[Article] Too Much Information - Legacy: Two Months of Data

[MrShine]

This just went up on SCG today:

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/l...s_of_Data.html

What I want to bring up here is the apparent discrepancy between what I hope all of us here on The Source agree on (that Combo beats VV and non-blue aggro) and the 'actual results' that have been compiled here. What I think is particularly questionable are the numbers of Ad Nauseum vs the Rock:

G/W/B Rock – 6.30% of the Field – Won 56.97% of Matches
>> Record against
.. Ad Nauseum - 8-6-1, 56.67%

This is an indicator to me that whoever has been bringing AdNT to these events is either getting REALLY unlucky or just doesn't have a grasp on the deck; I mean, I played the Rock for a LONG time and there is no way that I was going to be winning the majority of the games, let alone 1 in 3, if I was playing against a competent Combo pilot. Also fishy: Goblins shows a 40% win vs Tendrils...

Since when do non-interactive combo decks lose to non blue decks so often? What is going on here?

[practical joke]

the new rock-lists bring mainboard (brad nelson's list):

4x hymn
2x gerards verdict
4x thoughtseize
wasteland.

TES gets kicked in the nuts by that hard time if they draw them well.
While a single goyf takes TES down in 4 hits.

Great combo-players will win against goblins, while sad combo-players don't know how to use ill-gotten gains. (goblins are quite capable winning from combo if they just go mountain lackey go)

*I'll take a long read during dinner, time to leave work atm*

[MrShine]

the new rock-lists bring mainboard (brad nelson's list):

4x hymn
2x gerards verdict
4x thoughtseize
wasteland.

...

This is true, I forgot about the uptick of discard being played recently.

Anything else here strike you guys as weird?

[godryk]

I don't understand why I'm wasting my time playing Legacy tournaments when they're clearly irrelevant. It appears that now:

Legacy=SCG Open Series
Rest of tournaments=Testing for SCG Open Series or europeans incredibily not playing Vengevine Survival exclusively.

Seriously, I understand the relevance of the SCG Open Series, but I don't like it how SCG writers are using it to ignore any other tournament or metagame in the universe.

[Gui]

I don't understand why I'm wasting my time playing Legacy tournaments when they're clearly irrelevant. It appears that now:

Legacy=SCG Open Series
Rest of tournaments=Testing for SCG Open Series or europeans incredibily not playing Vengevine Survival exclusively.

Seriously, I understand the relevance of the SCG Open Series, but I don't like it how SCG writers are using it to ignore any other tournament or metagame in the universe.

Because it's not about metagame dominance, but % of wins against the field. A single person playing the deck would be able to put the same % as 10000 players playing it. But you gotta use some data to backup this argument. What's the problem with SCG data?

To put it simple, you shouldn't care if noone plays VV+Sur there, but whether it is too strong when played or not.

[Aggro_zombies]

I don't understand why I'm wasting my time playing Legacy tournaments when they're clearly irrelevant. It appears that now:

Legacy=SCG Open Series
Rest of tournaments=Testing for SCG Open Series or europeans incredibily not playing Vengevine Survival exclusively.

Seriously, I understand the relevance of the SCG Open Series, but I don't like it how SCG writers are using it to ignore any other tournament or metagame in the universe.

Oh, quit crying. You guys screwed up the format in the first place by getting Mystical banned, so now it's our turn to get Survival banned.

[GGoober]

Too Much Information

is very misleading.

Nice compilation of [s]Legacy data[/s] SCG data.

...still not looking good

Canadian Threshold: 61.54%
Eva Green: 59.74%

So Survival boasting 60%+ in a skewed SCG metagame is enough information to warrant banning but when it comes to some Canadian and Eva decks we start saying that it's still not looking good and not a viable choice to play in the current metagame? I think Canadian Thresh is just as viable today than before, it's just not as popular. BUG Tempo is an example of a better evolution of tempo thresh positioned in our [s]Legacy[/s]SCG metagames.

With Counter-Top, the main question you have to ask yourself is whether it's acceptable to play rock-paper-scissors all day long. With two matchups over 70% and two under 40%, you have a pretty good chance of sitting down to a lopsided match. I just wouldn't be comfortable with how frequently you'd be on the wrong side of the numbers, especially since Survival decks are one of the matchups that you don't want to see.

