This is the official discussion thread for Modern forum organization. If you have comments, questions, suggestions, criticisms, or ideas about the forum's organization, this is the place to post them. Previously, this thread was used to refine the Proven/Established criteria and generally to overhaul the forum. You can check out that discussion throughout the first 13 or so pages of the thread, or read its summary in the posts below.
Alright, so here is the semi-final criteria for Proven. Criteria would be stickied in each subforum. I am open to suggestions on all of the criteria, especially because they might be too exhaustive and not give enough room for flexibility (but then again, the specificity helps with information quality). (UPDATED 9/21)
Proven Competitive Decks Representing the Current Metagame
Proven decks are updated every ban cycle. A Proven thread must have a primer updated since the last ban cycle. A deck is considered "Proven" if it fulfills TWO or more of the following criteria:
Makes up 3%+ of the MTGO metagame over the last 3 months (i.e. has prevalence greater than one standard deviation over average MTGO deck prevalence)
Has 1+ Grand Prix/Pro Tour Top 8 appearance in the last 6 months
Has 3+ Grand Prix/Pro Tour Top 16 appearances in the last 6 months
Makes up 5%+ of the Day 2 metagame at all GPs in the last 6 months (i.e. has prevalence greater than one standard deviation over average day 2 prevalence at GPs)
Makes up 4.50%+ of the Paper Top 8 metagame for events with 100+ players (i.e. has prevalence greater than one standard deviation over average deck prevalence at large paper events)
Under this new criteria, here are the decks that would fit into Proven, followed by a list of decks that do not meet the new Proven criteria. I have also given the numbered criteria that the decks meet, just for the sake of transparency. For example, Affinity fulfills all the criteria, so it gets a (1,2,3,4,5) next to it.
NEW PROVEN DECKS
Affinity (1,2,3,4,5)
UWR Control (1,2)
Melira Pod (1,2,3,4)
RG Tron (1,4)
Twin (1,2,3,4,5)
BG Rock (2,3)
Scapeshift (1,2,3,5)
Burn (1,2,5)
Jund (1,2,3,4,5)
Kiki Pod (2,4,5)
UWR Midrange (2,5)
And here are the current Proven decks that would be getting demoted to Established:
DEMOTED FROM PROVEN
UR Delver
Bogles
GW Hatebears
Wx Tokens
Soul Sisters
Gruul Zoo
Mono U Tron
UR Storm
Living End
Naya Zoo
Next, here are the working criteria for Established. (UPDATED 9/17)
Established Tournament Decks with Results
Established decks are updated once every ban cycle. All Established threads must have a primer updated since the last ban cycle. A deck is considered "Established" if it does not meet the requirements of "Proven" but still fulfills ONE or more of the following criteria:
Has finished 4-0/3-1 at 6+ dailies in the past 3 months (above average finish count for decks that are not 2+ standard deviations over the pooled average, i.e. the "adjusted pool")
Has 1+ Grand Prix/Pro Tour Top 16 appearance in the last 6 months
Makes up 1.50%+ of the Day 2 metagame at all GPs in the last 6 months (i.e. any deck with above average day 2 prevalence for all day 2 decks at Modern GPs, all for the adjusted pool)
Has placed in the Top 8 of 4+ paper event with 100+ players in the past 6 months (above average finish count for the adjusted pool)
Has placed in the Top 8 of 2+ MTGO Premier Events in the past 3 months (above average finish count for the adjusted pool)
Under those definitions, which are more inclusive than even the last criteria, here is what the Established would look like. As with the previous section, I give the criteria that these decks fulfill under the Established definition. So for example, Hatebears fulfills criteria 1 and 5 but nothing else, so it gets a (1,5). New decks to Established as of 9/21/2013 are posted at the end of the list:
NEW ESTABLISHED
UR Delver (1,2,3,5)
Bogles (1)
GW Hatebears (1,5)
Wx Tokens (2,3)
Soul Sisters (1)
Gruul Zoo (1,2,3,4,5)
Mono U Tron (1)
UR Storm (1,2,5)
Living End (1,2)
Naya Zoo (2,4)
Domain Zoo (2,4)
Modern Merfolk (1,3,5)
Griselbrand (1,2,5)
Junk (1,2,3,4,5)
Death and Taxes (1)
Eternal Command (1)
Infect (1,3,4)
Restore Balance (1)
Mill (1,5)
Dredgevine (4)
4C Gifts (2,3)
Finally, here are the current Established decks that would get moved down to Deck Creation:
DEMOTED TO CREATION
U(x) Faeries (Still negotiating how to handle this and Delver)
Assault Loam
Combo Elves
BUG Midrange
Ritual Gifts
Azorius Midrange
Goblins
Bant
Modern Boros
UW Tron
Again, I cannot emphasize this enough: This is just a PRELIMINARY ORGANIZATION SCHEME. It has not been implemented and will not be implemented without input from the community. Feel free to suggest that a deck be moved to a different part of the forum.
If you know of a deck that fits Established criteria, and you can prove it as such, let me know and I will add it.
As part of the larger improvements that the mods want to make to the Modern forums, we want to reorganize and change the way that Deck Creation and Establised work. There are a few issues with these subforums, both from a layout perspective and from an information perspective:
Unclear criteria: What makes a deck Established? What makes a deck stickied in Deck Creation?
Inconsistent primer quality: Some decks in Established have old primers that still talk about the 12Post matchup. Some decks in Deck Creation have primers that are updated almost every week with tons of information.
Differences in deck power/competitiveness: Bogles is in Established and that deck just got 2nd at Worlds and regularly gets 4-0/3-1 on MTGO. Eternal Command is also in Established and that deck hasn't been seen since the last Worlds. Deck Creation has decks that get run on MTGO or at FNMs all the time like 8Rack and Restore Balance. It also has total budget/fun decks that never see competitive play.
There are probably a half dozen more issues with these subforums, so feel free to post and add to the list. No matter how many we identify, we still want to try and address as many of them as possible. There is no single way to do this, but the mods have come up with two different organization schemes that we would love your input on. If you have your own idea, please post it and we can add it to the debate. These are just preliminary ideas that we had, so criticisms and changes are more than welcome.
PLAN 1: Make the Established forum home to only tier 1.5/2 decks. Move decks to Deck Creation that don't fit this criteria
Under this plan, Established would become a stopping point before "Proven". Decks like Bogles, DredgeVine, and Living End would stay. Other decks that see very limited competitive play in recent months would go. These decks would be moved to Deck Creation where they would likely be stickied. As part of this, some Deck Creation threads might be unstickied depending on quality of the OP and number of active posters
PLAN 2: Make the Established forum home to any deck that has a well-written and updated primer, along with significant testing history and reports. Sticky the most competitive decks.
