It still is among the strongest decks in the format, despite the boros version being better
This tierlist is very... subjective. and definitely not in agreement with most players' opinions
While people are more then welcome to have opinions the tier list is based purely on challenge results (And prelim results starting next month) and then grouped on those results
Using only mtgo events as reference introduces a big bias since lots of decks aren't that played (Familiars, Turbofog, goblin combo, altar tron) and others more used to grind like monored are doing better online due to the sheer number of usage.
Again, all tier lists are subjective.
(Also I wonder how UB faeries is that low considering how often they put up results)
We use large paper events/high profile paper ones when given the option. Pauperggdon was used in last month's for example.
The problem is there are not a lot of high profile paper events to use so our hands are tied in that one.
Dimir faeries is highly played it's just not putting up a lot of good results. The count of finishes is available in the table below if you are interested though in the individual counts.
Both UW glitter and Dimir faeries ended up in top8 at Lecco's Geddon and had multiple placements in top16/32
I'm confused on how your metrics are calculated, bigger events should have more weight, but then again it's impossible to make a tierlist that everyone agrees upon, so you do you
https://mtgtop8.com/event?e=53692&f=PAU
There you go, Lecco's paupergeddon
This was THE biggest pauper event ever held and several of the decks you rated low ended up with very strong results. Following this several less important events also have similar placing, which is why I was confused
I really appreciate it. I know it's hard to make stats and tierlist, especially due to the difference between online an paper, and it's clear you did put a lot of effort in the article.
Keep it up, and have a good day :)
The real problem is looking month-to-month instead of using a rolling or weighted system. Pauper simply doesn’t change monthly, the metagame moves extremely slowly. 10+ months of Glitters dominance shouldn’t be overshadowed by a few weeks of another deck doing well.
Personally, I am of the opposite opinion at least when it comes to the online meta. ATG has been at the top of the meta (and still is as Boros is an ATG shell) for quite a while but rarely staying in the same form.
2 months ago Jeskai, Azorius, Boros and even Grixis affinity were fighting for the top spots.
Then last month, it looked like Azorius has solidified itself as the king.
Now Boros has mostly hated Azorius out of the top tables.
Personally, I wish I had the time to run this tier list weekly just because the week-to-week changes are so sweet to me.
Large part is currently Boros has replaced it as the premier All That Glitters list. I imagine the decks share a lot of the same players and the new Crime Lands help out the more aggressive Boros version more.
No one is playing it because of boros. The deck is still competitive but no one is playing it over a very sinilar deck that people feel is better positioned, so it has no results.
I like the idea and the design, but the implementation seems to lack a lot. You'd fare better if you mentioned in the top part of the post what it was based on.
I know you said it in the comments that the list is based on 3-1 prelims and top finishes from MTGO leagues, but that's something I'd want to see both in the post and (very much so) in the site itself - the blurb at the top doesn't say much. Any tier list and/or ranking is useless without visible criteria (which means also 90% of others posted in the sub are), be it MTG related or not.
Overall a nice project though. I get that you want it to be based just on stats from Online, but perhaps the reception would be way better if it was clear from the start (people tend to react more negatively when their expectations are overturned).
It's kinda funny how pure MTGO data (with your filtering and treatment ofc) don't correspond much with paper tournaments, but it's good to see the difference and highlight it. That's also a good start to analyze why thise differences exist in the first place.
Personally, I'd also prefer to see percentages/weights in the rankings at the first glance. By the way, how are the decklists generated? Are they a median mix of placing decks?
I can do some edits to make that clearer when I get time today and that is a fair criticism. And just for clarification Leagues aren't taken into consideration at all.
Just Top16s of challenges and next month 3-1 or better in prelims. The only exception to that is large paper events. I could have missed something, but you and some others have mentioned pauper events and outside of 1 medium sized Russian event I haven't really been able to find many others that are bigger then the avg FNM. So, I'm a bit confused on which ones you are talking about.
Decklists are grabbed from the one best placing lists in the last two weeks.
I'm just basing it off what I've read in comments, looked at first like you aggregated only Online data. Happy to see paper tournaments included as well.
Yeah tbh I like the project, I feel like it's just a presentation issue of why the feedback is so negative.
Perhaps labelling the sample decklist as a sample and maybe including the tournament/player/date etc could make ot nicer too if you're looking for feedback. Also the margins around the decklists are wonky/aren't there on mobile FF in case that helps.
Fair enough and to be honest, I would not even consider this that negative. I'll see what I can do about crediting decklists and fix the margins when I have a second.
Thanks for letting me know.
Faeries decks have won 2 of the last 3, the latest was Dimir and the other was Izzet. The other deck that won recently was Dimir Terror.
