Nemo's Tier List (In-depth)

204 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hello, fellow Magic the Gathering fan(atic)s! Smile

I just wanted to share with you my 1v1 Tier List.

But before we get into that, I realise I haven't been very active on this forum in the past, so allow me to introduce myself. I'm Nemo, and no that isn't my real name ;). I run a YouTube Channel (am I allowed to use external links?) where I post a lot of videos about Duels of the Planeswalkers.

-----
EDIT:
Alright, so after doing some more tweaking with my deckbuilds, keeping in mind much of the feedback I got from this thread and comments on my videos as well as coming up with some new ideas myself, I've been able to improve some of the decks quite a bit. This calls for an updated tier list, so that's what you're getting now. Instead of 4 tiers, I've changed it to 5 tiers in total. This is because with all the improvements, there ended up being too many decks in tier 1, so I had to split what was previous tier 1 up into two tiers, thus bumping everything else down a tier in the process.
-----

Check out the list with all the deckbuilds in it here.
The numbers behind each deck are my personal win/loss ratio with the current deckbuild:


TIER 5
- Rogues' Gallery (1.50)
- Act of War (1.56)
- Dream Puppets (1.58)
- Celestial Light (1.60)


TIER 4
- Sky and Scale (2.20)
- Pack Instinct (2.24)
- Berserker Rage (2.36)
- Mindstorms (2.50)


TIER 3
- Grinning Malice (3.16)
- Exalted Darkness (3.25)
- Crosswinds (3.53)
- Ancient Wilds (3.57)


TIER 2
- Born of Flame (4.13)
- Collective Might (4.22)
- Aura Servants (4.58)
- Mana Mastery (4.67)


TIER 1
- Obedient Dead (5.53)
- Sepulchral Strength (5.75)
- Peacekeepers (8.33)
- Grim Procession (10.50)
- Goblin Gangland (13.00)


Well, that's it pretty much.. Discuss!
Hi! I run a YouTube channel at YouTube.com/user/NemosChannel. I upload Duels of the Planeswalkers gameplay, deckbuilds, and even Tier List videos. It's the best place for strategy and silly humor. Drop by and see!
A tier list based on real data and not subjective opinion? I like the idea, for sure. I'm at work now, so I look forward to checking out the vids and making a more in-depth response later.
Collective Might is the biggest surprise, specially over Ss or born of flame. 
I've watched all of your videos - you channel is very entertaining.

Your ranking of CM was not surprising to me, your build is outstanding and I've used a very similar build for some time.

Your ranking of AS was very surprising to me, and I tried your recent build with outstanding results.  It is substantially better than any AS build I've come up with on my own.

I am surprised you have the results with ED that you have.  I will maybe give that deck another look, but my initial practice with your build was nowhere near as good as it was with AS.

I think your MS ranking is low because your MS build isn't that great.  I've checked out all of your builds and MS is probably the only one I have substantial disagreement with.  Creature-based MS is just too slow and way too vulnerable to disruption by around 50% of the decks.  I think you'd have better results if you rebuilt MS to be a control-oriented direct damage build.  

All in all it's a great set of videos and thanks for posting it!  All of your other duels videos on your channel are also great.

 
And to think there's still people out there claiming GG is not broken...
Yah, CM suprised me I also although I've found it really running good the few times I've used it recently.
Tell you what, I've discovered it can be a monster in 4ffa

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. - Mark Twain

Mastergear_Owen's take on Magic 2014 Campaign.

Show
You know what I've got more issues. Whats up with the story in this game? The adverts said I was going to team up with Chandra and we were going to kick butt and chew bubblegum across the planes on a revenge campaign against some... guy she knew I guess? Who's Ramaz anyway? What do I get instead? I beat Chandra like 2 minutes in with a mono-green stompy thing Garruk gave me (why does he keep giving all these new planeswalkers his deck) and then I spent like 5 hours jumping from plane to plane picking up random nicknacks for her mantlepiece while she sits back back doing her nails or something. I was thrown in jail! I got hit by a Roil Storm twice! Do you know how many rats are on Ravnica, Chandra? All of them! All of the rats! All of the rats eating me!

Then we go kick her Ex's bearded-screaming-butt and what does she do to help? Nothing! She throws of the occasional fire ball and spends her time trying not to freeze to death. You should have worn pants Chandra. While we're on the subject what happened to your shoes? You had like Steelies on. Steelies are cool. Now your running around with stupid boots with like 5-inch heels? Thats not appropriate footware for Planeswalking! That's not appropriate footware for normal walking! At least Liliana is doing it for the whole 'evil is sexy' thing and can summon undead to carry her when she breaks her ankle. What are you going to do ride a Phoenix? Its made of fire! You'll fall right through! Man I should have gone Planeswalking with Liliana - yeah she'd crack my head open with a rock 5 minutes in and raise my corpse to serve her but at least we could have gone dancing!

Now with more original content and open bar!

https://www.youtube.com/user/thedevilwuster

And to think there's still people out there claiming GG is not broken...



There are?!?!
While I respect the fact that you did use real statistics for this, (although I would like to know how you record these statistics, and with how much detail) I still think it's kind of a sham to get people to subscribe to your youtube channel, I mean this is your 6th post on these forums... But the thing that surprised me the most was BoF being tier 2.5? I'd say most people on these forums would put it up in tier 1 for 1v1, at least tier 2.