Under this plan, Established would contain two sets of decks. It would have stickied primers that reflect the most competitive of the Established (but not yet Proven) decks. Then it would have well-written, thorough, current primers for all the other decks. They would not be stickied. This would be like the current Standard organization, with an Established sub, a Proven sub, and a Developing sub.
PLAN 3: Divide decks into four subforums based on competitiveness
Thanks to izzetmage for articulating this idea. Under this plan, we would have the Proven subforums be only for tier 1 decks with multiple MTGO and paper wins. Established subforums would be for decks that consistently show up in competitive events but don't always win and/or haven't seen a lot of top tier action in a while (Infect, Bogles, Living End, etc.). Developing decks are for those popular decks with lots of testing but not a lot of real world results. Finally, Deck Creation would be for decks in their early stages of development and for rudimentary deck ideas.
As part of this plan, we would probably want to make some system of identifying which deck goes where. For example, Proven decks would need to be 5%+ of the MTGO metagame and 10%+ of Top 8 finishes at big events (just an example figure! Not set in stone!). Established decks would need a 2-5% MTGO share and a few Top 8 appearances at paper events (more example figures! Again, not set in stone!). Developing could be any deck that has a thorough matchup section, a well-written primer, and some local FNM/LGS success. Creation is all the rest.
As an editorial note, I personally like the second and third options. We have a lot of primers on our site that are very high quality and talk about very interesting decks. But they don't have the competitive record to go up there with stuff like Living End. They also have too much time and interest to be alongside all the developing ideas of Deck Creation. I think that by moving those decks up to Established, but not stickying them, we would "promote" them while not overpromoting them. But again, this is just my first opinion and I and the other mods are totally open to suggestions.
STANDARDIZED PRIMERS?
Another idea that was floated around by a few users was that of standardized primers. Under this plan, all primers in Proven and Established would have a predetermined format that they had to follow. This would make it easy to find information and conduct quality control on the site. Stickied decks in Developing (or in Established, if we went with Plan 2) would also need formal, standardized primers. Creation decks would not require them. We would not need to decide on the format here (we could talk about it if people wanted to), but we should consider the idea going ahead with the forum reorganization.
So what do you all think? Any new ideas? Improvements to these ideas? Criticisms? Scathing rebukes? We are going to keep this thread open for a few weeks to collect opinions. If you know anyone who has an interest in Modern or the MTGS Modern forums, invite them over to join the talk.
Maybe four subs would be a better idea:
1) Proven: tier 1 decks
2) Established: tier 1.5-2 decks
3) Developing: popular decks with few results, budget decks with some results, decks that did something looooong ago but are not played now
4) Deck Creation: everything else
All decks outside of 4) get tagged with [Primer] if there's a primer, [Deck] if they don't. For 4) there's no need to tag each thread with [Deck].
---
I've got another issue with the Proven forum. There are a few "parachute" decks that, I feel, are there only because they share some similarities (could be similar cards, or similar game plan) to an existing, proven deck, and not because they have results. Some examples (don't take this personally):
UW Tron
Teachings
Death & Taxes
I expect every deck in Proven to be representative of the metagame, as it's written in the description, instead of something like "Hi, I'm UW Tron, my brother RG Tron is a proven deck, and I share the same lands as him so I get to be part of the same club."
Option 2 seems like the best plan. If you drop decks down you'll inevitably get a lot of hurt feelings. Deck creation should be a home for new ideas and brewing, hence the creation part. You can still sticky decks in that area but the ones with a strong following should get a boost. To me, Established really only means that the deck has a player base backing it with active posters.
The newer primer approach seems like a wonderful idea. I know the primer I am attached to needs an update but the deck is kinda out of the current Modern rotation. So if people want to keep their threads active a new Primer would make sense. Then you reward active contributors to the forums by giving their work recognition.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In case I didn't tell you, I don't care about your opinion I just want your facts. And not the facts that make you seem smart. I want the ones that are actual facts.
However you decide--don't organize it by how well the primer is written or the deck popularity, value the game community not the forum community in this regard. Ninjas has a great primer...
Maybe four subs would be a better idea:
1) Proven: tier 1 decks
2) Established: tier 1.5-2 decks
3) Developing: popular decks with few results, budget decks with some results, decks that did something looooong ago but are not played now
4) Deck Creation: everything else
Great suggestion. I added it to the OP. It makes organizational sense and follows the internal logic of Magic formats.
I've got another issue with the Proven forum. There are a few "parachute" decks that, I feel, are there only because they share some similarities (could be similar cards, or similar game plan) to an existing, proven deck, and not because they have results. Some examples (don't take this personally):
UW Tron
Teachings
Death & Taxes
I expect every deck in Proven to be representative of the metagame, as it's written in the description, instead of something like "Hi, I'm UW Tron, my brother RG Tron is a proven deck, and I share the same lands as him so I get to be part of the same club."
I think that you are not alone in wanting Proven decks to represent the metagame. That is why I want some kinds of numeric criteria for how a deck gets bumped into proven. It can be a rough definition, but I think that this will help players understand what decks belong there and what do not. It would also help newer players learn the format.
The newer primer approach seems like a wonderful idea. I know the primer I am attached to needs an update but the deck is kinda out of the current Modern rotation. So if people want to keep their threads active a new Primer would make sense. Then you reward active contributors to the forums by giving their work recognition.
I also like the idea of rewarding active contributors to the forum. I'm not sure if this would mean that decks with absolutely no competitive history outside of FNM should get into established. But it definitely means that decks that have good primers and active fanbases should get stickied in a subforum like, say, Developing Decks (if we went with Plan 3). To get into Established and Proven, I feel that decks really need to be posting results. That's how we show that this forum is a go-to place for Modern information in the same sense that The Mana Drain is for Vintage or The Source is for Legacy.
However you decide--don't organize it by how well the primer is written or the deck popularity, value the game community not the forum community in this regard. Ninjas has a great primer...
Good point. The Developing/Established distinction deals with this. Developing decks that have both active fan bases, a few results, AND a good primer could get stickied in that subforum. But you would need real results to get promoted to Established/Proven.
Well maybe an idea of what the intentions are for this forum? If that would be the case we would need a more stringent way of placing decks into the Proven section.
I think BatHickey missed my point with recognition. I was simply advocating stickies to forums for decks with a great following and a active player base. I didn't want it to seem like what ever thread had the most posts would be on Proven.
If we want to be the "it girl" for Modern forums we may want to institute a Primer layout for all Primers. This way regardless of the Primer the information would be in the exact location as any of the other Primers. This would ensure that new users would be able to easily access the information. As we all know the new users are what make this site grow.
In case I didn't tell you, I don't care about your opinion I just want your facts. And not the facts that make you seem smart. I want the ones that are actual facts.
I've got another issue with the Proven forum. There are a few "parachute" decks that, I feel, are there only because they share some similarities (could be similar cards, or similar game plan) to an existing, proven deck, and not because they have results. Some examples (don't take this personally):
UW Tron
Teachings
Death & Taxes
I expect every deck in Proven to be representative of the metagame, as it's written in the description, instead of something like "Hi, I'm UW Tron, my brother RG Tron is a proven deck, and I share the same lands as him so I get to be part of the same club."
I feel the same way. The Uxx Midrange, Uxx control, and BGx midrange folders are a bit of a mess of one proven deck with a bunch of established spinoffs.
On the other hand, I do like that it is easy to pull people playing Jund into the Junk thread, for example, to bring good insight on the commonalities out of convenience.
This especially applies to a lot of the Uxx midrange decks out there, which all want to play in a similar way. The one catch here is that the Bant midrange thread is a total mess. There are aggro, tempo, control, and blouses lists in there. This may just need to be pulled apart into separate threads because not much gets accomplished when there is no actual "Proven" version of the color combination.
I prefer the two-tiered approach (with stickies representing an extra level of stratificatioN) and therefore like #2 better, both in concept and in maintenance. I'd imagine it's easier to sticky threads than completely move them. My ideal format would be:
Established - Decks that are well-tuned and proven on the largest scales with multiple finishes. Decks that are currently popular and top tier are stickied.
Developing - Basically what deck creation is right now. Decks that have well thought out, thorough and updated primers and a consistent group of people working on it should be stickied.
I like izzetmage's idea (plan 3) a lot. very solid, and it helps identify to new/occasional forum-goers what the truly "tier" decks in the metagame are, vs random brews.
I also believe we should institute PMP's idea of having one specific primer layout. It may take a bit of work, but basically just have each thread's OP update their primer, in order to make all primers consistent with each other.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Rivenor for the signature and XenoNinja for the Avi!
If we want to be the "it girl" for Modern forums we may want to institute a Primer layout for all Primers. This way regardless of the Primer the information would be in the exact location as any of the other Primers. This would ensure that new users would be able to easily access the information. As we all know the new users are what make this site grow.
I also believe we should institute PMP's idea of having one specific primer layout. It may take a bit of work, but basically just have each thread's OP update their primer, in order to make all primers consistent with each other.
I am also on board with this. Depending on what plan we ultimately go with, we wouldn't have to require it of every deck. But for those in Proven and Established, it would be absolutely mandatory. For those in Developing, it would only be mandatory for the Stickied threads (i.e. the brews that have a lot of contributors but little competitive success in recent history/ever). Decks in Deck Creation would require no primers at all.
I've added the idea of Standardized Primers to the OP. It's definitely something to think about, and we wouldn't need to decide on the actual format until later. PMP's comment about being the "it girl" for Modern is on-point for me. Standardized primers would really increase the site's quality and the traffic from visitors looking for what's new in Modern.
I think that Plan 3 is the best idea. I also think that the decks that stay in the established section should get their own subforms like the ones in the proven section do. As it is right now, Troll Worship is in the deck creation section, even though it is a Bant variant, simply because there aren't separate threads for Bant in established. If there were, it would make things a lot more organized.
I personally prefer second plan.
Other option will require moderators to move threads from one subforum to another too often.
I think it's much easier to add {Competetive} tag to thread and stick it in top, than to move to another subforum, it will be harder for people to find thread they want to read.
I personally prefer second plan.
Other option will require moderators to move threads from one subforum to another too often.
This is my opinion also. Excessive stratification breeds complexity and extra effort. It's going to be annoying for all involved to continually have to move and find "their" threads. Why does there need to me more designations than "successful, proven, and popular" and "working on it" with a split for each one?
Also, does the distinction between "Tier 1" and "Tier 1.5" (whatever the heck that is) deserve a sub-forum? The decision on this seems tedious, complex, and subjective. Though I'd concede that the decisions to sticky threads above others in option #2 is similar, though at least in this case the threads are collocated within one forum.
As for standardized primers, I don't feel that should be incorporated. As a writer and upkeeper of a primer I take great pride in the time and work I put in. There are also a lot of great and creative primers and taking a standardized approach would quash that creative process. I'm all for qualifications (such as required sections and minimum number of words/lists) but cookie-cutter primers don't sound very appealing.
This is my opinion also. Excessive stratification breeds complexity and extra effort. It's going to be annoying for all involved to continually have to move and find "their" threads. Why does there need to me more designations than "successful, proven, and popular" and "working on it" with a split for each one?
Also, does the distinction between "Tier 1" and "Tier 1.5" (whatever the heck that is) deserve a sub-forum? The decision on this seems tedious, complex, and subjective. Though I'd concede that the decisions to sticky threads above others in option #2 is similar, though at least in this case the threads are collocated within one forum.
The complexity actually isn't that bad from a management perspective. It's fairly easy to have a Proven forum for clear tier 1 decks, an Established forum split between stickied and unstickied tier 2 decks, a Developing forum for fully formed decks that just aren't very competitive yet, and a Creation forum for all the random ideas an brews.
It's a little harder to actually agree on what makes a deck fit into a certain tier. Some of them are easy: Pod, UWR Control, Zoo, etc. are all tier 1 no matter how you interpret the definition. But what about a deck like Living End or Bogles? One got 2nd at GP KC. The other got 2nd at Worlds. But neither of them are really "proven" by the same metrics as those other decks. So there is a question here of sorting decks (although to some extent, it just comes down to common sense and forum consensus).
Izzetmage's idea is the one I'd choose, and I also agree with a set template for primers.
However, I think this could be applied to all the format subforums. Should they not all be coherent and have the same structure ?
That's a great idea but it has too many moving parts for now. We have a lot of agency in our own forum but very little elsewhere. It's definitely something we want to approach other staff with, but one objective at a time.
As for standardized primers, I don't feel that should be incorporated. As a writer and upkeeper of a primer I take great pride in the time and work I put in. There are also a lot of great and creative primers and taking a standardized approach would quash that creative process. I'm all for qualifications (such as required sections and minimum number of words/lists) but cookie-cutter primers don't sound very appealing.
Interesting point. I actually agree with it, for the most part. So long as primers include a standardized set of sections (matchups, decklists, card choices, etc.) then I don't care too much how they are formatted or designed. If anything, enforcing a set standard eliminates the creativity and ownership that users have over both a thread and a deck.
Keep the ideas coming! And keep inviting other users from across the Modern forum to weigh in on the different choices (and submit plans of their own).
Ultimately I enjoy Izzetmages idea of 4 forums (T1, T1.5, T2, Development).
Proven (Tier 1 decks) - Proven decks that have won or top 8'd a major tournament within the last year (starting in January). It's a very straight forward concept. These are the best of the best decks and so long as they maintain professional standings they can stay at the top. Each year a deck that hasn't placed or won a major tournament can be dropped a tier. This gives decks plenty of time in the "spot light" while having a system to regulate outdated information. I do NOT feel like each deck needs a "section". Different deck types and such can be discussed within the thread, or created at the bottom until it wins something.
Established (Tier 1.5) - Decks that have gotten results within the top 16 of major tournaments within the last year (starting january). Same as the above only this section would have decks that get close but not necessarily close enough. Many rogue decks, and slightly out dated decks would reside here. If at the end of the year these decks did not reach at least a top 16 in a major event It would drop down.
Accepted (Tier 2) - Decks that have gotten consisten MTGO 4 - 0 or 3 - 1, but have not placed in a major paper tournament top 16 within the last year (starting January). At the end of the year if it did not place in one of the above it is then downgraded.
Deck Creation - All decks fall into this category, however decks that consistently provide win's at the FNM level, but have not placed in a major event or an MTGO event can be stickied in this form. Obviously decks do not rotate out of this section but any decks that aren't kept up to date and have poor communication levels can be unstickied.
This is a clear cut way to establish order in the forums. At a quick glance it's easy to find information reguarding power levels. I want to look into decks that place highly at a tourney, I know where to look. If none of that tickles my fancy I can go down a tier until I find something that does. It also gives a clear cut way to determine "tiers" and when decks become "obsolete". Some people might look at this as a negative thing, but frankly if you think a deck deserves to be higher... well go win a major tournament with it. You can't argue with standings. From a management standpoint it might be tedious to move things up during the year, but you only need to worry about "demoting" a deck once a year. That said i'm not the one who would have to "manage" the adjustments but if the goal is to make this a go to place for information about the modern format then well... you have to accept a certain amount of maintanance will be involved. If a deck wins i'm sure someone who hangs out in the thread (or even the primer controler) could simply send a PM to the respective moderator and just give them a couple days to make the change.
Standardized Primers also make sense, but let me iterate that i'm specifically refering to specifc forms of information that needs to be present. I enjoy the creativity people put into these primers (though they need to be maintained better) but it's important to have specific information available.
Grouped Decks are something I really don't care for. Jund is a completely different deck than Junk, and Rock (GB) is different than both. Yes they all share a core of cards but decks that use the same core's often operate far differently. Jund's ability to go to the dome with some of it's removal leaves it into more of an aggressive playstyle than GB Cloud which is virtually a straight up control deck. The difference between UW Tron and RG tron are also enormous and should actually be different. UW tron might only be an established deck while RG tron is probably proven reguardless if they share a core set of cards. It's also very under explained. I'm playing a UWB midrange deck that has won nothing, if I want to discuss it should i post it in the Uxx midrange forum under proven? yeah probably not. Also by not having the "subforums" it makes it a simpler matter of moving a specific deck up or down. Jund might stay high, while junk falls a level at the end of the year... it's a simple as a single move, while the other has to consider this shared BGx sub forum. Also it's not necessarily fair that some decks are forced to share the same deck discussion space. Cloud and rock were shoe horned into the same thread which had a primer for playing death cloud specifically and you really couldn't discuss a non cloud version of rock in there because everyone was already wrapped up in death cloud thought processes.
In conclusion this would be the way I would like to see every format forum broken down as a standard, to make searching for info or trying to get into another format pretty easy.
Lurker here - I like Izzetmage's idea. It seems like a good way to let readers know the relative success level of the decks. The current setup can obscure that a bit.
I don't like the standardized primers, some of the more creative ones are quite good. The idea of requiring some standard elements might be ok but go don't go overboard.
Maybe we should settle this question first: Should decks be sorted by power level or popularity?
I’m not too keen on Plan 2 because I’d rather have decks sorted by power level (as in, tournament results) than popularity. “Popularity” is inclusive of “whether forum members love that deck enough to write a whole primer for it”. I’d like the forum to become a resource for competitive players, where they can click on Proven or Established and be presented with a list of decks that they will have a good chance of seeing on MTGO or at a GP/PTQ, instead of one where the aforementioned forums are home to competitive decks, but mixed in with mediocre or outdated decks which are there only because they have a following on this very website.
Moving threads from one forum to another will take time, but I see it as a necessary step to keep the Modern forum well-maintained. I doubt this needs to be carried out often, perhaps just once every three months, upon a new set release. Even then, I am confident that very few decks need to be moved.
---
Anyway, here’s how I would sort all the decks. My comments are in #s.
(Note: I separated some archetypes into “Main” and “Other” versions. I consider the “Main” versions to be those that are representative of that archetype, and the “Other” versions outdated, untested or unproven. I’d advise moving the “Other” versions to Developing or Deck Creation.)
Proven
-Affinity
Main Version:
Blue (Thoughtcast, Master of Etherium)
Other Versions:
Mono-Red (Atog, Shrapnel Blast)
White (Steelshaper’s Gift)
Black (Disciple of the Vault)
UB (Tezzeret, Agent of Bolas)
-BG Midrange
Main Versions:
Jund
Junk
4C (A-Jund-i)
Other Versions:
BUG
BG #the one that Josh Utter-Leyton and a few others played at Worlds
-Pod
Main Versions:
Kiki
Melira
-Scapeshift
Main Version:
RUG (Cryptic Command)
Other Version:
RG splash U (Primeval Titan)
-Twin
Main Versions:
UR, possibly splash B/G for discard/Ancient Grudge)
UWR (Wall of Omens, Restoration Angel)
-UWR Control aka Wafo-Tapa Draw-Go
-UWR Midrange aka Geist
Established
-4C Gifts Control
Main Versions:
Blue (Snapcaster Mage, counterspells)
White (Sun Titan, Kitchen Finks)
#Dmitriy Butakov’s deck from Worlds 2013 might go here too...or under BG midrange.
-BW Tokens
-Delver
Main Versions:
UR, possibly splash green for Tarmogoyf
UWR (Steppe Lynx, Geist of Saint Traft)
Grixis (Deathrite Shaman, Dark Confidant, discard)
#Jeff Hoogland’s deck from GP KC goes here IMO. I don’t consider it as Faeries.
-Domain Zoo
Main Version:
“Big” Zoo (Deathrite Shaman, Noble Hierarch, Geist of Saint Traft, Lingering Souls, Elspeth, Knight-Errant)
Other Version:
Aggro Zoo (Kird Ape, Loam Lion, Steppe Lynx)
-Griselbrand
-GW Hatebears
#D&T does not count.
-Hexproof aka Bogle
-Infect
Main Version:
UG, possibly splashing black for Plague Stinger/discard
Other Version:
Red (Assault Strobe, Flesh//Blood)
#I wouldn’t put Mono-Black (the one with Phyrexian Crusader and Phyrexian Vatmother) here. It’s more of a discard deck than an Infect deck.
-Lifegain
Main Version:
Soul Sisters (Soul Warden, Soul’s Attendant, Honor of the Pure)
Other Version:
Martyr Proc (Proclamation of Rebirth)
#Correct me if I’m wrong: Proc never makes it to 3-1 or 4-0 on MTGO Dailies while Soul Sisters does.
-Living End
-Merfolk
-RDW/Burn
-RG Tron
-RG Zoo
-Storm
#Used to be two versions (Pyromancer Ascension and Epic Experiment), but post-ban, only PA is left.
-U Tron
#Decks which, I feel, see play because of their low prices, and could be moved to Developing:
Hexproof
Infect
Lifegain
Merfolk
RDW
Storm
U Tron
You are more likely to see these decks on a MTGO Daily, where players just buy a deck that costs <100 tix and jump in, than at a GP, where the majority of players are out to win.
Developing
Any deck not mentioned which:
1) Has a thorough primer (e.g. UW Tron, D&T, most stickies in current Deck Creation), or
2) Is heavily discussed, with 500+ posts (e.g. Grixis Control)
3) Placed high at one event only (e.g. Loam, Eternal Command), or
4) Placed high at multiple events in the past, but not recently (e.g. Faeries, UW Restoration)
New decks that spike one event start here. If they see more play on MTGO or more results in large tournaments, they move to Established.
^This. As am avid brewer I like to think I have a good feel for what I need to beat and this sums it up pretty well. If you want to take down a FNM level event and want help with your brew you go into developing and you troll out there. The spikier you get the higher you go. Honestly the Proven section should be an accurate reflection of the meta expected at GP's and heavy attendance PTQ's. Currently it is not. The way he has this broken down would give people a clear area to look based on what their needs are. Cause lets face it, people all play for different reasons and having casual decks mixed with Spike decks always ends up with a ton of hurt bunny faces.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In case I didn't tell you, I don't care about your opinion I just want your facts. And not the facts that make you seem smart. I want the ones that are actual facts.
Izzetmage: Thanks for that well-reasoned and thorough post. The internet currently lacks any serious forum, or site more generally, for Modern. When you google "mtg modern forum" or some variation thereof, we are the top hit. That's good news in that we are already a go-to place for Modern information, even before a reorganization. But it's bad news in that the information on our forum isn't at the top of its game in the same way that the Legacy information is on The Source (to use an example). Because of that, the way that you have organized the decks makes a lot of sense, and will likely appeal to a huge segment of Modern players.
Looking over your classifications, I agree with basically everything you currently have, but disagree with some of your omissions. Zoo and Burn (RDW) really should be included in "Proven", even if they lack the success rates of decks like UWR or Pod. If I was a new player looking for information on the format, I would want to see those two decks in the proven section because those are lists I could definitely take to a PTQ/GPT and expect to do fairly well.
As for Established, I like the idea of putting a bunch of decks that are currently nested under Proven down in this forum as their own threads. Do people think that we should also have a sub-organization here of stickying threads? Or should we just rely on the natural ebb and flow of traffic to effectively "sticky" threads through frequent posting?
Most people seem to be leaning towards plan 3, with a not-inconsiderable group preferring plan 2. Plan 3 seems, at least the way it is constructed now, as the "best" one for increasing the forum's relevance to the broader MTG community. How do people feel about this idea? What "direction(s)" should we be looking to when considering the Modern forum's future?
Burn is probably better than I give it credit for. It consistently comprises ~5% of GP Day 2 decks, and it's always among the top 10 most played archetypes that make Day 2.
Zoo, on the other hand, should stay in Established. Domain Zoo doesn't have a large online presence, while RG Zoo doesn't have a large paper presence and its best paper performance is a GP Top 16. Both of these factors are deal breakers to me. Proven is a very exclusive club, and one imperfection would be enough for me to say "nope".
I'd actually advise a new player to build Affinity instead of either version of Zoo, because they can do it for less than 4 Tarmogoyfs' worth of cash.
To me, dividing sub-forums by deck performance seems illogical. It's just too easy to have a deck with one variant being tier 1 and the other being tier 3. It makes more sense to me to have sub-forums based on general categories (the way proven is now) for the most popular decks, and an 'other' sub-forum for popular decks that are not popular enough to support a sub-forum. For example: a single sub-forum for Tron decks with threads devoted to RGTron (Tier 1) and UWTron and UTron (not Tier 1, I'm told). A lot of info about these decks is shared (probably), and having all of Tron in one place makes more sense than dividing it up by tier.
Things WotC cares about:
-making certain Standard cards can be played in Modern, therefore increasing their value and increasing WotC's profit margin
Things WotC does not care about:
-keeping the ban list as short as possible
-taking chances with an entire format for the benefit of a single card
-catering to play styles that newer players generally don't like and will lose them more players than it will gain
-keeping the meta balanced between archetypes/colors/whatever
-keeping cards on the secondary market cheap (available yes, but not cheap)
-keeping the meta diverse (as long as a single deck doesn't threaten the popularity of the format)
From what I am hearing right now, option 3 still seems to be the frontrunner for most users. Under this plan, we would shuffle some of the proven decks around, likely moving a few to established. In turn, established would see some of its decks moved to developing. Under developing itself, we would have stickied decks that a) see a lot of traffic, b) have good primers, c) have some preliminary results, and d) have an active fanbase (some combination of those 4 would get you stickied). We would also see some unstickied threads that did not fit those criteria but still belonged more in developing than in creation. Finally, creation would be for all the brews and ideas that players throw around.
For primers, I'm leaning away from standardized primer formatting but leaning towards standardized primer sections. Every primer would need to contain a few sections, which in and of itself would make them all look much more similar. But standardized primers are still on the table, as I haven't heard too much vocal outcry against them.
Keep the suggestions and ideas coming. Also, if you are posting in any threads in those forums, feel free to encourage others to come here and give their own input.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alright, so here is the semi-final criteria for Proven. Criteria would be stickied in each subforum. I am open to suggestions on all of the criteria, especially because they might be too exhaustive and not give enough room for flexibility (but then again, the specificity helps with information quality). (UPDATED 9/21)
Proven
Competitive Decks Representing the Current Metagame
Proven decks are updated every ban cycle. A Proven thread must have a primer updated since the last ban cycle. A deck is considered "Proven" if it fulfills TWO or more of the following criteria:
Under this new criteria, here are the decks that would fit into Proven, followed by a list of decks that do not meet the new Proven criteria. I have also given the numbered criteria that the decks meet, just for the sake of transparency. For example, Affinity fulfills all the criteria, so it gets a (1,2,3,4,5) next to it.
NEW PROVEN DECKS
Affinity (1,2,3,4,5)
UWR Control (1,2)
Melira Pod (1,2,3,4)
RG Tron (1,4)
Twin (1,2,3,4,5)
BG Rock (2,3)
Scapeshift (1,2,3,5)
Burn (1,2,5)
Jund (1,2,3,4,5)
Kiki Pod (2,4,5)
UWR Midrange (2,5)
And here are the current Proven decks that would be getting demoted to Established:
DEMOTED FROM PROVEN
UR Delver
Bogles
GW Hatebears
Wx Tokens
Soul Sisters
Gruul Zoo
Mono U Tron
UR Storm
Living End
Naya Zoo
Next, here are the working criteria for Established. (UPDATED 9/17)
Established
Tournament Decks with Results
Established decks are updated once every ban cycle. All Established threads must have a primer updated since the last ban cycle. A deck is considered "Established" if it does not meet the requirements of "Proven" but still fulfills ONE or more of the following criteria:
Under those definitions, which are more inclusive than even the last criteria, here is what the Established would look like. As with the previous section, I give the criteria that these decks fulfill under the Established definition. So for example, Hatebears fulfills criteria 1 and 5 but nothing else, so it gets a (1,5). New decks to Established as of 9/21/2013 are posted at the end of the list:
NEW ESTABLISHED
UR Delver (1,2,3,5)
Bogles (1)
GW Hatebears (1,5)
Wx Tokens (2,3)
Soul Sisters (1)
Gruul Zoo (1,2,3,4,5)
Mono U Tron (1)
UR Storm (1,2,5)
Living End (1,2)
Naya Zoo (2,4)
Domain Zoo (2,4)
Modern Merfolk (1,3,5)
Griselbrand (1,2,5)
Junk (1,2,3,4,5)
Death and Taxes (1)
Eternal Command (1)
Infect (1,3,4)
Restore Balance (1)
Mill (1,5)
Dredgevine (4)
4C Gifts (2,3)
Finally, here are the current Established decks that would get moved down to Deck Creation:
DEMOTED TO CREATION
U(x) Faeries (Still negotiating how to handle this and Delver)
Assault Loam
Combo Elves
BUG Midrange
Ritual Gifts
Azorius Midrange
Goblins
Bant
Modern Boros
UW Tron
Again, I cannot emphasize this enough: This is just a PRELIMINARY ORGANIZATION SCHEME. It has not been implemented and will not be implemented without input from the community. Feel free to suggest that a deck be moved to a different part of the forum.
If you know of a deck that fits Established criteria, and you can prove it as such, let me know and I will add it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the larger improvements that the mods want to make to the Modern forums, we want to reorganize and change the way that Deck Creation and Establised work. There are a few issues with these subforums, both from a layout perspective and from an information perspective:
PLAN 1: Make the Established forum home to only tier 1.5/2 decks. Move decks to Deck Creation that don't fit this criteria
STANDARDIZED PRIMERS?
Another idea that was floated around by a few users was that of standardized primers. Under this plan, all primers in Proven and Established would have a predetermined format that they had to follow. This would make it easy to find information and conduct quality control on the site. Stickied decks in Developing (or in Established, if we went with Plan 2) would also need formal, standardized primers. Creation decks would not require them. We would not need to decide on the format here (we could talk about it if people wanted to), but we should consider the idea going ahead with the forum reorganization.
So what do you all think? Any new ideas? Improvements to these ideas? Criticisms? Scathing rebukes? We are going to keep this thread open for a few weeks to collect opinions. If you know anyone who has an interest in Modern or the MTGS Modern forums, invite them over to join the talk.
1) Proven: tier 1 decks
2) Established: tier 1.5-2 decks
3) Developing: popular decks with few results, budget decks with some results, decks that did something looooong ago but are not played now
4) Deck Creation: everything else
All decks outside of 4) get tagged with [Primer] if there's a primer, [Deck] if they don't. For 4) there's no need to tag each thread with [Deck].
---
I've got another issue with the Proven forum. There are a few "parachute" decks that, I feel, are there only because they share some similarities (could be similar cards, or similar game plan) to an existing, proven deck, and not because they have results. Some examples (don't take this personally):
UW Tron
Teachings
Death & Taxes
I expect every deck in Proven to be representative of the metagame, as it's written in the description, instead of something like "Hi, I'm UW Tron, my brother RG Tron is a proven deck, and I share the same lands as him so I get to be part of the same club."
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
The newer primer approach seems like a wonderful idea. I know the primer I am attached to needs an update but the deck is kinda out of the current Modern rotation. So if people want to keep their threads active a new Primer would make sense. Then you reward active contributors to the forums by giving their work recognition.
Cockatrice username: Blackcat77
Great suggestion. I added it to the OP. It makes organizational sense and follows the internal logic of Magic formats.
I think that you are not alone in wanting Proven decks to represent the metagame. That is why I want some kinds of numeric criteria for how a deck gets bumped into proven. It can be a rough definition, but I think that this will help players understand what decks belong there and what do not. It would also help newer players learn the format.
I also like the idea of rewarding active contributors to the forum. I'm not sure if this would mean that decks with absolutely no competitive history outside of FNM should get into established. But it definitely means that decks that have good primers and active fanbases should get stickied in a subforum like, say, Developing Decks (if we went with Plan 3). To get into Established and Proven, I feel that decks really need to be posting results. That's how we show that this forum is a go-to place for Modern information in the same sense that The Mana Drain is for Vintage or The Source is for Legacy.
Good point. The Developing/Established distinction deals with this. Developing decks that have both active fan bases, a few results, AND a good primer could get stickied in that subforum. But you would need real results to get promoted to Established/Proven.
I think BatHickey missed my point with recognition. I was simply advocating stickies to forums for decks with a great following and a active player base. I didn't want it to seem like what ever thread had the most posts would be on Proven.
If we want to be the "it girl" for Modern forums we may want to institute a Primer layout for all Primers. This way regardless of the Primer the information would be in the exact location as any of the other Primers. This would ensure that new users would be able to easily access the information. As we all know the new users are what make this site grow.
Cockatrice username: Blackcat77
I feel the same way. The Uxx Midrange, Uxx control, and BGx midrange folders are a bit of a mess of one proven deck with a bunch of established spinoffs.
On the other hand, I do like that it is easy to pull people playing Jund into the Junk thread, for example, to bring good insight on the commonalities out of convenience.
This especially applies to a lot of the Uxx midrange decks out there, which all want to play in a similar way. The one catch here is that the Bant midrange thread is a total mess. There are aggro, tempo, control, and blouses lists in there. This may just need to be pulled apart into separate threads because not much gets accomplished when there is no actual "Proven" version of the color combination.
Established - Decks that are well-tuned and proven on the largest scales with multiple finishes. Decks that are currently popular and top tier are stickied.
Developing - Basically what deck creation is right now. Decks that have well thought out, thorough and updated primers and a consistent group of people working on it should be stickied.
Sig by DNC/HotP Studios
I also believe we should institute PMP's idea of having one specific primer layout. It may take a bit of work, but basically just have each thread's OP update their primer, in order to make all primers consistent with each other.
Thanks to Rivenor for the signature and XenoNinja for the Avi!
Quotes:
I am also on board with this. Depending on what plan we ultimately go with, we wouldn't have to require it of every deck. But for those in Proven and Established, it would be absolutely mandatory. For those in Developing, it would only be mandatory for the Stickied threads (i.e. the brews that have a lot of contributors but little competitive success in recent history/ever). Decks in Deck Creation would require no primers at all.
I've added the idea of Standardized Primers to the OP. It's definitely something to think about, and we wouldn't need to decide on the actual format until later. PMP's comment about being the "it girl" for Modern is on-point for me. Standardized primers would really increase the site's quality and the traffic from visitors looking for what's new in Modern.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Other option will require moderators to move threads from one subforum to another too often.
I think it's much easier to add {Competetive} tag to thread and stick it in top, than to move to another subforum, it will be harder for people to find thread they want to read.
This is my opinion also. Excessive stratification breeds complexity and extra effort. It's going to be annoying for all involved to continually have to move and find "their" threads. Why does there need to me more designations than "successful, proven, and popular" and "working on it" with a split for each one?
Also, does the distinction between "Tier 1" and "Tier 1.5" (whatever the heck that is) deserve a sub-forum? The decision on this seems tedious, complex, and subjective. Though I'd concede that the decisions to sticky threads above others in option #2 is similar, though at least in this case the threads are collocated within one forum.
Sig by DNC/HotP Studios
As for standardized primers, I don't feel that should be incorporated. As a writer and upkeeper of a primer I take great pride in the time and work I put in. There are also a lot of great and creative primers and taking a standardized approach would quash that creative process. I'm all for qualifications (such as required sections and minimum number of words/lists) but cookie-cutter primers don't sound very appealing.
The complexity actually isn't that bad from a management perspective. It's fairly easy to have a Proven forum for clear tier 1 decks, an Established forum split between stickied and unstickied tier 2 decks, a Developing forum for fully formed decks that just aren't very competitive yet, and a Creation forum for all the random ideas an brews.
It's a little harder to actually agree on what makes a deck fit into a certain tier. Some of them are easy: Pod, UWR Control, Zoo, etc. are all tier 1 no matter how you interpret the definition. But what about a deck like Living End or Bogles? One got 2nd at GP KC. The other got 2nd at Worlds. But neither of them are really "proven" by the same metrics as those other decks. So there is a question here of sorting decks (although to some extent, it just comes down to common sense and forum consensus).
That's a great idea but it has too many moving parts for now. We have a lot of agency in our own forum but very little elsewhere. It's definitely something we want to approach other staff with, but one objective at a time.
Interesting point. I actually agree with it, for the most part. So long as primers include a standardized set of sections (matchups, decklists, card choices, etc.) then I don't care too much how they are formatted or designed. If anything, enforcing a set standard eliminates the creativity and ownership that users have over both a thread and a deck.
Keep the ideas coming! And keep inviting other users from across the Modern forum to weigh in on the different choices (and submit plans of their own).
Proven (Tier 1 decks) - Proven decks that have won or top 8'd a major tournament within the last year (starting in January). It's a very straight forward concept. These are the best of the best decks and so long as they maintain professional standings they can stay at the top. Each year a deck that hasn't placed or won a major tournament can be dropped a tier. This gives decks plenty of time in the "spot light" while having a system to regulate outdated information. I do NOT feel like each deck needs a "section". Different deck types and such can be discussed within the thread, or created at the bottom until it wins something.
Established (Tier 1.5) - Decks that have gotten results within the top 16 of major tournaments within the last year (starting january). Same as the above only this section would have decks that get close but not necessarily close enough. Many rogue decks, and slightly out dated decks would reside here. If at the end of the year these decks did not reach at least a top 16 in a major event It would drop down.
Accepted (Tier 2) - Decks that have gotten consisten MTGO 4 - 0 or 3 - 1, but have not placed in a major paper tournament top 16 within the last year (starting January). At the end of the year if it did not place in one of the above it is then downgraded.
Deck Creation - All decks fall into this category, however decks that consistently provide win's at the FNM level, but have not placed in a major event or an MTGO event can be stickied in this form. Obviously decks do not rotate out of this section but any decks that aren't kept up to date and have poor communication levels can be unstickied.
This is a clear cut way to establish order in the forums. At a quick glance it's easy to find information reguarding power levels. I want to look into decks that place highly at a tourney, I know where to look. If none of that tickles my fancy I can go down a tier until I find something that does. It also gives a clear cut way to determine "tiers" and when decks become "obsolete". Some people might look at this as a negative thing, but frankly if you think a deck deserves to be higher... well go win a major tournament with it. You can't argue with standings. From a management standpoint it might be tedious to move things up during the year, but you only need to worry about "demoting" a deck once a year. That said i'm not the one who would have to "manage" the adjustments but if the goal is to make this a go to place for information about the modern format then well... you have to accept a certain amount of maintanance will be involved. If a deck wins i'm sure someone who hangs out in the thread (or even the primer controler) could simply send a PM to the respective moderator and just give them a couple days to make the change.
Standardized Primers also make sense, but let me iterate that i'm specifically refering to specifc forms of information that needs to be present. I enjoy the creativity people put into these primers (though they need to be maintained better) but it's important to have specific information available.
Grouped Decks are something I really don't care for. Jund is a completely different deck than Junk, and Rock (GB) is different than both. Yes they all share a core of cards but decks that use the same core's often operate far differently. Jund's ability to go to the dome with some of it's removal leaves it into more of an aggressive playstyle than GB Cloud which is virtually a straight up control deck. The difference between UW Tron and RG tron are also enormous and should actually be different. UW tron might only be an established deck while RG tron is probably proven reguardless if they share a core set of cards. It's also very under explained. I'm playing a UWB midrange deck that has won nothing, if I want to discuss it should i post it in the Uxx midrange forum under proven? yeah probably not. Also by not having the "subforums" it makes it a simpler matter of moving a specific deck up or down. Jund might stay high, while junk falls a level at the end of the year... it's a simple as a single move, while the other has to consider this shared BGx sub forum. Also it's not necessarily fair that some decks are forced to share the same deck discussion space. Cloud and rock were shoe horned into the same thread which had a primer for playing death cloud specifically and you really couldn't discuss a non cloud version of rock in there because everyone was already wrapped up in death cloud thought processes.
In conclusion this would be the way I would like to see every format forum broken down as a standard, to make searching for info or trying to get into another format pretty easy.
I don't like the standardized primers, some of the more creative ones are quite good. The idea of requiring some standard elements might be ok but go don't go overboard.
I’m not too keen on Plan 2 because I’d rather have decks sorted by power level (as in, tournament results) than popularity. “Popularity” is inclusive of “whether forum members love that deck enough to write a whole primer for it”. I’d like the forum to become a resource for competitive players, where they can click on Proven or Established and be presented with a list of decks that they will have a good chance of seeing on MTGO or at a GP/PTQ, instead of one where the aforementioned forums are home to competitive decks, but mixed in with mediocre or outdated decks which are there only because they have a following on this very website.
Moving threads from one forum to another will take time, but I see it as a necessary step to keep the Modern forum well-maintained. I doubt this needs to be carried out often, perhaps just once every three months, upon a new set release. Even then, I am confident that very few decks need to be moved.
---
Anyway, here’s how I would sort all the decks. My comments are in #s.
(Note: I separated some archetypes into “Main” and “Other” versions. I consider the “Main” versions to be those that are representative of that archetype, and the “Other” versions outdated, untested or unproven. I’d advise moving the “Other” versions to Developing or Deck Creation.)
Proven
Main Version:
Blue (Thoughtcast, Master of Etherium)
Other Versions:
Mono-Red (Atog, Shrapnel Blast)
White (Steelshaper’s Gift)
Black (Disciple of the Vault)
UB (Tezzeret, Agent of Bolas)
-BG Midrange
Main Versions:
Jund
Junk
4C (A-Jund-i)
Other Versions:
BUG
BG #the one that Josh Utter-Leyton and a few others played at Worlds
-Pod
Main Versions:
Kiki
Melira
-Scapeshift
Main Version:
RUG (Cryptic Command)
Other Version:
RG splash U (Primeval Titan)
-Twin
Main Versions:
UR, possibly splash B/G for discard/Ancient Grudge)
UWR (Wall of Omens, Restoration Angel)
-UWR Control aka Wafo-Tapa Draw-Go
-UWR Midrange aka Geist
Main Versions:
Blue (Snapcaster Mage, counterspells)
White (Sun Titan, Kitchen Finks)
#Dmitriy Butakov’s deck from Worlds 2013 might go here too...or under BG midrange.
-BW Tokens
-Delver
Main Versions:
UR, possibly splash green for Tarmogoyf
UWR (Steppe Lynx, Geist of Saint Traft)
Grixis (Deathrite Shaman, Dark Confidant, discard)
#Jeff Hoogland’s deck from GP KC goes here IMO. I don’t consider it as Faeries.
-Domain Zoo
Main Version:
“Big” Zoo (Deathrite Shaman, Noble Hierarch, Geist of Saint Traft, Lingering Souls, Elspeth, Knight-Errant)
Other Version:
Aggro Zoo (Kird Ape, Loam Lion, Steppe Lynx)
-Griselbrand
-GW Hatebears
#D&T does not count.
-Hexproof aka Bogle
-Infect
Main Version:
UG, possibly splashing black for Plague Stinger/discard
Other Version:
Red (Assault Strobe, Flesh//Blood)
#I wouldn’t put Mono-Black (the one with Phyrexian Crusader and Phyrexian Vatmother) here. It’s more of a discard deck than an Infect deck.
-Lifegain
Main Version:
Soul Sisters (Soul Warden, Soul’s Attendant, Honor of the Pure)
Other Version:
Martyr Proc (Proclamation of Rebirth)
#Correct me if I’m wrong: Proc never makes it to 3-1 or 4-0 on MTGO Dailies while Soul Sisters does.
-Living End
-Merfolk
-RDW/Burn
-RG Tron
-RG Zoo
-Storm
#Used to be two versions (Pyromancer Ascension and Epic Experiment), but post-ban, only PA is left.
-U Tron
#Decks which, I feel, see play because of their low prices, and could be moved to Developing:
Hexproof
Infect
Lifegain
Merfolk
RDW
Storm
U Tron
You are more likely to see these decks on a MTGO Daily, where players just buy a deck that costs <100 tix and jump in, than at a GP, where the majority of players are out to win.
Any deck not mentioned which:
1) Has a thorough primer (e.g. UW Tron, D&T, most stickies in current Deck Creation), or
2) Is heavily discussed, with 500+ posts (e.g. Grixis Control)
3) Placed high at one event only (e.g. Loam, Eternal Command), or
4) Placed high at multiple events in the past, but not recently (e.g. Faeries, UW Restoration)
New decks that spike one event start here. If they see more play on MTGO or more results in large tournaments, they move to Established.
Deck Creation
Everything else.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
Cockatrice username: Blackcat77
Looking over your classifications, I agree with basically everything you currently have, but disagree with some of your omissions. Zoo and Burn (RDW) really should be included in "Proven", even if they lack the success rates of decks like UWR or Pod. If I was a new player looking for information on the format, I would want to see those two decks in the proven section because those are lists I could definitely take to a PTQ/GPT and expect to do fairly well.
As for Established, I like the idea of putting a bunch of decks that are currently nested under Proven down in this forum as their own threads. Do people think that we should also have a sub-organization here of stickying threads? Or should we just rely on the natural ebb and flow of traffic to effectively "sticky" threads through frequent posting?
Most people seem to be leaning towards plan 3, with a not-inconsiderable group preferring plan 2. Plan 3 seems, at least the way it is constructed now, as the "best" one for increasing the forum's relevance to the broader MTG community. How do people feel about this idea? What "direction(s)" should we be looking to when considering the Modern forum's future?
Zoo, on the other hand, should stay in Established. Domain Zoo doesn't have a large online presence, while RG Zoo doesn't have a large paper presence and its best paper performance is a GP Top 16. Both of these factors are deal breakers to me. Proven is a very exclusive club, and one imperfection would be enough for me to say "nope".
I'd actually advise a new player to build Affinity instead of either version of Zoo, because they can do it for less than 4 Tarmogoyfs' worth of cash.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
-making certain Standard cards can be played in Modern, therefore increasing their value and increasing WotC's profit margin
Things WotC does not care about:
-keeping the ban list as short as possible
-taking chances with an entire format for the benefit of a single card
-catering to play styles that newer players generally don't like and will lose them more players than it will gain
-keeping the meta balanced between archetypes/colors/whatever
-keeping cards on the secondary market cheap (available yes, but not cheap)
-keeping the meta diverse (as long as a single deck doesn't threaten the popularity of the format)
For primers, I'm leaning away from standardized primer formatting but leaning towards standardized primer sections. Every primer would need to contain a few sections, which in and of itself would make them all look much more similar. But standardized primers are still on the table, as I haven't heard too much vocal outcry against them.
Keep the suggestions and ideas coming. Also, if you are posting in any threads in those forums, feel free to encourage others to come here and give their own input.