) when the player base who creates these tier systems mislead fellow players.
Agreed, and to piggyback on this it takes nothing more than a post from one of the mods to set the community back in order as to why the tiers changed so drastically. We are now into day four and counting since Lantern's update and there has been not a hint of an explanation from the powers that be for the change.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
FREE MODERN. Break the Standard link.
I play Magic: the Gathering, not Magic: the Commandering.
My only issue with the tier system is its weighed heavily on large weekend events that the majority of players will never play in that meta. Its very misleading to someone looking for a deck to play. I cant tell you how many times I have seen some newer player go out and buy the flavor of the month deck and show up to a local event and go 0-2 drop and be pissed this top deck failed them. Its one thing for a company to mislead players, its something much different (and in my opinion worse) when the player base who creates these tier systems mislead fellow players.
Except that is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a tiering list actually means. Under no circumstance does a tiering list tell you what deck you should play. All it does is tell you what the the most consistent performers are.
That isn't misdirection, and it is absolutely not unethical. It's all about what you want out of a tournament experience. If you want to win it, a Death's Shadow variant likely gives you the largest chance in aggregate. With the caveat that individual skill and familiarity with the format are critical. But if you just want to have fun and enjoy yourself? Play whatever deck appeals to you the most.
My only issue with the tier system is its weighed heavily on large weekend events that the majority of players will never play in that meta. Its very misleading to someone looking for a deck to play. I cant tell you how many times I have seen some newer player go out and buy the flavor of the month deck and show up to a local event and go 0-2 drop and be pissed this top deck failed them. Its one thing for a company to mislead players, its something much different (and in my opinion worse) when the player base who creates these tier systems mislead fellow players.
How is it any better if that same player goes to see that a mediocre/low deck is mislabeled as much higher than it probably should be, they build it, and get crushed 0-2-drop week after week? No, playing a "Tier 1" deck doesn't guarantee success, but playing a powerful, strong, proven deck is likely going to serve your competitive needs significantly more than a random jank brew.
If anything, the people getting hosed are the ones building decks from articles, websites, and youtube channels who get paid to make wacky and different decks for the sole purpose of being something that's NOT a tiered deck. "Hey, I saw this deck on (insert big name site/channel) and built it! But it sucks and I lose with it all the time!" There's usually a reason lower tier decks stay lower tier, and it's because they have problems and difficulties and are not consistently competitive. If players are looking for decks to be competitive, a comprehensive tier list is EXACTLY what we would want.
Jesus, this thread is frustrating. No one here is claiming you can't win a 47 round tournament with your tribal mouse deck if you get perfect match ups.
The whole point of tiering was trying to use data to best eliminate the effects of pilot skill and match up variance so that players could make informed decisions about what they could expect to face in large events and then prepare accordingly. Knowing your deck and how to pilot it against different decks has always been far more important than just buying a deck, and when it isn't that deck is banned and for good reason.
Sometimes, smart people would take advantage of this by playing a deck really good against the most frequently seen decks. We've seen 8-rack, skred, and lantern win tournaments before. We aren't telling you they are bad decks. We are telling you that over 10,000 matches of random matchups and pilots the deck is objectively worse than other decks.
If you were ever using the tier system for any other purpose then you were using it wrong. This new system does nothing other than complicate preparation by lumping a ton of unequal decks together. Clearly there has to be some sort of cutoff for tiers but I much preferred the more exclusive ones.
I've played BW midrange decks forever and I feel if I correctly judged the expected meta then I have as good a chance as anyone to win a given tournament. There is something to be said about surpriseblowouts and unexpectedgiantbeatsticks
I don't see the point in changing the perception of our format to outsiders by making it look like more decks are viable; thus confusing the people who actually play the formats ability to prepare for events.
great, now I want to bring mouse/rat tribal to FNM
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Project Booster Fun makes it less fun to open a booster.