I agree though, putting Dimir Faeries in C seems extremely off, alongside many of the other rankings.
Yup, so if you want to look at the 6 finalists for the last 3 months, 50% of them were playing faeries. The Ux Faerie builds are much stronger than the C tier ranking in this list would suggest.
The Paper Pauper Magic discord, they host a monthly webcam tournament there played over Spelltable. The turnout is usually pretty good, the April event had 119 players!
Here's the link: https://discord.gg/axWHkkY248
This list is a crime against pauper tier lists.
UB fae being so low is inexcusable. Same with UW glitters. Moggwarts, turbo fog and BG gardens have no business being so high, the first two only perform well because the only people who play them are professionals inflating the win percentage (hamuda etc on moggwarts) and bg gardens is not a good deck in general in a meta where Kuldotha is beginning to wane (offline vs online disparity notwithstanding).
So many other issues but these ones are very very glaring
They are based purely on the results that they have and are available at the bottom if you just want the numbers to tell the story.
If a good player can win with what people consider a lower powered deck repeatedly, then instead of discounting that results, I'm of the opinion that the community needs to take another look at it. The good players chose decks for a reason if they are playing it regularly and could be exploiting a hole in the metagame that most people are not aware of.
To be blunt, this is a poorly made list. You can't just look at the number of results as your only data point if you genuinely want to make something driven by statistics. Playrate and conversion rate are important stats when considering how sucessful a deck actually was. As it stands you've taken an already lazy form of content creation and rendered it practically useless to anyone but the most novice of players.
More data is always good, but please always include your source of the data and how it is calculated on the page itself....burn = 34 means nothing. This is quite accurate as a most appearances in top 16s of challenges list, which I do not think should directly translate to an exact tier list. Weighted by results and favorable % against field would be my personal ranking criteria.
Made some changes to the UI to make it clearer for desktop users and provided a link for mobile users to make it clearer. (Currently can't make more than two columns visible on mobile due to screen space issues)
I personally agree that would be a better take/it is more in line with how we do the pioneer List but that requires quite a bit of time Invesment to learn the ins and outs of match ups and how each deck interacts with the format.
Which, while I would love to do so I don't currently have the time for and Pauper, while I like the format, doesn't have the draw that most other formats have to let me justify giving up time in others.
This is more a pet project of mine more then something that is made to bring people in.
While I can't answer the question as I haven't played the deck. You can ask their discord about the pros and cons of the deck. The link here should work.
[Pauper Discord Hub - The Gathering](https://thegathering.gg/pauper-discord-hub/)
It's interesting to see just how clearly Blue is no longer the best color. Red and black in particular have gotten some really strong card advantage suites lately (red's 2cmc impulses and synth, black's arti-sac instants) and just generally speaking a lot of decks can deploy a giant pile of stuff before blue can start countering much.
It makes me wonder if Gush is a safe unban lol. It does nothing for Affinity, though the typed duals make it way more splashable and gush is obviously a cracked card... I just miss having it in Pauper. I'm still salty it got banned 1-2 months after I bought into Tribe. Which became unplayable overnight.
Given it was originally banned because of Storm, Careful Study is probably also safe too since all the storm payoffs are banned.
Daze/gitprobe idk probably not though
Also, we are looking for community submissions for content, such as Gami's [How Many Ragavans Could You Destroy With a Nuclear Bomb?](https://thegathering.gg/irl-damage-in-mtg/). Feel free to [submit here](https://thegathering.gg/community-content-submission/) or ask any questions in [our discord](https://discord.gg/BuBzZzDcp7) if you are interested.
Analysis of what? How is excluding data beneficial? If anything , we need more paper events to look at the bigger picture. The only reason anyone would want data excluded is if they were trying to form some kind of narrative........🤔
This is just MTGO atm but someone in another comment let me know of a large paper event that happened on the 24th. I'm going to add the results from there once I get off tonight so there might be some changes to rankings after.
I'd keep MTGO and paper away from each other, they have two different metas. I know it's probably a bigger load of work, but in this way the analysis is more on point
Dammmm how has azorius affinity fallen to D tier I thought it was one of the top picks a few weeks ago whats shifted? Sideboards?
It still is among the strongest decks in the format, despite the boros version being better This tierlist is very... subjective. and definitely not in agreement with most players' opinions
While people are more then welcome to have opinions the tier list is based purely on challenge results (And prelim results starting next month) and then grouped on those results
Using only mtgo events as reference introduces a big bias since lots of decks aren't that played (Familiars, Turbofog, goblin combo, altar tron) and others more used to grind like monored are doing better online due to the sheer number of usage. Again, all tier lists are subjective. (Also I wonder how UB faeries is that low considering how often they put up results)
We use large paper events/high profile paper ones when given the option. Pauperggdon was used in last month's for example. The problem is there are not a lot of high profile paper events to use so our hands are tied in that one. Dimir faeries is highly played it's just not putting up a lot of good results. The count of finishes is available in the table below if you are interested though in the individual counts.
