I have a comment about the current Standard Forum set up. The large number of sub forums and really long threads makes it very difficult for outsiders to enter this community. I post and read more in the general, rulings and modern sections of the MTGS forums, and only venture to the standard subs when I have a specific reason to, for example the standard Game Day coming up. And when I do, it's impossible to find what I'm looking for.
As an example, say I'm interested in the WBG-aggro decks; it's been putting up some results, but isn't exactly dominating. Where do I go? It's competetive, but is it "Proven" or "Established". I mean, it won GP Paris, but it doesn't have a hole lot of other top finishes. I don't know so I go for the first and see 4 Threads (appearantly there are only four proven decks in standard). One is conveniently named "[Primer] ABZAN: WBG Abzanimals (Or: Ways To Kill People With Siege Rhino)": that's what I want to do with WBG-aggro, so I check it out. The last few posts are all about abzan control and lists with playsets of Elspeth, Sun's Champion and Languish, the first post only has images of cards that are CMC 3 or more, I must be in the wrong thread. I head over to established sub, after all, WBG-aggro isn't really among the top 4 decks of the format, as far as I know. Established has 7 threads, but none of the thread titles look like what I'm searching for. Ok, maybe it's in the deck creation sub; here at least, there are a ton of threads. But "standard deck creation" isn't limited to competetive play, nor are the actual primers stickied or otherwise made more visible, so if there is an WBG-aggro thread there it's buried beneath a torrent of what I'll call "idea threads". Ok, maybe it was in the "abzanimals" thread or whatever, I head back, read more of the backlog and realize that this one 130+ pages long thread has the discussion for WBG aggro, midrange, control and megamorph! So, if I want to read the discussion on WBG-aggro, I'd have to sift through this monster of a thread.
Do you know how this could have been made easier?
Fewer subforums, why do you need to separate a total of 11 threads into 2 subforums? Just have one competetive subforum and be done with it.
Better thread names. Either edit the thread names, or make new "official" threads and merge the old ones in. There's no way to know if "Abzanimals" is the aggro, midrange or control version, or all three.
Use the sticky function, make sure the good threads (the ones with primers and MTGO results and live discussion) stay visible.
I have a comment about the current Standard Forum set up. The large number of sub forums and really long threads makes it very difficult for outsiders to enter this community. I post and read more in the general, rulings and modern sections of the MTGS forums, and only venture to the standard subs when I have a specific reason to, for example the standard Game Day coming up. And when I do, it's impossible to find what I'm looking for.
As an example, say I'm interested in the WBG-aggro decks; it's been putting up some results, but isn't exactly dominating. Where do I go? It's competetive, but is it "Proven" or "Established". I mean, it won GP Paris, but it doesn't have a hole lot of other top finishes. I don't know so I go for the first and see 4 Threads (appearantly there are only four proven decks in standard). One is conveniently named "[Primer] ABZAN: WBG Abzanimals (Or: Ways To Kill People With Siege Rhino)": that's what I want to do with WBG-aggro, so I check it out. The last few posts are all about abzan control and lists with playsets of Elspeth, Sun's Champion and Languish, the first post only has images of cards that are CMC 3 or more, I must be in the wrong thread. I head over to established sub, after all, WBG-aggro isn't really among the top 4 decks of the format, as far as I know. Established has 7 threads, but none of the thread titles look like what I'm searching for. Ok, maybe it's in the deck creation sub; here at least, there are a ton of threads. But "standard deck creation" isn't limited to competetive play, nor are the actual primers stickied or otherwise made more visible, so if there is an WBG-aggro thread there it's buried beneath a torrent of what I'll call "idea threads". Ok, maybe it was in the "abzanimals" thread or whatever, I head back, read more of the backlog and realize that this one 130+ pages long thread has the discussion for WBG aggro, midrange, control and megamorph! So, if I want to read the discussion on WBG-aggro, I'd have to sift through this monster of a thread.
Do you know how this could have been made easier?
Fewer subforums, why do you need to separate a total of 11 threads into 2 subforums? Just have one competetive subforum and be done with it.
Better thread names. Either edit the thread names, or make new "official" threads and merge the old ones in. There's no way to know if "Abzanimals" is the aggro, midrange or control version, or all three.
Use the sticky function, make sure the good threads (the ones with primers and MTGO results and live discussion) stay visible.
Excellent criticism if I can say so since I have noticed this too. The Abzan thread is definitely an abomination when it comes to that specifically.
I currently don't play Standard but Im toying with the idea of getting into it again so I have to deal with the origination of this part of the forum.