Honestly though, looking at your build for it I can see why, looks like you built it too late-game oriented and not enough early pressure. I typically win with the deck between turns 4-6, if it goes any longer than that is usually where I get my losses with the deck, but that's not to say it doesn't have a late-game either, won plenty past 6 as well. I would suggest taking out the 2 Obsidian Firehearts and replacing them with the Pyre Chargers, Firehearts are clearly more for late-game and the chargers are much more versatile, able to take out big creatures if needed and able to apply HUGE early pressure, even late-game they can be finishers if you can make an opening, which isn't hard in a deck like this, the haste is what makes this card shine. I would also suggest taking out the last Magma Phoenix or one of the Titans and replacing it with 1 Hostility, Hostility is a much better finisher than the Titans in a deck like this (most of the time,) it has haste on turn 6, (sometimes turn 5) and if left unanswered for at least one turn it will almost always win you the game, considering you have at least one burn in your hand (that isn't Flames of the Blood Hand.)

I run 1 Hostility and 1 Titan, Titan is obviously better in certain circumstances, so I like to keep a balance just in case, but I don't hesitate to say Hostility has won me far more games than the Titan. Also, running 3 Flames of the Blood Hand has treated me very well, I feel like it's a must include for this deck, it's pretty cost efficient and is another (face) burn that's able to bring back my Phoenixes, or pump up my Spitfire, or just get that extra 4 damage needed for the win, 4 damage is a lot with a deck like this, quite a bit better than 3 believe it or not. The added effect of being able to stop lifegain has saved me quite a few times as well, although that's very situational. In my experience this deck performs just as well if not better than GG, I lose probably one out of every 10 matches with it, if that. Not to mention I regularly beat GG with this deck, the only deck it really has a losing match-up against IMO is Pack Instinct, but you hardly ever see that deck so it's not much of a big deal. 
And to think there's still people out there claiming GG is not broken...



There are?!?!

Yeah, this guy.
And to think there's still people out there claiming GG is not broken...

It's not.  It's a very good deck.  It is the best deck in this version.

That doesn't make it broken.  

It's not that much better than the other top 5 decks compared to how good RoI/Beknighted were compared to the other top 5 decks in 2012.

 
Make that three posts in a row from people who don't.


edit:  Brodo, that's your best avatar to date.

You're a lose cannon.

 

 

"I played 70 card decks before it was cool to play 70 card decks." -Random M:tG hipster

And to think there's still people out there claiming GG is not broken...


I should mention I really hate playing Goblin Gangland. Usually what I find is when I only play a deck for around 25-30 games, the results can be a bit overly optimistic. This is because the higher you get in win/loss ratio, the harder it is keep on getting better results. The 13.00 for Goblin Gangland translates to 26 wins and 2 losses.
So, if I played around 10 more games with Goblins, given equal winnings, the win/loss ratio could very well drop to around ~10 or so. More games would drop it further. But I just can't bring myself to play the deck, I start to feel sorry for my opponents.. So it's probably not as broken as it seems here with the 13.00, but it's still very much ahead of the other decks for sure.
While I respect the fact that you did use real statistics for this, (although I would like to know how you record these statistics, and with how much detail)


Step 1) Build the deck as best as possible. (part of this process was keeping a tally on how many times each card is useful to me)
Step 2) keep a tally on my wins and losses once I consider the deckbuild to be done.
Step 3) when I make major changes to a deck, I start fresh on the win/loss ratio.

I still think it's kind of a sham to get people to subscribe to your youtube channel, I mean this is your 6th post on these forums...


I've lurked in this forum for quite a while actually. If you look at my post history, you'll see I posted as early as August 2012 to help confirm a bug with Odric. I don't post here often because there's usually nothing worth saying that I can't just say in a video, but I figured those of you who don't know me would want to know about this tier list. And people are going to want to see my deckbuilds. Without that, there's no common ground to discuss my win/loss ratios because you won't know what it's based on, and you can't expect me to type out all of my deckbuilds in one thread...

And of course I want people to subscribe to my channel, but only if they're genuinely interested. There's no point in having subscribers who don't care to watch my videos after all.

But the thing that surprised me the most was BoF being tier 2.5? I'd say most people on these forums would put it up in tier 1 for 1v1, at least tier 2.

(I cut most of the quote to avoid placing a huge post here, but it's post #7 for those wanting to find the rest of it)


Well, first off, I agree that BoF may be a bit low. I love the deck myself, and it can really win just about any match up except for Pack Instinct. With the amount of people playing Dream Puppets nowadays, it's also a very good deck to play in the metagame. Although burn decks always are. And there's always a chance I simply get unlucky a few times with a deck, so I can't exclude BoF being tier 2.

Having said that, I feel a lot of other tier 2 (and 1) decks are generally underrated, so that makes it a difficult comparison. Also, your changes aren't really that different from my build so I can't imagine it having much of an impact on the end result.

I can see taking out Obsidian Firehearts, although I never had much success with Pyre Charger. I consider them both "deal with me now or lose" cards, with the difference being that it's way easier to deal with Pyre Charger and with the Fireheart you have the option of waiting until turn 7 in a control-heavy match up and lighting up their lands without them being able to do anything about it. But, there are times where I have other threats I'd rather play so for the mana curve, I can see Pyre Charger fitting better.
As for Hostility, I really don't see the point. I have almost never lost a game in which Inferno Titan resolved. On the other hand, I've had so many games where the opponent had plenty of removal (because most of my other creatures aren't worth killing) and all I needed was 3 damage. I guess if you have the Pyre Chargers they can draw out some of that removal. But really, both Inferno Titan and Hostility are outstanding 6-drops. I would have had no problem running Hostility if there was no Inferno Titan to use, and I can't imagine the deck being any worse for it.
Lastly, I ran 3 Flames of the Blood Hand for a while, but then you get into situations where you're forced to play control due to a non-optimal starting hand and the game becomes a slow grind where you keep killing every creature they play. Drawing Flames of the Blood in multiples at that point can really screw you over. Conversely, I've hardly ever needed just 1 more damage.

