Tier-1 & The Metagame

For those of you who are wandering this topic streamed from a conversation on the Tabula Rasa- volume 3. There were quite a few people under the impression that one game matches would add to the randomness in the VS universe. Others thought that it would stabilize the game. Initially I wasn’t going to post regarding this topic, but when I noticed people complaining about surprise decks and the threat that they pose on the luck factor… well, I just had to.

Now I’m going to discuss a couple of issues in order to present this informatively. First and foremost I’ll discuss the Metagame, then I’ll go over Tier-1 decks, next I’ll speak a little on Diversification, and last I’ll talk about the 1 Game Format vs. the current format.

The Metagame…

What makes up the metagame? Although there are many components to the metagame, it can be broken down to 3 major portions: likeability, playability, and popularity. As new sets are introduced to a game, the metagame goes on a brief hiatus. This is a transitional period that transforms the current metagame into what will be considered the new Meta. During this time players both casual and professional decide the likeability and playability of each card in the new set.

For the VS System the first of the three points likeability is easier to discern than any other Trading Card Game. Being that the game is based on comic books, it is easy to guess that the fans (mainly the casual players) will immediately go for their favorite characters. They’ll also look to see if their favorites have good effects and if those effects are consistent with their comic counterparts. After this players will normally cipher through the remainder of the set looking for cards that may any profound effects.

Which brings us to playability. Now we’ve seen every card in the set, decided which cards we liked, and discussed whether or not UDE did our favorite characters justice. Some cards automatically fall into certain builds (Silver Surfer, Bamf, etc.), but others have to be play tested and reviewed. The pros will scour the set looking for cards that have great synergy with current builds, or cards that may give older decks that were written off as non-competitive hope. Some cards or team factions are good enough to warrant their own builds, others aren’t.

Now we come to the most important part of the metagame popularity. This is where I go out on a limb and say that popularity is the reason the metagame is as it is. Now to back this up I’ll use the X-Men and the Brotherhood as examples. The X-Men, by far the most popular team in marvel history, were anticipated to be the number 1 team. As we all know they weren’t a Tier-1 Deck. Now in order for a deck to be popular, it must have likeability and playability. Now the X-Men had likeable cards with nice effects, but they just couldn’t consistently win. The Brotherhood had likeable cards that were easy to play and could consistently win. This and the fact that the deck was relatively cheap to build made the Brotherhood very popular.

Tier-1 Decks…

Once the Brotherhood gained popularity the metagame began to form around it. Since the most simplistic and easy to play decks had a beat down mentality, the format became beat down focused. And with cards like Savage Beat Down and Its Clobber’n Time it was made official. Note: the Brotherhood was not the only deck that helped mold the metagame. Tier-1 decks are decks that have a consistent win percentage against the current metagame.

We are all familiar with the Tier-1 decks of the previous metagame, and the current king of the hill is Common Enemy. But before the release of DC Origins, Common enemy saw little play only top 8-ting at several major events. In a Brotherhood dominated format it was still questionable if Common Enemy was competitive enough to consistently win.

After DC’s release, Common Enemy saw a rise in play as it gained access to cards that would help even out it’s Brotherhood matches. Eventually we all know that CE took the pro circuit, but the deck it faced in the finals is the main focus of this topic. Navigated by Craig Edwards was Rigged Elections. Many would say that this was a surprise deck, but I’d like to present my opinion.

Since the VS System started gaining popularity with Marvel Origins, players have been trying to break open the metagame. Gabe Wall’s Wild Vomit made the first and most notable attempt. Pre-Gen Con there wasn’t a substantial amount of weenie decks in the VS universe. Since there were no potential threats there was no need to include Flame Trap in the deck list. During this point in the metagame sentinels had been seen as a non-viable team. Gabe Walls used this to his advantage, and took a good deck to an unprepared environment. This deck was a complete surprise to Gen Con.

Now we go to Craig Edwards at Indy. With DC released and the nasty taste of vomit gone from their mouths, the pros were prepared to come up against 1 or 2 weenie builds. Now both Walls and Edwards were prepared for the metagame, but for Walls the metagame wasn’t prepared for him. Although in Edwards case the metagame had more than enough tools to handle his deck. No one was surprised to see Edwards deck at Indy, more so just surprised to see a deck that included Rigged Elections.

Diversification…

Though Walls and Edward’s decks were 1 out of many, they both caused major changes in the metagame. These are changes that a game needs to survive. If every tournament had the same Top 8 and the same deck lists, this game would become very boring very quick. Below is the discussion that prompted this article. I commented on surprise decks diversifying the current metagame, while Certified Madman spoke about diverse fields being bad in a 1 Game format. I’ll get to the 1 Game format in a while.

...
PABLO Apprentice (6 Posts) 9/18/2004 7:45:37 PM
I'd have to say that it takes a lot of skill to put together a deck that surprises a player that thought he or she was prepared for the entire metagame. Everyone brings and plays the deck that they think is best suited to win against the current meta. So why shouldn’t the person who creates the so-called "surprise deck" be rewarded for being more observant of the current meta. This is not my vote for the 1 game matches, but more of an argument to defend the creative decks out there. Other TCG's including this one are all about net decking. Given it takes skill and competiveness to be a good player, but what is the point in playing a deck that 25-30% of the field is playing. I believe that those who are looking to diversify the game should be rewarded, and those who seek to add to the redundancy should not. The deck that I had been playing since Marvel Origins was released was Common Enemy. When I was saying this is a good deck, close to 60% of the VS world was saying Brotherhood was the best. The point is that while everyone else is following the Pied Piper, there are others like (Craig Edwards, Gabe Walls) that are (forgive the pun) Thinking outside the box. Now to clear up some things. While I applaud Edwards for his creative deck. I think this particular deck is cheap, and not good for the environment. Which brings us to this point; Maintaining a good game that allows for both creativity and competiveness is a hard thing to do. Although, VS is still in its infancy and has a lot of time evolve around this somewhat pesky problem.Will 1 game matches help the game or not?Are we open-minded enough to find out?Well you should answer these questions for yourself. Those of us who care about this games wellbeing should be open-minded to anything that may help.

Diverse fields and one-game matches
Certified Madman Acolyte (89 Posts) 9/19/2004 7:12:56 AM
Highly diverse fields combined with one-game matches would be terrible for the tournament scene as results would become more erratic, and in the end creativity would not be rewarded. A factor of knowledge of a given match up will be reduced as each round will be defined by relative luck and luck of drawing the favorable match up (of course, favorability would be unknown to us, however it's impact would be far greater). If preparedness is less of a factor, since more decks in a tournament are unknown, and you are without any true opportunity to adapt, randomness must therefore become more of a factor. In the end, more players play more "creative" decks, netting more randomness since there are less knowns.



It is necessary for new and creative decks to come into the current Meta, these changes force current builds to adapt to the new threats. It is equally important that the number 1 deck be dethroned at times. This will ensure a balanced metagame by making sure that no deck is overpowered. With the addition of newer sets come all sorts of new tricks to be exploited. These new cards give older non-competitive decks the potential to become tournament worthy, or even tier-1.

For example in MTG the Mirrodin block is an artifact-based set that is host to many simplistic and easy to play decks. One of the most popular is an Affinity based deck. Affinity decks allowed you to play fairly large creatures for cheap or no cost at all. This concept would allow you gain to victories by overwhelming your opponents with sheer numbers. Now before the introduction of the Dark Steel set, affinity decks weren’t competitive enough to see play. But with Dark Steel came Arc bound Ravager and Skull Clamp, which propelled it to be one of the best in the format.

1 Game Match Format…

Now apposing my defense against creative decks stood Certified Madman who argued a point of diverse fields in a 1 game match format. Although my argument wasn’t regarding the 1 game format, I think that the point CM brought up is relevant. 1 game formats have weakness that may be exploited. The first of those may lie in decks like Edwards’ Rigged. Now though the threat that Rigged posed to the PC won’t be as relevant now, more decks like these will eventually arise.

Now there is currently no deck that is guaranteed a win every game, but with the introduction of new sets comes the chance that an abusable deck will arise. I for one don’t want to be apart of tournament that forces you into 1 playable deck, or worse playing a match where my opponent and I are in a race to see who’ll pull off the win conditions the quickest. Well no matter what format we play in, let us hope that skill will still play a major role in it. Let us hope that a player’s planning and strategy can still earn them victory in any environment they play in.

This is what I felt prior to testing the 1 game match system. Which in comparison is far better. Now a good player should excell regardless of what format he/she may participate in. Even in good players who don't get odd initiatives should be able to thrive with either initiative. Most decks and I'll use Common Enemy as an example, have alternate options at each drop. Now with the exception of the 1 and 2 drops CE has probably the best selection of drops. At the 3 drop you can alternate between she-hulk and darkoth. At 4 you have doom or Invisible woman. At 5 you have Thing, Robot destroyer, and in worse case scenario Ghost Rider. At 6 you have Hulk or Doom. At 7 you have Thing or Submariner. At 8 you have Silver Surfer, Doom, Apoc and if you're crazy like me you even play 1 copy of Ivisible woman Sue Richards.
Now I'll layout the best case scenario for each initiative. We'll asume you get every card needed to playout these intiatives correctly.

ODD:
T1- Boris
T2- She Thing
T3- She-Hulk explanation: you almost never want to play darkoth. Eventhough he has a slightly bigger butt on the attack, she-hulk will be more beneficial through-out the remainder of the game.
T4-Doom (doom in my mind is the only choice for drop 4)
T5-Thing (he is a good reason to opt for the odd init.)
T6-Hulk (playing hulk even when your opponent has the init. is always the best choice. You don't lose board advantage by playing 6 drop doom, and 4 drop doom should take away any threat hulk may have with a timely mystical par.)
T7-Submariner ( he forces your opponents to put guys in the front row potentially giving you the opportunity for some breakthrough.)
T8- Silver Surfer (giving submariner another turn to kill your opponent)

EVEN:
T1-Boris
T2-She-Thing
T3-She-hulk
T4-Doom
T5-Robot Destroyer (if playing the mirror or when not having the initiatve, playing RD will allow you to incapacitate your opponents 4 drop while doom can paralize their 5 drop.)
T6-Hulk
T7-Thing (In situations that may call for Thing's ability to be used, i.e. playing against TT, Vomit etc., it's best used when your opponent has the init.)
T8-Silver Surfer (he should guarantee you keep and finish the game this turn.)

I'll add more later
post thoughts

The point of the Common Enemy layout is to show that a deck can potentially win having either init. So that is really not a concern when playing the 1 game format.

So how are others adjusting to the new format?

Thus far at the PCQ's that our team has attended the 1 game format is receiving good feedback. This is also comforting knowing that the amount of new deck types that are arising, will have a fair opportunity to have good finishes.

Do you guys thinks some of the current Tier 1 Decks wouldn't be Tier 1 if it wasn't for the 1 Game Matches?

Like X-men are they only thriving because of the current format?

I reallly don't think this should be a concern. our friends at UDE have done a really great job, and it is through their dillegence that no "abusable decks" have arisen in the four sets we've seen so far.

Aren't you in a race to get to the "win conditions" in every game ever made? Isn't that the only way to win?

That's what I was thinking. We're all after mostly the same win conditions... its how we plan on getting there that makes the game interesting.