Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: Graphical analysis of the post deathrite meta

  1. #21

    Re: Graphical analysis of the post deathrite meta

    Quote Originally Posted by FTW View Post
    Hold on, are you saying that the blue core is good in Legacy?

    Thank god we had data to show it. All this time I was playing Leatherback Baloth like a fool.
    if welder beats is a plan, leatherback baloth looks fine to me.

    After spending some more time looking through the viz I have to say I love how this represents the legacy metagame. The gradients really help identify the trend, blue (and goblins) has declined and has given way to more dragonstompy, reanimator, arclight phoenix, high tide, turbo depths, elves, slivers :D, spirits, burn, UB ninja, dredge. That's a lot of extra diversity!

    Also found some really cool tech in the periphery of the viz: Throne of the High City, Rise // Fall and Estrid's Invocation

    Any chance we can have this in an interactive Tableau public viz with a scrollable timeline so we can see the evolution over a longer period of time?

  2. #22
    Member

    Join Date

    Nov 2007
    Location

    Germany, RLP, KO
    Posts

    379

    Re: Graphical analysis of the post deathrite meta

    Quote Originally Posted by janchu88 View Post
    hey,
    - calculated a "synergy" value between all of those cards
    - calculated a gradient of how each card saw its meta share increase or decline since the first results after the ban up to today. So if on day 1 (after ban) some new cards or decks were tried but it didnt work out longterm the gradient is negative, if some card increased its share or made it newly into the format the gradient is positive. If the card wasnt really affected at all longterm then the gradient is close to 0
    - caluclated the individual meta share of each card
    What are the algorithms behind this? What software did you use?

    And related to your last answer (Merfolk cards being near the Chalice.dec cards): How does the algorithm knows, that both are aggro-control strategies and therefore put them near to each other?
    I think it's still confusing have such short distances between unrelated cards.

    Red are declining strategies and green rising ones?

  3. #23
    Is Cancer

    Join Date

    Jul 2014
    Posts

    1,144

    Re: Graphical analysis of the post deathrite meta

    Quote Originally Posted by sco0ter View Post
    1. What are the algorithms behind this? What software did you use?

    2. And related to your last answer (Merfolk cards being near the Chalice.dec cards): How does the algorithm knows, that both are aggro-control strategies and therefore put them near to each other?
    I think it's still confusing have such short distances between unrelated cards.

    3. Red are declining strategies and green rising ones?
    1. couldn't tell you for sure but it's likely just which cards see play near eachother most often; as that's the only data he's using. As in, if the card sees inclusion next to other cards commonly, they are placed closer together

    2. I think you've forgotten that Merfolk started using chalice around the time of TNN/Cavern of Souls. Not 100% why that ended up being the best idea but it's still a thing if you go to the merfolk thread.

    3. Yes. So when he says Blue is seeing slightly less meta share; it's because Brainstorm, Force, and (other card I assume is ponder but didn't check) are all tinged slightly red. When someone says Merfolk is seeing less play, it's because all the merfolk cards are red.

    back on 2: His algorithm doesn't *really* group by strategy; but cards that are only seen in certain deck archs will be grouped between those decks. For example, TurboDepths doesn't use PFire, but you'll find PFire somewhere near its cards I bet; because both aggro loam and lands use Depths and PFire. You'll probably see Maverick cards floating somewhere between the D&T section and the Elves section (GSZ, Mother of Runes)

    Thusly, the cards most tightly grouped in the center are those that are found in the most deck archs. What he meant by "the meta hasn't solidified yet" (or w/e) was that you see several extraneous cards in the middle that show multiple deck archs competing at the center for meta-share.

    (for those of you who work in companies that hold quarterly all-hands about how the company is doing; this is very similar to "market share"; the more "market share' a card has, the closer it is to the center; and the more total copies found in decks the larger the circle.)

    Funny enough, this means that the people who want Brainstorm to be larger are somewhat missing the point; the graph *already shows it's at the middle*, as well as Force of Will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nestalim View Post
    Wrong. Gideon Emblem protect you from losing and you can even open your binder and slam some cards on the board, not even the HJ can DQ you now.

  4. #24
    Curmudgeon
    SpatulaOfTheAges's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2004
    Location

    Brussels
    Posts

    3,008

    Re: Graphical analysis of the post deathrite meta

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce View Post
    No, I'm saying there's already a thread for people to make freewheeling diatribes about Brainstorm; this thread appeared to be about making an accurate representation of data.
    That's literally what people were talking about and you complained.
    Early one morning while making the round,
    I took a shot of cocaine and I shot my woman down;
    I went right home and I went to bed,
    I stuck that lovin' .44 beneath my head.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)