Meta Tier List (TCG)

[ihop]

This is valid data (it's post CROS release, the other stuff wasn't) but my problem is that you can't compute how good a deck is simply by taking the number of tops it has and assigning a random value to doing well in different events. I think the data is skewed by German nats which I think is a class 3 event but had a top 64, which means any deck that performed well at that event will have a particularly high number of points gained when really coming 32-64 at German nats is like topping a event a class lower.

 

Also, data isn't everything. Shaddoll simply aren't comparable to Nekroz, regardless of event tops, and the most relevant tournament is always the biggest and the most recent. I'm not saying Shaddoll aren't a top deck because they clearly are but they have performed poorly at 2 of the 3 major events since CROS.

[Blake]

Huhn, based on Prelim testing OCG sided, the Cir Dante loops seems to be how OCG BA will play, key word being Dante, I would think BA would leave their ED monsters out quite often. Qli's by nature of pendulum make Fusion alive, don't even get me started on shaddolls. Maybe not quite to the extent of OCG, but I'd figure ED monster do get left out

Actually, do get started, as this is a TCG/OCG difference.

In the TCG, as I've said before, the mindset is "play to not lose". OCG is "play to win", which leads to silly things like RUM techs every blue moon.

 

The major facet here is that, in the TCG, Shaddolls play a certain way T1 and then continue to play that way in the mirror; Abuse the fuck out of the fact that you have a searchable tribute monster.

 

When a T1 Construct hits the board, it will either dump Core/Roots or Hedgehog most days, though optimally both will hit the grave (Squa aids this). You want to be able to tribute set over the top of your Construct in order to get ahead in the gamestate and not get punished by Shaddoll Fusion.

[ihop]

Damn, I'd actually missed that thing about Shaddoll Fusion. Burning Abyss are the only deck that really struggle to keep an extra deck monster off the board - you'd have to be pretty stupid to leave one out in Qli since you can just Tribute summon something most of the time, Dolls make an effort to Tribute set Beast up the point where they're so far ahead that it doesn't matter, as Black said, Nekroz obviously don't need to use the extra, and Tellars make Diamond. All Shaddoll Fusion really is is a way to make your opponent make slightly less good plays in some decks (Tellars would love to leave Triverr out, etc), but actually fusing from deck is very rare.

[VCR_CAT]

 

This is valid data (it's post CROS release, the other stuff wasn't) but my problem is that you can't compute how good a deck is simply by taking the number of tops it has and assigning a random value to doing well in different events. I think the data is skewed by German nats which I think is a class 3 event but had a top 64, which means any deck that performed well at that event will have a particularly high number of points gained when really coming 32-64 at German nats is like topping a event a class lower.

 

Also, data isn't everything. Shaddoll simply aren't comparable to Nekroz, regardless of event tops, and the most relevant tournament is always the biggest and the most recent. I'm not saying Shaddoll aren't a top deck because they clearly are but they have performed poorly at 2 of the 3 major events since CROS.

Actually, data is still something that has a say in this. If you look at them hard dat's, you'll notice that Nekroz are at 44% and Shaddolls are just barely 15%. That's a HUGE difference, especially when you compare over 200 points to 80 points. So while you may think that it discounts the data by bringing this up, the stats are still valid with this claim. Anyways, I just noticed that YCS Columbus IS taken into account on the original post and graph, so please ignore my last post as it only adds on reiterated data. This chart is correct and up to date: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qHokg1A3zlXnx5uk9bWE6POjxfMYkZLfPkDH5wbgNE8/edit

 

Data still has a say in terms of how a deck performs, and yeah I agree that German nats might be skewing it; but I'm not particularly willing to go back and adjust the numbers so that it works with a Top 32 German Nats.

[byak]

Okay, looking up the Columbus results, I'm gonna crunch this data into the table so that it's more up to date. The information I'm finding is that nobody has a top 16, and it's either a top 4 or a top 32. I'll be going with the Top 32, but if I could get a Top 16 that would be a little more reliable.

Of course, the main threads go by that class-system on the tournament wins. Basing this information off of here: http://www.pojo.biz/board/showthread.php?t=1220138and here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qHokg1A3zlXnx5uk9bWE6POjxfMYkZLfPkDH5wbgNE8/edit#gid=0
For quick reference, YCS Colarado is a YCS, so it falls under a Class 3 Tournament, so tops are worth 3 and the win is worth 4. These numbers will be based off of the Top 16; however I can do Top 32 if people want.
Nekroz: Win, +4 (209 -> 213) 8 Tops (Nekroz Volcanics not counted) (8 x 3 = 24; 213 + 24 = 237)
Shaddoll: 80 (no change)
Qliphort: 4 Tops (4 x 3 = 12; 49 + 12 = 61)
Satellarknight: 66 (no change)
Burning Abyss: 3 Tops (3 x 3 = 9; 36 + 9 = 45)
Ritual Beast: 1 Top (4 + 3 = 7)

So here's a full breakdown, because percentages are going to change a lot.
Total 479 -> 535 (+56 points)

Tier 1 (15% - 65%)
Nekroz: 237 (44.2%)
Shaddoll: 80 (14.95%) (Rounding up I'm sorry; but if you're nitpicky about that it's Tier 2 then)

Tier 2 (5% - 15%)

Satellarknight: 66 (12.3%)
Qliphort: 61 (11.4%)
Burning Abyss: 44 (8.2%)

Tier 3 (1% - 5%)
HERO: 8 (1.5%)
Ritual Beast: 7 (1.3%) (Moved up past Infernoid and Yosenju; out of Tier 4)
Infernoid: 6 (1.1%)
Yosenju: 6 (1.1%)


Based off these numbers: http://www.reddit.com/r/yugioh/comments/37484n/ycs_columbus_does_anyone_know_the_top_16_decks/and these numbers: http://yugioh.tcgplayer.com/db/deck_search_result.asp?Location=YCS+-+2015-05-24+Columbus+Ohio

Of course, this doesn't take into account the tops as in top 4 or so. With that, I'd bump Qliphorts above Satellars at the least. Based on your speculation, I would strongly hesitate to move any of the decks you moved into tier 2 as none of those managed to make a presence in the top 32.

The other problem is that Columbus is just like any other tournament. It's a big one, but the other tournaments were large as well and I would hesitate in completely ignoring past results simply because of one recent tournament.

Now Ritual Beasts are probably the most notable thing to point out right now. Moving from Rogue-tier to second in Tier 3 is quite the shift and does say a thing or two. But so far, this is still only one tournament and I hesitate to make any huge changes to the list and proclaim Qliphorts as Tier 1 because they got 4 Top 16's in a YCS. Shaddolls weren't even on the Top 32 radar, which is worth noting, but I'd rather not ignore past tournament results for the time being and wait and see what happens at the next tournament.


Also a Quick Disclaimer: Take my list how you will. Whether the document I took the past results from actually has Colorado in consideration or not is past me. The thread I took from currently has the Colorado tops listed in later posts, but the original post still is only up to date to the 24th, and there might actually be other tournaments not listed there. I'll keep scrounging around, but if you have other information please let me know. Again, this is the thread I'm referring to: http://www.pojo.biz/board/showthread.php?t=122013

So far, it doesn't have the Latin American WCQ results either, so I'll look around and see about implementing those.

EDIT: Latin America WCQ isn't complete yet, so that information won't be implemented. So far, this looks up-to-date.

 

These kinds of statistics aren't really credible because data becomes irrelevant once new cards are added to the card pool.

 

Why aren't you sillies using Sinister Serpent. Card can bypass Djinn unlike Treeborn and locks out Neks and Tellars.....idgi

 

Because Shaddoll Core is the best water monster.

[ihop]

My main concern is the numbers that are assigned - why have 1, 2 and 3 as values, I think something like, idk, 1, 3 and 7 is maybe more appropriate and even then it's impossible to assign a number to how relevant an event is in calling a deck meta. You also need to look at how far decks are progressing in top cut to see if people didn't just build decks to play less good opponents in swiss and scrape in on a x-2 record only to lose easily playing an actually good deck in the top cut, and so on and so forth. Raw data's never going to produce a satisfactory result for something that's so subjective and volatile.

