I think there should be some standards for primers, as far as what content should be included in them, but the authors should still be given some level of creative direction.
The thing I perhaps feel the strongest about is the sub-folders. I very much believe they should disappear:
The groupings often don't make sense. GR, UW, and U tron are all radically different decks. There's really no reason for them to live together. UWR Twin is a twin deck...sometimes. Maybe it should actually live under UX Midrange? There are many other edge cases like this.
New decks get posted there instead of where they actually should. I've been looking for a UR Pyromancer tempo thread for a couple of days now, and I just realized that it's in the UX Midrange folder under Proven. This is wrong under any classification (it's not a midrange deck, and it's certainly not proven).
They isolate us into sub-communities. The effect is subtle, but I think it's present. The more time we spend together seeing what's being done across the metagame without having to dive into multiple sub-communities, the better.
Regarding finding the line between "tiers;" there should be guidelines that define the tiers, but no matter how you define it, it's likely that you will run into some gray area that you haven't anticipated. There should probably be a "tier review" once every X months, with the proposed tier changes made by the mods in a thread in Community, giving us the opportunity to discuss them. I don't think it should necessarily be a poll or anything of that nature, but there should be discussion of it before it happens.
There's my two cents.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's not your job to win games of Magic where you're mana screwed.
It's your job win every game of Magic where you're not.
I think we should do option 2, and like legacy, put them under the 3 major archetypes (control, aggro, combo).
For reference, in most cases: midrange counts as control, tempo counts as aggro
I don't think that this would be good for modern. Modern have too many variants, "aggro/combo" "combo/control" and such, this type of generalization will always cause disagreement.
There is two variables that is very hard to be used together: performance and archetypes. Trying to group decks using both will cause many confusion as it already do.
I think Izzetmage's idea is the better one, we must choose one way to organize things, and using deck performance seems to be the more relevant. That way we won't have grouped things like RG Tron and UW Tron together, neither Tier 1 Jund and Kitchen table jund (I.E: any non proven RBG deck)
Just make very clear every the guidelines that decide where each deck belongs:
E.G.:
- "Deck with recent good performance on major events goes to prove" (this is a bad example)
- "Decks that placed at last on top 16 at GP/PT/Worlds on the on the last 12 months goes to proven" (this is a good example)
After discussion with the mods, the senior staff, and amongst users, we have decided to go with a variant on option 3. Although there won't be a division between developing and creation, expect to see a lot more organization in the Proven and Esablished section, along with generally improved maintenance. As the changes start to happen, please keep us informed about how they look/feel to you and if other improvements can be suggested. Your input here was invaluable in helping us move towards these improvements, so we want to make sure that users are benefiting from them as much as we would hope.
I'd like to suggest:
Domain Zoo > Proven
GP Portland T16 (Patrick Sullivan)
GP San Diego T8 (Ken Yukuhiro)
BW Tokens > Proven
GP Portland T16 (Craig Wescoe)
GP San Diego T16 (Melissa Detora)
Older results:
GP Toronto T16 (Melissa Detora)
GP Yokohama 1st (Jyun'ichi Miyajima)
Naya Zoo > Established
I feel that any deck that T16s two GPs (or better) is worthy of Proven. Generally if a deck places high just once, I view it as a fluke. If it places twice, it's a sign that it could be a contender.
The Day 2 stats at GP KC are also encouraging (4 for Domain, 3 for Tokens). The sole argument I see against these two decks is that they are not too popular on MTGO.
Zoo should be sorted out. I believe that there are only two types of Zoo decks which should be in Proven now:
Gruul Zoo = Creature-heavy (~28 creatures). Low curve, nothing costs more than 2 mana other than a hardcast Ghor-Clan Rampager. Based around Experiment One (necessitating the heavy creature base) and Burning-Tree Emissary (letting you get away with a low curve, since you can empty your hand faster than usual, a la Affinity).
