Intentions and Improvements

User avatar
hoser2
Posts: 202
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Titles & Recognition

Post by hoser2 » 1 year ago

Welcome to Nexus Standard!

Our goals:
  • Be a comprehensive front page of Standard MTG
  • Make the best content for each Standard deck conveniently accessible
  • Provide assistance to Standard players with every skill level and budget
How do we do it? We don't. We will provide a set of tools and services that we hope will allow you to create the content that serves you and our other users. How does that work? We are creating a safe space to share ideas and help each other.

We have a place to make Standard decklists and discuss them in threads. We have a place to discuss more general Standard MTG topics. We have a thread of the latest Standard content. We will make sure that our users are treated with respect and consideration.

But some of it you know better than us. We are just starting. Please contribute in the ways that we have envisioned. But if you see a better way to achieve our goals and serve you, please post below in this thread for discussion.

User avatar
motleyslayer
Posts: 719
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 54 times
Contact:

Titles & Recognition

Post by motleyslayer » 1 year ago

some of the things I really liked from the old site were the state of the metagame thread and the what deck should I play thread

do you have much of a direction what you'll be doing for those yet or primers for decks?

I'm really liking this standard format so feel free to ask for help or any insights

User avatar
CybertronsMostWanted
Posts: 4
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Orlando, FL

Post by CybertronsMostWanted » 1 year ago

What are the plans for the Establish/Proven subforums? Over on MTGS I felt like they were always handled poorly. IMO you're better off having both categories lumped together. Otherwise how they're divided becomes a bit arbitrary and it also complicates navigation for newer users. The number of decks that have placed well in larger tournaments are lacking representation. I hope this place will rectify some of those shortcomings.

Also, how do you plan on handling archetype primers? Will those be left up to staff or "outsourced" to members? I think the latter has led to some of the issues I listed above. Perhaps a simpler/alternate approach is worth considering?

User avatar
motleyslayer
Posts: 719
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 54 times
Contact:

Titles & Recognition

Post by motleyslayer » 1 year ago

CybertronsMostWanted wrote:
1 year ago
What are the plans for the Establish/Proven subforums? Over on MTGS I felt like they were always handled poorly. IMO you're better off having both categories lumped together. Otherwise how they're divided becomes a bit arbitrary and it also complicates navigation for newer users. The number of decks that have placed well in larger tournaments are lacking representation. I hope this place will rectify some of those shortcomings.

Also, how do you plan on handling archetype primers? Will those be left up to staff or "outsourced" to members? I think the latter has led to some of the issues I listed above. Perhaps a simpler/alternate approach is worth considering?
I agree with the first part, sometimes with standard the format can change so quickly it's hard to say where something belongs. That could be because I know a fair bit of players that try and metagame the format and try and get ahead of it too much though. I do feel that MTGS got too outdated with the meta rankings though

I think the approach is going to be have members handle the primers as they feel comfortable

Odin_
Posts: 22
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Odin_ » 1 year ago

CybertronsMostWanted wrote:
1 year ago
What are the plans for the Establish/Proven subforums? Over on MTGS I felt like they were always handled poorly. IMO you're better off having both categories lumped together. Otherwise how they're divided becomes a bit arbitrary and it also complicates navigation for newer users. The number of decks that have placed well in larger tournaments are lacking representation. I hope this place will rectify some of those shortcomings.

Also, how do you plan on handling archetype primers? Will those be left up to staff or "outsourced" to members? I think the latter has led to some of the issues I listed above. Perhaps a simpler/alternate approach is worth considering?
Archetype primers: maybe outsourcing will be better. But I think that archetypes should be more handled by playing style, not by color combination (like it happened on MTGS with merging Esper Control with Esper superfriends).

User avatar
benjameenbear
Posts: 637
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 101 times

Titles & Recognition

Post by benjameenbear » 1 year ago

These are all great points. While hoser and I are still deliberating on how we want to format the Standard threads, I think we'll certainly take your suggestions in stride and follow some advice.

My initial thoughts is that we'll probably let specific users host and maintain specific Primers. It will lessen the burden for us as Mods while hopefully engaging our userbase more proactively.

The difference between Established and Proven would perhaps be the distinction between Temur Reclamation and Simic Nexus. While both decks utilize Wilderness Reclamation, they do so in different ways and have posted significantly different results. Simic Nexus is proven, whereas Temur Reclamation would be considered Established. Do y'all follow?

We do plan to ensure that each Primer is distinct based on playstyles. Esper Hero plays much differently than Esper Control and, while slightly different, have largely different goals in mind for how they want the game to progress. It is not appropriate to lump the two threads together because their core strategies are significantly different, even though they may play 80% similar cards.
Expand Signature
Curator of the MTGNexus cEDH Forums

User avatar
CybertronsMostWanted
Posts: 4
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Orlando, FL

Post by CybertronsMostWanted » 1 year ago

benjameenbear wrote:
1 year ago
The difference between Established and Proven would perhaps be the distinction between Temur Reclamation and Simic Nexus. While both decks utilize Wilderness Reclamation, they do so in different ways and have posted significantly different results. Simic Nexus is proven, whereas Temur Reclamation would be considered Established. Do y'all follow?
While I dont want deck archetypes combined by color combinations, etc, care needs still needs to be taken on how these get separated in Proven/Established. If we were to rewind the clock to GRN standard, Termur Rec top 16'd in the hands of Ross Merriam, Pascal Maynard, & Drake Sasser. I guess my point is that while Temur Rec would certainly belong in the Established subforum now (as it was a deck that posted results but no longer sees much play), I dont think that should have been the case 6 months ago. Bant Glory is another deck that sees like it could follow a similar path. Just some food for thought...

User avatar
Dusk
Dimir Mindmage
Posts: 344
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Duskmantle
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 32 times

Post by Dusk » 1 year ago

Given how in flux the standard meta game can be, my suggestion would be to set up the subforums like how they are in Modern (though maybe limited to Aggro, Combo, Midrange, and Control), along with a Deck Creation area. With this in mind, a locked thread maintained by someone (mods or other) to contain the top performing decks with links to the appropriate threads would be a goo resource for someone who wants to quickly see what's doing well.

The only issue I see with this are threads possibly getting too long and hard to sift through.
Expand Signature
That shadowy wisp at the edge of your vision, there and gone before you notice.
Formerly Dusk707 on MtGSalvation

User avatar
benjameenbear
Posts: 637
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 101 times

Titles & Recognition

Post by benjameenbear » 1 year ago

CybertronsMostWanted wrote:
1 year ago
benjameenbear wrote:
1 year ago
The difference between Established and Proven would perhaps be the distinction between Temur Reclamation and Simic Nexus. While both decks utilize Wilderness Reclamation, they do so in different ways and have posted significantly different results. Simic Nexus is proven, whereas Temur Reclamation would be considered Established. Do y'all follow?
While I dont want deck archetypes combined by color combinations, etc, care needs still needs to be taken on how these get separated in Proven/Established. If we were to rewind the clock to GRN standard, Termur Rec top 16'd in the hands of Ross Merriam, Pascal Maynard, & Drake Sasser. I guess my point is that while Temur Rec would certainly belong in the Established subforum now (as it was a deck that posted results but no longer sees much play), I dont think that should have been the case 6 months ago. Bant Glory is another deck that sees like it could follow a similar path. Just some food for thought...
Great point. Maintaining the Standard forums will be the most time-consuming forum since its the most variable set. Realistically, the top decks/threads will be updated once a week at best, unless there's a better method of determining the validity of a certain decklist at any one point.
Dusk wrote:
1 year ago
Given how in flux the standard meta game can be, my suggestion would be to set up the subforums like how they are in Modern (though maybe limited to Aggro, Combo, Midrange, and Control), along with a Deck Creation area. With this in mind, a locked thread maintained by someone (mods or other) to contain the top performing decks with links to the appropriate threads would be a goo resource for someone who wants to quickly see what's doing well.