My only issue with the tier system is its weighed heavily on large weekend events that the majority of players will never play in that meta. Its very misleading to someone looking for a deck to play. I cant tell you how many times I have seen some newer player go out and buy the flavor of the month deck and show up to a local event and go 0-2 drop and be pissed this top deck failed them. Its one thing for a company to mislead players, its something much different (and in my opinion worse) when the player base who creates these tier systems mislead fellow players.
Wow, this seems really off base. There's no feasible way we can compile, nor account for local metas. What goes 4-0 at Jim Bob's Card shop and what top 8's a GP are two very different fields. Local metas can drastically different from the metagame at large. The only way we could even incorporate something that encompassed each and every local metagame. Possibility Storm is a deck that's taken FNMs in my local meta. Does that mean we should include that as a Tier 1 deck?
Another wide misconception seems to be that building a "Tier 1" deck should equate to immediate success at any event. Modern is a deeper format than that, and even building a top Tier deck requires practice and knowledge of metas (both local and overall) to have success. Tiers should be established based on proven results... which means measuring the stats that we can measure.
I think the methods used to determine Tiering during Ktkenshin's run of things was perhaps as good as we're going to get without more readily available data.
My only issue with the tier system is its weighed heavily on large weekend events that the majority of players will never play in that meta. Its very misleading to someone looking for a deck to play. I cant tell you how many times I have seen some newer player go out and buy the flavor of the month deck and show up to a local event and go 0-2 drop and be pissed this top deck failed them. Its one thing for a company to mislead players, its something much different (and in my opinion worse) when the player base who creates these tier systems mislead fellow players.
Wow, this seems really off base. There's no feasible way we can compile, nor account for local metas. What goes 4-0 at Jim Bob's Card shop and what top 8's a GP are two very different fields. Local metas can drastically different from the metagame at large. The only way we could even incorporate something that encompassed each and every local metagame. Possibility Storm is a deck that's taken FNMs in my local meta. Does that mean we should include that as a Tier 1 deck?
Another wide misconception seems to be that building a "Tier 1" deck should equate to immediate success at any event. Modern is a deeper format than that, and even building a top Tier deck requires practice and knowledge of metas (both local and overall) to have success. Tiers should be established based on proven results... which means measuring the stats that we can measure.
I think the methods used to determine Tiering during Ktkenshin's run of things was perhaps as good as we're going to get without more readily available data.
I think this is a fight we are just going to have to give up on. If someone thinks the tier system is a bad way to judge decks because it doesn't accurately describe their local meta then there isn't any combination/order of words we can put together to change their perspective. Their thought is so fundamentally far from what we are actually discussing to even try to engage it.
If you only play a local meta, then why do you ever look at tiers? And if you are a new player, you should lose more often than not regardless of what deck you play; it is the nature of the format. Again, I see no point in making the tier system in order to appeal to locals and newer players because the information is of the least use to those groups even when the information is geared specifically toward them.
We are changing something to better suite the people who don't want/need it but making it worse for the people it actually applies to. It's dumb.
My only issue with the tier system is its weighed heavily on large weekend events that the majority of players will never play in that meta. Its very misleading to someone looking for a deck to play. I cant tell you how many times I have seen some newer player go out and buy the flavor of the month deck and show up to a local event and go 0-2 drop and be pissed this top deck failed them. Its one thing for a company to mislead players, its something much different (and in my opinion worse) when the player base who creates these tier systems mislead fellow players.
Wow, this seems really off base. There's no feasible way we can compile, nor account for local metas. What goes 4-0 at Jim Bob's Card shop and what top 8's a GP are two very different fields. Local metas can drastically different from the metagame at large. The only way we could even incorporate something that encompassed each and every local metagame. Possibility Storm is a deck that's taken FNMs in my local meta. Does that mean we should include that as a Tier 1 deck?
Another wide misconception seems to be that building a "Tier 1" deck should equate to immediate success at any event. Modern is a deeper format than that, and even building a top Tier deck requires practice and knowledge of metas (both local and overall) to have success. Tiers should be established based on proven results... which means measuring the stats that we can measure.
