Especially strange because of the claim that Finkel Ravitz and Hill were held out by poor constructed records when they went 8-2, 8-2, 9-1, respectively.
Yeah, I don't know where that comes from. The FRF standings page is pretty clear that they killed the constructed portion of the event. Maybe their breakers were bad?
the results overall speak volumes about twin more tan infect.
you have the best players in the game, across magic the gathering constructed pro level events from both WOTC and SCG adopting a strategy to the point where just under 4% of the PT meta game is that deck...and twin takes the event...some random spanish guy and a previous pt champion who did not test the deck whatsoever (ari lax said in interview) getting to the semis
and infect is the list we prop up into tier 1? sounds more like self serving prophecy / hype train to me
the types of people that play infect simply don't have the spike mindset, i mean look at these posts.....these guys aren't in it to win
you have a guy asking if inkmoth nexus is really "worth it" it's a $10 card!
if this were standard we would all be playing gainlands and talking about how great jeskai student was with out bulk garbage and talking about just attending an fnm...not topping it
Who decides whether or not a deck is Tier 1? I'm actually pleased that UG Infect is starting to get recognized after the bannings. I've been on it for a while now. Who says your deck has to cost "x" amount of dollars in order for it to be Tier 1? The salty Junk players with their 1200-1500 dollar decks that lose to Infect? With that being said, four Noble Hierarchs are a must if you wanna consider your deck Tier 1. She's truly amazing in the deck. You can't argue with the performance that Infect put on at the Pro Tour in the constructed portion. I'd agree that Infect should be Tier 1. But I ask again, who decides these things?
Who decides whether or not a deck is Tier 1? I'm actually pleased that UG Infect is starting to get recognized after the bannings. I've been on it for a while now. Who says your deck has to cost "x" amount of dollars in order for it to be Tier 1? The salty Junk players with their 1200-1500 dollar decks that lose to Infect? With that being said, four Noble Hierarchs are a must if you wanna consider your deck Tier 1. She's truly amazing in the deck. You can't argue with the performance that Infect put on at the Pro Tour in the constructed portion. I'd agree that Infect should be Tier 1. But I ask again, who decides these things?
I guess you need a 4 digit price tag on a deck to make it tier 1. Because we know all someone needs to win is to spend a lot of money on their deck. The amount of money you spend on your cards has a direct correlation to how much you win. Also, the special aura the the money you spend, creates around those cards, protects them from losing to tier 2 decks.
Horrible_at_Magic is blowing smoke. And I guess its because he's horrible at magic. (Im really, really clever)
Oh, and to answer your question. There is a sticky post in the main tier 1 forum that gives the criteria for tier 1 decks.
Who decides whether or not a deck is Tier 1? I'm actually pleased that UG Infect is starting to get recognized after the bannings. I've been on it for a while now. Who says your deck has to cost "x" amount of dollars in order for it to be Tier 1? The salty Junk players with their 1200-1500 dollar decks that lose to Infect? With that being said, four Noble Hierarchs are a must if you wanna consider your deck Tier 1. She's truly amazing in the deck. You can't argue with the performance that Infect put on at the Pro Tour in the constructed portion. I'd agree that Infect should be Tier 1. But I ask again, who decides these things?
It's decided based on metagame prevalence in four distinct areas: MTGO presence, paper event presence, major event (PT/GP) T8/T16 showings, and major event day 2 presence. Decks get between 0-3 points in each category depending on their prevalence in those categories. The decks with the most points get into tier 1. The decks with less points go into tier 2. The decks with 0 points tend to go into Developing Competitive. This is a super general description of the method so if you want to see more, feel free to look here:
Ideally, we would also have a metric based on something like win rate or performance. But with the exception of the PT, which gave us a ton of day 1, day 2, and 18+ points data, there is no way to track deck performance on any large scale. You can sort of do this on MTGO, but the game win percentages tend to be pretty similar between decks. So in place of doing performance-based scoring, which would be great but isn't possible, we do prevalence-based scoring.