I would give your suggestions a try, but honestly I'm a little burned out (pun intended) on testing deckbuilds right now. Anyway, thanks for the informed response.
Hi! I run a YouTube channel at YouTube.com/user/NemosChannel. I upload Duels of the Planeswalkers gameplay, deckbuilds, and even Tier List videos. It's the best place for strategy and silly humor. Drop by and see!
Sorry, but your tier list is completely flawed if it's intended as a general analysis. For a start, it's only ever going to be applicable to your deck builds, but even then I doubt you have the sample sizes required to account for all the other independent variables that will influence outcomes (e.g. opponent skill, opponent deck, opponent build, etc.). As for your builds, just looking at some of them it's glaringly obvious you run some (very) sub-optimal builds (e.g. SS, Bof, and MM).

Sorry to say, but you just wasted your time...but not if you can get a few more youtube views or subscribers, I suppose.
He didn't waste his time any more than you did when you read this forum or responded to this thread or more than any of us when we play DOTP - all of this is for fun.  If his goal was: 'this is the final authoritative list that shall rule us all until 2014: bow to the list, and obey it' then what he did was a waste.  But that wasn't his goal.

I like the list.  There's been more thought and reasoning put into this list than any previous tier list I've seen anyone post.  And there's data - which isn't authoritative because it's impossible to get a large enough sample size but it is probably still better than what anyone else has done.  I disagree with parts of it (MS and BoF's position would be higher with better builds) but in general Nemo's builds are pretty solid.   
I like it as well, because it's quite evident that a lot of hard work went into it. It's by far the most fleshed out tier-analysis that I've ever seen. Well done, Nemo.
I like it as well, because it's quite evident that a lot of hard work went into it. It's by far the most fleshed out tier-analysis that I've ever seen. Well done, Nemo.



Agreed.  Everybody's a critic.
because it's quite evident that a lot of hard work went into it.



that's exactly my point. Amount of effort =/= applicability of the list. In this case the amount of effort has been seemingly  large, while the applicability is arguably no more than that of other lists that have been proposed. The reliance solely on flawed data has probably made this list even less reliable than other lists.

Incomplete data is better than no data, particularly when providing complete data is impossible.  To say it is less reliable than other lists when other lists are based on ... ? ... is ridiculous.  It's Nemo's best guess, based on his experience, which he documented.  Everyone's list is based on experience, but the difference is that while most people will rely on their (imperfect) memory to recall how they think some decks have performed, Nemo kept track of the results.  That's more meaningful to me than someone who says they've won 90% of their games with Mindstorms.
Better than Liang's eginimatism.

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. - Mark Twain

Mastergear_Owen's take on Magic 2014 Campaign.

Show
You know what I've got more issues. Whats up with the story in this game? The adverts said I was going to team up with Chandra and we were going to kick butt and chew bubblegum across the planes on a revenge campaign against some... guy she knew I guess? Who's Ramaz anyway? What do I get instead? I beat Chandra like 2 minutes in with a mono-green stompy thing Garruk gave me (why does he keep giving all these new planeswalkers his deck) and then I spent like 5 hours jumping from plane to plane picking up random nicknacks for her mantlepiece while she sits back back doing her nails or something. I was thrown in jail! I got hit by a Roil Storm twice! Do you know how many rats are on Ravnica, Chandra? All of them! All of the rats! All of the rats eating me!

Then we go kick her Ex's bearded-screaming-butt and what does she do to help? Nothing! She throws of the occasional fire ball and spends her time trying not to freeze to death. You should have worn pants Chandra. While we're on the subject what happened to your shoes? You had like Steelies on. Steelies are cool. Now your running around with stupid boots with like 5-inch heels? Thats not appropriate footware for Planeswalking! That's not appropriate footware for normal walking! At least Liliana is doing it for the whole 'evil is sexy' thing and can summon undead to carry her when she breaks her ankle. What are you going to do ride a Phoenix? Its made of fire! You'll fall right through! Man I should have gone Planeswalking with Liliana - yeah she'd crack my head open with a rock 5 minutes in and raise my corpse to serve her but at least we could have gone dancing!

Now with more original content and open bar!

https://www.youtube.com/user/thedevilwuster

Incomplete data is better than no data, particularly when providing complete data is impossible.  To say it is less reliable than other lists when other lists are based on ... ? ... is ridiculous.  It's Nemo's best guess, based on his experience, which he documented.  Everyone's list is based on experience, but the difference is that while most people will rely on their (imperfect) memory to recall how they think some decks have performed, Nemo kept track of the results.  That's more meaningful to me than someone who says they've won 90% of their games with Mindstorms.



You're partially right, incomplete data can be better than no data, but no data is better than *flawed data*, and relying *solely* on flawed data (what has happened here) is even worse.

Let me re-iterate what I said -- perhaps you'll pay more attention this time. First, because of the nature of the data, the list is only applicable when conidering builds that match those used to retrieve the data. This already makes the list only relevant to a unique set of parameters -- if even one build is different, the list is no longer applicable, as each deck's position in the list is dependent on the others' -- therefore the list is completely useless for any general purpose. It doesn't help that most of the builds don't look like typical builds. This means that while the list *may* provide an accurate representation of the tiers for these specific builds, the chances of it representing the general tiers (i.e. a tier list that somebody else can apply) are exceedingly small. However, it's likely that the list doesn't even represent the tiers for the specific builds used, because of flaws in the data.