I think the methods used to determine Tiering during Ktkenshin's run of things was perhaps as good as we're going to get without more readily available data.
I think this is a fight we are just going to have to give up on. If someone thinks the tier system is a bad way to judge decks because it doesn't accurately describe their local meta then there isn't any combination/order of words we can put together to change their perspective. Their thought is so fundamentally far from what we are actually discussing to even try to engage it.
If you only play a local meta, then why do you ever look at tiers? And if you are a new player, you should lose more often than not regardless of what deck you play; it is the nature of the format. Again, I see no point in making the tier system in order to appeal to locals and newer players because the information is of the least use to those groups even when the information is geared specifically toward them.
We are changing something to better suite the people who don't want/need it but making it worse for the people it actually applies to. It's dumb.
I'd just like to see a consistent set of standards applied to tiering decks that won't change on a whim when a new person is in charge. So until we get some kind of explanation from Lantern for the change we can all enjoy the speculation game. I'm sure the powers that be behind this website love it b/c it generates comments and views for their ads so maybe it's being done on purpose for that reason alone.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
FREE MODERN. Break the Standard link.
I play Magic: the Gathering, not Magic: the Commandering.
I'm going to be blunt: I have serious concerns of how this site is now classifying what is tier 1 and tier 2.
There are several decks on the tier 1 list that are "questionable". This includes the following
- UW Control
- UR Storm
- Death and Taxes
- Knightfall
- Dredge
This is a list of questionable decks on tier 2
- Bant Eldrazi (probably should still be tier one)
- Sultai Delirium (not enough tournament finishes to be truly classified as a tier deck yet)
For me: Tier 1 has always been the decks to beat. While Tier 2 are viable (but under played) decks.
This new tier system... does not capture that at all.
I'm going to be blunt: I have serious concerns of how this site is now classifying what is tier 1 and tier 2.
There are several decks on the tier 1 list that are "questionable". This includes the following
- UW Control
- UR Storm
- Death and Taxes
- Knightfall
- Dredge
This is a list of questionable decks on tier 2
- Bant Eldrazi (probably should still be tier one)
- Sultai Delirium (not enough tournament finishes to be truly classified as a tier deck yet)
For me: Tier 1 has always been the decks to beat. While Tier 2 are viable (but under played) decks.
This new tier system... does not capture that at all.
I'm curious as to how the tierings are being done as well. Lantern has stated they are working on the tierings and an explanation to be published.
That being said, I'm also curious what metrics you are using to determine they do not belong in the tierings they are in now. How did you come to the determination that those specific decks do not belong?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
I'm going to be blunt: I have serious concerns of how this site is now classifying what is tier 1 and tier 2.
There are several decks on the tier 1 list that are "questionable". This includes the following
- UW Control
- UR Storm
- Death and Taxes
- Knightfall
- Dredge
This is a list of questionable decks on tier 2
- Bant Eldrazi (probably should still be tier one)
- Sultai Delirium (not enough tournament finishes to be truly classified as a tier deck yet)
For me: Tier 1 has always been the decks to beat. While Tier 2 are viable (but under played) decks.
This new tier system... does not capture that at all.
I'm curious as to how the tierings are being done as well. Lantern has stated they are working on the tierings and and explanation to be published.
That being said, I'm also curious what metrics you are using to determine they do not belong in the tierings they are in now. How did you come to the determination that those specific decks do not belong.
Looking at real life finishes. I have a hunch that the current tier system is putting more emphasis on MTGO.
Nearly all the new decks that have made Tier 1 status have seen a recently spiked on MTGO only.
If my hunch is correct... that is potentially very dangerous. Using MTGO to define "tiers" will lead to a higher number of tier 1.5 - 2 decks being classified as tier 1.
Looking at real life finishes. I have a hunch that the current tier system is putting more emphasis on MTGO.
Nearly all the new decks that have made Tier 1 status have seen a recently spiked on MTGO only.