Who decides whether or not a deck is Tier 1? I'm actually pleased that UG Infect is starting to get recognized after the bannings. I've been on it for a while now. Who says your deck has to cost "x" amount of dollars in order for it to be Tier 1? The salty Junk players with their 1200-1500 dollar decks that lose to Infect? With that being said, four Noble Hierarchs are a must if you wanna consider your deck Tier 1. She's truly amazing in the deck. You can't argue with the performance that Infect put on at the Pro Tour in the constructed portion. I'd agree that Infect should be Tier 1. But I ask again, who decides these things?
in this forum there is an arbitrary formula a mod came up with.
in the real world, i'd say results. affinity puts up work in PTQ and 5k standings on a consistent basis.
see that word, consistent, infect supposedly reached top tier deck status on the back of one tournament because of the constructed results of some lower ranking members of the CFBP team.
my argument is it's not going to see jund or affinity levels of domination it's just here to play in the shallow pool while the meta adjusts to the recent pod and cruise bannings that made the real tier 1 decks a little less reliable for events
Who decides whether or not a deck is Tier 1? I'm actually pleased that UG Infect is starting to get recognized after the bannings. I've been on it for a while now. Who says your deck has to cost "x" amount of dollars in order for it to be Tier 1? The salty Junk players with their 1200-1500 dollar decks that lose to Infect? With that being said, four Noble Hierarchs are a must if you wanna consider your deck Tier 1. She's truly amazing in the deck. You can't argue with the performance that Infect put on at the Pro Tour in the constructed portion. I'd agree that Infect should be Tier 1. But I ask again, who decides these things?
in this forum there is an arbitrary formula a mod came up with.
in the real world, i'd say results. affinity puts up work in PTQ and 5k standings on a consistent basis.
see that word, consistent, infect supposedly reached top tier deck status on the back of one tournament because of the constructed results of some lower ranking members of the CFBP team.
my argument is it's not going to see jund or affinity levels of domination it's just here to play in the shallow pool while the meta adjusts to the recent pod and cruise bannings that made the real tier 1 decks a little less reliable for events
1. The "arbitrary formula" is 100% based on results across multiple different data sources. These are results that you seem to keep ignoring every time you post in this thread.
2. We update the forums monthly. If a deck does not keep its results, it is likely to fall down at beginning of the next month.
3. This most recent forum update is only based on data between 1/23 and 2/9. This is the period of time that balances a speedy update relative to the ban announcement with a sufficiently large sample size. Again, if Infect does not continue to perform, then it will fall off in the rankings in early March.
i understand the numbers and recognize them, but i disagree with how you process them
so if WOTC says this length here is an inch
Wizards has never defined a tier in any way, at least not publicly. Our dataset is an attempt to correct for that. I honestly have no clue what the rest of your post is about with regards to feet and inches, but I think this is what you are trying to say.
yeah your formula is wrong, a deck can run hot at 1 event and be defined as the best deck in the format for months
The formula is date dependent. If a deck runs hot for a month and then never returns, it is only a deck to beat for that month. Once we get to the next month and everything gets recalculated, that last event won't even matter. So if Infect can't repeat its PT success at the upcoming GP, it is likely to fall out of the rankings. If it does repeat that success, then it remains where it was.
i understand the numbers and recognize them, but i disagree with how you process them
so if WOTC says this length here is an inch
Wizards has never defined a tier in any way, at least not publicly. Our dataset is an attempt to correct for that. I honestly have no clue what the rest of your post is about with regards to feet and inches
i understand the numbers and recognize them, but i disagree with how you process them
so if WOTC says this length here is an inch
Wizards has never defined a tier in any way, at least not publicly. Our dataset is an attempt to correct for that. I honestly have no clue what the rest of your post is about with regards to feet and inches
Honestly, it was one of the most poorly worded analogies I have seen in a while. Given that in your analogy Wizards never actually defined an inch, the whole comparison was ridiculous from the start.
