But Grixis DS is only using blue for the cantrips and Snapcasters. That's it. no Mana Leaks, no Cryptics, no Spell Snares, no Remands, no Vendilion Cliques....on the other hand, most Twin decks ran some combination of those cards, some lists ALL those cards.
All the blue DS decks also use Stubborn Denial as a key interaction piece. It's a huge reason to run blue at all.
Again, this gets back to a post I made in another thread. Certain blue players won't be happy until they get a very specific top-tier deck that uses a very specific number of counterspell variants (in addition to other conditions). They really just want blue, draw-go, primarily reactive decks that have a certain matchup percentage against the top-tier field. It's an extremely specific and narrow definition of viability.
I understood the frustration when you couldn't play reactive blue at all and it was just Infect, Dredge, DSZ, ramp, etc. in every event. But that's no longer the case and yet the frustration still persists. It's at the point where, sadly, Modern might not just be the format for those players who want that very specific definition of a viable deck.
Part of blue's psychology is that they love being the best. The players who are drawn to blue want their specific style of blue to be the best, and will always be unhappy until it is. Regardless of how healthy it is for the format as a whole.
As Foretold has real potential and when it's good it's absolutely phenomenal, but when it's bad, it's really bad.
It will take some time to refine the lists and get the numbers right, but 3 As Foretold 4 Ancestral Vision is starting to become a core shell that's being built around. Foils for this card are going to hold a premium.
Also just remembered that physical tournaments aren't themselves definitive sources of truth either. Regional or Geographic bias exists, and card availability is much more of a concern in real life. The broader the data set with the appropriate controls, the more reliable and less error prone it becomes.
Looking at real life finishes. I have a hunch that the current tier system is putting more emphasis on MTGO.
Nearly all the new decks that have made Tier 1 status have seen a recently spiked on MTGO only.
If my hunch is correct... that is potentially very dangerous. Using MTGO to define "tiers" will lead to a higher number of tier 1.5 - 2 decks being classified as tier 1.
No, using MTGO won't lead to higher number of tiered decks, using a lower cutoff will. The problem is not using MTGO data itself, the problem is changing the cutoff in such a way that we have +10 decks in each tier. Since Lantern isn't giving any explanation, I'll give it a shot. From the Sultai thread:
This deck has been popping up enough online to barely make tier 2. As such we should have a thread for it.
We know that MtgGoldfish has it at 0.74%, MtgTop8 has it at 1% and my own data has it at 1% too, so probably Lantern has it around those numbers. We can assume the Tier 2 cutoff is ~1% now, which is a problem. Even if all our data was from paper and it had Sultai at 1%, it would be a problem having it at Tier 2 given that cutoff. Regarding the other decks you mention, I have:
Dredge - 7.7%
UR Storm - 6.7%
Bant Company - 4.7%
Wx Taxes - 3.7%
WU Control - 3.3%
Bant Eldrazi - 3.0%
While I agree with you Wx Taxes and WU Control have no business being Tier 1, your hunch may be wrong about Storm and the Bant decks. Also, this would mean the new Tier 1 cutoff is just over ~3.0%. So, I guess that the new system is, roughly, Tier 1 for +3% decks and Tier 2 for +1% decks. I'd personally use 4.4% and 2.7%, but oh well
Given this current discussion, I figured I might as well just publicly share my stats, and let everyone use their own cutoff with the data, instead of posting the numbers every ~10 days. You can Click Here anytime (also on my signature). Feedback is welcome guys!
Like I said: that's once you factor in MTGO. Should MTGO define the tiers then? that's basically what is being argued.
Dredge, Storm, and Bant company fall to 3% or less when you look at real life results only.
For example, UR Storm has a total goldfish representation of 6.7%. On average 53% of those decks are MTGO.
How is that not skewing the data?
Why are online results invalid?
Why are real life results more valid than online ones?
Certainly, stats can be skewed in one environment versus the other (environmental bias). But it seems as though MTGO is useful as a data point combined with real life results. The biggest negative I can see would be tilting the results towards an online metagame since there are more events there, and the shorter rounds can favor inconsistent but powerful decks in the short term. (4c Loam is a solid deck for a 5 round tournament, substantially less so in a 12 round one).
With enough data points across both (or weighting for a more complex model), we should be able to minimize error bars from environmental bias.
My only issue with the tier system is its weighed heavily on large weekend events that the majority of players will never play in that meta. Its very misleading to someone looking for a deck to play. I cant tell you how many times I have seen some newer player go out and buy the flavor of the month deck and show up to a local event and go 0-2 drop and be pissed this top deck failed them. Its one thing for a company to mislead players, its something much different (and in my opinion worse) when the player base who creates these tier systems mislead fellow players.
Except that is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a tiering list actually means. Under no circumstance does a tiering list tell you what deck you should play. All it does is tell you what the the most consistent performers are.
That isn't misdirection, and it is absolutely not unethical. It's all about what you want out of a tournament experience. If you want to win it, a Death's Shadow variant likely gives you the largest chance in aggregate. With the caveat that individual skill and familiarity with the format are critical. But if you just want to have fun and enjoy yourself? Play whatever deck appeals to you the most.
I don't see the relevance of the tier system. it's a reflection of player numbers. this is fine in Standard when there are a couple decks objectively better in every way and no reason to play anything but Jeskai Twin in a format with crasp removal, but in Modern, I think the tier system actively hurts the format. Not only does it discourage brewing and finding unrealized decks, but when a newbie asks 'what is the best deck to bring to an event?' the answer is generally something like 'the deck that you are most experienced with'. Putting in the time to learn every angle of your deck will serve you a lot better than clicking 'Add to Cart' on a TCG event topping DSJ list. I played the deck, in my hands it's nothing special. but hopefully not sounding too arrogant, I'm pretty darn good with Burn. ever since Bloom went away, I can't remember the last time i played a match that ever felt hopeless. don't pick a deck because someone says it is the best in the format, or T1, or anything else. Pick a deck that is your favored style, adapt to the meta. knowing what you are using and what you should be ready for will do a lot more for you than 'DSJ is super good, if i play it, I'll do well!'
Tiering doesn't hinder brewers. It actually helps them by them giving them a target to hit. A completely unrefined metagame where anything goes is really hard to strategically target. You more or less just go for the most broken thing you can. An established metagame like Modern's allows a deck creator to make intelligent strategic decisions about which cards to include and for which matchups.
EDIT: at local tournaments with 6 or less rounds before a top 8, tier system is less relevant.
That's because fewer games = less variance.
So we should ignore most of the events on MTGO, dailies specifically.
And why should we discount the events the majority of people will be playing in? The majority of the player base only plays those smaller local events and never strives to go to PTQ's or GPQ's. For most players States is the biggest event they play in or even want to play.
I personally think using mainly the larger events for Tiers and decks viability is the wrong way to go about it.
Tap dancing your way through a larger event and missing all your bad match ups skews the numbers. Luck plays a huge factor in larger events. More so then smaller ones. Granted, you possibly may not see as many types of decks in a smaller event.
One of the reasons we should look at data in aggregate is to try and reduce as much of the statistical variance as possible. Luck/Individual Skill/Tournament Bias/etc are all things we remove as extraneous factors the larger our data set gets and the less biased it becomes.
I understand YOU prefer the bigger picture, but the majority of regular Modern players do not. I hear it all the time at my LGS. People talk about tiers as though decks outside of Tier 1 should lose to Tier 1. I hear people walking up and asking to build "this list" which ends up being a tier 1 list net decked from the most recent event(s).
People here on MTGS live in a bubble, and we rarely realize that what we think differs greatly from general Modern players (or magic players in general).
So, regardless of how YOU think tiers should be looked at (which I may agree with you on that), the fact of the matter is, for most people, they will look at tiers as a strict indicator of what is good and what is bad. If its not tiered, its some random rogue brew with no viability (until some pro decides to take it to a top 8 finish).
