Just as a heads up, I will be updating the metagame spreadsheet to make sure it has all the dailies/PTQs from the past week or so. Then the forum will be updated and threads moved around accordingly. There are also some policy changes to the reorganization:
1. A thread can't be demoted from Established to Creation unless it fails to meet criteria in 2 consecutive B&R periods. So if Deck X didn't meet Established criteria this time around but DID meet it last time, it stays for now.
2. The deck cutoff for Established is dynamic, so although in the past it has been 12+ or 6+, it may change depending on the metagame. After all, above average performance is necessarily defined by the average performance in a metagame. And that average will vary depending on our time period.
Those are the big two. Stay tuned for more details.
Number 1 seems somewhat confusing for players who think that a deck is still good when it didn't meet the criteria. Could a tag be added to the decks that failed to meet the criteria but are still in Established to help distinguish between the 2?
I'll definitely make a note of it in the criteria sticky notes on the page. But I'm hesitant to actually tag the deck with something because it stigmatizes the list. Modern is such a dynamic format that just because a deck doesn't do well in one quarter doesn't mean it won't be viable later. It might even be a great and unexpected sleeper pick!
Alright, so I'm not completely sure if this has been discussed, but I was wondering a) why Mono U Tron has not yet put up any results in a Grand Prix, and b) since I've pretty much decided that I'm going to play it at Grand Prix Boston, what my deck should look like? This is what I've proxied up, but I'm down for any suggestions, especially advice for sideboard tech.
Just as a heads up, I will be updating the metagame spreadsheet to make sure it has all the dailies/PTQs from the past week or so. Then the forum will be updated and threads moved around accordingly. There are also some policy changes to the reorganization:
1. A thread can't be demoted from Established to Creation unless it fails to meet criteria in 2 consecutive B&R periods. So if Deck X didn't meet Established criteria this time around but DID meet it last time, it stays for now.
2. The deck cutoff for Established is dynamic, so although in the past it has been 12+ or 6+, it may change depending on the metagame. After all, above average performance is necessarily defined by the average performance in a metagame. And that average will vary depending on our time period.
Those are the big two. Stay tuned for more details.
I don't agree with 1. If a deck is outmoded, just let it go. The compromise, which I suggested in the original reorganization thread, was to have a "greatest hits" sub in addition to Proven + Estab + DC, where all the old decks that did something once or twice then disappeared can rest.
I kind of know what this is about anyway: Waste Not.
I don't agree with 1. If a deck is outmoded, just let it go. The compromise, which I suggested in the original reorganization thread, was to have a "greatest hits" sub in addition to Proven + Estab + DC, where all the old decks that did something once or twice then disappeared can rest.
I kind of know what this is about anyway: Waste Not.
That's just a lot of subs and seems really complicated. I don't know of any other forum with that many layers of organization, and we already brush the line with unintuitive names like "Established".
It also doesn't really solve the issue of decks like GW Hatebears, Griselbrand, and UW Control (this is the issue; not 8Rack). These decks technically didn't make the cut this time around, but they also don't belong in Deck Creation alongside Ninjas and Knights and Elves. And they are successful enough that they should be presented as viable options and not just in an archive. After all, GW Hatebears and UW Control were just 1 daily/large paper event finish from making the Established criteria. This moves us towards a policy that allows those sorts of decks to stick around for a bit.
I don't agree with 1. If a deck is outmoded, just let it go. The compromise, which I suggested in the original reorganization thread, was to have a "greatest hits" sub in addition to Proven + Estab + DC, where all the old decks that did something once or twice then disappeared can rest.
I kind of know what this is about anyway: Waste Not.
That's just a lot of subs and seems really complicated. I don't know of any other forum with that many layers of organization, and we already brush the line with unintuitive names like "Established".
It also doesn't really solve the issue of decks like GW Hatebears, Griselbrand, and UW Control (this is the issue; not 8Rack). These decks technically didn't make the cut this time around, but they also don't belong in Deck Creation alongside Ninjas and Knights and Elves. And they are successful enough that they should be presented as viable options and not just in an archive. After all, GW Hatebears and UW Control were just 1 daily/large paper event finish from making the Established criteria. This moves us towards a policy that allows those sorts of decks to stick around for a bit.
I think it'd be more appropriate to redesign Established around historic viability within the format (+/- playability in regards to banlist issues) and Proven around present-day results.
Deck Creation has an entire screen worth of stickied topics. You might as well make a new one to put all those in, and add things like Griselbrand too. I wouldn't call it an "archive" though, because that implies "nobody can post there".
In the end, I feel the forum organization should reflect the current metagame, so what some deck did 3-6 months ago is a little too far out of the time range to be worth considering. I have absolutely no issue if you change the 3-1 cutoff every now and then, but if I see deck X with a certain number of 3-1s and I see deck Y with the same (likewise for all the other criteria), I expect both of them to be in the same sub, and not one in Estab because it was popular 6 months ago and one in DC because it wasn't.
Deck Creation has an entire screen worth of stickied topics. You might as well make a new one to put all those in, and add things like Griselbrand too. I wouldn't call it an "archive" though, because that implies "nobody can post there".
In the end, I feel the forum organization should reflect the current metagame, so what some deck did 3-6 months ago is a little too far out of the time range to be worth considering. I have absolutely no issue if you change the 3-1 cutoff every now and then, but if I see deck X with a certain number of 3-1s and I see deck Y with the same (likewise for all the other criteria), I expect both of them to be in the same sub, and not one in Estab because it was popular 6 months ago and one in DC because it wasn't.
Agreed. Does it really matter if the deck was viable before if it isn't now? This is also why I have a problem with large events like Grand Prix counting for multiple cycles.
Deck Creation has an entire screen worth of stickied topics. You might as well make a new one to put all those in, and add things like Griselbrand too. I wouldn't call it an "archive" though, because that implies "nobody can post there".
In the end, I feel the forum organization should reflect the current metagame, so what some deck did 3-6 months ago is a little too far out of the time range to be worth considering. I have absolutely no issue if you change the 3-1 cutoff every now and then, but if I see deck X with a certain number of 3-1s and I see deck Y with the same (likewise for all the other criteria), I expect both of them to be in the same sub, and not one in Estab because it was popular 6 months ago and one in DC because it wasn't.
Agreed. Does it really matter if the deck was viable before if it isn't now? This is also why I have a problem with large events like Grand Prix counting for multiple cycles.
In the past, we have been counting "major paper events" for multiple quarters because there just aren't a lot of them. That's the same for large paper events. But with Wizards continuing to support organized Modern play, this might not be an issue in the future. If we could reliably have large datasets to work with on a quarterly basis, then we could stick to a strict quarter cutoff. But if we get to "off-quarters" where Modern is slower, then sample size might become an issue and we might have weird metagame results.
As for Established as a subforum, it's been pretty successful recently as a place for tier 2 decks. Before the reorg last August, that sub had even less traffic than Creation and Proven. It has steadily climbed to around Creation levels, which is probably both a function of format popularity as much as it is related to forum organization.
The issue arises with these tier 3 decks. UW Control missed the Established cut by 1 MTGO finish and/or 1 Large Paper finish. Griselbrand and UW Midrange had similar situations. It doesn't seem quite right to just ship those back to Creation when they were definitely up to Established criteria in the previous quarter and barely missing it this time. Besides, the Modern metagame is dynamic enough that a deck which was Established 3 months ago (barring a major new card/banlist change) is probably about as viable right now. Keeping the deck around for another quarter still gives it the acknowledgment it deserves without adding more tiers/subforums into our site organization.
Deck Creation has an entire screen worth of stickied topics. You might as well make a new one to put all those in, and add things like Griselbrand too. I wouldn't call it an "archive" though, because that implies "nobody can post there".
In the end, I feel the forum organization should reflect the current metagame, so what some deck did 3-6 months ago is a little too far out of the time range to be worth considering. I have absolutely no issue if you change the 3-1 cutoff every now and then, but if I see deck X with a certain number of 3-1s and I see deck Y with the same (likewise for all the other criteria), I expect both of them to be in the same sub, and not one in Estab because it was popular 6 months ago and one in DC because it wasn't.