If my hunch is correct... that is potentially very dangerous. Using MTGO to define "tiers" will lead to a higher number of non-viable tiered decks.
To me, this reads that you have applied your own subjective "feelings" to the tiering system, which isn't really helpful. Perhaps instead of just complaining that you don't like the way it feels, you could give much better criticism by suggesting the metrics you want used?
Seems very strange to call out others on using a subjective system when you are yourself using your own subjective system.
For my part, I wouldn't take the present tierings on the website too seriously until they describe the organizational paradigm at play. Before they do that, criticism seems misplaced and premature. That is, unless you have a well elucidated model that should be considered.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Gotta agree that the new system is garbage. The sheer number of "tier 1" decks scream of a flawed system. Such a shame, this site used to be the best place to go for both data and discussion, this is a huge backwards step for everyone
Looking at real life finishes. I have a hunch that the current tier system is putting more emphasis on MTGO.
Nearly all the new decks that have made Tier 1 status have seen a recently spiked on MTGO only.
If my hunch is correct... that is potentially very dangerous. Using MTGO to define "tiers" will lead to a higher number of non-viable tiered decks.
To me, this reads that you have applied your own subjective "hunch" to the tiering system, which isn't really helpful. Perhaps instead of just complaining that you don't like the way it feels, you could give much better criticism by suggesting the metrics you want used?
Seems very strange to call out others on using a subjective system when you are yourself using your own subjective system.
For my part, I wouldn't take the present tierings on the website too seriously until they describe the organizational paradigm at play. Before they do that, criticism seems misplaced and premature. That is, unless you have a well elucidated model that should be considered.
I want to use whatever tier system was used before. Hence my response.
Also - It's a hunch based on the data. If you look at real life tournaments only for the above decks over the last two months... there is not a single one of those decks that make up more than 3% of the meta. (Jund makes up 3%, and that is no longer tier 1).
If you factor in MTGO... only then does that change. And substantially. (UW goes up to 6%. UR storm goes from 3% to 8%, etc.)
My only issue with the tier system is its weighed heavily on large weekend events that the majority of players will never play in that meta. Its very misleading to someone looking for a deck to play. I cant tell you how many times I have seen some newer player go out and buy the flavor of the month deck and show up to a local event and go 0-2 drop and be pissed this top deck failed them. Its one thing for a company to mislead players, its something much different (and in my opinion worse) when the player base who creates these tier systems mislead fellow players.
Wow, this seems really off base. There's no feasible way we can compile, nor account for local metas. What goes 4-0 at Jim Bob's Card shop and what top 8's a GP are two very different fields. Local metas can drastically different from the metagame at large. The only way we could even incorporate something that encompassed each and every local metagame. Possibility Storm is a deck that's taken FNMs in my local meta. Does that mean we should include that as a Tier 1 deck?
Another wide misconception seems to be that building a "Tier 1" deck should equate to immediate success at any event. Modern is a deeper format than that, and even building a top Tier deck requires practice and knowledge of metas (both local and overall) to have success. Tiers should be established based on proven results... which means measuring the stats that we can measure.
I think the methods used to determine Tiering during Ktkenshin's run of things was perhaps as good as we're going to get without more readily available data.
I think this is a fight we are just going to have to give up on. If someone thinks the tier system is a bad way to judge decks because it doesn't accurately describe their local meta then there isn't any combination/order of words we can put together to change their perspective. Their thought is so fundamentally far from what we are actually discussing to even try to engage it.
If you only play a local meta, then why do you ever look at tiers? And if you are a new player, you should lose more often than not regardless of what deck you play; it is the nature of the format. Again, I see no point in making the tier system in order to appeal to locals and newer players because the information is of the least use to those groups even when the information is geared specifically toward them.
We are changing something to better suite the people who don't want/need it but making it worse for the people it actually applies to. It's dumb.