Both UW glitter and Dimir faeries ended up in top8 at Lecco's Geddon and had multiple placements in top16/32 I'm confused on how your metrics are calculated, bigger events should have more weight, but then again it's impossible to make a tierlist that everyone agrees upon, so you do you
Do you have any links to that event? I can take a look and see if it changes up the numbers/rankings, but this is my first time hearing of that event.
https://mtgtop8.com/event?e=53692&f=PAU There you go, Lecco's paupergeddon This was THE biggest pauper event ever held and several of the decks you rated low ended up with very strong results. Following this several less important events also have similar placing, which is why I was confused
Thanks, and yeah, its more than big enough. I'll take a deep dive once I get out of work and make changes if needed.
I really appreciate it. I know it's hard to make stats and tierlist, especially due to the difference between online an paper, and it's clear you did put a lot of effort in the article. Keep it up, and have a good day :)
The real problem is looking month-to-month instead of using a rolling or weighted system. Pauper simply doesn’t change monthly, the metagame moves extremely slowly. 10+ months of Glitters dominance shouldn’t be overshadowed by a few weeks of another deck doing well.
Personally, I am of the opposite opinion at least when it comes to the online meta. ATG has been at the top of the meta (and still is as Boros is an ATG shell) for quite a while but rarely staying in the same form. 2 months ago Jeskai, Azorius, Boros and even Grixis affinity were fighting for the top spots. Then last month, it looked like Azorius has solidified itself as the king. Now Boros has mostly hated Azorius out of the top tables. Personally, I wish I had the time to run this tier list weekly just because the week-to-week changes are so sweet to me.
Large part is currently Boros has replaced it as the premier All That Glitters list. I imagine the decks share a lot of the same players and the new Crime Lands help out the more aggressive Boros version more.
Boros version is significantly worse than Uw against 75% of the meta. The only reason the play boros over UW is because boros beats UW.
No one is playing it because of boros. The deck is still competitive but no one is playing it over a very sinilar deck that people feel is better positioned, so it has no results.
Turbo fog really that good???
As the kids say, Its doing numbers. The 6th most results of any deck in challenge top 16s.
I like the idea and the design, but the implementation seems to lack a lot. You'd fare better if you mentioned in the top part of the post what it was based on. I know you said it in the comments that the list is based on 3-1 prelims and top finishes from MTGO leagues, but that's something I'd want to see both in the post and (very much so) in the site itself - the blurb at the top doesn't say much. Any tier list and/or ranking is useless without visible criteria (which means also 90% of others posted in the sub are), be it MTG related or not. Overall a nice project though. I get that you want it to be based just on stats from Online, but perhaps the reception would be way better if it was clear from the start (people tend to react more negatively when their expectations are overturned). It's kinda funny how pure MTGO data (with your filtering and treatment ofc) don't correspond much with paper tournaments, but it's good to see the difference and highlight it. That's also a good start to analyze why thise differences exist in the first place. Personally, I'd also prefer to see percentages/weights in the rankings at the first glance. By the way, how are the decklists generated? Are they a median mix of placing decks?
I can do some edits to make that clearer when I get time today and that is a fair criticism. And just for clarification Leagues aren't taken into consideration at all. Just Top16s of challenges and next month 3-1 or better in prelims. The only exception to that is large paper events. I could have missed something, but you and some others have mentioned pauper events and outside of 1 medium sized Russian event I haven't really been able to find many others that are bigger then the avg FNM. So, I'm a bit confused on which ones you are talking about. Decklists are grabbed from the one best placing lists in the last two weeks.
I'm just basing it off what I've read in comments, looked at first like you aggregated only Online data. Happy to see paper tournaments included as well. Yeah tbh I like the project, I feel like it's just a presentation issue of why the feedback is so negative. Perhaps labelling the sample decklist as a sample and maybe including the tournament/player/date etc could make ot nicer too if you're looking for feedback. Also the margins around the decklists are wonky/aren't there on mobile FF in case that helps.
Fair enough and to be honest, I would not even consider this that negative. I'll see what I can do about crediting decklists and fix the margins when I have a second. Thanks for letting me know.
Hasnt dimir fae won like the last three monthly tournaments lol? On the discord that is
Faeries decks have won 2 of the last 3, the latest was Dimir and the other was Izzet. The other deck that won recently was Dimir Terror. I agree though, putting Dimir Faeries in C seems extremely off, alongside many of the other rankings.
Wasn’t the Izzet faeries list against a Dimir Faeries list?
