Going back a few pages, I want to bring up a discussion we had a couple months ago.
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...=1#post1034448
As a quick refresher, the basic idea is that we could rate cards as good or bad in our deck based on what they interact with, or what they don't interact with.
A similar discussion is being had on MTGS right now for some Modern ratings, and I took the opportunity to use the discussion alongside some free time I had to try a test run of this system.
Essentially, the way it works is that each card is rated against each other card through a series of rules, the card in the column is rated by the card in the row, and at their intersection point in the grid we rate 1, 0, or -1 (still not sure on the -1). A 1 indicates the card matches up favorably according to the rules and a 0 means it doesn't.
For this test case I took the current top 40 most played cards in Modern and excluded the lands. That left me with 21 cards, which is 441 pieces of data. It took an average of 8 seconds per card to manually rate these (which is partially why I would like to build an automated system to do it).
My notes on this weren't the most legible but here's the copy/paste of the rules I used
Ratings rate first cast of each spell, at earliest opportunity.
Creatures:
Successfully fights (trades in combat, bounces in combat, wins in combat... does not die for nothing)
Edge cases - Fight exception If CA is gained (Wall of Omens example), variable p/t (ooze, goyf, etc) given arbitrary values, I'm using 4/5 goyf, 4/4 ooze
Removal:
Kills at target CMC+1 or less. (Terminate passes vs Birds of Paradise, Hero's Downfall does not)
Corner cases – Delve fails vs CMC of 1. Delve creatures assumed to fully delve, conditional enablers (metalcraft, revolt, etc) always assumed on. Must trade for full card (Electrolyze passes Lingering Souls, beats one side and draws another, Kolaghan's Command does not, fatal push loses to BBE), treat counterspells as removal
Discard:
Opponents choice discard never beats a card
Player choice discard must within choice cmc+1
Trading:
Use traditional CA counts, draw = +1, discard = -1, pass if parity or better (Cryptic Command hits parity against BBE, so it passes). Edge case, 2 for 1 passes at mana+3 vs mana +1. Additional cards gained such as 3 for 1 pass at mana +2 for each additional card.
Planeswalker:
May evaluate all modes usable on ETB, if any usable mode passes vs a given card, the card passes
No interaction:
If no interaction between cards (Vial vs Lighting Bolt), result is a -1.
So what people are probably wondering is... why mention all this Modern stuff on a thread for a Legacy deck? And my answer to that is that I want to build something similar for Nic Fit, or perhaps the format as a whole. But, in order to get it right, it's important to make a proper rating system. Such a rating system needs to not be subjective, and follow clearly defined rules so that everyone gets the same results when rating cards.
Here's the initial results I got
Raw scores
https://imgur.com/a/ItrujFZ
No -1's
https://imgur.com/a/xBiPzah
From this initial set of results, I've found that my ruleset is currently incomplete. The biggest question is what the proper rating is for two cards that totally ignore each other like Aether Vial vs Lightning Bolt. It seems incorrect to me to label that as an unfavorable interaction, so I was using -1 essentially as a null value. Introducing three values to the system: good, bad, and none. But I can also see an argument to rate with two values: good and other than good.
The other issue is that cards need to follow different rule sets based on the objective of a card. So a card would need to be rated both offensively and defensively under separate rules. What I'm coming up with so far is that cards need to be categorized as threat (wins the game), answer (stops opponent from winning), or enabler (makes another card more effective). Can anyone think of something that wouldn't fall into one of those three categories?
Well, for starters I think you'll want to order the scores differently. 1 for Beats it, 0 for Don't care and -1 for Loses to it. You're using the total score as a way to differentiate between cards, so the highest score should be the one that wins in the highest number of cases and the one at the bottom should fare worst against the field.
As for objectives based rules, this is a tricky one. You're probably better off evaluating cards with a certain purpose (like finishing out a game) and figure out how they shape up vs. the various answers the format offers and other game finishers they might face. This way you can at least come up with a sensible answer for a specific group of cards and have a clear objective for the rules set. I mean, having the evaluate Aether Vial vs. Lightning Bolt is kinda silly.
Oh, and you'll have to weigh the different portions of the evaluation. Otherwise you might end up evaluating your card vs. 10 answers and 40 different game finishers, diminishing the value of not being affected by removal. Value of resilience vs. answers should probably be around 50 to 60% of your total. Also, I can see being able to outrace/answer a hard to answer threat could net more point than outracing/answering an easier to answer threat.
Although evaluating cards this way will probably put DRS somewhere at the bottom (it's small, a slow clock and dies and loses out to everything and their mother) whilst people are screaming for bans.
Originally Posted by cavalrywolfpack
Off topic, I know, but to clarify, are you saying you personally don't believe DRS to be a reasonable card to ban in legacy, or are you being specific in the context of your +/- excercise only?
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
I'm firmly against a DRS ban. It's a 1 mana creature that dies to everything, deal with it. It only thrives b/c the format keeps inbreeding.
The evaluation on DRS has nothing to do with why I'm against banning it, by the way. Without DRS 4C decks just move to the next worst offender.