Onto the flaws in the data; in addition to the independent variable of interest "deck" (which is actually "deck and build" in this case), there are a number of other factors that will influence the outcome of a game (e.g. opponent skill, opponent deck, opponent build, luck of the draw). If these factors aren't accounted for, then they are likely to *skew* the data. Notice my emphasis of "skew", because contrary to what you are suggesting -- that "some data is better than none" -- if the data are of poor quality (i.e. they can't account for external factors), then they are less likely to represent reality, and are actually far more likely to be misrepresentative. Hence, an analysis based on flawed data is equally or less likely to represent reality than an analysis that is based on similar data (whether that's hard number or just personal experience) but attempts to account for these external factors (in most cases by intuition and careful reasoning -- which I'd argue has far more weight in a scenario such as this, where the alternative is relying solely on a data set that is severley lacking in integrity).

Don't get me wrong, the guy deserves credit for effort and ingenuity, but unfortunately the analysis he's produced is no more accurate than the other tiers that are out there (whether based on data or not). If it's more meaningful to you, then so be it, but that doesn't make it a better representation of reality.


EDIT: and it's not even Nemo's best guess, which is part of my point -- he's relied solely on his flawed data to produce this list.
I understood your argument the first time;  I just think it's poorly reasoned.

Poor quality data is less likely to represent reality than high quality data.  However, high quality data is not and never will be available; so even making that comparison is useless.  Poor quality data is the best we've got.  And Nemo's data is better than the poorly recalled anecdotal data offered in support of other tier lists.  Yes it reflects unique circumstances - builds, opponents, luck, etc.  But it also reflects a wide array of testing, involving many builds, and then retesting it with each build, against a wide variety of opponents (see his note on his method above).  He didn't use a scientific method, didn't control for variables and the sample size is too small.  But he's not exactly trying to publish a study here - it's a tier list, not a journal article, and he's used a better method than anyone else.  

The assumption that because the data is incomplete, it is necessarily flawed is dubious at best.  It seems like you're at least under a burden to present data that contradicts his results first, using his method.

The claim that it is less likely to be accurate than "intuition and careful reasoning" is utterly absurd.   First, intuition and reasoning clearly went into the process of making his deck builds.  Your claim he is *solely* relying on data is false unless he tested *every* possible combination of builds, which is unlikely - he used intuition to exclude some choices - so it does represent his best guess, based on his opinion of the best builds, testing those builds, recording results, retesting diifferent builds, and using data to arrive at a conclusion.  

Second, you're criticizing a conclusion for not following the scientific method, and your preferred, more accurate alternative is...intuition.  Really?  "Intuition and careful reasoning" relies on the same data to reach conclusions - you decide whether a deck is good or not based on your experience in playing it, or on your experience in playing other similar decks ... ie, data, just data that is imperfectly remembered.  The main difference is that Nemo recorded his results, and his results should be more accurate than intuition alone.  Which is not to say his results are necessarily accurate.   A good argument could be made that neither data and intuition aren't very useful in this case - the flaws are too great for either to create reliable tier lists.  But the claim that intuition is *more* reliable and therefore you should ignore incomplete data isn't defensible.
 
@niv__mizzet1 .. I think you are the one who misunderstands the general discussion and purpose of the thread here. Nemo is reporting his findings, which are grounds for his own interpretations of what tiers the decks are in, and how they work for him. You seem to be looking for an objective scale of measuring which decks are in lack of better words, best, and how they are tiered. 

Surely, if Nemo was reporting his findings as if these were the standard, then we could all be a little iffy about him making such arrogant claims. However, Nemo is good about sharing every detail of his builds in his videos, so you can get a sense of how they correlate with his overall W/L experience. But this isn't science, because there are too many variables. Nemo's plays or focus differ from time to time, albeit in ways adhering to his general temperament and strategic outlook, when playing the game. He is not the perfect player, because one such player does not exist. The ideal of a perfect player is aligned with the line of thought, which would have there be one and only one correct play for every situation. Such claim is one I don't support at all. Furthermore, there is several instances of luck involved in this game, and that further pushes us away from there being a set ideal for measuring a players worth, and towards some of the main qualities being adaptability and foresight. We haven't even gotten into how every opponent is different yet.

So, as dh50 said, it's impossible to gather a complete corpus of data, simply because there are far too many variables involved. If you want think about it academically, what Nemo is doing is guided by the ideals of etnographic methodology, rather than normative science. He gathers data "in the wild", and reports on them. Sure, they purvey a general impression of which decks are better than others, but only from the experiences he records, which are his own.

I understood your argument the first time;  I just think it's poorly reasoned.



I can tell you haven't understood my argument based on the comments that appear in your post.

Poor quality data is less likely to represent reality than high quality data.  However, high quality data is not and never will be available; so even making that comparison is useless.  



You're making that comparison, not me.

Poor quality data is the best we've got.  And Nemo's data is better than the poorly recalled anecdotal data offered in support of other tier lists.  Yes it reflects unique circumstances - builds, opponents, luck, etc.  But it also reflects a wide array of testing, involving many builds, and then retesting it with each build, against a wide variety of opponents (see his note on his method above).  



Even that method is flawed, but I won't get into that. Like I've said, and I'll repeat -- poor quality data is equivalent to no data.


He didn't use a scientific method, didn't control for variables and the sample size is too small.  But he's not exactly trying to publish a study here - it's a tier list, not a journal article, and he's used a better method than anyone else.  



