I am not happy the concept of mono-U tron being in the proven section.
UW gifts tron at a push, perhaps, on a good day and it really has not been around much. I play 20-30 players tournaments monthly and have never played it. I can't recall it appearing in any PTQ lits in the modern PTQ season. CF RG tron thats as common as herpes.
But if the aim is to provide a list of decks that represent the meta then its not a bad effort. However, the trouble is decks slide from one to another by virtue of a few cards, bleeding from one to another. I am worried decks will get lost and there is nothing more frustrating than similar decks being in two sections, having people post to one without realising there is another closer to their decks.
"White lifegain" nicely summarised both souls sista and martyr proc decks, which share approximately 80 % of the same cards.
"hatebears" contained both death and taxes and GW hatebears. They are the same principle at heart, and many of the cards are copied from one list to another- especially as people have seen the light on splashing green in d and t- one uses vials and flickerwisps, the other uses acceleration- and now they are separated, which makes it difficult. Really successful hatebear decks were actually haterator BW constructs that popped up last time there was a modern PTQ season.
Perhaps if each primer were linked to its "cousins" it would help. As it stands you can look forward to more people posting in the wrong thread.
The whole "established" and "proven" labels are rather awkward, still.
Like trying to pass judgement without passing judgement. I can't think of a better one though.
Demoting infect is interesting- its popularity rose online, not in PTQs- its popularity dropped online, so now its gone down a notch.
I can't help feeling that worlds have suddenly given boggle respectability that it deserved ages ago, too.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People with belligerent signatures are trying to compensate for something....
I would look at moving 4cc gifts into proven especially if mono blue tron and soul sisters are there. It has top 8 at a couple gp's and regularly does well in the dailies. Mono blue tron on the other hand has struggled to produce similar results from paper magic.
I would look at moving 4cc gifts into proven especially if mono blue tron and soul sisters are there. It has top 8 at a couple gp's and regularly does well in the dailies. Mono blue tron on the other hand has struggled to produce similar results from paper magic.
agree 100%!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People with belligerent signatures are trying to compensate for something....
One thing we must remember is that Proven is meant to showcase the current metagame. That includes both winning decks like Pod and Jund, but also decks that just show up a lot in events even if they don't have the Pod/Jund win rates (Burn, Soul Sisters, Mono U Tron, etc.)
4CC gifts has less than a 1% share of both the MTGO overall metagame, and the paper Top 8/Top 16 metagame at large events. So it's staying in Established for the foreseeable future. Storm currently makes up almost 5% of the MTGO metagame, so even if it isn't the most winning deck online, it is definitely a part of the metagame and that means it is staying in Proven. Mono U Tron is not only consistently between 3% and 4% of the online metagame, but it is one of the most disproportionate winners online, making up 5-6% of the 4-0/3-1 decks.
The idea is to update these organizations every month or two based on data both collected by staff and data collected from sites like the previously mentioned TCDecks or Decklists.net. Soul Sisters might well be gone in the next update - It's barely at 3% now for MTGO. But we will have to wait and see.
The idea is to update these organizations every month or two based on data both collected by staff and data collected from sites like the previously mentioned TCDecks or Decklists.net. Soul Sisters might well be gone in the next update - It's barely at 3% now for MTGO. But we will have to wait and see.
Both mono blue tron and soul siters are sought after decks for their cheapness and decent tournament results. They are obviously not the most powerful decks, but I would say most people visiting those threads aren't looking for a ptq level deck. They are looking for a deck to play at a fnm type event, which seems to be the growing trend as modern becomes more popular.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not." - John Lennon
Yea I really preferred just having all the blue control decks in one sub forum, especially for that genre there are so many variations on a similar strategy. Jumping into 3-4 different threads for comparable decks is kind of bothersome. Seems more logical to organize decks by play style rather than varying tournament success. Then just having one thread for deck development as well, sigh I thought things were fine the way they were.
Yea I really preferred just having all the blue control decks in one sub forum, especially for that genre there are so many variations on a similar strategy. Jumping into 3-4 different threads for comparable decks is kind of bothersome. Seems more logical to organize decks by play style rather than varying tournament success. Then just having one thread for deck development as well, sigh I thought things were fine the way they were.
There were a few big problems with this approach. For one, the different blue-based control decks are all on totally different levels. UWR is a solidly tier 1 deck with extensive proof as to its success. The other decks in that subforum, Eternal Gifts and UW Control, have basically no solid performances to speak of. I would be comfortable with them in Creation, but not in a forum dedicated to "Proven" archetypes. That's bad information for new players coming to our site, and if we want to be a center for all things Modern, we can't have players getting misleading information in the main Proven section.
The second issue is that it didn't work out like you suggest in practice. The majority of discussions that happened outside of the thread were only a few responses long and easily could have been incorporated into the main threads. There's this myth about cross-deck comparisons happening in the subs, but that's not what it looks like. The overwhelming majority of those threads were SCDs or just other decks that had no business being in Proven. There were some idea threads with only a half dozen responses, but nothing substantive.
Overall, this organizational method works on sites across the internet, and it was a popular option in this thread.
I don't know...Proven should be for decks being played WITH results.
Well I'm pretty sure that ktkenshinx has results for Mono-U Tron if he can say that they make up a specific percentage of the MTGO metagame. Besides, whether a deck top-8s a PTQ is a bit irreleveant when you are planning for a metagame because for your deck to get to that level it must run a gauntlet of other decks regardless of whether those gauntlet decks will place. Mono-U Tron is a deck that is likely to be part of that gauntlet, and according to ktkenshinx's numbers it is more likely to be present than 4cC.
PTQ Top8s are hardly irrelevant, as they show what succeeds at decently sized tournaments and indirectly determine what is going to see more play. You are also less likely to run into FNM.dec like Soul Sisters at competitive events.
Anyway, as I said I was talking about paper only and I'd love to see some meta-game analysis for MODO. Which site can you recommend, ktkenshinx?
I ran martyr-proc hybrid at a ptq and lost one round in seven- to martyr. I also drew a round - with traditional martyr.
If affinity is tier one and burn is tier one (and once upon a time jund tier one) then martry/sistas will always be a good bet. More so since white has all the best sideboard options for combo based decks too, and doubly so if the city the ptq is in is not that big on modern.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People with belligerent signatures are trying to compensate for something....
Agreed on both points. I really like Mono-u tron and play it at FNMs, but I wouldn't take it to a big event. Storm and tokens also strike me as pretty suspect for Proven. Otherwise the new organization looks great (I realize I'm a little late to the discussion).
Have the primer guidelines been posted somewhere? I also think a section for related archetypes and variants (many of which won't be in the same competitive category) with links to those primers would be really helpful for someone exploring the format.
Tokens probably squeeks in via Mr Wescoe's support for the deck. Melissa DT also has supported it publically on TCG. I think pro support for a deck makes it more likely you will face a deck, and sadly more likely to hit proven status.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People with belligerent signatures are trying to compensate for something....
Well I'm pretty sure that ktkenshinx has results for Mono-U Tron if he can say that they make up a specific percentage of the MTGO metagame. Besides, whether a deck top-8s a PTQ is a bit irreleveant when you are planning for a metagame because for your deck to get to that level it must run a gauntlet of other decks regardless of whether those gauntlet decks will place. Mono-U Tron is a deck that is likely to be part of that gauntlet, and according to ktkenshinx's numbers it is more likely to be present than 4cC.
PTQ Top8s are hardly irrelevant, as they show what succeeds at decently sized tournaments and indirectly determine what is going to see more play. You are also less likely to run into FNM.dec like Soul Sisters at competitive events.
Anyway, as I said I was talking about paper only and I'd love to see some meta-game analysis for MODO. Which site can you recommend, ktkenshinx?
DrWorm is right. Mono U Tron consistently makes up about 5% of the MTGO metagame. That said, it doesn't always enjoy the same performance, depending on the rest of the metagame. For instance, right now it's about 4% of the metagame but 6% of the 4-0/3-1 finishes; it's overperforming a bit and would definitely need to be part of your gauntlet. Back in June and July, the deck was only about 3% of the metagame but barely 2% of the finishes; it was underperforming pretty heavily. 4CC gifts hasn't been on the paper or MTGO radar for months.
The important thing to remember about this is that metagames change. We have the data sources to track that, and we can adjust the subs accordingly now. For paper, we have TCDecks, Decklists.net, and MTGTop8; that sights ensures that we have basically all the major paper events in our dataset (>100 players). For MTGO, we have a small group of people including myself who deep-dive the MTGO client, code replays, and get a much more comprehensive sample of the metagame than you can get from just the Wizards website. That site only shows decks that go 4-0/3-1, and it only shows 1 daily per day. It ignores all the decks that went 2-2 or worse, as well as all the other dailies that happened. Our MTGO data has been private thus far (it's a lot of work) but, in the future, we are looking to put it out to the public in some way.
People showing up with "FNM" decks at a competitive level are negligible, so taking 2-2 DE decks into account isn't something I'm interested in.
.
But it will be when you lose to them because they weren't in your gauntlet and your deck was in theirs.
I have had people at PTQ's complain to me that they have just lost/ are losing (in which case:), go me) to a deck that is a casual deck/out of date deck etc. that no one plays at PTQs because it loses to X ,Y, or Z (which are mysteriously absent from said event).
I don't have much sympathy I must admit, and I have been the victim of it too. I would much rather be aware of the decks.
And for what it is worth I don't care about the distinction between proven and established as a large number of people playing the deck is often dictated by what big name pros talk about. If Connoly Woods came out and said 4 color gifts or soul sistas is a good choice its numbers would shoot up dramatically.
One thing I am interested is the split between continents as much as the split between paper and MTGO. European decks have always tended in standard towards combo over midrange. Doesn't matter if the combo is getting the arsed hosed off it by X,Y or Z- people turn up to play combo because they like it. Americans always seemed to push midrange strategies.
Obviously now standard is much slower than a few years back, but I am wondering if there is a difference between the continents in modern.......
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People with belligerent signatures are trying to compensate for something....
But it will be when you lose to them because they weren't in your gauntlet and your deck was in theirs.
Precisely. As an example for a long time Storm was just not posting good numbers, but there were still a hard-core group of players that were playing it and testing new variants. It was not getting 3-1, but you could be pretty damned sure that it would be played regardless, so if you wanted to make it to t8 you would've been been wise to make sure your deck could beat it. Knowing your deck is 60/40 against the top 8 decks is all well and good, but if you are shut out because you can't beat the 2-2 storm decks in the events, then your testing was not thorough enough.
Proven is essentially tier 1.5-1, and since tiers are a measure of popularity (not always t8ers) that is what you should be prepared to face.
Americans always seemed to push midrange strategies.
Obviously now standard is much slower than a few years back, but I am wondering if there is a difference between the continents in modern.......
Burn is huge in Antarctica, practically worshiped. There are some really popular Skred decks too, but but there are like 10,000 different names for them so it is hard to keep track.
Being aware of their existence and a "proven" status are two completely different things.
Besides I'd rather take on variance than worsen my relevant matchups.
btw he's called "Conley Woods" ^^
Yes, yes he is indeed. Apologies to him, although he probably has bigger problems than his rather unusual name given his "duckface" picture that TCG keep using.
On your major point it might not be a question of changing your deck against matches you consider to be relevant, just a question of optimising your performance with your list because you know about their deck and how it works in full. For which you will want to know about their deck and its latest developments.
Although to me if I am honest I consider the relevant matches the ones I am going to play. I think about 10 plus years ago Zvi Mowshowitz (I probably got that one wrong too) said something along the lines of, and I am paraphrasing "I don't want t know about the best decks, I want to know about the ones I am going to play"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People with belligerent signatures are trying to compensate for something....
I'm asking because I find the Proven section to be a bit messy. We have 20ish threads, one per deck, that always move around and if you want to discuss it. It has to be in a single thread. Meaning any 2 discussions in parallel would get messy. When there was subforums for each deck, that kind of development was possible. I understand the need for change but maybe we're not quite there yet.
I have a question. Is there a way to make 5-6 sub categories for the ways deck plays?
This division would assume any combo deck winning with creatures (infect) would be part of the combo subforum. Aggro would include burn... Where would pod go? Maybe the categories could be a bit more general to fit everything. This has been discussed but I really wish that was subforums grouping some game plans together to allow discussions outside of the primer.
These grouping by game plan / deck's general strategy enable more specific SCD threads. If I make a SCD about Shard Volley.. the card is playable in all in aggro strategies but it's horrible in long-term control plans. Keeping the threads where the card is more relevant avoid confusion. (Okay my example is just bad because it's obvious that Shard Volley isn't meant for midrange/control decks but I hope you see the point.)
This situation is happening right now actually. There's a SCD about path to exile. OP's deck is UW Merfolk. We can argue that the card is different in an aggro/control deck that doesn't run red than it is in UWR or Death & Taxes. The thread I'm talking about right now talks a lot about what Path reaches that other removal doesn't. But it also talks about UWR and Swords to Plowshare. There is one post that suggests Sunlance and this post seems to consider OP's situation so that might prove me wrong but I still feel that each archetypes or at least general game plans such as "aggro" should have their subforum in the modern context.
I know there are the archive subforums... but on long term with newer decks (and some of these decks becoming irrelevent) it won't be enough.
Can someone please move The Grixis Delver thread back to somewhere it will be seen. people are still interested in this deck and it is pretty disappointing to see it in the archives. I went to post my tournament report (4-0) and I couldn't find it.
Legacy:B The Gate // B Pox Modern:RGB Dredge // RBG Goblins // B The Gate // UBR Tezz AoB Control // RBG Prison Pox EDH:RBU Thraximundar // R Norin the Wary // RWB Kaalia of the Vast // BUR Grixis Combos // BU Gisa and Geralf Tribal Tiny Leaders:BUW Sydri, Galvanic Genius // R Feldon of the Third Path
These grouping by game plan / deck's general strategy enable more specific SCD threads. If I make a SCD about Shard Volley.. the card is playable in all in aggro strategies but it's horrible in long-term control plans. Keeping the threads where the card is more relevant avoid confusion. (Okay my example is just bad because it's obvious that Shard Volley isn't meant for midrange/control decks but I hope you see the point.)
This is something I miss from the separate subforums. I miss being able to compare/contrast Kiki Pod and Melira Pod without the thread getting lost among a bunch of other threads about different decks/archetypes.
Also, SCD threads become confusing. Talking about something like Scavenging Ooze gets confusing -- some decks will be deciding how to use it, some will be deciding how to fight through it, etc.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Fblthp had always hated crowds.
Decks
Modern
Affinity [MTGO]
Recovering from the Pod ban in paper
I'm asking because I find the Proven section to be a bit messy. We have 20ish threads, one per deck, that always move around and if you want to discuss it. It has to be in a single thread. Meaning any 2 discussions in parallel would get messy. When there was subforums for each deck, that kind of development was possible. I understand the need for change but maybe we're not quite there yet.
The current structure is much cleaner than the old version. Instead of going into subforums with decks that may or may not be Tier 1, we only have threads now for the decks that are solidly "Proven". Those decks might change from month to month, but you can always rely on the accuracy of the information in that section now. As for the bit about comparison/parallel discussions, I'll get to that in a moment.
I have a question. Is there a way to make 5-6 sub categories for the ways deck plays?
There is too much archetype pollution for this to be meaningful. We would realistically need a subforum for every possible pairing of the archetypes, at which point it becomes much harder to find information. And even then, it raises classification questions about a lot of decks that exist in the weird Midrange/Aggro/Control netherworld. Primers should be classifying their archetype in the OP, and that is where users ned to be finding that information.
These grouping by game plan / deck's general strategy enable more specific SCD threads. If I make a SCD about Shard Volley.. the card is playable in all in aggro strategies but it's horrible in long-term control plans. Keeping the threads where the card is more relevant avoid confusion. (Okay my example is just bad because it's obvious that Shard Volley isn't meant for midrange/control decks but I hope you see the point.)