I have spent much of my time in the Modern one and I have to say that it is the best organized one. The subsections are clearly understandable for everyone and every month there is an update sorting the right decks into the right sections according to the meta.
Is that a lot of work? Yes, it is but it's definitely worth it. Modern has become one of the most active sections of the entire site just looking at pure viewer numbers and I think the organization plays a role in that too.
The activity of the Pro Tour thread is the best example of the current activity problem of the Standard forums and I mean we are not talking about something niche here. We are talking about the biggest format and one of the biggest and most high-profile tournaments the game has to offer.
I have spent much of my time in the Modern one and I have to say that it is the best organized one. The subsections are clearly understandable for everyone and every month there is an update sorting the right decks into the right sections according to the meta.
Is that a lot of work? Yes, it is but it's definitely worth it. Modern has become one of the most active sections of the entire site just looking at pure viewer numbers and I think the organization plays a role in that too.
Thank you for your kind words. I agree that the modern forums are currently very well organized and could be an inspiration. But all the hard work with monthly updates and so on isn't the biggest need in my eyes. The biggest need is organizing the number of threads and subforums to the point where finding the deck you're looking for is as intuitive as it is in modern.
Hey guys, the standard mods are looking to make some changes to the standard forum come rotation.
Here's what we're looking to do:
-- eliminate the competitive private group
(While useful at keeping budget talk out of tier 1 deck threads, the private group is extremely annoying for new users who don't understand why they can't post. It is likely that we will keep rules in place for budget talk in tier 1 and tier 2 [more on that later]. I know as a user it's extremely obnoxious to have half the posts in a thread asking for budget substitutes.)
-- set up the standard subforums as follows:
-- Tier 1 (standard) [w/ certain parameters]
-- Tier 2 (standard) [w/ certain parameters]
-- Standard Deck Creation
-- Budget
-- Standard New Card Discussion
-- Standard Archives
The Standard main forum would be maintained and continue to be the place for "Premier Event Threads" and the like. The Competitive main forum would be done away with as it doesn't really serve an obvious purpose.
Bumping this, we'd really appreciate everyone's thoughts on this.
I'll add that I think the Budget Forum can stay (not sure if lugger intentionally left this out or forgot about it) -- it's not especially active, but I do think it serves a significant purpose for those who do post there.
Bumping this, we'd really appreciate everyone's thoughts on this.
I'll add that I think the Budget Forum can stay (not sure if lugger intentionally left this out or forgot about it) -- it's not especially active, but I do think it serves a significant purpose for those who do post there.
Hey guys. We've had some griping about the layout of standard in the past 10 months and if you could comment on the proposed changes it would be awesome. We do want to make standard a productive place.
I have two Standard decks that I want to post to get feedback. One deck is a Mono Red Infection brew and the other one is a White Weenie brew. Can someone point me to where I can post these two decks to get feedback? Any help would be greatly appreciated!
I feel that the rules for established decks is too severe. There are two forums in standard for the more competitive decks in the format and there are barely 3 and 4 threads in each. I would recommend:
- Either keep one forum for established decks and put the proven decks into it, which would mean one forum for 7 threads (at the moment).
or
- Lower the 5% criteria for Established decks to 2% or even 1%. Which would, at the very least, give better visibility to Esper Tokens and Rally decks
I feel that the rules for established decks is too severe. There are two forums in standard for the more competitive decks in the format and there are barely 3 and 4 threads in each. I would recommend:
- Either keep one forum for established decks and put the proven decks into it, which would mean one forum for 7 threads (at the moment).
or
- Lower the 5% criteria for Established decks to 2% or even 1%. Which would, at the very least, give better visibility to Esper Tokens and Rally decks
This is reasonable. I've been noticing that the 5% threshold has been a bit difficult for some decks to meet. The 10%-5% criteria will probably have to change from format to format, as card power levels differ. I'm going to give it another ~2 weeks and see if the format settles any further.
Also worth noting that while 4-Color Rally would likely hit Est. if we were to lower criteria, Esper Tokens probably wouldn't given it's actual lack of results (oddly).