Domain Zoo = Spell-heavy (12 burn + 2 Might of Alara). Creatures consist 7 mana dorks + 8 beaters. Curve tops out at 4 (Elspeth, Snapcaster + Helix/Flames), with a decent number of 3s (Geist, Souls). Utilizes a 4-color mana base with minor splash for black to maximize Might of Alara and Tribal Flames, which also allows it to cast spells with a wide range of colors in their casting costs.
Other types of Zoo decks e.g. Naya with Loam Lion and Steppe Lynx share the "Zoo" moniker, but are not as competitive.
^^ I agree 100% with IzzetMage on Domain Zoo and Tokens.
I think there needs to be a clear definition to the tiers for any feedback to be relevant. There are a number of decks that have recently been moved that just don't pass a sanity check for me when I look at them in their various tiers, but that may just be because I don't understand what the vision is. I would highly suggest that a clear definition of the three tiers (Proven, Established, Creation) be posted as an announcement to the Modern forum so that future feedback in this thread can be frame in the appropriate context.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's not your job to win games of Magic where you're mana screwed.
It's your job win every game of Magic where you're not.
OP updated with the new way that the forums will look. I'm also posting the proposed structure here so people can see it in the thread. This is our current plan but we are open to having stuff moved around. For reference, this is going to be a variant on the Plan 3 option offered in the OP. There won't be a Developing section, but everything else will look similar to plan 3.
PROVEN Competitive Decks Representing the Current Metagame
American Control
RBG(x) Jund
GW Hatebears
UR(x) Twin
Melira Pod
Kiki Pod
UR Delver
UWR Midrange
Affinity
RG Tron
Naya Zoo
Gruul Zoo
Bogles
Mono U Tron
Scapeshift
Gifts
Burn/RDW
Soul Sisters
Living End
Storm
ESTABLISHED Tournament Decks with Results
Reanimator
Merfolk
Domain Zoo
Death and Taxes
Infect
Tokens
UW Tron
UR Tron
Goblins
DredgeVine
Faeries
Ritual Gifts
Elves
Bant
Boros
Eternal Command
Nivmiseit
Assault Loam
BUG Midrange
Esper Teachings
Marty Proc
Junk
4CC Gifts
MOVED TO CREATION
Mono Black Infect
Azorious Midrange
Let us know what you think should be shuffled around. We won't be able to act on everyone's request, but if you post a good argument with solid evidence (see izzetmage's post above) then there is a good chance that we will seriously consider it.
You missed Death Cloud. It belongs in creation. I'm the opp and I'm saying drop it down. Really you could archive the thread so we could start fresh in creation. Do that if you can.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In case I didn't tell you, I don't care about your opinion I just want your facts. And not the facts that make you seem smart. I want the ones that are actual facts.
@ktkenshinx
What are the exact criteria that makes a deck proven or estabilished?
Seconded. The descriptions as they stand now are vague enough to still be quite confusing (to me at least).
My initial feedback on the list:
Storm - down to Established. It hasn't proven anything post-banning other than that Finkel can still play Magic and that you can be successful with it on a MTGO premier event (Mill and Death/Taxes have done well on premier events lately, but that's clearly not considered good enough for Proven).
UR Delver - down to Established, but on the bubble for Proven. That deck is rising fast, but it feels premature (to me at least) to put it straight to Proven with a single GP top 16 as its introduction to the public consciousness.
Domain Zoo/Tokens - up to Proven. This deck has put up GP results recently, and IzzetMage did a really good write-up on it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's not your job to win games of Magic where you're mana screwed.
It's your job win every game of Magic where you're not.
After Seething Song was banned, the deck immediately disappeared from MTGO. This isn't surprising; grinders immediately sold the valuable cards from the deck to get what value they could and moved on. It also disappeared from PTQs entirely; there were still six weeks left in the PTQ season, and it had been putting up results prior to the banning, but not a single result after the banning.
Enter Jon Finkel, one of the greatest Magic players of all time, who scrapes together a build and takes advantage of a metagame completely unprepared for his audacity and play skill. He makes top 16 of GP Portland. "Storm is back!" Except, if you look at the deck's performance from that point forward, it's still not putting up many meaningful results (a few dailies and some showings in MTGO premiere events at the hands of Andrew Shrout), and nothing close to what it was doing before the banning.