There is a broader question here about Single Card Discussions generally. It might be interesting to have a subforum that is devoted to just SCDs in regards to any archetype. Yes, this existed in the old system, but any given SCD for any given subforum was often a very short thread that generally received very few replies and views. An SCD-specific subforum might be feasible depending on community interest.
Can someone please move The Grixis Delver thread back to somewhere it will be seen. people are still interested in this deck and it is pretty disappointing to see it in the archives. I went to post my tournament report (4-0) and I couldn't find it.
This is something I miss from the separate subforums. I miss being able to compare/contrast Kiki Pod and Melira Pod without the thread getting lost among a bunch of other threads about different decks/archetypes.
This gets back to what I was saying about the myth of cross-deck comparisons. People think it happened a lot for some reason. It didn't. Pod essentially had two such threads in the last 8 months, one of which lasted from April 18 to May 20 (accumulating only 16 posts). The other went from August 4 to August 15, before the sub was closed, and also only saw 16 posts. This sort of cross-deck discussion was not happening nearly as much as people think. To the extent that it was happening, it wasn't worth keeping the subs around. The Pod debate might be a good one for Modern General or for another, as-of-yet uncreated Modern sub. But it shouldn't be clogging up subs where people go for deck information.
We are still finalizing the criteria for Established, but 8Rack doesn't meet any of it. It has, to my knowledge, zero 4-0/3-1 finishes on MTGO, no major paper finishes or placements, and no day 2 Grand Prix appearances. I like the deck; heck, I named it! But it isn't Established yet. If it gets there, which it could, then I would be happy to see it promoted.
Could we move the old WUR Delver thread from the archives to at least creation, please? I still win modern FNMs with that thing and I know others do to. I'm not asking for you to put it in proven, at least not until after GP Detroit
Could we move the old WUR Delver thread from the archives to at least creation, please? I still win modern FNMs with that thing and I know others do to. I'm not asking for you to put it in proven, at least not until after GP Detroit
Also moved back to Creation.
This raises a point that I want to hear some input on. Would it make sense to people to have a Developing/Creation split? Something like Restore Balance, WUR Delver, or 8Rack is definitely not Established, but it's also many steps up from Creation. Does that merit its own subforum? Or is that just a division that gets worked out with stickies? No other area of MTGS does this, nor do other sites like The Source, so I am hesitant to support it. But what do others think?
This raises a point that I want to hear some input on. Would it make sense to people to have a Developing/Creation split? Something like Restore Balance, WUR Delver, or 8Rack is definitely not Established, but it's also many steps up from Creation. Does that merit its own subforum? Or is that just a division that gets worked out with stickies? No other area of MTGS does this, nor do other sites like The Source, so I am hesitant to support it. But what do others think?
Being different isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes you need to set yourself apart to garner more attention. Just be different with a purpose.
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.
We are still finalizing the criteria for Established, but 8Rack doesn't meet any of it. It has, to my knowledge, zero 4-0/3-1 finishes on MTGO, no major paper finishes or placements, and no day 2 Grand Prix appearances. I like the deck; heck, I named it! But it isn't Established yet. If it gets there, which it could, then I would be happy to see it promoted.
MemoryLapse has reported three 3-1 from MTGO dailies with the deck, to be fair. Though I do not know your criteria I still tend to agree that the deck does not belong in the Established" sub-forum.
If you look at the competetive legacy thread they categorise every deck into just control, aggro and combo, which might be hard for some decks but its pretty clear. For modern you could add midrange perhaps. The legacy one is probably easier to use than the modern one. Not trying to pick a fight, grateful in fact for the good work by the modern mods, but ultimately I think the new arrangement is a bit overthought- and I would rather have all w hatebear decks in one place.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People with belligerent signatures are trying to compensate for something....
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
UW gifts tron at a push, perhaps, on a good day and it really has not been around much. I play 20-30 players tournaments monthly and have never played it. I can't recall it appearing in any PTQ lits in the modern PTQ season. CF RG tron thats as common as herpes.