Tiers are an important tool for metagame construction and analysis. A data driven approach is always the best (if you can avoid collection bias and preferential bias) for more a rigorous explanation of the metagame itself. However, it is still incumbent upon the individual to understand what that tiering system means, and be able to apply it's lessons in a subjective context for their local metagame.
You are asking for a lot. lol
In a vacuum, of course Tier analysis is necessary. Im not asking to get rid of Tiers. But either we make it clear what they are meant to indicate, or we widen the criteria. Because at the end of the day, 10-20 people of MTGS understanding the nuance of the Tiering system, is not sufficient.
The tier system does not simply indicate viability of a deck, but consistent viability over a multi-round tournament.
The tier system has ALWAYS been specific regarding this, as it uses actual tournament results to rank decks.
A non-tier deck is typically trash because it is not consistent (see zombie-loom or 8 rack in modern). But that doesn't mean it can't win.
People hate those decks because they can often steal games... but will very rarely actually win a tournament since they are not consistent enough for a multi-round, multiple day finish.
EDIT: at local tournaments with 6 or less rounds before a top 8, tier system is less relevant.
That's because fewer games = less variance.
I understand YOU prefer the bigger picture, but the majority of regular Modern players do not. I hear it all the time at my LGS. People talk about tiers as though decks outside of Tier 1 should lose to Tier 1. I hear people walking up and asking to build "this list" which ends up being a tier 1 list net decked from the most recent event(s).
People here on MTGS live in a bubble, and we rarely realize that what we think differs greatly from general Modern players (or magic players in general).
So, regardless of how YOU think tiers should be looked at (which I may agree with you on that), the fact of the matter is, for most people, they will look at tiers as a strict indicator of what is good and what is bad. If its not tiered, its some random rogue brew with no viability (until some pro decides to take it to a top 8 finish).
Tiers are an important tool for metagame construction and analysis. A data driven approach is always the best (if you can avoid collection bias and preferential bias) for more a rigorous explanation of the metagame itself. However, it is still incumbent upon the individual to understand what that tiering system means, and be able to apply it's lessons in a subjective context for their local metagame.
These are still great visuals that I would highly recommend y'all save. With that said, I will only play CoCo if I have at least 27 creatures in my deck. I'm definitely on the conservative side of this question.
Edit: The third picture has a creature curve of 9 one-drops, 10 two-drops, and 8 three-drops. Our mana advantage would actually be higher, but its in the ballpark and would require coding to fix.
These are great charts! Thank you for posting them.
I'm curious as to why people are attributing Sheridan with saying that only Tier 1 decks are good. Sheridan has said many many times before that the Tier system is just a metric of how popular a deck is at a certain time and has nothing to do with the strength of a deck.
Anyway, thanks for your work on the site Sheridan, you will be missed.
While I agree with the first part, I would only add that if you dig through his posts he does say that popularity is a predictor of power, with few notable exceptions.
I am not sure how strong that correlation holds, but as a general heuristic it is probably true.
I wish had data to support this, but its been my general experience that there is a higher number of players that would refuse to play combo - even if it was the best deck in the format - over say, Aggro or Mid-Range. Granted, I'm just an anecdote, but I think that would pan out under scrutiny. Mostly, because I think creature combat and board interaction is a core draw of the game. Aggro and Mid-Range feel natural to the progression of the game, whereas storm combo doesn't.
I think this bears out in Wizard's philosophy as well. If combo ever does reach large metagame shares or if it becomes the default best deck in the format, you can be guaranteed some piece of it will be eat a ban. Because it's the archetype the fewest number of players both enjoy playing and playing against.
2 the elephant and the baloth, those are very narrow and more often useless unless they are the only cards in hand. Could we get them in colors not associated to BGx decks? its like BGx cards are the only cards that get pushes for playable cards.
I count 8 on Gatherer
Dodecapod
Guerrilla Tactics
Loxodon Smiter
Nephalia Academy
Obstinate Baloth
Pure Intentions
Quagnoth
Wilt-Leaf Liege
and other than smiter, liege, and baloth none of these are actually playable cards. Looks like green has itself covered against can we get some playable options in blue or red?