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB
As an example, say I'm interested in the WBG-aggro decks; it's been putting up some results, but isn't exactly dominating. Where do I go? It's competetive, but is it "Proven" or "Established". I mean, it won GP Paris, but it doesn't have a hole lot of other top finishes. I don't know so I go for the first and see 4 Threads (appearantly there are only four proven decks in standard). One is conveniently named "[Primer] ABZAN: WBG Abzanimals (Or: Ways To Kill People With Siege Rhino)": that's what I want to do with WBG-aggro, so I check it out. The last few posts are all about abzan control and lists with playsets of Elspeth, Sun's Champion and Languish, the first post only has images of cards that are CMC 3 or more, I must be in the wrong thread. I head over to established sub, after all, WBG-aggro isn't really among the top 4 decks of the format, as far as I know. Established has 7 threads, but none of the thread titles look like what I'm searching for. Ok, maybe it's in the deck creation sub; here at least, there are a ton of threads. But "standard deck creation" isn't limited to competetive play, nor are the actual primers stickied or otherwise made more visible, so if there is an WBG-aggro thread there it's buried beneath a torrent of what I'll call "idea threads". Ok, maybe it was in the "abzanimals" thread or whatever, I head back, read more of the backlog and realize that this one 130+ pages long thread has the discussion for WBG aggro, midrange, control and megamorph! So, if I want to read the discussion on WBG-aggro, I'd have to sift through this monster of a thread.
Do you know how this could have been made easier?
Excellent criticism if I can say so since I have noticed this too. The Abzan thread is definitely an abomination when it comes to that specifically.
I currently don't play Standard but Im toying with the idea of getting into it again so I have to deal with the origination of this part of the forum.
I have spent much of my time in the Modern one and I have to say that it is the best organized one. The subsections are clearly understandable for everyone and every month there is an update sorting the right decks into the right sections according to the meta.
Is that a lot of work? Yes, it is but it's definitely worth it. Modern has become one of the most active sections of the entire site just looking at pure viewer numbers and I think the organization plays a role in that too.
The activity of the Pro Tour thread is the best example of the current activity problem of the Standard forums and I mean we are not talking about something niche here. We are talking about the biggest format and one of the biggest and most high-profile tournaments the game has to offer.
Thank you for your kind words. I agree that the modern forums are currently very well organized and could be an inspiration. But all the hard work with monthly updates and so on isn't the biggest need in my eyes. The biggest need is organizing the number of threads and subforums to the point where finding the deck you're looking for is as intuitive as it is in modern.
Here's what we're looking to do:
-- eliminate the competitive private group
(While useful at keeping budget talk out of tier 1 deck threads, the private group is extremely annoying for new users who don't understand why they can't post. It is likely that we will keep rules in place for budget talk in tier 1 and tier 2 [more on that later]. I know as a user it's extremely obnoxious to have half the posts in a thread asking for budget substitutes.)
-- set up the standard subforums as follows:
-- Tier 1 (standard) [w/ certain parameters]
-- Tier 2 (standard) [w/ certain parameters]
-- Standard Deck Creation
-- Budget
-- Standard New Card Discussion
-- Standard Archives
The Standard main forum would be maintained and continue to be the place for "Premier Event Threads" and the like. The Competitive main forum would be done away with as it doesn't really serve an obvious purpose.
Lend us your thoughts. It would be appreciated.
-- Lugger
I'll add that I think the Budget Forum can stay (not sure if lugger intentionally left this out or forgot about it) -- it's not especially active, but I do think it serves a significant purpose for those who do post there.
Missed this. Previous post edited accordingly.
We'd love feedback on the the proposed layout.
-- Lugger
Yes.
If you notice, we posted asking for feedback and received no responses so we just did what we thought would make the forum easier for new users.
Our reorganization was announced here but there weren't very many details.
My apologies.
If you have questions about why we reorganized like we did, feel free to PM me.
- Either keep one forum for established decks and put the proven decks into it, which would mean one forum for 7 threads (at the moment).
or
- Lower the 5% criteria for Established decks to 2% or even 1%. Which would, at the very least, give better visibility to Esper Tokens and Rally decks
WBC Eldrazi & Taxes CBW
UR Keep on Cantripin' (UR Phoenix) RU
WU Surprise! It's not UW Control! (UW Midrange) UW
BG The Rock, Straight BG
U Mono-Blue Fish U
RBW Mardu Pyromancer BWR
RG Rabble! Rabble! (GR Blood Moon Aggro) GR
Legacy
W Death & Taxes W
This is reasonable. I've been noticing that the 5% threshold has been a bit difficult for some decks to meet. The 10%-5% criteria will probably have to change from format to format, as card power levels differ. I'm going to give it another ~2 weeks and see if the format settles any further.
Also worth noting that while 4-Color Rally would likely hit Est. if we were to lower criteria, Esper Tokens probably wouldn't given it's actual lack of results (oddly).