But if the aim is to provide a list of decks that represent the meta then its not a bad effort. However, the trouble is decks slide from one to another by virtue of a few cards, bleeding from one to another. I am worried decks will get lost and there is nothing more frustrating than similar decks being in two sections, having people post to one without realising there is another closer to their decks.
"White lifegain" nicely summarised both souls sista and martyr proc decks, which share approximately 80 % of the same cards.
"hatebears" contained both death and taxes and GW hatebears. They are the same principle at heart, and many of the cards are copied from one list to another- especially as people have seen the light on splashing green in d and t- one uses vials and flickerwisps, the other uses acceleration- and now they are separated, which makes it difficult. Really successful hatebear decks were actually haterator BW constructs that popped up last time there was a modern PTQ season.
Perhaps if each primer were linked to its "cousins" it would help. As it stands you can look forward to more people posting in the wrong thread.
The whole "established" and "proven" labels are rather awkward, still.
Like trying to pass judgement without passing judgement. I can't think of a better one though.
Demoting infect is interesting- its popularity rose online, not in PTQs- its popularity dropped online, so now its gone down a notch.
I can't help feeling that worlds have suddenly given boggle respectability that it deserved ages ago, too.
agree 100%!
4CC gifts has less than a 1% share of both the MTGO overall metagame, and the paper Top 8/Top 16 metagame at large events. So it's staying in Established for the foreseeable future. Storm currently makes up almost 5% of the MTGO metagame, so even if it isn't the most winning deck online, it is definitely a part of the metagame and that means it is staying in Proven. Mono U Tron is not only consistently between 3% and 4% of the online metagame, but it is one of the most disproportionate winners online, making up 5-6% of the 4-0/3-1 decks.
The idea is to update these organizations every month or two based on data both collected by staff and data collected from sites like the previously mentioned TCDecks or Decklists.net. Soul Sisters might well be gone in the next update - It's barely at 3% now for MTGO. But we will have to wait and see.
Both mono blue tron and soul siters are sought after decks for their cheapness and decent tournament results. They are obviously not the most powerful decks, but I would say most people visiting those threads aren't looking for a ptq level deck. They are looking for a deck to play at a fnm type event, which seems to be the growing trend as modern becomes more popular.
There were a few big problems with this approach. For one, the different blue-based control decks are all on totally different levels. UWR is a solidly tier 1 deck with extensive proof as to its success. The other decks in that subforum, Eternal Gifts and UW Control, have basically no solid performances to speak of. I would be comfortable with them in Creation, but not in a forum dedicated to "Proven" archetypes. That's bad information for new players coming to our site, and if we want to be a center for all things Modern, we can't have players getting misleading information in the main Proven section.
The second issue is that it didn't work out like you suggest in practice. The majority of discussions that happened outside of the thread were only a few responses long and easily could have been incorporated into the main threads. There's this myth about cross-deck comparisons happening in the subs, but that's not what it looks like. The overwhelming majority of those threads were SCDs or just other decks that had no business being in Proven. There were some idea threads with only a half dozen responses, but nothing substantive.
Overall, this organizational method works on sites across the internet, and it was a popular option in this thread.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
I ran martyr-proc hybrid at a ptq and lost one round in seven- to martyr. I also drew a round - with traditional martyr.
If affinity is tier one and burn is tier one (and once upon a time jund tier one) then martry/sistas will always be a good bet. More so since white has all the best sideboard options for combo based decks too, and doubly so if the city the ptq is in is not that big on modern.
Tokens probably squeeks in via Mr Wescoe's support for the deck. Melissa DT also has supported it publically on TCG. I think pro support for a deck makes it more likely you will face a deck, and sadly more likely to hit proven status.
DrWorm is right. Mono U Tron consistently makes up about 5% of the MTGO metagame. That said, it doesn't always enjoy the same performance, depending on the rest of the metagame. For instance, right now it's about 4% of the metagame but 6% of the 4-0/3-1 finishes; it's overperforming a bit and would definitely need to be part of your gauntlet. Back in June and July, the deck was only about 3% of the metagame but barely 2% of the finishes; it was underperforming pretty heavily. 4CC gifts hasn't been on the paper or MTGO radar for months.