The more I analyze the infect games in the PT, the more I want to conclude that BI hurt them more than it helped them.
I saw 2 games in round 15-16 where Finkel or Austin could have won if they had another pump spell other than BI (because they lacked the mana or GY size to cast it).
But again, it needs testing. If a few of you run it, let us know after a few events.
When I was running it as a 1-of, I almost always didnt need it/couldn’t use it when I drew it or had it in my opening hand.
You're totally right about the list as a whole needing more testing, and it's totally possible that some split of Groundswell and BI is optimal.
I was playing one copy of Become Immense for a while prior to the PT, and afterwards I tried going up to two and I've liked it. My games generally play out so that I can cast one, and I want to draw exactly that many every game. I'm currently splitting it 2-1 with Groundswell, and would agree that four is definitely too many.
Regarding the PT games, I feel like misplays hurt the players more than their card choices did. Finkel made one blunder against Sam Black that likely kept him out of Top 8, but casting BI was no problem at all for him or Bursavich. If you can link a game where it was a problem my opinion could change on that.
there was a documented case where austin forgot his opponent was at 2 while counting up the damage he could deal and scooped.
check his twitter
he would have won the game but the judge grabbed the dice that was marking poison for austin near the lifepad (did not write it down) so austin assumed his opponent was at 0
lol
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
Yeah, I don't know where that comes from. The FRF standings page is pretty clear that they killed the constructed portion of the event. Maybe their breakers were bad?
http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/ptfrf/standings-by-format
They also seem to have done very well in the final standings, with Finkel barely missing T8 and Hill right behind:
http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/ptfrf/final-standings
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
you have the best players in the game, across magic the gathering constructed pro level events from both WOTC and SCG adopting a strategy to the point where just under 4% of the PT meta game is that deck...and twin takes the event...some random spanish guy and a previous pt champion who did not test the deck whatsoever (ari lax said in interview) getting to the semis
and infect is the list we prop up into tier 1? sounds more like self serving prophecy / hype train to me
the types of people that play infect simply don't have the spike mindset, i mean look at these posts.....these guys aren't in it to win
you have a guy asking if inkmoth nexus is really "worth it" it's a $10 card!
if this were standard we would all be playing gainlands and talking about how great jeskai student was with out bulk garbage and talking about just attending an fnm...not topping it
UG Infect
Modern
UG Infect
GW Infect
EDH
WB Teysa, Orzhov Scion
B Skithiryx, the Blight Dragon
I guess you need a 4 digit price tag on a deck to make it tier 1. Because we know all someone needs to win is to spend a lot of money on their deck. The amount of money you spend on your cards has a direct correlation to how much you win. Also, the special aura the the money you spend, creates around those cards, protects them from losing to tier 2 decks.
Horrible_at_Magic is blowing smoke. And I guess its because he's horrible at magic. (Im really, really clever)
Oh, and to answer your question. There is a sticky post in the main tier 1 forum that gives the criteria for tier 1 decks.
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
It's decided based on metagame prevalence in four distinct areas: MTGO presence, paper event presence, major event (PT/GP) T8/T16 showings, and major event day 2 presence. Decks get between 0-3 points in each category depending on their prevalence in those categories. The decks with the most points get into tier 1. The decks with less points go into tier 2. The decks with 0 points tend to go into Developing Competitive. This is a super general description of the method so if you want to see more, feel free to look here:
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/tier-1-modern/586357-tier-1-decks-to-beat-criteria-selection-and-decks
Ideally, we would also have a metric based on something like win rate or performance. But with the exception of the PT, which gave us a ton of day 1, day 2, and 18+ points data, there is no way to track deck performance on any large scale. You can sort of do this on MTGO, but the game win percentages tend to be pretty similar between decks. So in place of doing performance-based scoring, which would be great but isn't possible, we do prevalence-based scoring.
in this forum there is an arbitrary formula a mod came up with.
in the real world, i'd say results. affinity puts up work in PTQ and 5k standings on a consistent basis.
see that word, consistent, infect supposedly reached top tier deck status on the back of one tournament because of the constructed results of some lower ranking members of the CFBP team.
my argument is it's not going to see jund or affinity levels of domination it's just here to play in the shallow pool while the meta adjusts to the recent pod and cruise bannings that made the real tier 1 decks a little less reliable for events
1. The "arbitrary formula" is 100% based on results across multiple different data sources. These are results that you seem to keep ignoring every time you post in this thread.