Agreed. Does it really matter if the deck was viable before if it isn't now? This is also why I have a problem with large events like Grand Prix counting for multiple cycles.
In the past, we have been counting "major paper events" for multiple quarters because there just aren't a lot of them. That's the same for large paper events. But with Wizards continuing to support organized Modern play, this might not be an issue in the future. If we could reliably have large datasets to work with on a quarterly basis, then we could stick to a strict quarter cutoff. But if we get to "off-quarters" where Modern is slower, then sample size might become an issue and we might have weird metagame results.
As for Established as a subforum, it's been pretty successful recently as a place for tier 2 decks. Before the reorg last August, that sub had even less traffic than Creation and Proven. It has steadily climbed to around Creation levels, which is probably both a function of format popularity as much as it is related to forum organization.
The issue arises with these tier 3 decks. UW Control missed the Established cut by 1 MTGO finish and/or 1 Large Paper finish. Griselbrand and UW Midrange had similar situations. It doesn't seem quite right to just ship those back to Creation when they were definitely up to Established criteria in the previous quarter and barely missing it this time. Besides, the Modern metagame is dynamic enough that a deck which was Established 3 months ago (barring a major new card/banlist change) is probably about as viable right now. Keeping the deck around for another quarter still gives it the acknowledgment it deserves without adding more tiers/subforums into our site organization.
That's why I support the idea of a special tag for those tier 3 decks. They should not be presented as tier 2 decks if they aren't tier 2 decks. However, my main objection is this. If Possibility Storm had gotten 19 Dailies, it wouldn't have made it. Same goes for Goblins last quarter. So why should UW Control be any different?
That's why I support the idea of a special tag for those tier 3 decks. They should not be presented as tier 2 decks if they aren't tier 2 decks. However, my main objection is this. If Possibility Storm had gotten 19 Dailies, it wouldn't have made it. Same goes for Goblins last quarter. So why should UW Control be any different?
I'd consider another tag. I don't really think it's all that necessary because the tiers are so fluid anyway, but it's an option.
There is a difference between a deck getting N-1 dailies this quarter (where N is the criteria to get in Established) and a deck missing it after making it last quarter. The latter deck has demonstrated that it was Established at least once in the recent past (e.g. UW Control, Griselbrand). The former deck did not (e.g. Goblins).
Overall, we are trying to solve the issue of where some tier 2/all tier 3 decks go in this forum. Some of them definitely belong in Creation. Others definitely belong in Established. But there is a middle ground with things like UW Control, Griselbrand, and UW Midrange. This is just the next attempt to be fair and accurate with decks like that.
Does a secondary forum or looser Established criteria do anything that a sticky in deck creation doesn't?
Speaking of which, that brings up a question I've been wondering for a while: What does decide if a thread in Deck Creation gets sticky'd or not?
That's the next piece of the forum reorganization. We are making the criteria for Creation stickies clearer and redoing what gets stickied. Finished the rest of the organization last week so that's my project for the next few days.
I have 4 modern decks, but I don't know which one is best in the current metagame. What do you think is the best choice?
1. B/W Tokens
2. Merfolk
3. U/R Delver
4. Mono Green Devotion / NyxWave
Either merfolk or u/r delver. However, I would call Merfolk more meta dependent, while Delver is a bit more malleable.
An article from Adrian Sullivan is up on Starcity. Everybody can read it. http://www.starcitygames.com/article/29005_Modern-Before-Boston.html
In his analysis of the meta game from 18 PTQs he comes to the conclusion that The Rock/Jund/Junk decks are really the decks to beat since they are the best performing archetype.
I'll definitely make a note of it in the criteria sticky notes on the page. But I'm hesitant to actually tag the deck with something because it stigmatizes the list. Modern is such a dynamic format that just because a deck doesn't do well in one quarter doesn't mean it won't be viable later. It might even be a great and unexpected sleeper pick!
I don't agree with 1. If a deck is outmoded, just let it go. The compromise, which I suggested in the original reorganization thread, was to have a "greatest hits" sub in addition to Proven + Estab + DC, where all the old decks that did something once or twice then disappeared can rest.
I kind of know what this is about anyway: Waste Not.
|
|
Big Johnny.
That's just a lot of subs and seems really complicated. I don't know of any other forum with that many layers of organization, and we already brush the line with unintuitive names like "Established".
It also doesn't really solve the issue of decks like GW Hatebears, Griselbrand, and UW Control (this is the issue; not 8Rack). These decks technically didn't make the cut this time around, but they also don't belong in Deck Creation alongside Ninjas and Knights and Elves. And they are successful enough that they should be presented as viable options and not just in an archive. After all, GW Hatebears and UW Control were just 1 daily/large paper event finish from making the Established criteria. This moves us towards a policy that allows those sorts of decks to stick around for a bit.
I think it'd be more appropriate to redesign Established around historic viability within the format (+/- playability in regards to banlist issues) and Proven around present-day results.
In the end, I feel the forum organization should reflect the current metagame, so what some deck did 3-6 months ago is a little too far out of the time range to be worth considering. I have absolutely no issue if you change the 3-1 cutoff every now and then, but if I see deck X with a certain number of 3-1s and I see deck Y with the same (likewise for all the other criteria), I expect both of them to be in the same sub, and not one in Estab because it was popular 6 months ago and one in DC because it wasn't.
|
|
Big Johnny.
Agreed. Does it really matter if the deck was viable before if it isn't now? This is also why I have a problem with large events like Grand Prix counting for multiple cycles.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
In the past, we have been counting "major paper events" for multiple quarters because there just aren't a lot of them. That's the same for large paper events. But with Wizards continuing to support organized Modern play, this might not be an issue in the future. If we could reliably have large datasets to work with on a quarterly basis, then we could stick to a strict quarter cutoff. But if we get to "off-quarters" where Modern is slower, then sample size might become an issue and we might have weird metagame results.
As for Established as a subforum, it's been pretty successful recently as a place for tier 2 decks. Before the reorg last August, that sub had even less traffic than Creation and Proven. It has steadily climbed to around Creation levels, which is probably both a function of format popularity as much as it is related to forum organization.
The issue arises with these tier 3 decks. UW Control missed the Established cut by 1 MTGO finish and/or 1 Large Paper finish. Griselbrand and UW Midrange had similar situations. It doesn't seem quite right to just ship those back to Creation when they were definitely up to Established criteria in the previous quarter and barely missing it this time. Besides, the Modern metagame is dynamic enough that a deck which was Established 3 months ago (barring a major new card/banlist change) is probably about as viable right now. Keeping the deck around for another quarter still gives it the acknowledgment it deserves without adding more tiers/subforums into our site organization.
That's why I support the idea of a special tag for those tier 3 decks. They should not be presented as tier 2 decks if they aren't tier 2 decks. However, my main objection is this. If Possibility Storm had gotten 19 Dailies, it wouldn't have made it. Same goes for Goblins last quarter. So why should UW Control be any different?
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
I'd consider another tag. I don't really think it's all that necessary because the tiers are so fluid anyway, but it's an option.
There is a difference between a deck getting N-1 dailies this quarter (where N is the criteria to get in Established) and a deck missing it after making it last quarter. The latter deck has demonstrated that it was Established at least once in the recent past (e.g. UW Control, Griselbrand). The former deck did not (e.g. Goblins).
Overall, we are trying to solve the issue of where some tier 2/all tier 3 decks go in this forum. Some of them definitely belong in Creation. Others definitely belong in Established. But there is a middle ground with things like UW Control, Griselbrand, and UW Midrange. This is just the next attempt to be fair and accurate with decks like that.
That's the next piece of the forum reorganization. We are making the criteria for Creation stickies clearer and redoing what gets stickied. Finished the rest of the organization last week so that's my project for the next few days.
Either merfolk or u/r delver. However, I would call Merfolk more meta dependent, while Delver is a bit more malleable.
http://www.starcitygames.com/article/29005_Modern-Before-Boston.html
In his analysis of the meta game from 18 PTQs he comes to the conclusion that The Rock/Jund/Junk decks are really the decks to beat since they are the best performing archetype.
For all metagame discussion, please see the new thread here
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/566735-modern-metagame-breakdown-and-discussion