I know - I must be the worst player, since I'm not over 90%...
Honestly, FW shocks me everytime I look at it.
Of course, most of those games were before the expansion...might not be quite as good now.

Actually - I do have a 90+ percent deck....in fact, a 99%+ deck...
Warsmith! I'm at 100% win rate with it! 1-0 baby!

Yertle -

When I said 'random' tier list, I just meant it was one person's opinion, and everyone here will have a different opinion. So it doesn't matter to me where you rank a certain deck, just as it probably doesn't matter to you where I would rank a certain deck. Tier lists are interesting, but in the end, somewhat meaningless, to me at least.

I'll take the challenge though, sounds fun, as long as it's best to 5 and not 9 (which sounds monotonous). I can't play until the 23rd since I'm out of town, and then I'm going out of town again on the 24th but I can play either on the 23rd or after the 28th. I have my laptop so it's possible I could be on while I'm out of town but my schedule (and internet) isn't predictable.

As far as decks, I like MD vs. any of: CMD, GL, SS, LD (though I've not played MD vs LD a ton so I could be completely wrong). I think EA and SM probably have the advantage. So take your pick of those 4, or time permitting, we can do best to 5 with all of those 4.

steam name is dh50

As proof that I spend way too much time on this game, here's my spreadsheet data:

MINE
Deck|Win|Loss|Percentage
Avacyn's Glory | 108 | 15 | 87.80%
Up to Mischief | 40 | 10 | 80.00%
Deadwalkers | 103 | 27 | 79.23%
Mind Maze | 55 | 20 | 73.33%
Dodge & Burn | 82 | 30 | 73.21%
Sword of the Samurai | 52 | 24 | 68.42%
Sylvan Might | 52 | 25 | 67.53%
Chant of Mul Daya | 80 | 40 | 66.67%
Sliver Hive | 88 | 46 | 65.67%
Hall of Champions | 49 | 27 | 64.47%
Hunter's Strength | 51 | 30 | 62.96%
Guardians of Light | 71 | 42 | 62.83%
Firewave | 54 | 35 | 60.67%
Bounce and Boon | 22 | 15 | 59.46%
Lords of Darkness | 38 | 27 | 58.46%
Unfinished Business | 18 | 13 | 58.06%
Masks of the Dimir | 55 | 41 | 57.29%
Enchanter's Arsenal | 7 | 6 | 53.85%
Enter the Dracomancer | 31 | 49 | 38.75%

OPPONENTS
Deck|Win|Loss|Percentage
Dodge & Burn | 24 | 30 | 44.44%
Up to Mischief | 7 | 9 | 43.75%
Hall of Champions | 19 | 25 | 43.18%
Avacyn's Glory | 69 | 96 | 41.82%
Deadwalkers | 63 | 97 | 39.38%
Firewave | 35 | 54 | 39.33%
Sylvan Might | 20 | 35 | 36.36%
Mind Maze | 38 | 68 | 35.85%
Lords of Darkness | 27 | 49 | 35.53%
Guardians of Light | 31 | 61 | 33.70%
Chant of Mul Daya | 55 | 114 | 32.54%
Enchanter's Arsenal | 14 | 30 | 31.82%
Sliver Hive | 31 | 67 | 31.63%
Enter the Dracomancer | 22 | 55 | 28.57%
Sword of the Samurai | 13 | 34 | 27.66%
Bounce and Boon | 9 | 30 | 23.08%
Unfinished Business | 11 | 38 | 22.45%
Hunter's Strength | 19 | 87 | 17.92%
Masks of the Dimir | 15 | 77 | 16.30%

COMBINED
Deck|Win|Loss|Percentage
Up to Mischief | 47 | 19 | 71.21%
Dodge & Burn | 106 | 60 | 66.25%
Avacyn's Glory | 177 | 111 | 61.45%
Deadwalkers | 166 | 124 | 57.24%
Hall of Champions | 68 | 52 | 56.67%
Sylvan Might | 72 | 60 | 54.54%
Sword of the Samurai | 65 | 58 | 52.84%
Mind Maze | 93 | 88 | 51.38%
Sliver Hive | 119 | 113 | 51.29%
Firewave | 89 | 89 | 50.00%
Guardians of Light | 102 | 103 | 49.75%
Chant of Mul Daya | 135 | 154 | 46.71%
Lords of Darkness | 65 | 76 | 46.09%
Bounce and Boon | 31 | 45 | 40.78%
Hunter's Strength | 70 | 117 | 37.43%
Masks of the Dimir | 70 | 118 | 37.23%
Enchanter's Arsenal | 21 | 36 | 36.84%
Unfinished Business | 29 | 51 | 36.25%
Enter the Dracomancer | 53 | 104 | 33.75%

All for 1v1, of course.

hmm, what would be really useful with these records would be the win:loss for each match-up. For each deck, the ratio for each match-up could be calculated as a percentage, then the average calculated over all match-ups to give the decks corrected ratio. This would be a nice way to account for bias due to differing ratios of good/poor match-ups, effectively removes any influence of the meta. Is that easy, or possible at all, to calculate with the record keeping spreadsheet?