2. We update the forums monthly. If a deck does not keep its results, it is likely to fall down at beginning of the next month.
3. This most recent forum update is only based on data between 1/23 and 2/9. This is the period of time that balances a speedy update relative to the ban announcement with a sufficiently large sample size. Again, if Infect does not continue to perform, then it will fall off in the rankings in early March.
so if WOTC says this length here is an inch
you come along and you make a ruleset that says okay from here to right here is defined as "about an inch"
----------
i am saying, hey...your standard levels of deviation is more than 5 feet.
4 feet is not "about an inch"
and you're basically saying
yes it is, here is what wotc defines as an inch and here is my forumla
yeah your formula is wrong, a deck can run hot at 1 event and be defined as the best deck in the format for months
Wizards has never defined a tier in any way, at least not publicly. Our dataset is an attempt to correct for that. I honestly have no clue what the rest of your post is about with regards to feet and inches, but I think this is what you are trying to say.
The formula is date dependent. If a deck runs hot for a month and then never returns, it is only a deck to beat for that month. Once we get to the next month and everything gets recalculated, that last event won't even matter. So if Infect can't repeat its PT success at the upcoming GP, it is likely to fall out of the rankings. If it does repeat that success, then it remains where it was.
In terms of popularity, I see the deck quickly fading from the Tier 1 part of the forum because it was more or less a metagame choice.
RUGTemur ScapeshiftGUR
UWRJeskai ControlRWU
UGUG InfectGU
That's definitely possible. We will have to see what's happening on 3/2 when we update again.
But for now, I realize that this discussion shouldn't really be happening here. This is for deck development, not for discussions of metagame classifications. So if anyone else wants to talk about the system we use, how the system might be changed, or other related issues, please do so in the metagame discussion thread.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/566735-modern-metagame-breakdown-and-discussion-updated-2
yeah, i have a few more college degrees than the average magic player
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
i'll keep the vocab limited
Honestly, it was one of the most poorly worded analogies I have seen in a while. Given that in your analogy Wizards never actually defined an inch, the whole comparison was ridiculous from the start.
If you want to discuss this topic or any related topics further, I'll be happy to continue in the metagame thread. If you keep discussing it here, you are getting an infraction.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/566735-modern-metagame-breakdown-and-discussion-updated-2
I was playing one copy of Become Immense for a while prior to the PT, and afterwards I tried going up to two and I've liked it. My games generally play out so that I can cast one, and I want to draw exactly that many every game. I'm currently splitting it 2-1 with Groundswell, and would agree that four is definitely too many.
Regarding the PT games, I feel like misplays hurt the players more than their card choices did. Finkel made one blunder against Sam Black that likely kept him out of Top 8, but casting BI was no problem at all for him or Bursavich. If you can link a game where it was a problem my opinion could change on that.
RUGTemur ScapeshiftGUR
UWRJeskai ControlRWU
UGUG InfectGU
check his twitter
he would have won the game but the judge grabbed the dice that was marking poison for austin near the lifepad (did not write it down) so austin assumed his opponent was at 0
nice college degrees bro
I played BUG Infect at the Pro Tour and loved my list. I wrote a tournament report on the deck:
http://manadeprived.com/captains-log-16-first-pro-tour/
Did you ever feel like Become Immense was a liability? I'm currently playing two, and three feels like a lot.
The Illness in the Ranks sounds sweet against Lingering Souls. Any consideration to upping the Distortion Strike in the main to make room for discard spells in its slot?
RUGTemur ScapeshiftGUR
UWRJeskai ControlRWU
UGUG InfectGU