I laugh every time I see this as a defence for presenting poor data. You obviously don't understand the point of all those controls, etc. Like I've said, and I'll repeat: you may as well have no data if you have poor quality data. What's the point in these data if he's not trying to quantify something?? If he is trying to quantify something, then there is no allowance for poor quality!


The assumption that because the data is incomplete, it is necessarily flawed is dubious at best.  


That is not my line of argument. I know enough to know that his data are flawed. This is not an assumption.


 


It seems like you're at least under a burden to present data that contradicts his results first, using his method.



You have this backwards – he has made the positive claim (the list). The onus is on him to produce evidence that the methods/data he used are adequate.


The claim that it is less likely to be accurate than "intuition and careful reasoning" is utterly absurd.  


Yes, that would be absurd. Who claimed that?


 


If you actually bothered to read what I wrote (which it's clear you haven't), I never claimed that "it is less likely to be accurate than intuition and careful reasoning". Have another look, I said “an analysis based on flawed data is equally or less likely to represent reality than an analysis that is based on similar data (whether that's hard number or just personal experience) but attempts to account for these external factors”. Notice equally or less likely -- equal with other analyses based on similar data, potentially less likely with analyses that incorporate intuition into the analysis.


 


First, intuition and reasoning clearly went into the process of making his deck builds.


Bolded the relevant part here – maybe you’ll catch on before reading the following…


I was referring to the construction of the tier list, as that is what is under scrutiny here. How he came to his deck builds is irrelevant. Again, just for you, all other things equivalent, a list that has considered external factors is more likely to represent reality than one that hasn’t! If he’d used his intuition and reasoning to accompany his data in the construction of his list, then that would be a different story.




Second, you're criticizing a conclusion for not following the scientific method, and your preferred, more accurate alternative is...intuition.  Really?  "Intuition and careful reasoning" relies on the same data to reach conclusions - you decide whether a deck is good or not based on your experience in playing it, or on your experience in playing other similar decks ... ie, data, just data that is imperfectly remembered.  


My criticism is that the approach taken is mimicking the scientific method, yet falls massively short, so far in fact that it’s equivalent to intuition and careful reasoning – which you actually acknowledge here.


  


The main difference is that Nemo recorded his results, and his results should be more accurate than intuition alone.

 

False. Sorry, not going to explain it again. If you don’t understand why, then that’s on you – I just spent a whole post explaining it.


 


Which is not to say his results are necessarily accurate.   A good argument could be made that neither data and intuition aren't very useful in this case - the flaws are too great for either to create reliable tier lists.  But the claim that intuition is *more* reliable and therefore you should ignore incomplete data isn't defensible.
 


Congratulations, you’ve shown that you actually have the capacity to understand the essence of my argument (bold), yet you somehow haven’t realised that it is my argument. Instead, you continue to argue against a claim that I haven’t even made.

Well now, apparently I'm arguing against a claim you haven't made.  You say above that Nemo's data is flawed, and using it is the "equivalent" of intuition and careful reasoning.

My post was directed at  the argument that inuition and careful reasoning are better, not that they were equivalent.  Which I guess you haven't said.  

Forgive me for responding to a claim you didn't make.  In one of your initial posts, where you wrote "The reliance solely on flawed data has probably made this list even less reliable than other lists", I interpreted that to mean "The reliance solely on flawed data has probably made this list even less reliable than other lists".  If that was not your intent, I apologize.

Likewise, when in your response where you accused me of not paying attention, you said "
intuition and careful reasoning -- which I'd argue has far more weight in a scenario such as this, where the alternative is relying solely on a data set that is severley lacking in integrity".  I interpreteted that to mean "intuition and careful reasoning -- which I'd argue has far more weight in a scenario such as this, where the alternative is relying solely on a data set that is severley lacking in integrity".  Again, I apologize for misreading your post.

Great job on accusing Nemo on wasting his time, by the way. 
CM and the Aura deck are nowhere near top tier.
Goblins is still S Tier.
The only 3 decks which deserves the tier 1 spot right now are
SS, OD and MM.
Very close to tier 1 comes GP, the deck is hugely underrated and I never expected to be that strong, but I have been playing with this deck the last 2 weeks and my win rate is 250 / 257 with this deck vs
200+ different players.  The 7 games I lost with this deck were only because I went mana screw and got mana flooded.
It's sth I haven't expected this deck being so strong.
This deck is even with most of the top decks or it has even the favor.
What makes this deck so strong is that it has control, graveyard rez, lifegain, discard, card draw, creatures with 2 life, life loss etc. It has the best removal instant (4x) and the best discard spell (2x), plus some of the best creatures in DOTP2013 except Troll or Witness.
CM and the Aura deck just have way too many bad match ups to even consider these tier 1.
When you are on PSN hit me up.
Let's see how well you do with your decks vs my deck buids.

Well now, apparently I'm arguing against a claim you haven't made.


Well, that is what you’re doing.


 


You say above that Nemo's data is flawed, and using it is the "equivalent" of intuition and careful reasoning.


Correct, and I was led to believe that you could appreciate that argument when you said “A good argument could be made that neither data and intuition aren't very useful in this case - the flaws are too great for either to create reliable tier lists", but perhaps I was misled.

My post was directed at  the argument that inuition and careful reasoning are better, not that they were equivalent.  Which I guess you haven't said.


Again, correct.




Forgive me for responding to a claim you didn't make.

 

You’re forgiven. oh, wait a second…


In one of your initial posts, where you wrote "The reliance solely on flawed data has probably made this list even less reliable than other lists", I interpreted that to mean "The reliance solely on flawed data has probably made this list even less reliable than other lists".  If that was not your intent, I apologize.