EDIT: @Draconarius: That's a really unusual spread. Completely different to what most people would expect (with a few exceptions; e.g. Deadwalkers, Avacyn's Gloryhole, & Mind Maze). I can only assume you must have some unusual builds also.

Do you keep your opponents results too?

I would shy away from using the opponents data. With only using our data we are atleast giving a semi-accurate depiction of how a semi-skilled person would pilot a decently tuned deck. I understand you want to add the opponents data to provide more data, thus making your sample size larger, giving the impression of more accurate data. But by doing that you're including data from untuned decks, decks of 70, 80 or more size, decks piloted by newbs, n00bs or noobs, decks with **** land ratios, decks with bad curves and games played by people who don't know how to mulligan. So yeah, I wouldn't include that information.

I would also shy away from including information from forum posters that continue to use 70 card decks with 22 lands in them.

^^ And that is the whole problem with using data to begin with. We aren't exactly all equal, we definitely each tend to neglect certain decks in favor of other decks, and we definitely definitely aren't playing against rocket scientists of magic. Have you seen the 10 games in a row challenge thread? The pool of things we can definitely say is a little small just because of what our meta is.

The spreadsheet does track that, but making the table up for the forum would be... time consuming. Unless there's a faster way of doing those tables that I don't know about.


Actually, most of my builds are fairly standard (or at least I like to think they are). UtM and EA probably don't have enough games to have really stabilised yet, so Slivers, Samurai and HS are the biggest surprises for me. I keep expecting to experience a massive losing streak that will knock those three down to where I expect they should be, but so far my luck has been holding.

@sixty: Yeah, that's a fair point, but we'll be using our opponent's data one way or the other; the 70+ card crew and newbies will be generating a fair few of our wins, after all.

I suspect that tier list for this will be like tier lists for fighting games like Virtua Fighter where the only accurate tier lists are the ones done by the best players. Spreadsheets are probably more useful for personal records but the opinions of the better players are likely more accurate

I would never consider mixing opponents data with user data, but considered alone it may actually give a better representation of deck placings in terms of overall power of decks, provided there was enough data for the signal to shine through all the variance in the data. It's always interesting to compare in any case.

This should be no problem, because presumably all their decks would be like that, which would just be reflected by a lower win-loss rate, but the relative performance of the decks should remain similar.



I've just designed a feature that produces these tables, using some of the features already provided by MvdL. Hopefully MvdL will do a re-release that includes my added feature.



I don't see how the opinions of the better players could be better than the combined data of the better players...

But there will never be a collection of the combined data of better players

@niv mizzet, the problem with how you want to rank the decks, or frankly ranking the decks in general, is that it is all based on response bias.

We simply do not have the resources or the sample size required to do a tier list that way.


However in the defense of your idea, the only other option is to argue based on our personal opinions of this deck. As demonstrated with bant and dimir, this is also flawed. The only decks we really agree on are which are at the absolute top (DW, AG, and Izzet) and which group are at the very bottom of the pile (dragons, slivers, hs1, and hs2).



Thus........... meh. Both sides have an okay idea. We just don't have the resoures to make a true tier list for this past agreeing on the basic things like AG > Slivers.

can you clarify? I don't see any potential for the influence of response bias...

Actually it may not be response bias, but that was the closest word I could think of.

We can't agree on what the best version of each deck is, so we are running different versions (sometimes very different). Add in the fact that there are a ton of 70+ card decks floating around. The data suffers a little because of both of those. You are adding together a bunch of stats based on decks that aren't consistently built.

Also, the stats are technically also suffering from both the tracking and submission of said tracking to this thread both being voluntary.

Big happy birthday to Tubaralho! I miss these tier list threads we used to obsessively do with each Planeswalkers game that would come out. Check out Mobius instant reply to this request for tier lists. Too funny

64+1/2 post 7 or sthg basically still / thread though. It was a fun game; but the tier list was quite clear. Just putting that out for anyone picking up the old game for some reason. Avacyn's glory was close to a tier 2 modern deck in a semi-constructed environment. Deadwalkers was maybe slightly better on average (in my memory), but didn't have access to the absolutely broken draws the former deck could get. Either way his top 5 is non-negotiable.

Personally, I take note of Dodge and Burn as maybe the only time in the duels franchise that draw-go was true top tier (although I might personally argue that Duels also has a top dog R/U/X top tier deck, although most of the spells it gets to play are way less sweet and iconic).

btw Hi barnes. First time I open this forum in 3 months, glad to see you shill around

Hey Rabble, yeah still a few of us still going

Haven't yet delved back into the older games competitively. However, I know what I'm playing in the most recent iteration as a T1 deck: Taking Turns baby!!!

Btw Rabble I’m 5-0 with your Jeskai deck. Love it

Link plz?