[Spinny]

Any direct changes you want made to the main post, just say it, ill change it as soon as i can.

[ihop]

Tellars belong in the top of tier 2, not the bottom

[VCR_CAT]

I don't know; from what I can tell Pojo has agreed upon these numbers among members, so I'm not exactly the one to take it up with. I'm going to trust Pojo on this one as I'm assuming that if there was a problem with the scoring system, there's a LOT of people that could've brought it up by now. But again, I'm not the one to talk to. It's also worth pointing out that it's difficult to to take into account points for a top 32 or 64 when you're taking places into account; you need to adjust them accordingly based on whether the tournament is going top 16, 32, or 64 and all of this based on the tournament's overall size; it becomes quite messy and making a fair and consistent system based on that is very difficult. If all tournaments were the same size with the same result pools, it would be easier to place a universal points system on this. It's also worth pointing out that larger tournaments have larger cuts after the swiss formats, so being able to scale how far each decks is very difficult.

Speculation is also impossible to provide satisfactory results on tier lists. Without hard facts, it's basically up to the opinions and knowledge of each individual person on the gamestate as well as their own experiences. Hard data may not prove to be the most accurate due to the varying tournament sizes, but the statistics do give a general idea of a deck's performance and where it stands in a match-up in an objective way that personal speculation cannot provide. So of course, the best that you can do is take the raw data and pay as close attention to how far each deck is progressing as best as you can; but also remember that a lot of tournament results don't provide detailed placements as some people may appreciate, as well as the work it takes to crunch all of that data. Right now, this system looks to be the best that we can do with such varying tournaments without letting personal opinions skew the data much.

Because of how widely opinions vary and then taking into account actual tournament results, this isn't anything to leave to subjective speculation. Not one of us here has a clear idea of all the match-ups because each of us have different experiences with different players and different builds; none of our own experiences or knowledge can help provide and accurate speculation of what the best deck is and what's not. The data helps a lot in this fact as it provides objective results that we can help base opinions off of, and provide a more accurate speculation of what's on top and what's not. The spreadsheet provided is an example of players working towards a more objective standard with which to base deck tops on; it may not be the most accurate as it tournament sizes can change results so widely (2100 players at Columbus!!), but so far it's the best that we can do.

Byak, you might want to pay attention to the thread I linked as well as the title it has: http://www.pojo.biz/board/showthread.php?t=1220138
Remember that reading is power.

[Spinny]

Tellars belong in the top of tier 2, not the bottom

Oh ok. done.

[Blake]

i just read the first line o trusting pojo above all and lost it

 

i mean, what does citing another site, especially one known for infamously poor players, really tell you?

 

It's not all bad or sure, but that doesn't mean the site agreeing on it makes it believable =x

[VCR_CAT]

i just read the first line o trusting pojo above all and lost it

 

i mean, what does citing another site, especially one known for infamously poor players, really tell you?

 

It's not all bad or sure, but that doesn't mean the site agreeing on it makes it believable =x

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

But, let's be serious for a moment. Skill level has nothing to do with putting together a tier list and is completely irrelevant to the subject. In fact, if the site is known for salty players, then that only increases the chances for players to be upset over the standards of a tier list, which means that the likelyhood that the tier list's standards have been refined are higher.

It also helps to leave the ego at the door and instead of saying "LOLPOJO" to actually take the time and look over the information provided and see if they've take the time to make their results worth taking seriously. So far it looks like they've done their homework, and I don't have issues regarding their standards on the tier list as they're making a clear effort to provide objective results instead of leaving it all to speculation. I also took the time to look through the thread, and they do in fact call eachother out on bullshit lists so yeah, I wouldn't say that these results are worth throwing out the window just because one thinks they're better than Pojo.

[ihop]

The only thing skill level has to do with a tier listing based on numbers of event tops is that if you're skilled you ignore it - how good a deck is is, most of the time, not objective and I wouldn't be surprised if nobody had bothered to suggest a reform of that tier listing simply because nobody good enough cares enough to want to reform it.

[VCR_CAT]

In all honesty, I'd only take into account a tier list based on how likely a deck is going to show up and how I need to prepare for match-ups, which believe it or not is how most good players approach a tier list. It gives a good idea of what a player is going to see and go against, and not so much a dick measuring contest of seeing one's favorite deck hit the top. I take it less as a "What's the BEST DECK I need to play?" and more of a "What's seeing the most success right now and what should I prepare for?"

[Blake]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

But, let's be serious for a moment. Skill level has nothing to do with putting together a tier list and is completely irrelevant to the subject. In fact, if the site is known for salty players, then that only increases the chances for players to be upset over the standards of a tier list, which means that the likelyhood that the tier list's standards have been refined are higher.

It also helps to leave the ego at the door and instead of saying "LOLPOJO" to actually take the time and look over the information provided and see if they've take the time to make their results worth taking seriously. So far it looks like they've done their homework, and I don't have issues regarding their standards on the tier list as they're making a clear effort to provide objective results instead of leaving it all to speculation. I also took the time to look through the thread, and they do in fact call eachother out on bullshit lists so yeah, I wouldn't say that these results are worth throwing out the window just because one thinks they're better than Pojo.

No, you're subverting the point and attempting to use ad hominem as a defense, despite you bringing them into this in the first place.

 

Putting together a tier list most definitely does require skill and/or knowledge. If you don't understand the decks, how they work, how they match up, and so forth, you cannot properly put together a list, and the skill of the player and/or their knowledge of the game leads them to better understanding a list.

 

Your information has already had multiple points to refute it, but you push on, and even use a site known for less-than-quality players who very likely lack the proper knowledge to assemble a list like this. You're using a collective's thoughts to support your own, and I pointed out the flaw in doing so,

 

I won't even try to make the tier list, nor have I so far. I merely added a discussion point about why Shaddolls fair diferently in the TCG. Why? I know I lack the knowledge and/or skill to adequately put a list together.

 

Numbers mean nothing, and using a community that supports them, when that community is known for being mediocre at best 9/10, doesn't support you. The content of the point has already been beaten, so all that remains is your claims.

[VCR_CAT]

Displaying your argument as fallacious (which is was) is perfectly suitable when it shows that your point is probably not worth taking seriously if you resort to attacking the people making the data instead of addressing the data and methods themselves. To say "But those guys are dumb!" Means nothing if what they're saying is true or not, and if you don't realize that then there's no point in continuing this conversation.

From your definition, the only way to make an accurate tier list is for an adequately skilled player to test every match-up for every deck that's showing up during tournaments against an equally skilled player (every single deck would take forever, not that this is already an unrealistic expectation). This, of course, isn't going to happen, as problems arise involving how that particular player plays the game, the strategies involved, how he builds decks, and if they're using the most optimal possible builds and playing them as well as possible. This isn't going to happen; YuGiOh is such a varied game between every player and how they play that it's entirely impossible for individual players to create accurate tier lists based entirely on speculation.

The reason the individual player skill of those involved in the tier list creation of that site is irrelevant is because their tierlist isn't based on speculation and opinion. A tier list that's based on tournament results is a very valuable resource and the data still means quite a bit. You would have to be a bad player to ignore the fact that decks succeed frequently. In terms of numbers, IF there was a deck that had consistent victories over the other top decks then the global playerbase should take notice of that in then there would be a large shift regarding the overall results. If you want to make as objective a tier list as possible and take into account the varying playstyles and builds that populate the gamestate, then taking the results of large tournaments IS going to be your best route of accomplishing this. No list based on speculation is ever going to be accurate until they fulfill the requirements I established above, and even then it's not going to be as accurate as you may think.

And the other problem with your point is that's based off of a generalization you've placed on Pojo, which is entirely irrational. Neither of us truly KNOW the players involved in the creation of their tier lists, and for all we know they could actually beat the pants off of your or me at this game. But because we don't KNOW that, we can't just make assumptions on their skills and then use these assumptions as fallacious premises for an argument like you have.

Numbers support a tier list very well as it takes into account the varying playstyles of the YGO playerbase as well as providing as good information regarding matchups as we can. Large tournaments full of good players (those at 2100 players no less) will provide good statistics regarding a deck's success against other matchups in as objective an environment as possible. It may not be the most accurate method of generate a tier list, but so far it's one of the most widely accepted methods among the playerbase. Numbers also mean a LOT to a competitive player as it provides a good look at what their matchups are going to be a tournament, and roughly how successful those matchups have been. It gives them invaluable information about what to expect and how to treat each match they walk into. Knowing these things is VERY important when walking into a tournament; it tells you what to side for, how to play, and how to prepare for each matchup. Walking into a tournament blind because you ignored numbers thinking they mean nothing is almost sure to end in bad results.

 

The contents of my points have not beaten. All you've done is provided irrational and ill-supported information and generalizations and used these as premises and so far has done almost nothing to disprove my overall argument. You have no hard evidence that the players who have put together this list are ACTUALLY bad or untrustworthy and simply rely on unjustified opinions and generalizations based off of no hard information. For all intents and purposes, you've made no real argument and any points you've attempted to make are completely fallacious and invalid. Next time, try backing an argument properly.

[Cosmo.]

Yay for Ghostricks (aka the bae) making it as a rogue!

[Blake]

Displaying your argument as fallacious (which is was) is perfectly suitable when it shows that your point is probably not worth taking seriously if you resort to attacking the people making the data instead of addressing the data and methods themselves. To say "But those guys are dumb!" Means nothing if what they're saying is true or not, and if you don't realize that then there's no point in continuing this conversation.

Hold it right there.

Before I go on, I have to point out the flaw.

My point was that you used someone as a source. But, if the source isn't necessarily credible, how can the source be used? It does change if what they say should be valued or not.

You're the one who started throwing terms around in an attempt to find a fallacy, but you've found none. If I have a census that covers, say, 3 countries then claim it applies to the entirety of the world, is that true? The source of the inormation and concensusvery much does matter.

From your definition, the only way to make an accurate tier list is for an adequately skilled player to test every match-up for every deck that's showing up during tournaments against an equally skilled player (every single deck would take forever, not that this is already an unrealistic expectation). This, of course, isn't going to happen, as problems arise involving how that particular player plays the game, the strategies involved, how he builds decks, and if they're using the most optimal possible builds and playing them as well as possible. This isn't going to happen; YuGiOh is such a varied game between every player and how they play that it's entirely impossible for individual players to create accurate tier lists based entirely on speculation.

I never said such at all. I said that they need knowledge. Compiling knowledge as a community is most definitely part of it, but the community in question should be something that is an acceptable source.

Coming together with players who truly understand, exchanging information, and piecing it together very much applies to deciding a tier list, but you can't just throw numbers from elsewhere and claim that they're adequate. That's not how it works.

The reason the individual player skill of those involved in the tier list creation of that site is irrelevant is because their tierlist isn't based on speculation and opinion. A tier list that's based on tournament results is a very valuable resource and the data still means quite a bit. You would have to be a bad player to ignore the fact that decks succeed frequently. In terms of numbers, IF there was a deck that had consistent victories over the other top decks then the global playerbase should take notice of that in then there would be a large shift regarding the overall results. If you want to make as objective a tier list as possible and take into account the varying playstyles and builds that populate the gamestate, then taking the results of large tournaments IS going to be your best route of accomplishing this. No list based on speculation is ever going to be accurate until they fulfill the requirements I established above, and even then it's not going to be as accurate as you may think.

But your entire point about the results not being solid evidence has already been brought up. You can turn a blind eye to that, but the meta is volatile, and numbers mean nothing on their own. You very much have to understand who piloted the deck, what they piloted against, and so on in order to establish a list.

And the other problem with your point is that's based off of a generalization you've placed on Pojo, which is entirely irrational. Neither of us truly KNOW the players involved in the creation of their tier lists, and for all we know they could actually beat the pants off of your or me at this game. But because we don't KNOW that, we can't just make assumptions on their skills and then use these assumptions as fallacious premises for an argument like you have.

"[i]'ve placed on pojo"

You mean that Pojo has proven to the community time and again? Yeah, I could be wrong, I even acknowwledged it's not all bad. But you can't throw someone else's work on the table, tout it, and then not question the validity of the source. I'm not attempting character assassination, I'm pointing out you chose from a site that's known to have a less-than-stellar playerbase in order to establish a tier list of the metagame, which isn't guaranteed to work. Back it up on your own merits, don't throw out a source that may be questionable.

Numbers support a tier list very well as it takes into account the varying playstyles of the YGO playerbase as well as providing as good information regarding matchups as we can. Large tournaments full of good players (those at 2100 players no less) will provide good statistics regarding a deck's success against other matchups in as objective an environment as possible. It may not be the most accurate method of generate a tier list, but so far it's one of the most widely accepted methods among the playerbase. Numbers also mean a LOT to a competitive player as it provides a good look at what their matchups are going to be a tournament, and roughly how successful those matchups have been. It gives them invaluable information about what to expect and how to treat each match they walk into. Knowing these things is VERY important when walking into a tournament; it tells you what to side for, how to play, and how to prepare for each matchup. Walking into a tournament blind because you ignored numbers thinking they mean nothing is almost sure to end in bad results.

2100 good players sounds like a fairly poor assumption.

Showing you what's going to be played and showing you a tier list are hardly the same thing. People may like a deck, but that doesn't mean it's the best to perform or run. People may run it less for a while because of a poor rogue matchup becoming popular or something of the like, but that does not mean that rogue deck is a considerable deck by any means. And numbers cannot show the difference there. They are surely important, but they are not enough to make a tier list.

Numbers aren't even guaranteed to show a good matchup consistently, as Good Player Bad Deck and Bad Player Good Deck are both things that happen.

I haven't even said the statistics are wrong, but the flaws of how they've been tackled here have been pointed out by others.
 

The contents of my points have not beaten. All you've done is provided irrational and ill-supported information and generalizations and used these as premises and so far has done almost nothing to disprove my overall argument. You have no hard evidence that the players who have put together this list are ACTUALLY bad or untrustworthy and simply rely on unjustified opinions and generalizations based off of no hard information. For all intents and purposes, you've made no real argument and any points you've attempted to make are completely fallacious and invalid. Next time, try backing an argument properly.

I don't have to prove they are. In fact, this is where your argument falls hardest.

You're using this as evidence. My point was to back up the evidence with a solid source, because the source you provided is in no way a solid source at a glance. If you can prove that it's not just based around numbers and that there's solid knowledge to back it, feel free.

I called the integrity of your source into question, when you're using it as a means to defend your side of the debate. You have no hard evidence it's a proper source, just as I have none that it is not. The burden of the quality of your source falls with you, not me.

Please stop throwing fallacy around, btw. You're as bad as 3D. Touting the inefficiency of the opponent's points by throwing falacy and ad hominem about doesn't improve your point, it just makes you look desperate.

[Expelsword]

For the logically enthused, VCR CAT is guilty of his own falacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

 

I can say that having read over the entirety of Pojo's Infernoid discussion that most of them are clueless about the game at large. I may not get along well with Mr. Black, but I sure trust his opinion more than anything to come out of Pojo Forums.

I don't know much about tier lists, but the dimension I think might be missing some of the time is that some decks have inherent advantages over others, I think you have to look at more than just results; the tools available to all the decks, to make an accurate list.

[Krein]

Wow, this is a card game guys, not Philosophy or Debate class. Get over yourselves.

[ihop]

itt:

 

[Spinny]

itt:

 

Me with this entire topic right now.

[byak]

Why does a tier list matter anyway? Just know what the best deck is, alongside decks that are popular enough to consistently show up in a 9+ round tournament and prepare your main/side deck for those.

 

There's no need to be technical.

 

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjsHjnhh_Xg[/media]

[CLG Klavier]

Why does a tier list matter anyway? Just know what the best deck is, alongside decks that are popular enough to consistently show up in a 9+ round tournament and prepare your main/side deck for those.

 

There's no need to be technical.

 

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjsHjnhh_Xg[/media]

ikr? We know Nekroz, Dolls, Yosenju, Tellarknights, Qliphs, with a dose of Yang Zing and whatnot are the decks to be expected in tournaments. Why the order of which is the best and which is less best is important?