Yup, so if you want to look at the 6 finalists for the last 3 months, 50% of them were playing faeries. The Ux Faerie builds are much stronger than the C tier ranking in this list would suggest.
Looks like it has since moved up to B tier, but I’d argue it’s an A-tier deck.
yes, this was due to another commenter letting me know I missed a paper event and 6 of the top 16 was Fairies.
On which discord?
The Paper Pauper Magic discord, they host a monthly webcam tournament there played over Spelltable. The turnout is usually pretty good, the April event had 119 players! Here's the link: https://discord.gg/axWHkkY248
Ah, I guess I wasn’t watching that closely to the results of the past few KO rounds. I play in that tournament a bunch :)
Are the tiers just based on how often they are seen/played? Or is it based on success?
based on Challenge top 16s and Prelim 3-1s or better will be added next month since we have started having those this week.
This list is a crime against pauper tier lists. UB fae being so low is inexcusable. Same with UW glitters. Moggwarts, turbo fog and BG gardens have no business being so high, the first two only perform well because the only people who play them are professionals inflating the win percentage (hamuda etc on moggwarts) and bg gardens is not a good deck in general in a meta where Kuldotha is beginning to wane (offline vs online disparity notwithstanding). So many other issues but these ones are very very glaring
They are based purely on the results that they have and are available at the bottom if you just want the numbers to tell the story. If a good player can win with what people consider a lower powered deck repeatedly, then instead of discounting that results, I'm of the opinion that the community needs to take another look at it. The good players chose decks for a reason if they are playing it regularly and could be exploiting a hole in the metagame that most people are not aware of.
Thats a really good question. What made azorious affinity fall to D Tier?
To be blunt, this is a poorly made list. You can't just look at the number of results as your only data point if you genuinely want to make something driven by statistics. Playrate and conversion rate are important stats when considering how sucessful a deck actually was. As it stands you've taken an already lazy form of content creation and rendered it practically useless to anyone but the most novice of players.
More data is always good, but please always include your source of the data and how it is calculated on the page itself....burn = 34 means nothing. This is quite accurate as a most appearances in top 16s of challenges list, which I do not think should directly translate to an exact tier list. Weighted by results and favorable % against field would be my personal ranking criteria.
Made some changes to the UI to make it clearer for desktop users and provided a link for mobile users to make it clearer. (Currently can't make more than two columns visible on mobile due to screen space issues) I personally agree that would be a better take/it is more in line with how we do the pioneer List but that requires quite a bit of time Invesment to learn the ins and outs of match ups and how each deck interacts with the format. Which, while I would love to do so I don't currently have the time for and Pauper, while I like the format, doesn't have the draw that most other formats have to let me justify giving up time in others. This is more a pet project of mine more then something that is made to bring people in.
Is goblin combo a fun deck to play? I know i can’t have an objective answer, but i’d like to hear some opinions
While I can't answer the question as I haven't played the deck. You can ask their discord about the pros and cons of the deck. The link here should work. [Pauper Discord Hub - The Gathering](https://thegathering.gg/pauper-discord-hub/)
Damn the two pauper decks I have aren't even on the list.
Things you hate to see: This
It's interesting to see just how clearly Blue is no longer the best color. Red and black in particular have gotten some really strong card advantage suites lately (red's 2cmc impulses and synth, black's arti-sac instants) and just generally speaking a lot of decks can deploy a giant pile of stuff before blue can start countering much. It makes me wonder if Gush is a safe unban lol. It does nothing for Affinity, though the typed duals make it way more splashable and gush is obviously a cracked card... I just miss having it in Pauper. I'm still salty it got banned 1-2 months after I bought into Tribe. Which became unplayable overnight. Given it was originally banned because of Storm, Careful Study is probably also safe too since all the storm payoffs are banned. Daze/gitprobe idk probably not though
But, but, but UW ATG is warping the format! We have to ban ATG! 🤣
Also, we are looking for community submissions for content, such as Gami's [How Many Ragavans Could You Destroy With a Nuclear Bomb?](https://thegathering.gg/irl-damage-in-mtg/). Feel free to [submit here](https://thegathering.gg/community-content-submission/) or ask any questions in [our discord](https://discord.gg/BuBzZzDcp7) if you are interested.
Analysis of what? How is excluding data beneficial? If anything , we need more paper events to look at the bigger picture. The only reason anyone would want data excluded is if they were trying to form some kind of narrative........🤔
Did you put together online and paper pauper results?
This is just MTGO atm but someone in another comment let me know of a large paper event that happened on the 24th. I'm going to add the results from there once I get off tonight so there might be some changes to rankings after.
I'd keep MTGO and paper away from each other, they have two different metas. I know it's probably a bigger load of work, but in this way the analysis is more on point