Likewise, when in your response where you accused me of not paying attention, you said "intuition and careful reasoning -- which I'd argue has far more weight in a scenario such as this, where the alternative is relying solely on a data set that is severley lacking in integrity".  I interpreteted that to mean "intuition and careful reasoning -- which I'd argue has far more weight in a scenario such as this, where the alternative is relying solely on a data set that is severley lacking in integrity".  Again, I apologize for misreading your post.


 


I’m sorry, but you’ve lost me on this part...


I can only assume that you’re suggesting that the sections you have quoted are arguing “that inuition and careful reasoning alone are better, not ...snip... equivalent to flawed data when it comes to informing an analysis” (italicised words added by me to give context and make some semblance of sense). How does copying my words do anything other than highlight your lack of understanding in what they mean, when you persist in arguing that I’ve made a claim I haven’t while the proof against your argument is right there in the words you’re copying – talk about irony.


I may as well address the sections you quoted (assuming you’re taking the point of view that I assume: see above), not that I expect you’ll bother taking the time to read and comprehend what is being said.


Addressing the first section: Where in this section have I stated that these "other lists" that I refer to are anything but based on data!!?? It is your (false) assumption that I’m referring to lists that have been pulled out of thin air. You may have had a point if I’d said *ALL* other lists, but no, I didn’t. The lists that I’m referring to have all been based on data (like Nemo’s), but also incorporate intuition/reasoning into the analysis (unlike Nemo’s).

Addressing the second quoted section: what I’m saying here, and have said many times now, is that intuition/reason based on personal experience becomes more important in a situation where the data available is inadequate, and incorporating intuition/reason based on personal experience into an analysis that includes inadequate data is more likely to produce results that more accurately represent reality. This is fact. Perhaps it may be worth your while to do some research on Bayesian inference.



So I’m sorry, but I’m failing to see where I’ve claimed/argued what you’re accusing me of. On the contrary, you've provided ample evidence to confirm that you have completely misunderstood what I have said.


 


Now, I would appreciate a sincere admittance, and I will forgive you -- if you’re sincere.

Better than Liang's eginimatism.



Says the player who lost 40-1 vs me in ranked. How did you won the only game vs me again? Oh ye I was mana screwed and what did I told ya after the matches? Build proper decks and then holla at me again when you actually understand how to play this game.

First of all, posting in a legendary thread.

Second of all, could we re-name the post to 'List of things that are 90 percent of mah duelz' Wizards_Sean? Pretty please?

Thirdly, data for this is highly subjective and will seriously depend on player skill, builds used for decks, quality of opponents etc.

You can already see how unreliable it is from Born of Flame and Celestial Light being so low...I mean CL below Mindstorms and Berserker Rage? Really? Someone must be running some kind of life gain control build or something because the aggro version of the deck is a beast with no really bad matchups. Not quite high tier, but no way bottom. Born of Flame I can understand being a discrepency more as it is a very skill/decision based deck, but again has no bad matchups (apart from one, but that is fairly even).

At the end of the day any tier list will be troll bait and start arguements, and one can only post from their own experiences.
I am Blue/Black
I am Blue/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both selfish and rational. I'm scheming, secretive and manipulative; I use knowledge as a tool for personal gain, and in turn obtaining more knowledge. At best, I am mysterious and stealthy; at worst, I am distrustful and opportunistic.
My problem is that people are misconstruing the whole point. If we could all read the post's title, we would realize that this is not THE TIER LIST... It is NEMO'S TIER LIST. Once we have accepted that, we can move on. I am actually considering playing 25 ranked games with each deck to come up with my own tier list just to see what my best decks are and which ones need improvement. I think it would be a fun exercise.
Liang,
Just pulling your chain dude. I actually happy to see you expound on your tiering.
I absolutely agree with you about GP. I've been it's number one promoter from day one. I might even consider it in tier 1 as it's versatility using the same cut across all formats stands right next to OD and SS

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. - Mark Twain

Mastergear_Owen's take on Magic 2014 Campaign.

Show
You know what I've got more issues. Whats up with the story in this game? The adverts said I was going to team up with Chandra and we were going to kick butt and chew bubblegum across the planes on a revenge campaign against some... guy she knew I guess? Who's Ramaz anyway? What do I get instead? I beat Chandra like 2 minutes in with a mono-green stompy thing Garruk gave me (why does he keep giving all these new planeswalkers his deck) and then I spent like 5 hours jumping from plane to plane picking up random nicknacks for her mantlepiece while she sits back back doing her nails or something. I was thrown in jail! I got hit by a Roil Storm twice! Do you know how many rats are on Ravnica, Chandra? All of them! All of the rats! All of the rats eating me!

Then we go kick her Ex's bearded-screaming-butt and what does she do to help? Nothing! She throws of the occasional fire ball and spends her time trying not to freeze to death. You should have worn pants Chandra. While we're on the subject what happened to your shoes? You had like Steelies on. Steelies are cool. Now your running around with stupid boots with like 5-inch heels? Thats not appropriate footware for Planeswalking! That's not appropriate footware for normal walking! At least Liliana is doing it for the whole 'evil is sexy' thing and can summon undead to carry her when she breaks her ankle. What are you going to do ride a Phoenix? Its made of fire! You'll fall right through! Man I should have gone Planeswalking with Liliana - yeah she'd crack my head open with a rock 5 minutes in and raise my corpse to serve her but at least we could have gone dancing!

Now with more original content and open bar!

https://www.youtube.com/user/thedevilwuster

Oh, and we never played 41 games and I dispute your claim that I don't know how to play the game. If you want to go by the broken leaderboard and consider that I have a life outside of the game that doesn't allow me to play hundreds of games (obviously you don't), I'm ranked higher than 6 people on this forum who are on my friens list and I believe that they would dispute being bad at the game.
Since we've only played a few times you really don't have the data to back up your statement.
Who knows? The day we played I could have been drinking a little, or maybe I was constipated, or maybe I was being molested by a priest.
Who can remember such details?

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. - Mark Twain

Mastergear_Owen's take on Magic 2014 Campaign.

Show
You know what I've got more issues. Whats up with the story in this game? The adverts said I was going to team up with Chandra and we were going to kick butt and chew bubblegum across the planes on a revenge campaign against some... guy she knew I guess? Who's Ramaz anyway? What do I get instead? I beat Chandra like 2 minutes in with a mono-green stompy thing Garruk gave me (why does he keep giving all these new planeswalkers his deck) and then I spent like 5 hours jumping from plane to plane picking up random nicknacks for her mantlepiece while she sits back back doing her nails or something. I was thrown in jail! I got hit by a Roil Storm twice! Do you know how many rats are on Ravnica, Chandra? All of them! All of the rats! All of the rats eating me!

Then we go kick her Ex's bearded-screaming-butt and what does she do to help? Nothing! She throws of the occasional fire ball and spends her time trying not to freeze to death. You should have worn pants Chandra. While we're on the subject what happened to your shoes? You had like Steelies on. Steelies are cool. Now your running around with stupid boots with like 5-inch heels? Thats not appropriate footware for Planeswalking! That's not appropriate footware for normal walking! At least Liliana is doing it for the whole 'evil is sexy' thing and can summon undead to carry her when she breaks her ankle. What are you going to do ride a Phoenix? Its made of fire! You'll fall right through! Man I should have gone Planeswalking with Liliana - yeah she'd crack my head open with a rock 5 minutes in and raise my corpse to serve her but at least we could have gone dancing!

Now with more original content and open bar!

https://www.youtube.com/user/thedevilwuster

If you're not saying that intuition outweighs data, then we don't disagree (about this at least).  

The quotes were what led me to believe you had said that, which is why I responded to it.  You seem to believe that your original statements were clear.  I disagree.  You had to clarify that you weren't talking about all other tier lists, instead you're referring to some mysterious data driven tier lists that exist somewhere but are also informed by intuition.  I don't think this is exactly common knowledge; Nemo's is the only data-driven list I've seen - every other list is along the lines of 'I win 90% of my games I think so, yeah, Mindstorms 1st'.  But sure - your argument becomes more plausible if you're comparing Nemo's list to an alternative list.  You didn't provide one, though, so it wasn't persuasive.  

I haven't criticized intuition as a supplement to data so we don't disagree about this.  However, I do think you're incorrect that Nemo's list doesn't also incorporate intuition and reason.  Your response that 'intuition in deck builds doesn't matter, this is a tier list' (paraphrased) isn't persuasive since the data for the tier list are generated by deck builds, and refined through subsequent intuitive judgments about better builds, then confirmed again by more testing.  The data he generated excludes results based upon what he reasoned would be bad deck builds, based on his experience from playing the game well.  

My post before was certainly not a sincere apology.  It was a sarcastic response to a condescending post and I mostly ignored the substance of your responses.  But now, I do sincerely apologize for the tone and sarcasm I used before.  It certainly does not facilitate productive communication, and I should have approached this differently.








Don't get me wrong, the guy deserves credit for effort and ingenuity, but unfortunately the analysis he's produced is no more accurate than the other tiers that are out there (whether based on data or not). If it's more meaningful to you, then so be it, but that doesn't make it a better representation of reality.


The problem you run into there is that nobody is perfect, and nobody can correctly account for every variable. Hence, gathering data "in the wild" so to speak IS the best approach, however it would have to be a loooot of data to be able to claim anything. With my decks, I've played at least 25 games with each, but that's not nearly enough to provide an end-all-be-all tier list (which I never claimed this to be). Like I said, for Goblin Gangland for instance I would have needed to play many more games to get to a reasonable w/l ratio, but I really can't be bothered because playing that deck just makes me feel depressed (not even kidding).

EDIT: and it's not even Nemo's best guess, which is part of my point -- he's relied solely on his flawed data to produce this list.


Actually, in cases where the data was too far off from what I would expect, I either looked at my build and tried to correct any flaws with it, or I played some more games and saw if the w/l changed in the right direction. This was mainly the case with Sepulchral Strength, Grim Procession, Crosswinds, Grinning Malice, Mindstorms and Celestial Light. In the case of Sepulchral Strength I was at first running a build that correlates much more to what most people are using, and for some reason I was doing rather poorly in comparison to what I expected from the deck. Thus, I changed the deck to be a bit faster and got a better result. For Celestial Light, I also changed my deckbuild, this time from aggro to control, and also got a better result (though still tier 4, at first it was the worst deck in my list - and I know it shouldn't be). For the others, I simply played more games and the results improved.

 A few decks I have not played more games with to see if they would improve (and probably should have, given most of the critique) include Born of Flame and Sky and Scale. My builds for both of these decks are lategame oriented, whereas most people's builds aren't (or at least not exclusively) and they're reporting better results. That means that the most likely conclusion is that both my w/l ratios, my builds, and my personal intuition were flawed in these cases. Thus, feel free to expect better results from perfect builds for these decks.
CM and the Aura deck just have way too many bad match ups to even consider these tier 1.
When you are on PSN hit me up.
Let's see how well you do with your decks vs my deck buids.


