Updating DTB with online data.

[Dice_Box]

I am going to over the next month look at adding MTGO from Goldfish to the DTB section. The way I plan to do this is by taking all the decks from the last month, removing from them all SCG finishes and then adding up the totals. All Leagues are weighted the same, each one only shows 5-0 finishes and those all would be worth the same against one another. The outlier is the Legacy Challenge that goes from 5-2 to 7-0. Something that I am more than able to account for. At this point I am looking at doing this alongside another member of the site, but I am also open to suggestions and ideas.

I am opening the floor hear to people as I am not convinced my method here is the best one, but online data is not something I am all that use to looking at. So others with a history of online play, I ask you what you would do in my place, what suggestions you have and what ideas you may have. Right now my plan is as follows.

1. Collect all the League event data and compile the deck totals. Give them each 5 points.
2. Collect the Challenge data and give them a point each for their finish. (Between 5 and 7)
3. Take the total and work with that to get a percentage of 4.8 and add those decks to the DTB.
4. Try to take over the world with my tall dimwitted friend.

The issue I have with this method is that I am very limited in my sample size. I am basically cut to only a very small amount of the meta and I do not know how representative this will be of MTGO as a whole. Also not being someone that plays online means I also will not have anything to compare my data to when I am said and done. Sadly I do not know of a better option. If someone has one, please let me know.

[Barook]

Why is it necessary to include MTGO data in the DTB section?

Goldfish does a good job to represent the current MTGO meta, while the DTB section represents what's going on in Paper. I don't think it's a good idea to mix them up.

[Dice_Box]

I have had people as for it a fair amount and there are decks that are very popular in one Meta that see their numbers lax in the other due to a collection of reasons.

That said, if it comes to pass that this is not wanted, I am happy to drop the idea. This is not going to be a simple task.

[iatee]

I think this is a pretty bad idea for a number of reasons:

- Lack of Rishadan Port decks makes the meta meaningfully different
- 5 round Leagues aren't consistently competitive
- There's a decent number of people who grind consistently with a deck of choice and end up with a lot of results to their name. While any deck that has a number of 5-0s can't be that bad, if you don't know how many leagues they've entered to get those 5-0s, you have no context for how well the deck actually did.

I think having a separate measure of online deck success / popularity is a fine idea, since then you can track the longer term trends in the MTGO meta, which I don't think anyone currently does. But mixing these really messy and context dependent results into the DtB numbers is going to make the DtB ranking less meaningful not more. Throwing more stuff into the milkshake doesn't always make it better.

[Fox]

I think the idea is fine for looking at the overall meta game, but as @Barook and @iatee have pointed out it's not the most useful of data. Aside from a large event like the monthly (??) Legacy Challenges (I think they're called), you'd basically be throwing in warped FNM level info from an LGS.

[raudo]

Pardon me cause I have not followed online data collection at all.

Are the main sites like Starcitygames, Tcdecks and like open for queries to their databases?
So one could just do something like select * from decktable where cards=(core,cards,for,certain,deck) and result between 1..4 and participants > 20 etc.

[jrsthethird]

Perhaps instead of updating the forum with a combined analysis of online and paper Legacy together, you could run a simpler analysis of the Online metagame only and just keep a thread in the DTB forum that links to the top MTGO decks every month. This way the information is available for people looking for plan for the Online game, without disrupting the numbers or forum organization that paper players are used to.

[Mr Miagi]

I agree with pretty mucht the JRSthethird said. Personally I also would not mix these metas and a separate record for MTGO could be tracked and updated (if there is actual interest in this).

That being said, many props for your tireless efforts for the good of this forum

[barcode]

I think it's worth having a thread in the DTB section to talk about this period's winning MTGO decks, however, it's important to note that cost prohibits at least one key paper deck from taking root in MTGO. During their metagame breakdown segments the podcast So Many Insane Plays separates paper and MTGO because of the obvious cost differences for Vintage and I that is a good model to follow.

[Technics]

Perhaps instead of updating the forum with a combined analysis of online and paper Legacy together, you could run a simpler analysis of the Online metagame only and just keep a thread in the DTB forum that links to the top MTGO decks every month. This way the information is available for people looking for plan for the Online game, without disrupting the numbers or forum organization that paper players are used to.

I think this is the way to go. MTGO is NOT paper Legacy. Ports are more expensive than foil Black Lotus and although currently there are no top tier infinate combo decks, decks like salvagers in Vintage simply can't be played online. Because of this there is a notible difference between what even is a deck in paper and mtgo and thus the metagames are uncomparable.

[Dice_Box]

I think it's worth having a thread in the DTB section to talk about this period's winning MTGO decks, however, it's important to note that cost prohibits at least one key paper deck from taking root in MTGO. During their metagame breakdown segments the podcast So Many Insane Plays separates paper and MTGO because of the obvious cost differences for Vintage and I that is a good model to follow.

I think in this case, it's just simpler to link to the MTGG site Legacy section.

Seems the overwhelming majority say this is an unnecessary addition. That's good feedback. Makes me glad I put this thread together.

[btm10]

I think the idea is fine for looking at the overall meta game, but as @Barook and @iatee have pointed out it's not the most useful of data. Aside from a large event like the monthly (??) Legacy Challenges (I think they're called), you'd basically be throwing in warped FNM level info from an LGS.

For all the talk about the MTGO meta being distorted by cost differences and multiple finishes by the same player, the archetype composition doesn't deviate from the idealized average meta that the aggregators produce any more than regional metagames that we all acknowledge exist. Comparing it to FNM data when we're already including 33 person paper events (where 1 or 2 4-2s typically make top 8 as 7 or 8 seeds) is just silly, as getting a League list into the aggregators requires the equivalent of top 8-ing a 6 round tournament as the one or two seed. TCDecks' ranking system already weights winners more highly than other t8 decks, so I fail to see how incorporating MTGO data does anything other than paint a more complete picture of the metagame.