The problem though is that unless you make it a manual process, at some point you have to answer Aether Vial vs Lightning Bolt. The end goal would be to copy/paste complete oracle text and parse it. Not have to tune to a small number of cards.Well, for starters I think you'll want to order the scores differently. 1 for Beats it, 0 for Don't care and -1 for Loses to it. You're using the total score as a way to differentiate between cards, so the highest score should be the one that wins in the highest number of cases and the one at the bottom should fare worst against the field.
As for objectives based rules, this is a tricky one. You're probably better off evaluating cards with a certain purpose (like finishing out a game) and figure out how they shape up vs. the various answers the format offers and other game finishers they might face. This way you can at least come up with a sensible answer for a specific group of cards and have a clear objective for the rules set. I mean, having the evaluate Aether Vial vs. Lightning Bolt is kinda silly.
Oh, and you'll have to weigh the different portions of the evaluation. Otherwise you might end up evaluating your card vs. 10 answers and 40 different game finishers, diminishing the value of not being affected by removal. Value of resilience vs. answers should probably be around 50 to 60% of your total. Also, I can see being able to outrace/answer a hard to answer threat could net more point than outracing/answering an easier to answer threat.
Although evaluating cards this way will probably put DRS somewhere at the bottom (it's small, a slow clock and dies and loses out to everything and their mother) whilst people are screaming for bans.
I think DRS would rate highly, if the rules are written well, then they should confirm that good cards are good.
I disagree, DRS should eat a ban because of what it does to base blue/black decks. That's the offense in my opinion, nothing to do with GY utility and everything to do with the fact that Underground Sea casts a mana dork.
@ echelon : no love for collective brutality in rhino list ? It is the one nic fit variant where the reach mode is the most useful.
Nope, velocity is too low and most modes are too ineffective. I've tried it, but found it falling short too often for my taste.
Just realized I never answered this part, beating a card is obvious, but non interactivity is a whole other thing you can build for. Cards which the opponents answers don't necessarily beat, but rather where they have no interaction at all is something useful. So depending on your goal, you can be wanting to sort either high and see an interactive card that beats the answers, or sort low and find a card that blanks the opponents hand... both serve the same overall purpose. It's cards that score a zero that are bad, but you also don't want a 1 and -1 to cancel each other out, nor do you want a 1 and -1 to add together as in an absolute value, because that's not accurate either.
Just use a datastructure to store how many times each case occurs, that'll let you differentiate as you desire. On a sidenote, you probably don't care about Loses to (since that'll be the inverse of Beats). Just store Beats & Ignores and you're there.
Does explain why Manaless Dredge can be a thing - very little Beats, lots of Ignores.
Loses and beats are not inverses. Two cards can beat each other or lose to each other. Goyf loses to Goyf in the threat category, Goyf beats Goyf in the answer category, in a general case Inquisition and Thoughtseize both beat each other, one beating the other doesn't make the other lose.
In that case just track all separately
I think Brutality is fine, but you want to leverage discarding those cards for some gain. Ex. Fires builds, Lingering Souls, Loams, etc.
Like, if you were running a Jund build with Recurring Nightmare and Fires, I'd be sold on a few Brutalities to couple with some K. Commands.
-Matt
I agree with you there, but most Junk lists typically don't run those cards (and discarding Therapy usually is something I don't want to do).
Jund is a very different beast though, there you can have the P. Fires.
Also, have you joined the discord yet?
What discord? Do explain.
https://discord.gg/nQQ5V59
That's why it's been so quiet here
I've given up on Depths for a little while and I need a new deck to dig into. Anyone playing a junk-fit list I could use for reference? I'm thinking about doing a Siege Rhino list, but anything junk colored would be great as I have the lands for it. All I need is 2x GSZ and i've got the rest.
Brainstorm Realist
I close my eyes and sink within myself, relive the gift of precious memories, in need of a fix called innocence. - Chuck Shuldiner
A few people have been looking at and playing with my list. Here it is:
Main (60)
4 Verdant Catacombs
4 Windswept Heath
2 Marsh Flats
1 Bayou
1 Savannah
1 Scrubland
2 Forest
2 Swamp
2 Plains
1 Phyrexian Tower
1 Volrath's Stronghold
1 Dryad Arbor
4 Veteran Explorer
3 Deathrite Shaman
1 Scavenging Ooze
1 Qasali Pridemage
1 Eternal Witness
1 Courser of Kruphix
2 Tireless Tracker
4 Siege Rhino
1 Meren of Clan Nel Toth
1 Sigarda, Host of Herons
4 Path to Exile
4 Cabal Therapy
2 Pernicious Deed
1 Toxic Deluge
4 Green Sun's Zenith
3 Mirri's Guile
1 Sylvan Library
Sideboard:
3 Duress
3 Lost Legacy
2 Ethersworn Canonist
2 Pithing Needle
2 Golgari Charm
2 Surgical Extraction
1 Gaddock Teeg
A bit unorthodox, but very well streamlined.
I took a shot at a list and it ended up very close. Thank you! I am definitely interested in the 4 rhino plan.
Edit: is there any merit to Sigarda, Heron's Grace? It provides hexproof and can generate tokens.
Last edited by Mr. Safety; 04-28-2018 at 07:19 PM.
Brainstorm Realist
I close my eyes and sink within myself, relive the gift of precious memories, in need of a fix called innocence. - Chuck Shuldiner
Glad I could help!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote