Yeah, the situation with standard is a major issue for a ton of players. For the majority of players, if they don't like standard the only other options they got are commander or limited/draft due to modern having too much of a paywall to get into. Man this feels weird bouncing between two different discussions involving this subject.
There is a third option, which is scraping the bottom of Modern with a second(or third) rate deck. It's what the entitled Modern players who already have their deck suggest, and in my experience it's what people do. I say this because I play these 2nd and 3rd tier Modern players at FNM in casual matches at the local LGS.
What you fail to understand is, those Modern players that have been playing since the format began, some had to play those lower level decks that are still decent decks, and can and will get you prize to save up to get the better deck in time. All us established players are saying, what was good enough for us to do, should be fine for the new players to do also. Has nothing to do with entitlement, but more with instant gratification crowd. I want my deck, and I want it now, people.
How about instead of a tier system, you just have a proven section for deck that have top whatever( the mods can decide the cut off point) and the decks have a percentage next to their name showing how often they have been in that top part of the events they get data from. If its the SCG, PTQ, and GPQ so be it. Update the percentages or have them for the last 30 days or 90 days.
Isn't that still just a tiering system?
It removes the popularity aspect of the tier systems. It would be straight percentages.
I would suggest it be top 16 showings. top 8s is too narrow, and top 32 would make the list huge.
In the end if we knew the percentages were based on 3 events (SCG, PPTQs/PT, and GPQ/GP) and the cut off (top 8,16, or 32). Then when someone reads the list of proven decks, there is no other factors to sway opinion other then straight numbers.
The problem with most tiering systems is popularity comes into play. Unless we can get the numbers of the decks starting in an event, and we can compare those starting numbers to what we see day 2 and in top spots. Popularity is a baseless skewed number.
Popularity comes into play with your system too. More popular decks will top more often, and will be represented higher regardless of their actual potential.
Not true, you are disregarding skill level of the pilots. In reality on any given weekend for the SCG events that have 200+ players in them, maybe 50 have a realistic shot at winning the event. if they pay out to 64, that leaves 14 spots for the grinders or 'casual' players to squeeze into the money spots.
If you wanted to make a true tier system, you would only look at decks people that get paid to play, play. you could ignore the rest of the field. This would remove popularity, the skill factor, the money factor and any other negative about current tier systems. We would know the decks are playable and in the end thats all anyone really cares about since we are basing all this off the highest level events. Which I feel is wrong in itself, but we dont get the complete data from every where else so .. its doing the best we can do and removing as much of the negative from the process.
How about instead of a tier system, you just have a proven section for deck that have top whatever( the mods can decide the cut off point) and the decks have a percentage next to their name showing how often they have been in that top part of the events they get data from. If its the SCG, PTQ, and GPQ so be it. Update the percentages or have them for the last 30 days or 90 days.
Isn't that still just a tiering system?
It removes the popularity aspect of the tier systems. It would be straight percentages.
I would suggest it be top 16 showings. top 8s is too narrow, and top 32 would make the list huge.
In the end if we knew the percentages were based on 3 events (SCG, PPTQs/PT, and GPQ/GP) and the cut off (top 8,16, or 32). Then when someone reads the list of proven decks, there is no other factors to sway opinion other then straight numbers.
The problem with most tiering systems is popularity comes into play. Unless we can get the numbers of the decks starting in an event, and we can compare those starting numbers to what we see day 2 and in top spots. Popularity is a baseless skewed number.
Example to explain the above..
If we know in a field of 200 players 50 decks are Affinity, and 25% of the top 16 is Affinity, we can say Affinity was represented properly.
Now if Affinity was only 10 of those 200 starting decks and Affinity was still 25% of the top spots, we can say the deck over performed.
Now if 100 decks of the starting 200 are Affinity and only 25% fall to top spots the deck under preformed, talking straight numbers.
But that is a lot more leg work and crunching of numbers if they can be found. Which I believe we cant.
I have gone to 2 Glimmervoid and 2 Spire simply because it has gotten easier for my opponent to wipe all my artifacts. Losing all my mana too means game over. Spires allow you to maybe fight back.
