Too be fair, as an ex-smash competitive player, tiers definitely exist in the smash series. Without the ability to change your moveset, lags, frames etc (ie deck) tiers most definitely exist at optimal play level.
To me, tiers in a combination of popularity and power. Thats just my one-cent, not a full two-cents.
Be a lemming hunter. Don't be a lemming.
Really, all you had to do was explain to him the popularity metric, not give him the lemming hunter manifesto...
I lol'd when I read this, so I just had to sig it... hope you guys don't mind!!!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Be a lemming hunter. Don't be a lemming. Really, all you had to do was explain to him the popularity metric, not give him the lemming hunter manifesto...
As one of the main guys who worked on that system, let me try to speak to it in a way that is relevant to the tier discussion.
First of all, they don't EXACTLY correspond to tiers 1, 2, and 3. Proven decks are definitely "tier 1"; a combination of successful and popular that gets them tier 1 status. So on that point, the comparison is really on point. But for Established, it's a bigger range. You have some decks that are probably closer to tier 1.5 (e.g Bogles) than tier 2 (e.g. Ad Nauseam or Amulet). There are also decks that are probably on the tier 3 side of things, such as fringe builds like Ninja Bear or Restore Balance. And Creation definitely doesn't correspond to tier 3 at all. Some decks in Creation might be competitive or semi-competitive, like UW Tron or Tezzerator. Others are totally uncompetitive or have no competitive success to back up their claims.
(As another note, those forums are going to get updated at the end of the month to reflect the changes we have seen since the January ban announcement, so expect to see decks like Storm and Naya moved around!)
So how does this relate to tiers? The data-driven approach of the subforum organization reflects my view on how tiers should work. Tier 1 decks are both successful AND popular. Tier 2 decks are EITHER successful OR popular, but generally not both. Tier 3 decks might have the potential to be successful but lack both popular appeal and evidence of success. And the important thing to remember with Tier 1 and Tier 2 decks is that popularity and success are relative. A deck can have a bunch of players online (like Death and Taxes), and those guys tend to go 4-0/3-1 in their events. But relative to decks like UWR Control, Melira Pod, or Affinity, they just don't have enough popularity or success to make them tier 1. This definition makes it very easy to classify decks in a forum like this, and sets forth clear expectations about how decks get moved to where. Most importantly, it tells you what decks to expect to play against in an event.
What it doesn't do, however, is tell you what deck to actually play in an event. Expecting opposing decks and picking a deck of your own are two different processes. Tiers almost always inform the former; you could have guessed opposing decks based on the tier system in almost every major event in Modern's history. That said, tiers should NOT always inform the latter. Sometimes you want to pick decks designed to beat those tier 1 options. In that case, tiers can be misleading.
Ultimately, I think of tiers as a description of the metagame, not a prescription about best decks. Tier 1 decks might still be amazing choices for an event, but that's more a function of the deck and its strategy than of the tier designation itself. Similarly, tier 2 or 3 decks might be totally unknown with little or no evidence of big-event success, but they might be very well positioned to beat up tier 1 players. There are probably other ways to think of tiers (e.g. tiers indicate a deck's power, not its popularity), but that is at least not how it's done on this site, and I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense.
In my opinion, since deck power and consistency are really relative concepts based on how the rest of the format looks, tiers are based on how easy a deck is to hate out. A Tier 1 deck can win despite people playing hate cards specifically designed to hate on it. A Tier 2 deck has serious problems with a single hate card, but can still squeak out a win if it gets luckier than average. A Tier 3 deck just dies immediately as soon as a hate card is played. Pod is Tier 1, since there's really no single hate card it can't fight through. Affinity would be a Tier 2 deck, and something like Goblins or Dredge is Tier 3, as you automatically lose if the opponent drops an Engineered Plague/Night of Souls' Betrayal or Leyline of the Void.
Ktkchken what tier would you personally place 8rack. Be completely honest no probs whatever you say. I am honestly curious of what the perception is.
In my opinion, it's solidly tier 2. It's very much like Bogles; tailored to prey on certain decks, particularly tier 1 decks, but vulnerable to a few cards and strategies. I rank Bogles in a higher tier than 8Rack for two reasons. First, Bogles has a bit more "raw power" in muscling out wins against the field (kind of like the raw power of Affinity, but without the Affinity consistency). Second, it's just more popular, so it belongs in a higher tier for that reason alone (remember that I view tiers as descriptive of a metagame, not prescriptive as to what deck one should sling).
None of that is to suggest that all tier 2 decks are like 8Rack. In my view, a deck can be tier 2 for a lot of reasons. It can be a strong deck but not very popular (8Rack, Assault Loam, Restore Balance), or a popular deck that isn't wildly successful (Mono U Tron, Soul Sisters).
I actually rate it Tier 1.5, it has a LOT of game against Tier 1 strats right now, but it is still fairly weak to Pod which will likely always be a problem matchup (until M15 perhaps?).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge - Altruistic Community Service.
My Modern decks: B/R/G Living End G/R/B G/R Tron R/G U/W/G/R Gargageddon R/G/W/U R/W/G Naya Burn G/W/R
I've always thought of it as 'perceived power level'. Sometimes that meshes with actual power level (Melira Pod really is a very good deck) and sometimes it doesn't (as mentioned, Hexproof was powerful before Reid made it popular).
In that scheme, T1 is an powerful deck with lots of strong finishes. T1.5 is a real deck that for whatever reason doesn't see much play (hard to play, meta choice, slightly underpowered, inconsistent are some options) and T2 isn't considered to be a serious deck.