Unlikely to happen as Red/Blue are the ally colors of black. That's why most of the cards on that list are Green/White.
Yeah, maybe they are more interested in discussing stuff more related to the Modern format here, like cards that have been banned a year and a half ago. Thanks, I will post it where I want to post it and then we'll see.
People that play the deck don't need to know my winrates, or anyone's. They already know it's busted. The ones that desperately need to know the winrates are the ones that believe that because 3 fewer lists of some deck were randomly chosen to be posted in the random selection of 70 lists last week among the 250-300 lists that actually 5-0ed, that says anything at all about anything even vaguely related to deck strenght.
Is there any chance you can make your posts less aggressively hostile?
People disagree with you. They are using evidence gathered from what we have available. You are not omniscient. They aren't either. It is difficult to have a discussion when you are so dismissive of other people's argument by constant appeals to authority and evidence no one has access to. Warning for Flaming~ lantern
This resonates with me. I have a strong suspicion that they lose more people banning than just leaving a format broken most of the time. My assumption is that there needs to be conclusive evidence that people are completely withdrawing from the format before they'll make moves. (Note: I think this applies to standard not modern or legacy where we are more accustomed to bannings). It may be one of those situations where ignoring the problem is actually better most of the time than addressing it head on.
There's so much friction in bannings - people have to switch decks, their cards lose value, their belief in the format plummets, etc. I get why they use it as measure of last resort, and why they are so reluctant to do anything about copy cat given the recent bans. They probably look at Modern and see it as a proverbial paradise by comparison. Sure there's color imbalance and archetype imbalance, but it's not even close to a one or two deck format.
I can only imagine that internally there's a pretty significant upheaval as they try to figure out what they did wrong for standard to get this bad.
Perfect balance is an unachievable goal. That does not make its pursuit devoid of value - like all ideals, moving towards it (as a mathematical limit) is the desired action. From this perspective, not unleashing banned cards as the format evolves to handle them is a failure - you stop moving towards the ideal. Now that doesn't necessarily make a bad format. Modern is great, but we have cards available that would make it better. That is what most are arguing, as far as I can tell.
But, if what I'm seeing from Modern Nexus is true, then we are slowly moving towards that ideal. I get that it's not happening at the rate most people would like given that Control is not a tier 1 archetype. But it's a far cry from arguing that Wizards has abandoned the format or some of the other histrionics we see in this thread.
And the truth regarding unbanning is that we don't know how those cards would perform regarding deck diversity. I wish we had better metrics to work with, but it seems we only have heuristics, which is to say that we basically assume preordain or Stone Forge Mystic would help those colors without pushing things over the edge.
And hey, maybe they won't. Maybe they are tepid at best. But I know that if I was trying to be as unbiased as possible, and honestly looking at the format, I would take a wait and see approach because right now the format seems to be moving in a positive direction. I would not want to upset that.
Part of blue's psychology is that they love being the best. The players who are drawn to blue want their specific style of blue to be the best, and will always be unhappy until it is. Regardless of how healthy it is for the format as a whole.
It will take some time to refine the lists and get the numbers right, but 3 As Foretold 4 Ancestral Vision is starting to become a core shell that's being built around. Foils for this card are going to hold a premium.
Why are online results invalid?
Why are real life results more valid than online ones?
Certainly, stats can be skewed in one environment versus the other (environmental bias). But it seems as though MTGO is useful as a data point combined with real life results. The biggest negative I can see would be tilting the results towards an online metagame since there are more events there, and the shorter rounds can favor inconsistent but powerful decks in the short term. (4c Loam is a solid deck for a 5 round tournament, substantially less so in a 12 round one).
With enough data points across both (or weighting for a more complex model), we should be able to minimize error bars from environmental bias.
Except that is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a tiering list actually means. Under no circumstance does a tiering list tell you what deck you should play. All it does is tell you what the the most consistent performers are.