I still love playing Storm. But there is zero evidence to indicate that the deck is a proven contender.
For what it's worth, I think listing Soul Sisters as Proven is sketchy as well. However, it is a proven budget contender in MTGO dailies, so I won't argue about that one, especially since I don't have a lot of experience playing with or against it and would be speaking mostly from theorycrafting.
Exactly thats why the guidelines of what is required for a deck to be proven or estabilished should be made clear and followed. If this point is not made right, this whole reorganization is pointless.
I agree about Storm inasmuch as it shouldn't be in Proven still, same with UR Delver. Wondering about Junk and the new G/B Midrange and where they feature, I'm guessing Established as of currently. Agree that Death Cloud should be in Creation too, it's an awesome deck only with few results
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of "Proven" is that it's repeatedly high resulting decks in major events. "Established" would therefore be decks that stand a strong chance at tournaments but don't always perform well. Making "Creation" decks that are being tested out or aren't thought of as "competitive" per se.
In which case, I'd argue that it would be best to be strict and move decks from "Proven" and "Established", or vice versa, after a certain time period (say 3 months or something). Meaning that if no "Proven" deck has any strong results in that time it can be relegated to the "Established" or any "Established" deck getting strong results should get promoted to "Proven" etc. That way we get a much stronger overall look at the meta as a whole, in theory anyway.
I'd further suggest to sticky the most prominent decks in each category, as there are significant gaps between e.g. Pod and Living End or Tron and Loam.
The subdivision of stickied and unstickied decks within forums is still on the table. There hasn't been either staff or user consensus on this point, however, so we haven't done anything about it yet.
Any news on BG Rock/Midrange primer/ reorganization?
We are looking for volunteers to handle some of these primers. BG Rock had initially been part of the Death Cloud thread for many months, but given the separation of those archetypes and the lists on MTGO/at Worlds, that no longer makes sense. There are a few threads like that with some archetype separation (RDW/Burn, for example) that needed cleaning up.
BG Rock is open for anyone who wants to handle its primer.
There's a larger question here about what makes a deck Proven vs. what makes a deck Established. Staff is still discussing this, but here are some preliminary classifications that I would make:
1) Proven
3%+ of the MTGO metagame
3%+ of the paper Top 8 metagame from the past 6-12 months
5%+ of the paper Top 8 metagame from the past 1-2 months
2) Established
1-3% of the MTGO metagame
5+ Top 8 appearances in the last 12 months
These are some PRELIMINARY definitions, although those for Proven are probably a lot closer to what they will eventually look like. Whatever definitions get chosen, they will be posted clearly in the sub forums for users to see.
I would say that "Top 8" is a little narrow. I would suggest amending to "Top 8 of PTQ level events, and Top 16 of GP/PT level events."
Just meant Top 8 for events that we can actually see online, which tend to be GPs an PTQs. Although I would probably amend that further to only look at events with 100+ players. Especially when it comes to decks like Infect, smaller tournaments are much more hospitable for archetypes that are otherwise on the fringe.
Just meant Top 8 for events that we can actually see online, which tend to be GPs an PTQs. Although I would probably amend that further to only look at events with 100+ players. Especially when it comes to decks like Infect, smaller tournaments are much more hospitable for archetypes that are otherwise on the fringe.
Lately Wizards has been reporting the Top 16 decklists for GP and PT level events, so it would seem like taking that data into account would be worthwhile.
But I agree with the player count. Winning a small PTQ is nice and all, but not necessarily indicative of the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's not your job to win games of Magic where you're mana screwed.
It's your job win every game of Magic where you're not.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The thing I perhaps feel the strongest about is the sub-folders. I very much believe they should disappear:
Regarding finding the line between "tiers;" there should be guidelines that define the tiers, but no matter how you define it, it's likely that you will run into some gray area that you haven't anticipated. There should probably be a "tier review" once every X months, with the proposed tier changes made by the mods in a thread in Community, giving us the opportunity to discuss them. I don't think it should necessarily be a poll or anything of that nature, but there should be discussion of it before it happens.