Tier 2 definitely includes serious decks, albeit serious ones that have fallen a bit out of favor.
In Standard, Boros Burn is a pretty clear example of a tier 2 deck. It is putting up a LOT of 4-0 results on MTGO, but gets worse overall numbers than a skilled pilot playing Esper Control.
Another example of a tier 2 deck in that format now is Devotion to Blue (with or without white splash). The deck is explosive, powerful, and poorly positioned right now because the best deck (Esper) has such a good matchup against it. It's still a serious deck, and if it won a GP tomorrow, noone would be overly surprised.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Infraction for spamming
-ktkenshinx-
Be a lemming hunter. Don't be a lemming.
Really, all you had to do was explain to him the popularity metric, not give him the lemming hunter manifesto...
I lol'd when I read this, so I just had to sig it... hope you guys don't mind!!!
Be a lemming hunter. Don't be a lemming.
Really, all you had to do was explain to him the popularity metric, not give him the lemming hunter manifesto...
Originally posted by MemoryLapse and DotMatrix
You can read it here: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/proven-modern/511599-proven-decks-criteria-and-selection-updated-2-1
My Modern decks:
B/R/G Living End G/R/B
G/R Tron R/G
U/W/G/R Gargageddon R/G/W/U
R/W/G Naya Burn G/W/R
As one of the main guys who worked on that system, let me try to speak to it in a way that is relevant to the tier discussion.
First of all, they don't EXACTLY correspond to tiers 1, 2, and 3. Proven decks are definitely "tier 1"; a combination of successful and popular that gets them tier 1 status. So on that point, the comparison is really on point. But for Established, it's a bigger range. You have some decks that are probably closer to tier 1.5 (e.g Bogles) than tier 2 (e.g. Ad Nauseam or Amulet). There are also decks that are probably on the tier 3 side of things, such as fringe builds like Ninja Bear or Restore Balance. And Creation definitely doesn't correspond to tier 3 at all. Some decks in Creation might be competitive or semi-competitive, like UW Tron or Tezzerator. Others are totally uncompetitive or have no competitive success to back up their claims.
(As another note, those forums are going to get updated at the end of the month to reflect the changes we have seen since the January ban announcement, so expect to see decks like Storm and Naya moved around!)
So how does this relate to tiers? The data-driven approach of the subforum organization reflects my view on how tiers should work. Tier 1 decks are both successful AND popular. Tier 2 decks are EITHER successful OR popular, but generally not both. Tier 3 decks might have the potential to be successful but lack both popular appeal and evidence of success. And the important thing to remember with Tier 1 and Tier 2 decks is that popularity and success are relative. A deck can have a bunch of players online (like Death and Taxes), and those guys tend to go 4-0/3-1 in their events. But relative to decks like UWR Control, Melira Pod, or Affinity, they just don't have enough popularity or success to make them tier 1. This definition makes it very easy to classify decks in a forum like this, and sets forth clear expectations about how decks get moved to where. Most importantly, it tells you what decks to expect to play against in an event.
What it doesn't do, however, is tell you what deck to actually play in an event. Expecting opposing decks and picking a deck of your own are two different processes. Tiers almost always inform the former; you could have guessed opposing decks based on the tier system in almost every major event in Modern's history. That said, tiers should NOT always inform the latter. Sometimes you want to pick decks designed to beat those tier 1 options. In that case, tiers can be misleading.
Ultimately, I think of tiers as a description of the metagame, not a prescription about best decks. Tier 1 decks might still be amazing choices for an event, but that's more a function of the deck and its strategy than of the tier designation itself. Similarly, tier 2 or 3 decks might be totally unknown with little or no evidence of big-event success, but they might be very well positioned to beat up tier 1 players. There are probably other ways to think of tiers (e.g. tiers indicate a deck's power, not its popularity), but that is at least not how it's done on this site, and I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense.
In my opinion, it's solidly tier 2. It's very much like Bogles; tailored to prey on certain decks, particularly tier 1 decks, but vulnerable to a few cards and strategies. I rank Bogles in a higher tier than 8Rack for two reasons. First, Bogles has a bit more "raw power" in muscling out wins against the field (kind of like the raw power of Affinity, but without the Affinity consistency). Second, it's just more popular, so it belongs in a higher tier for that reason alone (remember that I view tiers as descriptive of a metagame, not prescriptive as to what deck one should sling).
None of that is to suggest that all tier 2 decks are like 8Rack. In my view, a deck can be tier 2 for a lot of reasons. It can be a strong deck but not very popular (8Rack, Assault Loam, Restore Balance), or a popular deck that isn't wildly successful (Mono U Tron, Soul Sisters).
That was Incredibly informative ktkenshinx and expanded on my understanding of the Tiers in important, yet subtle ways.
very much appreciated explanation. Thank You!
My Modern decks:
B/R/G Living End G/R/B
G/R Tron R/G
U/W/G/R Gargageddon R/G/W/U
R/W/G Naya Burn G/W/R
Tier 2 definitely includes serious decks, albeit serious ones that have fallen a bit out of favor.
In Standard, Boros Burn is a pretty clear example of a tier 2 deck. It is putting up a LOT of 4-0 results on MTGO, but gets worse overall numbers than a skilled pilot playing Esper Control.
Another example of a tier 2 deck in that format now is Devotion to Blue (with or without white splash). The deck is explosive, powerful, and poorly positioned right now because the best deck (Esper) has such a good matchup against it. It's still a serious deck, and if it won a GP tomorrow, noone would be overly surprised.