I'd just like to see a consistent set of standards applied to tiering decks that won't change on a whim when a new person is in charge. So until we get some kind of explanation from Lantern for the change we can all enjoy the speculation game. I'm sure the powers that be behind this website love it b/c it generates comments and views for their ads so maybe it's being done on purpose for that reason alone.
I'm not actually sure that is what you want though, because that is exactly what we had and you attacked Ktkenshinx for it. The previous system was very good at accurately determining what decks you were most likely to face, and it was pretty resilient to fad spikes like Jeskai Nahiri as well as decently resilient to the "expensive to change your deck overnight" mentality. Tiers are fluid and constantly changing shape but that doesn't mean we should have the forum change every day or minute.
What you describe as wanting is what we already had, a structured, formulated, albeit far from perfect, way of using data to measure decks that removed preference bias, player skill, and match ups. I'm mostly referring to this part of your quote
I'd just like to see a consistent set of standards applied to tiering decks that won't change on a whim when a new person is in charge.
Ktkenshinx most likely had nothing to do with how the new system was implemented or what changes took place, how is he at all responsible for how the tiers look now because the rules were changed afterwards? whether or not a tier system changes when a new person is in charge is completely up to the new person in charge and what changes they make. I just don't see what you are actually after here. What could ktkenshinx, or anyone else for that matter, possibly have done to prevent future people from changing their rules? Have a read only excel file?
Seriously, how is anyone supposed to enforce his set of standards on new people that have the power to change or create any standard they want?
Not going to list all the millions of changes I did in the last 7 hours... But Since there was an update:
Tiers updated... ALOT
Some of you may have noticed the tiering updating has lagged behind alot recently. Our data collection manager (ktken) is retiring from staff, so collection has been pretty hard for us. We are changing our systems completly, and over the next month I'll be rolling out the new benchmarks we use to tiering and testing them over the next half a year or so.
So just bare with us for a month, and everything will be clear and tip top shape.
The guy has already said they are having issues getting the same data collected as was used previously. You might see why your criticisms seem useless in that context. I'm sure they want to provide the best tierings available, but this transition involving their data collection guy retiring isn't the easiest hole to fill.
Did you apply to be a moderator to help? I didn't, so I don't feel in a position to criticize.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Not going to list all the millions of changes I did in the last 7 hours... But Since there was an update:
Tiers updated... ALOT
Some of you may have noticed the tiering updating has lagged behind alot recently. Our data collection manager (ktken) is retiring from staff, so collection has been pretty hard for us. We are changing our systems completly, and over the next month I'll be rolling out the new benchmarks we use to tiering and testing them over the next half a year or so.
So just bare with us for a month, and everything will be clear and tip top shape.
The guy has already said they are having issues getting the same data collected as was used previously. You might see why your criticisms seem useless in that context. I'm sure they want to provide the best tierings available, but this transition involving their data collection guy retiring isn't the easiest whole to fill.
Did you apply to be a moderator to help? I didn't, so I don't feel in a position to criticize.
You do realize the same data that was available a year ago is available today?
The change in the tier structure has nothing to do with data availability. As other people have hinted at... it looks like a change of mods.
You do realize the same data that was available a year ago is available today?
The change in the tier structure has nothing to do with data availability. As other people have hinted at... it looks like a change of mods.
So you're saying that the data Ktkenshinx worked painfully to acquire, assess and contextualize was plainly available for all to see, and continues to be plainly available despite the fact that he isn't doing that anymore.
Yeah I can see why we disagree. You are underestimating how much work Ktkenshinx put in (for free AFAIK, mind you) and are now demanding that someone else do that job for free. Ok.
Again, I ask: did you volunteer?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Online is also theoretically a completely different meta than paper tournaments. Moreover - UR storm is SUPER cheap for a modern deck (on MTGO). Which means a higher frequency of players are playing it.
Now UR storm "could" be tier one again. But we don't actually have conversion statistics to back that up (unless we convert the tier system into simply a popularity contest). I would say UR storm is probably tier 1.5 at the moment. We need more data before we can actually say it's tier 1.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
UR Storm - 3%. 14 top 8 appearances. An average place of 3rd.