[iatee]

Combining two already fuzzy pictures (paper meta, online meta) doesn't make a more complete picture, it just creates a fuzzier picture.

And the TCDecks system rating winners more highly than other t8 decks is a design flaw that shouldn't just be accepted.

[Lemnear]

Wouldn't include online data for the DtB and I did not either when I made the analysis for Miracles performance back then, because the Online Metagame is full of fun.dec played, simply 'cause there is little to lose unlike if people travel to a GP and pay for flights/hotel. The presence of shitty decks in dailies leads to an even better performance of the "serious" decks played and we can see this from existing online data.

[Barook]

Wouldn't include online data for the DtB and I did not either when I made the analysis for Miracles performance back then, because the Online Metagame is full of fun.dec played, simply 'cause there is little to lose unlike if people travel to a GP and pay for flights/hotel. The presence of shitty decks in dailies leads to an even better performance of the "serious" decks played and we can see this from existing online data.

Putting blame on shitty decks for Miracles overperforming in the online meta seems like a ridiculous claim, especially when we see similiar numbers in Paper. MTGO is quite competitive and people with bad decks get weeded out rather quickly. After several hundred matches, I can count the number of shitty decks I've faced on the fingers of two hands. But what made me stop playing completely is facing Miracles at least 1-2 times per 5 match league run.

League results also don't explain the overperformance of Miracles in the monthly Legacy event, with yet another event taken down by Miracles, and 3/4 of the semis being Miracles.

And while the lack of Port decks do influence the meta, those decks are not exactly known as real Miracle killers. E.g. D&T is slightly favored at best against a competent Miracles player.

[Jain_Mor]

Well the conspiracy cards (sanctum prelate etc) won't be on modo for another few months.. So they are actually different formats for a while (thanks WotC..)

Perhaps you could flirt with the idea for a bit by including the data you would use summarised as a foot note beneath your regular DtB monthly post. People can see how much they do or don't differ and how, and then make a decision on its inclusion later.

[mgrinshpon]

I think in this case, it's just simpler to link to the MTGG site Legacy section.

Seems the overwhelming majority say this is an unnecessary addition. That's good feedback. Makes me glad I put this thread together.

Correct me if I'm wrong but mtggoldfish doesn't keep records of the month-by-month online metagame. If mtgg doesn't, I think it's still worth keeping a record here since the MODO metagame is still relevant to legacy even if it's not a 1:1 translation to the paper metagame.

[Lemnear]

Putting blame on shitty decks for Miracles overperforming in the online meta seems like a ridiculous claim, especially when we see similiar numbers in Paper. MTGO is quite competitive and people with bad decks get weeded out rather quickly. After several hundred matches, I can count the number of shitty decks I've faced on the fingers of two hands. But what made me stop playing completely is facing Miracles at least 1-2 times per 5 match league run.

League results also don't explain the overperformance of Miracles in the monthly Legacy event, with yet another event taken down by Miracles, and 3/4 of the semis being Miracles.

And while the lack of Port decks do influence the meta, those decks are not exactly known as real Miracle killers. E.g. D&T is slightly favored at best against a competent Miracles player.

Not only. Of course price of cardboard and availability play their role too. The factor of shitty decks still applies for MODO dailies as well as for small locals. We count neither for current statistics.

I cant tell if Miracles is overperforming online or if it just played in absurd high numbers and therefore ending up winning dailies left and right. When I made the data collection, the ratio of presence/Top4 placings was utter ridiculous. Maybe its the meta lacking certain cards, shitty decks, price, etc which come together.

[btm10]

Putting blame on shitty decks for Miracles overperforming in the online meta seems like a ridiculous claim, especially when we see similiar numbers in Paper. MTGO is quite competitive and people with bad decks get weeded out rather quickly. After several hundred matches, I can count the number of shitty decks I've faced on the fingers of two hands. But what made me stop playing completely is facing Miracles at least 1-2 times per 5 match league run.

League results also don't explain the overperformance of Miracles in the monthly Legacy event, with yet another event taken down by Miracles, and 3/4 of the semis being Miracles.

And while the lack of Port decks do influence the meta, those decks are not exactly known as real Miracle killers. E.g. D&T is slightly favored at best against a competent Miracles player.

On the topic of Port decks, Lands actually has a slightly higher penetration on MODO than in paper, ostensibly because of the price of Tabernacle.

[Negator77']

I think this is a pretty bad idea for a number of reasons:
- 5 round Leagues aren't consistently competitive
.

I don't disagree with your conclusion, but this point isn't entirely accurate in my opinion. I've been playing an identical list in mtgo competitive leagues and large real life tourneys like SCG Opens, GP's, and EE's over the course of the last year+ and my win rates are nearly identical despite mtgo being a theoretical better meta for my deck choice with less D+T. The overall quality of players and decks in the leagues is fairly high in my experience.... think day two of an open on average.

Putting blame on shitty decks for Miracles overperforming in the online meta seems like a ridiculous claim, especially when we see similiar numbers in Paper. MTGO is quite competitive and people with bad decks get weeded out rather quickly. After several hundred matches, I can count the number of shitty decks I've faced on the fingers of two hands. But what made me stop playing completely is facing Miracles at least 1-2 times per 5 match league run.

League results also don't explain the overperformance of Miracles in the monthly Legacy event, with yet another event taken down by Miracles, and 3/4 of the semis being Miracles.

Exactly.

Three more copies of Miracles finished 9-16 too. I'd be curious to know how many were in the tourney at the beginning to get those kind of top 4/8/16 #'s.