You may not be using the right builds for CM and AS. And I'm not saying that because I personally don't trust your skill, but because I see a lot of bad deckbuilds for these two decks which explains why they're underrated.
I don't play on PSN, unfortunately.
Addressing the first section: Where in this section have I stated that these "other lists" that I refer to are anything but based on data!!?? It is your (false) assumption that I’m referring to lists that have been pulled out of thin air. You may have had a point if I’d said *ALL* other lists, but no, I didn’t. The lists that I’m referring to have all been based on data (like Nemo’s), but also incorporate intuition/reasoning into the analysis (unlike Nemo’s).


Well, now you've made me interested. Can you provide a link to this/these other tier list(s) so we can all profit from their information?
My problem is that people are misconstruing the whole point. If we could all read the post's title, we would realize that this is not THE TIER LIST... It is NEMO'S TIER LIST. Once we have accepted that, we can move on.


This.
I like reading tier lists. But AS and CM lol. Nah. Not even close in FFA for me


This tier list is solely 1v1. I don't have a clue about FFA or 2HG
Hi! I run a YouTube channel at YouTube.com/user/NemosChannel. I upload Duels of the Planeswalkers gameplay, deckbuilds, and even Tier List videos. It's the best place for strategy and silly humor. Drop by and see!
I have seen your build and it's way too slow.
Overrun for 3 green is a no no go for this deck. The equipment is way too slow, I mean come on
3 land for playing it and another 3 land for equip. That crap will cost you whole 2 turns and then I throw my removal on your creature and say thanks for the 2 extra turns.
I mean this has been discussed so many times here on the forums and its quite fact that the token version of this deck is much stronger and since you left out the sprout, jadamage and selesnya evangel why would you even consider playing the scion or the overrun or even the leonin armorguards?
Besides everytime I see someone playing the juniper I am just -.- why would you play this card? It's not good like hm.
The beastmaster is the best card in this deck and it only works good with the token version, the none token version is so bad and loses to almost everything or anyone who has proper builds.

Vs what kind of decks do you win with this build, plz upload some matches vs good players with solid builds and then come back to back up what you said that CL is tier 1.
There is no way it's tier 1. but ye its ur tier list and you opinion
Wow, color me impressed with your tier one builds for CM and AS. You not only played against some 64 card slinging ringers, but you also had matchups against decks with very little in the way of interacting with your board.

Bravo! 

(should i even bother watching any more of these videos?)
 
LOL, this thread makes me laugh.  Hakeem has it right.  All you guys are getting worked up over nothing.  This is simply one guys list of how successful his decks lists have been for him.  Discuss the deck list, discuss his playstyle, but why are you guys worried about his "data."  He said himself, some decks he's only played 28 times, some decks aren't built the way most of us normally build them, some data may be scewed by his opponents deck/skill.  Take it all in stride.

And then, if you're going to discuss his deck lists, simply saying "your deck isn't the best built that it could be, you need to focus more on earrly game and less on late game" doesn't really add anything to the discussion.  Cite specific cards that you would swap out, cite specific situations in his videos where you think he made a bad play and could have altered the outcome. 

The funniest posts are the ones "I don't believe that (X Deck) can achieve a win ration of (X)."  Okay buddy, how bout you look at his deck list, see how it differs from yours, and try his out before you start saying the deck is trash.  Once you've put his deck thru the ringers, then come here and let us know how you did with HIS BUILD then we have a starting point for the discussion as to whether he just got a lucky streak or if the deck really is that strong.


smdh

You're a lose cannon.

 

 

"I played 70 card decks before it was cool to play 70 card decks." -Random M:tG hipster

The funniest posts are the ones "I don't believe that (X Deck) can achieve a win ration of (X)."  Okay buddy, how bout you look at his deck list, see how it differs from yours, and try his out before you start saying the deck is trash.  Once you've put his deck thru the ringers, then come here and let us know how you did with HIS BUILD then we have a starting point for the discussion as to whether he just got a lucky streak or if the deck really is that strong.smdh

What I find funniest is the various claims of 'I am 345-10 with this build against all comers'. I can't see any matchup looking that scewed with similarly skilled players. I can tell you for a fact I'm a below average player and I have beaten plenty of very good players with lower tier decks simply because my draw was superior. I have also gone on 10 game winning streaks with a build, after which I feel real good and than prompty loose the next 20. Hilarious indeed.

If you post a tier list based on only one person's data, however scientific you've gone about it, you're going to be challenged, and rightly so.

On the flip side, people take things WAY too personally when they read something they don't agree with.

How about a trial by fire?  Seek out players you know are above average, then use them to create your sample data.  As a strictly 1v1 player myself, I can tell you that some of your placements seem pretty off compared to what most of the competitive community has experienced. 
But now, I do sincerely apologize for the tone and sarcasm I used before.  It certainly does not facilitate productive communication, and I should have approached this differently.



I appreciate your apology. I could be accused of doing the same, and I too apologise for that.
I agree that CM is much better than my initial thoughts. As it is ED and MS.
First off, Agreed with sixty's post (#38).
I'd quote it, but last time I quoted a post of his just to agree with it, my post got removed.

If you post a tier list based on only one person's data, however scientific you've gone about it, you're going to be challenged, and rightly so.


If I ever post a tier list I'll notify Wizards_Sean ahead of time to sticky it and lock it so it will be completely and forever unchallengeable.

As a great man once said: Just when they think they've got the answers, I change the questions.