Jund - 3%. 12 top 8 appearances. An average place of 3rd. (slightly higher than UR storm, but not by much).
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
Tiering doesn't hinder brewers. It actually helps them by them giving them a target to hit. A completely unrefined metagame where anything goes is really hard to strategically target. You more or less just go for the most broken thing you can. An established metagame like Modern's allows a deck creator to make intelligent strategic decisions about which cards to include and for which matchups.
Agreed, and to piggyback on this it takes nothing more than a post from one of the mods to set the community back in order as to why the tiers changed so drastically. We are now into day four and counting since Lantern's update and there has been not a hint of an explanation from the powers that be for the change.
I play Magic: the Gathering, not Magic: the Commandering.
Except that is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a tiering list actually means. Under no circumstance does a tiering list tell you what deck you should play. All it does is tell you what the the most consistent performers are.
That isn't misdirection, and it is absolutely not unethical. It's all about what you want out of a tournament experience. If you want to win it, a Death's Shadow variant likely gives you the largest chance in aggregate. With the caveat that individual skill and familiarity with the format are critical. But if you just want to have fun and enjoy yourself? Play whatever deck appeals to you the most.
How is it any better if that same player goes to see that a mediocre/low deck is mislabeled as much higher than it probably should be, they build it, and get crushed 0-2-drop week after week? No, playing a "Tier 1" deck doesn't guarantee success, but playing a powerful, strong, proven deck is likely going to serve your competitive needs significantly more than a random jank brew.
If anything, the people getting hosed are the ones building decks from articles, websites, and youtube channels who get paid to make wacky and different decks for the sole purpose of being something that's NOT a tiered deck. "Hey, I saw this deck on (insert big name site/channel) and built it! But it sucks and I lose with it all the time!" There's usually a reason lower tier decks stay lower tier, and it's because they have problems and difficulties and are not consistently competitive. If players are looking for decks to be competitive, a comprehensive tier list is EXACTLY what we would want.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
great, now I want to bring mouse/rat tribal to FNM
Wow, this seems really off base. There's no feasible way we can compile, nor account for local metas. What goes 4-0 at Jim Bob's Card shop and what top 8's a GP are two very different fields. Local metas can drastically different from the metagame at large. The only way we could even incorporate something that encompassed each and every local metagame. Possibility Storm is a deck that's taken FNMs in my local meta. Does that mean we should include that as a Tier 1 deck?
Another wide misconception seems to be that building a "Tier 1" deck should equate to immediate success at any event. Modern is a deeper format than that, and even building a top Tier deck requires practice and knowledge of metas (both local and overall) to have success. Tiers should be established based on proven results... which means measuring the stats that we can measure.
I think the methods used to determine Tiering during Ktkenshin's run of things was perhaps as good as we're going to get without more readily available data.
I think this is a fight we are just going to have to give up on. If someone thinks the tier system is a bad way to judge decks because it doesn't accurately describe their local meta then there isn't any combination/order of words we can put together to change their perspective. Their thought is so fundamentally far from what we are actually discussing to even try to engage it.
If you only play a local meta, then why do you ever look at tiers? And if you are a new player, you should lose more often than not regardless of what deck you play; it is the nature of the format. Again, I see no point in making the tier system in order to appeal to locals and newer players because the information is of the least use to those groups even when the information is geared specifically toward them.
We are changing something to better suite the people who don't want/need it but making it worse for the people it actually applies to. It's dumb.
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.
Spirits
I'd just like to see a consistent set of standards applied to tiering decks that won't change on a whim when a new person is in charge. So until we get some kind of explanation from Lantern for the change we can all enjoy the speculation game. I'm sure the powers that be behind this website love it b/c it generates comments and views for their ads so maybe it's being done on purpose for that reason alone.
I play Magic: the Gathering, not Magic: the Commandering.