How about instead of a tier system, you just have a proven section for deck that have top whatever( the mods can decide the cut off point) and the decks have a percentage next to their name showing how often they have been in that top part of the events they get data from. If its the SCG, PTQ, and GPQ so be it. Update the percentages or have them for the last 30 days or 90 days.
I think this way people can see what is being played, no one is saying one deck is better then another, and people can figure out what they wish to play.
Just my thinking.
Just to be clear, there would be proven and developing as the only 2 sections. 1 has percentages of tops the other has decks that were seen but have not topped.
Wouldn't you want three sections? Established? Established would be for deck's that have been "proven" before, but may no longer be as viable.
Nope, just 2. Those that have data that shows they have topped and have a percentage to show, and those we see in events but have not topped so they dont have a percentage to show.
How about instead of a tier system, you just have a proven section for deck that have top whatever( the mods can decide the cut off point) and the decks have a percentage next to their name showing how often they have been in that top part of the events they get data from. If its the SCG, PTQ, and GPQ so be it. Update the percentages or have them for the last 30 days or 90 days.
I think this way people can see what is being played, no one is saying one deck is better then another, and people can figure out what they wish to play.
Just my thinking.
Just to be clear, there would be proven and developing as the only 2 sections. 1 has percentages of tops the other has decks that were seen but have not topped.
@ Lantern, I was never happy with the old system either. I am not bashing you, I am bashing the idea of a tiered system with incomplete data. I am not bashing on you.
Just because someone doesnt chase the golden ring of PTs and GPs dont make them casuals. Some people thrive in local metas, make money doing it, and have no desire to go any farther, Doesnt make them casuals. I find your condescending attitude toward those who dont chase what others do sickening.
There is a difference between grinders, local players, and these so called casuals you keep talking down to. But you dont seem to understand that.
Pros dont need a tier system, they already know whats good and what they can play to money in events. The tiering system is for the lesser players, the grinders and the locals, the majority of the player in the format.
Its not about new players winning or losing, its about new players getting skewed information and basing their decisions off said skewed information.
MTGO doesnt let us see all the numbers, so using MTGO data is incomplete.
We dont get the data from local events around the world, so the data is incomplete.
Using only SCG, PPTQ's and GPQ's as the only source of data for tiering is skewed so bad it makes the tiering unrealistic.
But do as you wish, I am out on this subject. I dont agree we need a tiering system unless we use all data and weigh said data.
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.
Wow, this seems really off base. There's no feasible way we can compile, nor account for local metas. What goes 4-0 at Jim Bob's Card shop and what top 8's a GP are two very different fields. Local metas can drastically different from the metagame at large. The only way we could even incorporate something that encompassed each and every local metagame. Possibility Storm is a deck that's taken FNMs in my local meta. Does that mean we should include that as a Tier 1 deck?
Another wide misconception seems to be that building a "Tier 1" deck should equate to immediate success at any event. Modern is a deeper format than that, and even building a top Tier deck requires practice and knowledge of metas (both local and overall) to have success. Tiers should be established based on proven results... which means measuring the stats that we can measure.
I think the methods used to determine Tiering during Ktkenshin's run of things was perhaps as good as we're going to get without more readily available data.
I think this is a fight we are just going to have to give up on. If someone thinks the tier system is a bad way to judge decks because it doesn't accurately describe their local meta then there isn't any combination/order of words we can put together to change their perspective. Their thought is so fundamentally far from what we are actually discussing to even try to engage it.
If you only play a local meta, then why do you ever look at tiers? And if you are a new player, you should lose more often than not regardless of what deck you play; it is the nature of the format. Again, I see no point in making the tier system in order to appeal to locals and newer players because the information is of the least use to those groups even when the information is geared specifically toward them.
We are changing something to better suite the people who don't want/need it but making it worse for the people it actually applies to. It's dumb.
The Tier system should be focused on the metas the largest group of players will play in, not the least.
As I have said, basing the tier system on the finishes on SCG and other big weekend events, the events the majority of players will NEVER compete in is misleading to those who play in a different meta.
All I am asking for is a weighted system and an explanation to NEW players what the tier system is and how the numbers are calculated. So they dont go out and spend $1000+ on a deck and get crushed in a meta set up to destroy said deck and get salty.
You may be a grinder or someone who plays for a PT or GP spot, but you are in the minority of the player base.
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.
The issue is Wotc has no idea how many players they will push away with change to please the vocal ones. Wotc goes and pleases a small portion of vocal players. (figuring 'small portion' when the player base is in the millions world wide is very wide amount of players)
It's not about responding to vocal players. It's about explaining to the board of directors how the falling sales will be addressed.
Should they say it's just a lull and that they cannot change their models because they have "no idea" how any change might serve to cause people to spend even less money on MTG? Shareholders might not like that.
Before the recent dip in sales, they had multiple back to back years of record sales. Large companies know that kind of growth is unsustainable over time. There are always going to be dips along the way. Now if the dip continues for a few years, there may be a problem.
Even in those record yearly sales, there was always a quarter that was low. So having 1 down year really is nothing in the bigger picture of things. Especially with the changes they have installed in the game the last year, year and a half.
If we are still talking about low yearly sales in 2019 or 2020 .. then I will say you were correct. I just dont see it lasting.
So in short, what is 'wrong' with the game to one, is not going to be what is wrong to the next, or the next. And for every person that feels those things are 'wrong' others enjoy them.
Its a no win situation. Wotc can not please everyone.
True that WotC cannot please everyone. But that by no means implies that they should refrain from market research. Nor does it imply that continuing their current business/design model is their best course of action. Especially when sales are down and Standard attendance is suffering.
It's by no means a "no win situation" for WotC. They "win" if they can make enough money to meet their goals. - with bonus points if they exceed those goals. But maybe a design and/or distribution model change is the best path to their "victory"?
The issue is Wotc has no idea how many players they will push away with change to please the vocal ones. Wotc goes and pleases a small portion of vocal players. (figuring 'small portion' when the player base is in the millions world wide is very wide amount of players)
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.
Where I agree everything should be looked at, it should be weighted. I dont think the bigger events should dictate viability of a deck. Since we dont get all the MTGO data its hard justify its data as being truly helpful. Wotc could allow the data they wish to skew data points. We dont get full data from all the smaller events that happen across the globe on a weekly basis. Until we get all data, we need to weigh the data we get carefully.
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.
They need to drop the MSRP on modern masters to 99 usd and do larger print runs. That's basically all I got on this subject because the modern "support" is pretty awful from Wizards.
When you figure its better then any other older/eternal format they ever sanctioned, I would say its pretty good.
There were not big events every weekend back when Skullclamp was banned. For most people in most areas the biggest event weekly was FNM. Occasionally there were 2 large events in the same month! Back in the day the largest events most players saw was States (glorified FNM) or a pre release.
Now with multiple large events every weekend, there isnt the time to give for those said bans.
My personal feelings are if removing 4 cards out of a T1 deck is going to make the deck unplayable. 1)They hit the right card, 2) What took so long to make the move?
What you fail to understand is, those Modern players that have been playing since the format began, some had to play those lower level decks that are still decent decks, and can and will get you prize to save up to get the better deck in time. All us established players are saying, what was good enough for us to do, should be fine for the new players to do also. Has nothing to do with entitlement, but more with instant gratification crowd. I want my deck, and I want it now, people.
Not true, you are disregarding skill level of the pilots. In reality on any given weekend for the SCG events that have 200+ players in them, maybe 50 have a realistic shot at winning the event. if they pay out to 64, that leaves 14 spots for the grinders or 'casual' players to squeeze into the money spots.
If you wanted to make a true tier system, you would only look at decks people that get paid to play, play. you could ignore the rest of the field. This would remove popularity, the skill factor, the money factor and any other negative about current tier systems. We would know the decks are playable and in the end thats all anyone really cares about since we are basing all this off the highest level events. Which I feel is wrong in itself, but we dont get the complete data from every where else so .. its doing the best we can do and removing as much of the negative from the process.
It removes the popularity aspect of the tier systems. It would be straight percentages.
I would suggest it be top 16 showings. top 8s is too narrow, and top 32 would make the list huge.
In the end if we knew the percentages were based on 3 events (SCG, PPTQs/PT, and GPQ/GP) and the cut off (top 8,16, or 32). Then when someone reads the list of proven decks, there is no other factors to sway opinion other then straight numbers.
The problem with most tiering systems is popularity comes into play. Unless we can get the numbers of the decks starting in an event, and we can compare those starting numbers to what we see day 2 and in top spots. Popularity is a baseless skewed number.
Example to explain the above..
If we know in a field of 200 players 50 decks are Affinity, and 25% of the top 16 is Affinity, we can say Affinity was represented properly.
Now if Affinity was only 10 of those 200 starting decks and Affinity was still 25% of the top spots, we can say the deck over performed.
Now if 100 decks of the starting 200 are Affinity and only 25% fall to top spots the deck under preformed, talking straight numbers.
But that is a lot more leg work and crunching of numbers if they can be found. Which I believe we cant.
Nope, just 2. Those that have data that shows they have topped and have a percentage to show, and those we see in events but have not topped so they dont have a percentage to show.
I think this way people can see what is being played, no one is saying one deck is better then another, and people can figure out what they wish to play.
Just my thinking.
Just to be clear, there would be proven and developing as the only 2 sections. 1 has percentages of tops the other has decks that were seen but have not topped.
@ Lantern, I was never happy with the old system either. I am not bashing you, I am bashing the idea of a tiered system with incomplete data. I am not bashing on you.
Just because someone doesnt chase the golden ring of PTs and GPs dont make them casuals. Some people thrive in local metas, make money doing it, and have no desire to go any farther, Doesnt make them casuals. I find your condescending attitude toward those who dont chase what others do sickening.
There is a difference between grinders, local players, and these so called casuals you keep talking down to. But you dont seem to understand that.
Pros dont need a tier system, they already know whats good and what they can play to money in events. The tiering system is for the lesser players, the grinders and the locals, the majority of the player in the format.
Its not about new players winning or losing, its about new players getting skewed information and basing their decisions off said skewed information.
MTGO doesnt let us see all the numbers, so using MTGO data is incomplete.
We dont get the data from local events around the world, so the data is incomplete.
Using only SCG, PPTQ's and GPQ's as the only source of data for tiering is skewed so bad it makes the tiering unrealistic.
But do as you wish, I am out on this subject. I dont agree we need a tiering system unless we use all data and weigh said data.
The Tier system should be focused on the metas the largest group of players will play in, not the least.
As I have said, basing the tier system on the finishes on SCG and other big weekend events, the events the majority of players will NEVER compete in is misleading to those who play in a different meta.
All I am asking for is a weighted system and an explanation to NEW players what the tier system is and how the numbers are calculated. So they dont go out and spend $1000+ on a deck and get crushed in a meta set up to destroy said deck and get salty.
You may be a grinder or someone who plays for a PT or GP spot, but you are in the minority of the player base.
Before the recent dip in sales, they had multiple back to back years of record sales. Large companies know that kind of growth is unsustainable over time. There are always going to be dips along the way. Now if the dip continues for a few years, there may be a problem.
Even in those record yearly sales, there was always a quarter that was low. So having 1 down year really is nothing in the bigger picture of things. Especially with the changes they have installed in the game the last year, year and a half.
If we are still talking about low yearly sales in 2019 or 2020 .. then I will say you were correct. I just dont see it lasting.
The issue is Wotc has no idea how many players they will push away with change to please the vocal ones. Wotc goes and pleases a small portion of vocal players. (figuring 'small portion' when the player base is in the millions world wide is very wide amount of players)
Where I agree everything should be looked at, it should be weighted. I dont think the bigger events should dictate viability of a deck. Since we dont get all the MTGO data its hard justify its data as being truly helpful. Wotc could allow the data they wish to skew data points. We dont get full data from all the smaller events that happen across the globe on a weekly basis. Until we get all data, we need to weigh the data we get carefully.
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.
When you figure its better then any other older/eternal format they ever sanctioned, I would say its pretty good.
Now with multiple large events every weekend, there isnt the time to give for those said bans.
My personal feelings are if removing 4 cards out of a T1 deck is going to make the deck unplayable. 1)They hit the right card, 2) What took so long to make the move?
Be careful what you wish for.
The game could get worse.
Change does not always mean better.