The only issue I see with this are threads possibly getting too long and hard to sift through.
Another great idea! I'll bring it up with hoser and see what he thinks as well. This might be the best way to maintain the Standard forums in the long run as well, since it will necessitate less maintenance overall. I really like this idea.
Expand Signature
Curator of the MTGNexus cEDH Forums

italofoca
Posts: 14
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by italofoca » 1 year ago

One way I personally use to divide between Tier 1 (Proven) and Tier 2 (Established) is first to pool all decks with significant meta share. Then if the deck has a meta share above 1/n where n is the number of pooled decks, that deck is tier 1. Otherwise, it's tier 2. All non-pooled decks would be Tier 3 (Rogue).

That method is not arbitrary, one can prove that it's the best way to divide data in two sub-samples such that the variance of both sub-sample are minimized. The choice of which decks get pooled is somewhat arbitrary, however. Options are all decks with share above 1% or all decks with highest share such that they share sum 90% of the meta.

Of course, this is share based method that does not take into account tournament results, just how much each deck shows up. It's best suited to predict what you are up against, rather then the quality of each deck. Personally I think it's a better way to classify things for two reasons:

1) The other way to classify (deck quality, not popularity) is hard to define. The most straight forward way would be having data on match ups rates and take an average of match up rates weighted by meta shares. That method is ranking each deck by it's expected win-rate. Unfortunately match up rates data is pretty hard to come by.

2) Even if it wasn't, all deck have 0 expected win-rate in (Nash) equilibrium. In reality the equilibrium is a little bit off because of sampling issues, short-term shocks in the meta and because people choose decks non-strategically. However expected win-rates still tends to be too close to each other, specially in high tournaments level.

rujasu
Posts: 72
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Titles & Recognition

Post by rujasu » 1 year ago

Given that there typically aren't all that many decks in a Standard metagame, I don't see the need for any forum split, be it Proven/Established, Aggro/Control, or whatever. Just have one forum for Proven/Established, one for Developing/Creation, nix the Bo1 forum because it's mostly the same archetypes as Bo3, and that's that. Why make things more complicated than they need to be?

Edit: A page of a subforum can have up to 25 topics. When has there ever been a Standard with anywhere close to that many "established" decks? Even if you include every rogue deck that has placed more than once in a tournament, you're probably getting into the high teens at once. It's easier to have all of the decks on the same page - otherwise you come in looking for your favorite deck and you have to look in two different places to see which tier the mods decided to put it in. What's the upside of that?

User avatar
hoser2
Posts: 202
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Titles & Recognition

Post by hoser2 » 1 year ago

I like combining Proven and Established maybe into an "Established" sub. Handling the meta shifts could be done in a Competitive meta thread in the same sub.
Edit: Actually, I like having an Established Competitive sub with competitive deck discussions, a competitive meta thread and Competitive tournament discussions. This could be two subsubs with the deck discussions in one subsub or combined in a single sub.
Then I want a separate sub for general standard magic discussions. I want standard main to be a hub and forum organization.

I also agree with combining Bo1 and Bo3 threads. The tags are pretty clean. I think "Bo1" and "Bo3" could be additional tags for thread creators, but until we have more traffic and threads, I can see all our threads as hybrid Bo1/Bo3.

So it would look something like this:
Standard Main: Forum organization/announcements/rules
___|___Competitive Decks
___|___Competitive discussions, (tournaments, generally spiky topics)
___|___Developing Decks
___|___Discussions
___|___Archives
__________|___Competitive Decks
__________|___Competitive Discussions
__________|___Developing Decks
__________|___Discussions


The question I have is how we want to handle brewing for postrotation. On the Sally, we used to force new card discussion into a separate sub, but of late, it just seemed like an annoyance. What do people think? New card discussion in a special sub or mixed with prerotation decks?

Odin_
Posts: 22
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Odin_ » 1 year ago

hoser2 wrote:
1 year ago

The question I have is how we want to handle brewing for postrotation. On the Sally, we used to force new card discussion into a separate sub, but of late, it just seemed like an annoyance. What do people think? New card discussion in a special sub or mixed with prerotation decks?
If the changes are only about new cards, probably it will be best to leave it at existing decks with note at deck name. Entirely different question is how should be treated if concept of deck is changed (this is no problem if deck is named after race could be named if switch is like BG mid-range to BG aggro).

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Standard”