There's my two cents.
It's your job win every game of Magic where you're not.
For reference, in most cases: midrange counts as control, tempo counts as aggro
Modern Junk Primer
Legacy ANT Primer
L1 Judge
There is two variables that is very hard to be used together: performance and archetypes. Trying to group decks using both will cause many confusion as it already do.
I think Izzetmage's idea is the better one, we must choose one way to organize things, and using deck performance seems to be the more relevant. That way we won't have grouped things like RG Tron and UW Tron together, neither Tier 1 Jund and Kitchen table jund (I.E: any non proven RBG deck)
Just make very clear every the guidelines that decide where each deck belongs:
E.G.:
- "Deck with recent good performance on major events goes to prove" (this is a bad example)
- "Decks that placed at last on top 16 at GP/PT/Worlds on the on the last 12 months goes to proven" (this is a good example)
Domain Zoo > Proven
GP Portland T16 (Patrick Sullivan)
GP San Diego T8 (Ken Yukuhiro)
BW Tokens > Proven
GP Portland T16 (Craig Wescoe)
GP San Diego T16 (Melissa Detora)
Older results:
GP Toronto T16 (Melissa Detora)
GP Yokohama 1st (Jyun'ichi Miyajima)
Naya Zoo > Established
I feel that any deck that T16s two GPs (or better) is worthy of Proven. Generally if a deck places high just once, I view it as a fluke. If it places twice, it's a sign that it could be a contender.
The Day 2 stats at GP KC are also encouraging (4 for Domain, 3 for Tokens). The sole argument I see against these two decks is that they are not too popular on MTGO.
Zoo should be sorted out. I believe that there are only two types of Zoo decks which should be in Proven now:
Gruul Zoo = Creature-heavy (~28 creatures). Low curve, nothing costs more than 2 mana other than a hardcast Ghor-Clan Rampager. Based around Experiment One (necessitating the heavy creature base) and Burning-Tree Emissary (letting you get away with a low curve, since you can empty your hand faster than usual, a la Affinity).
Domain Zoo = Spell-heavy (12 burn + 2 Might of Alara). Creatures consist 7 mana dorks + 8 beaters. Curve tops out at 4 (Elspeth, Snapcaster + Helix/Flames), with a decent number of 3s (Geist, Souls). Utilizes a 4-color mana base with minor splash for black to maximize Might of Alara and Tribal Flames, which also allows it to cast spells with a wide range of colors in their casting costs.
Other types of Zoo decks e.g. Naya with Loam Lion and Steppe Lynx share the "Zoo" moniker, but are not as competitive.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
I think there needs to be a clear definition to the tiers for any feedback to be relevant. There are a number of decks that have recently been moved that just don't pass a sanity check for me when I look at them in their various tiers, but that may just be because I don't understand what the vision is. I would highly suggest that a clear definition of the three tiers (Proven, Established, Creation) be posted as an announcement to the Modern forum so that future feedback in this thread can be frame in the appropriate context.
It's your job win every game of Magic where you're not.
PROVEN
Competitive Decks Representing the Current Metagame
American Control
RBG(x) Jund
GW Hatebears
UR(x) Twin
Melira Pod
Kiki Pod
UR Delver
UWR Midrange
Affinity
RG Tron
Naya Zoo
Gruul Zoo
Bogles
Mono U Tron
Scapeshift
Gifts
Burn/RDW
Soul Sisters
Living End
Storm
ESTABLISHED
Tournament Decks with Results
Reanimator
Merfolk
Domain Zoo
Death and Taxes
Infect
Tokens
UW Tron
UR Tron
Goblins
DredgeVine
Faeries
Ritual Gifts
Elves
Bant
Boros
Eternal Command
Nivmiseit
Assault Loam
BUG Midrange
Esper Teachings
Marty Proc
Junk
4CC Gifts
MOVED TO CREATION
Mono Black Infect
Azorious Midrange
Let us know what you think should be shuffled around. We won't be able to act on everyone's request, but if you post a good argument with solid evidence (see izzetmage's post above) then there is a good chance that we will seriously consider it.