Isn't that overall favorable? 2x70% > 2x40%? And pet-list CBTop won't do well against Survival, but adapted 6-8 StP MD CBTop has a decent fight if not positive matchup against Vengevival. I guess this quote needs more justification rather than just a sentence of opinion, a misleading one in fact.

If you're sleeving up 75 cards in Richmond on Sunday, this is the deck to bring to the table.

Now we know why SCG metas are so skewed compared to non-SCG metas, because they have writers writing this to encourage more players to play deck A etc.

I guess nothing's wrong with the article if its purpose is just to report numbers and results, but if there are any intentions to suggest, then I feel the article is lacking explanation and backup arguments.

Although Nashville SCG looked much better and restores some faith to SCG's portrayal of the Legacy meta. Phew!

[godryk]

Because it's not about metagame dominance, but % of wins against the field. A single person playing the deck would be able to put the same % as 10000 players playing it. But you gotta use some data to backup this argument. What's the problem with SCG data?

To put it simple, you shouldn't care if noone plays VV+Sur there, but whether it is too strong when played or not.

Forgive me if my post was confusing, my cry was more about SCG writers identifying Legacy with the SCG Open Series. They're the main reference, but I just didn't enjoy that "we are the universe" tone. The VV reference was simply a failed joke. People here plays VV a lot too and think it's the best deck right now, even when players are not as good as pro players over there and the deck doesn't put up those results. I mean, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, but that's another topic.

@Aggro_zombies: You're pretty much right, we did something similar with Reanimator...

BTW I don't want to bash this great work, I've done similar things in the past and it's a hard unrewarding task. Nice piece!

[Gui]

Forgive me if my post was confusing, my cry was more about SCG writers identifying Legacy with the SCG Open Series. They're the main reference, but I just didn't enjoy that "we are the universe" tone. The VV reference was simply a failed joke. People here plays VV a lot too and think it's the best deck right now, even when players are not as good as pro players over there and the deck doesn't put up those results. I mean, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, but that's another topic.

@Aggro_zombies: You're pretty much right, we did something similar with Reanimator...

BTW I don't want to bash this great work, I've done similar things in the past and it's a hard unrewarding task. Nice piece!

I get your point. To be honest, that thought could lead to: SCG top players believe that VV+sur is the best current deck, and thus, the best performing players are all playing the deck there. This could bias the information, leading to a wrong assumption that VV+Sur is the best deck, rather than the players pilloting it.

Using some data from outside SCG wouldn't be bad.

[Cabal_chan]

I get your point. To be honest, that thought could lead to: SCG top players believe that VV+sur is the best current deck, and thus, the best performing players are all playing the deck there. This could bias the information, leading to a wrong assumption that VV+Sur is the best deck, rather than the players pilloting it.

Using some data from outside SCG wouldn't be bad.

What data are you looking for exactly? I have an Excel sheet with Top 8 data for the past three months (Sept/Oct/Nov) if you are interested.

[Gui]

What data are you looking for exactly? I have an Excel sheet with Top 8 data for the past three months (Sept/Oct/Nov) if you are interested.

Mostly, % wins against the field and % wins against each matchup

Top 8 data is different from the analisys above, because it doesn't consider that. Instead, it considers metagame dominance, which is what we should avoid, as I said before. Does your sheet contain w-l-d data?

[Cabal_chan]

Mostly, % wins against the field and % wins against each matchup

Top 8 data is different from the analisys above, because it doesn't consider that. Instead, it considers metagame dominance, which is what we should avoid, as I said before. Does your sheet contain w-l-d data?

No, because the database sites don't include that.

I don't see why metagame dominance numbers should be avoided. You want your matchup data, which is fine. But if the deck is so overwhelming, then it should be reflected in Top 8s.

[Gui]

No, because the database sites don't include that.

I don't see why metagame dominance numbers should be avoided. You want your matchup data, which is fine. But if the deck is so overwhelming, then it should be reflected in Top 8s.

Exactly because it should, but not necessarily will. A good analisys should be based on something concrete, which would be how good the deck is against the field, instead of how many people have accepted playing the deck.

Since this is legacy, it's not hard to show that people sometimes simply keep playing their pet decks or their favorite deck instead of shifting from one deck to another because it's probably the best deck. This is a fact, and in fact, this is probably what made legacy so popular in the first place, and is likely what WotC looks forward on Legacy bans.

[Cabal_chan]

Exactly because it should, but not necessarily will. A good analisys should be based on something concrete, which would be how good the deck is against the field, instead of how many people have accepted playing the deck.

Since this is legacy, it's not hard to show that people sometimes simply keep playing their pet decks or their favorite deck instead of shifting from one deck to another because it's probably the best deck. This is a fact, and in fact, this is probably what made legacy so popular in the first place, and is likely what WotC looks forward on Legacy bans.

I certainly hope WotC doesn't start banning to stop metagame shifts.

If that becomes true, what incentive is there to go rogue or innovate? Your creation will just end up axed if it does too good, which is the purpose of creating it in the first place.

[keys]

I certainly hope WotC doesn't start banning to stop metagame shifts.

If that becomes true, what incentive is there to go rogue or innovate? Your creation will just end up axed if it does too good, which is the purpose of creating it in the first place.

Bannings don't stifle innovation, they encourage it by restricting the tendency to converge on a "best deck". Regardless, I'm pretty sure Caleb Durwald had fun breaking Survival and would do it again in a heartbeat.

[Shabbaman]

Oh, quit crying. You guys screwed up the format in the first place by getting Mystical banned, so now it's our turn to get Survival banned.

I am not sure I like this meddling by the DCI at all. Their choices seem unimformed. What is their vision of this format? I played vintage, I like broken things. If they ban survival, next up will be LED. And then we are stuck with a boring aggro format that looks just like the extended before it became double standard. Nobody liked that format. Eternal formats should be dominated by old powerhouses like Survival. To me, that is the soul of Legacy. Don't ban, unban. I'm wondering if the oldschool 1.5 banned list (so no restricted vintage cards) or simply unpowered vintage isn't more fun than the format Legacy is becoming
.

[SlopeeJ]

Whats wrong with starcity using their big tournaments for data? Is there a site in Europe that has lots of big tournaments with event coverage with posted results? I live in Seattle area with about 1-2 20/30 man legacy tournaments a month and the meta is really similar to star city, so I'm not understanding what the problem is?

[Gui]

I certainly hope WotC doesn't start banning to stop metagame shifts.

If that becomes true, what incentive is there to go rogue or innovate? Your creation will just end up axed if it does too good, which is the purpose of creating it in the first place.

But that's exactly the point. It's not a metagame shift if the deck badmatches are better than the other decks badmatches, while its good matches are still as good as the others. This is what determines bans, and is checked by that kind of data.

[Sims]

Whats wrong with starcity using their big tournaments for data? Is there a site in Europe that has lots of big tournaments with event coverage with posted results? I live in Seattle area with about 1-2 20/30 man legacy tournaments a month and the meta is really similar to star city, so I'm not understanding what the problem is?

Not everyone has this case... For instance I have 2 stores locally that I can go to.. One gets 11-20 people weekly and the metagame looks nothing like any SCG tourney ever held, and one that the last "larger" tournament they held the field was practically 50/50 Survival and Rock.

I don't like people trying to pass off 1 tournament Series as the entire metagame, because I know there are probably 50 man mox tournaments or even tournaments like Jupiter Games where the tournament results don't mirror SCG results, but they are discounted by the masses because no one can see anything past what the SCG meta looks like.

I'd rather try to see the whole picture.

[keys]

No one's saying that more data wouldn't be welcome, but it's hard to argue that the SCG opens are not the best representation we have of a developed legacy metagame. SCG also have people who actually take the time to collect results and post statistics. It doesn't look like the statistics have changed materially from the last time they were reported, either. Survival is still dominating even though awareness has definitely reached full penetration. Is it still possible to claim that the metagame has not fully adjusted, or that people are not playing optimally?