There are several decks on the tier 1 list that are "questionable". This includes the following
- UW Control
- UR Storm
- Death and Taxes
- Knightfall
- Dredge
This is a list of questionable decks on tier 2
- Bant Eldrazi (probably should still be tier one)
- Sultai Delirium (not enough tournament finishes to be truly classified as a tier deck yet)
For me: Tier 1 has always been the decks to beat. While Tier 2 are viable (but under played) decks.
This new tier system... does not capture that at all.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
That being said, I'm also curious what metrics you are using to determine they do not belong in the tierings they are in now. How did you come to the determination that those specific decks do not belong?
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Looking at real life finishes. I have a hunch that the current tier system is putting more emphasis on MTGO.
Nearly all the new decks that have made Tier 1 status have seen a recently spiked on MTGO only.
If my hunch is correct... that is potentially very dangerous. Using MTGO to define "tiers" will lead to a higher number of tier 1.5 - 2 decks being classified as tier 1.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
Seems very strange to call out others on using a subjective system when you are yourself using your own subjective system.
For my part, I wouldn't take the present tierings on the website too seriously until they describe the organizational paradigm at play. Before they do that, criticism seems misplaced and premature. That is, unless you have a well elucidated model that should be considered.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
UWRjeskai nahiri UWR
UBRgrixis titi UBR
UBRgrixis delverUBR
UR ur kikimite UR
EDH
RUG Riku of Two Reflections RUG
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose UBR
UBRGYidris, Maelstrom Wielder UBRG
UBRJeleva, Nephalia's ScourgeUBR
I want to use whatever tier system was used before. Hence my response.
Also - It's a hunch based on the data. If you look at real life tournaments only for the above decks over the last two months... there is not a single one of those decks that make up more than 3% of the meta. (Jund makes up 3%, and that is no longer tier 1).
If you factor in MTGO... only then does that change. And substantially. (UW goes up to 6%. UR storm goes from 3% to 8%, etc.)
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
I'm not actually sure that is what you want though, because that is exactly what we had and you attacked Ktkenshinx for it. The previous system was very good at accurately determining what decks you were most likely to face, and it was pretty resilient to fad spikes like Jeskai Nahiri as well as decently resilient to the "expensive to change your deck overnight" mentality. Tiers are fluid and constantly changing shape but that doesn't mean we should have the forum change every day or minute.
What you describe as wanting is what we already had, a structured, formulated, albeit far from perfect, way of using data to measure decks that removed preference bias, player skill, and match ups. I'm mostly referring to this part of your quote
Ktkenshinx most likely had nothing to do with how the new system was implemented or what changes took place, how is he at all responsible for how the tiers look now because the rules were changed afterwards? whether or not a tier system changes when a new person is in charge is completely up to the new person in charge and what changes they make. I just don't see what you are actually after here. What could ktkenshinx, or anyone else for that matter, possibly have done to prevent future people from changing their rules? Have a read only excel file?
Seriously, how is anyone supposed to enforce his set of standards on new people that have the power to change or create any standard they want?
Did you apply to be a moderator to help? I didn't, so I don't feel in a position to criticize.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
- 2 month ALL: 4%
- 2 month LIVE: 4%
- 2 week ALL: 6%
UR Storm
- 2 month ALL: 4%
- 2 month LIVE: 3%
- 2 week ALL: 8%
Death and Taxes
- 2 month ALL: 4%
- 2 month LIVE: 3%
- 2 week ALL: 4%
Knightfall
- 2 month ALL: 3%
- 2 month LIVE: 5%
- 2 week ALL: 4%
Out of all these... knightfall is the closest to a tier 1 deck.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
You do realize the same data that was available a year ago is available today?
The change in the tier structure has nothing to do with data availability. As other people have hinted at... it looks like a change of mods.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
Yeah I can see why we disagree. You are underestimating how much work Ktkenshinx put in (for free AFAIK, mind you) and are now demanding that someone else do that job for free. Ok.
Again, I ask: did you volunteer?
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG