Competitive Score
TappedOut forum
Posted on Oct. 25, 2017, 11:21 a.m. by Wufankitt
Did Tapped out stop using the competitive score system?
DRACULA150704 says... #4
Please stop posting forums about the competitive score because there are already tons of them and we all know that the competitive score is broken.
October 25, 2017 11:47 p.m.
Reverend_Skuch says... #5
How is it broken? Not being argumentative just ligit don't know what you mean. Elaborate please.
February 8, 2018 10:21 a.m.
It does not actually gauge how competitive a deck is--it merely looks at the cards that are in the deck, and makes determinations based on each individual card.
For example, it rates one of my decks (240 Card Modern Battle of Wits) 100% competitive, despite the fact it has an absurd number of cards and is incredibly wonky. By no means is the deck 100% competitive, yet it still gets that rating, because it is full of wonderfully useful cards.
Pretty sure if you had a deck made up of 56 non-blue-producing fetch/shock lands, and then 4 copies of Cryptic Command, it would list the deck as 100% competitive.
The system also fluctuates wildly, particularly in the volatile standard format. I'm guessing the system looks at the percentage of decks that run a certain card, and uses that to determine the card's competitiveness. But don't quote me on that--it is mere speculation based on what I've seen.
February 8, 2018 10:35 a.m. Edited.
Reverend_Skuch says... #7
Cdkime thank you very much for sorting that out! That explanation was exactly what I wanted to know.
February 8, 2018 12:25 p.m.
S1ayerMonkey says... #8
cdkime I made your deck and it came out to 44% competitiveness. I then switched all the cards to foils and it came out to 53% competitiveness. Needless to say, 44% for a deck that can't cast anything still proves your point more or less.
My personal assumption is that the more individual $10+ cards you have, the higher your score will be.
100% competitive deck
Modern*
2 VIEWS
shawn_overlord says... #3
It seems I'm not the only one having that issue then, my speculation is they might roll out a new version in the future with more accurate rating system? If this isn't the case, the site feature may have stopped working in a bug.
October 25, 2017 9:49 p.m.