That isn't misdirection, and it is absolutely not unethical. It's all about what you want out of a tournament experience. If you want to win it, a Death's Shadow variant likely gives you the largest chance in aggregate. With the caveat that individual skill and familiarity with the format are critical. But if you just want to have fun and enjoy yourself? Play whatever deck appeals to you the most.
Tiering doesn't hinder brewers. It actually helps them by them giving them a target to hit. A completely unrefined metagame where anything goes is really hard to strategically target. You more or less just go for the most broken thing you can. An established metagame like Modern's allows a deck creator to make intelligent strategic decisions about which cards to include and for which matchups.
One of the reasons we should look at data in aggregate is to try and reduce as much of the statistical variance as possible. Luck/Individual Skill/Tournament Bias/etc are all things we remove as extraneous factors the larger our data set gets and the less biased it becomes.
I think you mean higher variance, right?
Tiers are an important tool for metagame construction and analysis. A data driven approach is always the best (if you can avoid collection bias and preferential bias) for more a rigorous explanation of the metagame itself. However, it is still incumbent upon the individual to understand what that tiering system means, and be able to apply it's lessons in a subjective context for their local metagame.
These are great charts! Thank you for posting them.
I am not sure how strong that correlation holds, but as a general heuristic it is probably true.
I wish had data to support this, but its been my general experience that there is a higher number of players that would refuse to play combo - even if it was the best deck in the format - over say, Aggro or Mid-Range. Granted, I'm just an anecdote, but I think that would pan out under scrutiny. Mostly, because I think creature combat and board interaction is a core draw of the game. Aggro and Mid-Range feel natural to the progression of the game, whereas storm combo doesn't.
I think this bears out in Wizard's philosophy as well. If combo ever does reach large metagame shares or if it becomes the default best deck in the format, you can be guaranteed some piece of it will be eat a ban. Because it's the archetype the fewest number of players both enjoy playing and playing against.
Unlikely to happen as Red/Blue are the ally colors of black. That's why most of the cards on that list are Green/White.
Is there any chance you can make your posts less aggressively hostile?
People disagree with you. They are using evidence gathered from what we have available. You are not omniscient. They aren't either. It is difficult to have a discussion when you are so dismissive of other people's argument by constant appeals to authority and evidence no one has access to.
Warning for Flaming~ lantern
"There is no symbolism here. The impact of banning cards, especially repeatedly, is real and costly."
This resonates with me. I have a strong suspicion that they lose more people banning than just leaving a format broken most of the time. My assumption is that there needs to be conclusive evidence that people are completely withdrawing from the format before they'll make moves. (Note: I think this applies to standard not modern or legacy where we are more accustomed to bannings). It may be one of those situations where ignoring the problem is actually better most of the time than addressing it head on.
There's so much friction in bannings - people have to switch decks, their cards lose value, their belief in the format plummets, etc. I get why they use it as measure of last resort, and why they are so reluctant to do anything about copy cat given the recent bans. They probably look at Modern and see it as a proverbial paradise by comparison. Sure there's color imbalance and archetype imbalance, but it's not even close to a one or two deck format.
I can only imagine that internally there's a pretty significant upheaval as they try to figure out what they did wrong for standard to get this bad.
But, if what I'm seeing from Modern Nexus is true, then we are slowly moving towards that ideal. I get that it's not happening at the rate most people would like given that Control is not a tier 1 archetype. But it's a far cry from arguing that Wizards has abandoned the format or some of the other histrionics we see in this thread.
And the truth regarding unbanning is that we don't know how those cards would perform regarding deck diversity. I wish we had better metrics to work with, but it seems we only have heuristics, which is to say that we basically assume preordain or Stone Forge Mystic would help those colors without pushing things over the edge.
And hey, maybe they won't. Maybe they are tepid at best. But I know that if I was trying to be as unbiased as possible, and honestly looking at the format, I would take a wait and see approach because right now the format seems to be moving in a positive direction. I would not want to upset that.