Cockatrice username: Blackcat77
What are the exact criteria that makes a deck proven or estabilished?
Seconded. The descriptions as they stand now are vague enough to still be quite confusing (to me at least).
My initial feedback on the list:
Storm - down to Established. It hasn't proven anything post-banning other than that Finkel can still play Magic and that you can be successful with it on a MTGO premier event (Mill and Death/Taxes have done well on premier events lately, but that's clearly not considered good enough for Proven).
UR Delver - down to Established, but on the bubble for Proven. That deck is rising fast, but it feels premature (to me at least) to put it straight to Proven with a single GP top 16 as its introduction to the public consciousness.
Domain Zoo/Tokens - up to Proven. This deck has put up GP results recently, and IzzetMage did a really good write-up on it.
It's your job win every game of Magic where you're not.
Decks I play and stuff.
Legacy Burn
Modern Mono U Tron
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Agreed. For evidence: http://www.mtgtop8.com/archetype?a=184&meta=44
After Seething Song was banned, the deck immediately disappeared from MTGO. This isn't surprising; grinders immediately sold the valuable cards from the deck to get what value they could and moved on. It also disappeared from PTQs entirely; there were still six weeks left in the PTQ season, and it had been putting up results prior to the banning, but not a single result after the banning.
Enter Jon Finkel, one of the greatest Magic players of all time, who scrapes together a build and takes advantage of a metagame completely unprepared for his audacity and play skill. He makes top 16 of GP Portland. "Storm is back!" Except, if you look at the deck's performance from that point forward, it's still not putting up many meaningful results (a few dailies and some showings in MTGO premiere events at the hands of Andrew Shrout), and nothing close to what it was doing before the banning.
I still love playing Storm. But there is zero evidence to indicate that the deck is a proven contender.
For what it's worth, I think listing Soul Sisters as Proven is sketchy as well. However, it is a proven budget contender in MTGO dailies, so I won't argue about that one, especially since I don't have a lot of experience playing with or against it and would be speaking mostly from theorycrafting.
It's your job win every game of Magic where you're not.
Exactly thats why the guidelines of what is required for a deck to be proven or estabilished should be made clear and followed. If this point is not made right, this whole reorganization is pointless.
This seems like it would be a pretty good idea
Its in Deck Creation.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
The subdivision of stickied and unstickied decks within forums is still on the table. There hasn't been either staff or user consensus on this point, however, so we haven't done anything about it yet.
The OP for the Infect thread has agreed to update and rewrite it, likely using much of the same formatting.
Fixed!
We are looking for volunteers to handle some of these primers. BG Rock had initially been part of the Death Cloud thread for many months, but given the separation of those archetypes and the lists on MTGO/at Worlds, that no longer makes sense. There are a few threads like that with some archetype separation (RDW/Burn, for example) that needed cleaning up.
BG Rock is open for anyone who wants to handle its primer.
There's a larger question here about what makes a deck Proven vs. what makes a deck Established. Staff is still discussing this, but here are some preliminary classifications that I would make:
1) Proven
3%+ of the MTGO metagame
3%+ of the paper Top 8 metagame from the past 6-12 months
5%+ of the paper Top 8 metagame from the past 1-2 months
2) Established
1-3% of the MTGO metagame
5+ Top 8 appearances in the last 12 months
These are some PRELIMINARY definitions, although those for Proven are probably a lot closer to what they will eventually look like. Whatever definitions get chosen, they will be posted clearly in the sub forums for users to see.
It's your job win every game of Magic where you're not.
Just meant Top 8 for events that we can actually see online, which tend to be GPs an PTQs. Although I would probably amend that further to only look at events with 100+ players. Especially when it comes to decks like Infect, smaller tournaments are much more hospitable for archetypes that are otherwise on the fringe.
Lately Wizards has been reporting the Top 16 decklists for GP and PT level events, so it would seem like taking that data into account would be worthwhile.
But I agree with the player count. Winning a small PTQ is nice and all, but not necessarily indicative of the format.
It's your job win every game of Magic where you're not.