The important thing to remember about this is that metagames change. We have the data sources to track that, and we can adjust the subs accordingly now. For paper, we have TCDecks, Decklists.net, and MTGTop8; that sights ensures that we have basically all the major paper events in our dataset (>100 players). For MTGO, we have a small group of people including myself who deep-dive the MTGO client, code replays, and get a much more comprehensive sample of the metagame than you can get from just the Wizards website. That site only shows decks that go 4-0/3-1, and it only shows 1 daily per day. It ignores all the decks that went 2-2 or worse, as well as all the other dailies that happened. Our MTGO data has been private thus far (it's a lot of work) but, in the future, we are looking to put it out to the public in some way.
But it will be when you lose to them because they weren't in your gauntlet and your deck was in theirs.
I have had people at PTQ's complain to me that they have just lost/ are losing (in which case:), go me) to a deck that is a casual deck/out of date deck etc. that no one plays at PTQs because it loses to X ,Y, or Z (which are mysteriously absent from said event).
I don't have much sympathy I must admit, and I have been the victim of it too. I would much rather be aware of the decks.
And for what it is worth I don't care about the distinction between proven and established as a large number of people playing the deck is often dictated by what big name pros talk about. If Connoly Woods came out and said 4 color gifts or soul sistas is a good choice its numbers would shoot up dramatically.
One thing I am interested is the split between continents as much as the split between paper and MTGO. European decks have always tended in standard towards combo over midrange. Doesn't matter if the combo is getting the arsed hosed off it by X,Y or Z- people turn up to play combo because they like it. Americans always seemed to push midrange strategies.
Obviously now standard is much slower than a few years back, but I am wondering if there is a difference between the continents in modern.......
Proven is essentially tier 1.5-1, and since tiers are a measure of popularity (not always t8ers) that is what you should be prepared to face.
Burn is huge in Antarctica, practically worshiped. There are some really popular Skred decks too, but but there are like 10,000 different names for them so it is hard to keep track.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
Yes, yes he is indeed. Apologies to him, although he probably has bigger problems than his rather unusual name given his "duckface" picture that TCG keep using.
On your major point it might not be a question of changing your deck against matches you consider to be relevant, just a question of optimising your performance with your list because you know about their deck and how it works in full. For which you will want to know about their deck and its latest developments.
Although to me if I am honest I consider the relevant matches the ones I am going to play. I think about 10 plus years ago Zvi Mowshowitz (I probably got that one wrong too) said something along the lines of, and I am paraphrasing "I don't want t know about the best decks, I want to know about the ones I am going to play"
Thanks to Rivenor for the signature and XenoNinja for the Avi!
Quotes:
I'm asking because I find the Proven section to be a bit messy. We have 20ish threads, one per deck, that always move around and if you want to discuss it. It has to be in a single thread. Meaning any 2 discussions in parallel would get messy. When there was subforums for each deck, that kind of development was possible. I understand the need for change but maybe we're not quite there yet.
I have a question. Is there a way to make 5-6 sub categories for the ways deck plays?
Aggro, Midrange, Control, Combo, Aggro/Control, Combo/Control.
This division would assume any combo deck winning with creatures (infect) would be part of the combo subforum. Aggro would include burn... Where would pod go? Maybe the categories could be a bit more general to fit everything. This has been discussed but I really wish that was subforums grouping some game plans together to allow discussions outside of the primer.
These grouping by game plan / deck's general strategy enable more specific SCD threads. If I make a SCD about Shard Volley.. the card is playable in all in aggro strategies but it's horrible in long-term control plans. Keeping the threads where the card is more relevant avoid confusion. (Okay my example is just bad because it's obvious that Shard Volley isn't meant for midrange/control decks but I hope you see the point.)
This situation is happening right now actually. There's a SCD about path to exile. OP's deck is UW Merfolk. We can argue that the card is different in an aggro/control deck that doesn't run red than it is in UWR or Death & Taxes. The thread I'm talking about right now talks a lot about what Path reaches that other removal doesn't. But it also talks about UWR and Swords to Plowshare. There is one post that suggests Sunlance and this post seems to consider OP's situation so that might prove me wrong but I still feel that each archetypes or at least general game plans such as "aggro" should have their subforum in the modern context.
I know there are the archive subforums... but on long term with newer decks (and some of these decks becoming irrelevent) it won't be enough.
Thanks!
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=406644&page=7
Modern: RGB Dredge // RBG Goblins // B The Gate // UBR Tezz AoB Control // RBG Prison Pox
EDH: RBU Thraximundar // R Norin the Wary // RWB Kaalia of the Vast // BUR Grixis Combos // BU Gisa and Geralf Tribal
Tiny Leaders: BUW Sydri, Galvanic Genius // R Feldon of the Third Path
Projects:
Gisa and Geralf Extreme-Tribal EDH
Esper Eldrazi Processor Control
Brewing with Kuldotha Forgemaster
Primer: "The Gate" - Mono Black in Modern
Modern Prison Pox - building a better plague
This is something I miss from the separate subforums. I miss being able to compare/contrast Kiki Pod and Melira Pod without the thread getting lost among a bunch of other threads about different decks/archetypes.
Also, SCD threads become confusing. Talking about something like Scavenging Ooze gets confusing -- some decks will be deciding how to use it, some will be deciding how to fight through it, etc.
Decks
Affinity [MTGO]
Recovering from the Pod ban in paper
move 8 rack to established pleasse
The current structure is much cleaner than the old version. Instead of going into subforums with decks that may or may not be Tier 1, we only have threads now for the decks that are solidly "Proven". Those decks might change from month to month, but you can always rely on the accuracy of the information in that section now. As for the bit about comparison/parallel discussions, I'll get to that in a moment.
There is too much archetype pollution for this to be meaningful. We would realistically need a subforum for every possible pairing of the archetypes, at which point it becomes much harder to find information. And even then, it raises classification questions about a lot of decks that exist in the weird Midrange/Aggro/Control netherworld. Primers should be classifying their archetype in the OP, and that is where users ned to be finding that information.
There is a broader question here about Single Card Discussions generally. It might be interesting to have a subforum that is devoted to just SCDs in regards to any archetype. Yes, this existed in the old system, but any given SCD for any given subforum was often a very short thread that generally received very few replies and views. An SCD-specific subforum might be feasible depending on community interest.
Moved to Deck Creation.
This gets back to what I was saying about the myth of cross-deck comparisons. People think it happened a lot for some reason. It didn't. Pod essentially had two such threads in the last 8 months, one of which lasted from April 18 to May 20 (accumulating only 16 posts). The other went from August 4 to August 15, before the sub was closed, and also only saw 16 posts. This sort of cross-deck discussion was not happening nearly as much as people think. To the extent that it was happening, it wasn't worth keeping the subs around. The Pod debate might be a good one for Modern General or for another, as-of-yet uncreated Modern sub. But it shouldn't be clogging up subs where people go for deck information.
We are still finalizing the criteria for Established, but 8Rack doesn't meet any of it. It has, to my knowledge, zero 4-0/3-1 finishes on MTGO, no major paper finishes or placements, and no day 2 Grand Prix appearances. I like the deck; heck, I named it! But it isn't Established yet. If it gets there, which it could, then I would be happy to see it promoted.
Also moved back to Creation.
This raises a point that I want to hear some input on. Would it make sense to people to have a Developing/Creation split? Something like Restore Balance, WUR Delver, or 8Rack is definitely not Established, but it's also many steps up from Creation. Does that merit its own subforum? Or is that just a division that gets worked out with stickies? No other area of MTGS does this, nor do other sites like The Source, so I am hesitant to support it. But what do others think?
Being different isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes you need to set yourself apart to garner more attention. Just be different with a purpose.
Cockatrice username: Blackcat77
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!