[Level Up Legacy] Miracles [Archive]

Crimhead

12-10-2015, 05:32 PM

Link to episode 009 (http://leveluplegacy.com/2015/12/10/level-up-legacy-009-miracles/)
Links not working for me.

Edit, got it going.

The show talked a lot about the nature of Miracles, and how it is good; but sweet little on whether or not it is in fact too good.

Whether Counter-Top is a soft or hard lock, the various "axes" along which the deck can attack a game, consistency vs power trade offs, whether CB/Top is better than Chalice, etc, don't change the numbers! They're essentially trying to sell the power of the deck with qualitative nonsense. Even a reference to Miracles being "unfun to deal with" :rolleyes:

None of this has anything to do with whether or not Miracles is OP. These are "feel-bad loss" arguments.

The section on slow-play was interesting. One thing they neglected was the state of the clock. If I'm trying to go off G3 with High Tide, and there is 30 minutes left on the clock, I. Should feel free to take all the time I want - especially if I'm certain to concede if I fizzle.

Most likely this thread will quickly devolve into a Miracles discussion that has little to do with the webcast. People mostly don't need the contentious issues outlined.

tescrin

12-11-2015, 01:07 PM

With vast hesitation as the potential causer of a shit-storm; I have to say I'm a little insulted that people like myself are called blatently stupid for thinking Terminus is a more fair ban.

All of the below is just argumentation supporting why I think it's not a stupid thing to say and would be a legitimate way to nerf the deck to normalcy without just killing it outright. I think we can all agree that fully killing a deck rather than a minor nerf is a bit unfun for people.

If the mods deem it necessary; just delete the below so my "Please don't insult people just because they disagree with you" can stay as a legitimate critique.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
On Becoming Verdict-Top or Stoneblade-Top:
Yes; I do understand that they can become Stoneblade, add Snaps, etc.. but that makes it a more interactive deck and very weak to D&T. I think you're wrong on the effectiveness of 2x Verdict because you'll just lose to creature-combo (Elves, Archtype of E Reanimator, etc...) and the effectiveness of Pyroclasm in the board. You'll start losing to dredge a lot more because you don't get free non-death resets. You'll start losing to D&T more because a 5-mana wipe game one that you can only run as a 2-of and cast at sorcery speed is *WAY BAD.*

Regardless of "better bans" or "should there be bans" discussions; calling everyone stupid because you think you can still make an effective counter-top deck is incorrect; as that's the entire point of that line of argumentation: Keep a Countertop Stoneblade deck in Legacy as an option while getting rid of the thing that makes it's combo MUs and Midrange MUs so doable.

On Terminus vs. Verdict and playing around Terminus:
No need to talk down to me or people who bring it up like I don't know how to play around Terminus; the issue is that playing around Terminus often hands the win to the miracle player for two reasons:
* They can Plow-Snap-Plow to clear the board; halting your tempo completely at instant speed for a turn. Even just Snap + Plow is enough to get a 2-for-1 if you ambush viper them while dramatically slowing your tempo
* Terminus is still a 2-for-1 at instant speed for 1; so it's hardly bad
* You've naturally slowed your tempo providing the Miracles player with a good chance to land Jace, find countertop, etc..

I agree you only play a couple threats at a time; but let's be honest; that plays directly into the miracles players' hand by giving them the time to develop their inevitability. There's also the issue of Verdict not answering things like Thrun, being counterable by Golgari Charm; and similar. The fact is; Verdict is garbage against Green (if they're prepared), Elves, D&T, and Combo. The game against maverick would be lost on the back of 3 Decay + 4 GSZ getting through counterbalance and Thrun being something you just can't deal with.

Conclusion:
It's unfair to dismiss such an in-depth argument with "LOL, but I can play stoneforge!!" or "LOL I can play Verdict!"
Do it; you'll find that current MUs that you have 55% against will become 45%. G1s that you have 45% against right now will probably become 20%. Like a normal deck you will have unbeatable G1s against the wrong decks and will have a hard time with Maverick (Thalia, disruption, lack of weakness to countertop, Thrun in the main), a hard time against D&T, and similar.

Disclaimer:
That said, I'm still in the "I don't need a ban for miracles", but I'm always reluctant to ban things. The one thing we might get out of a ban, however, would be a cool card on the ban list (I'd love to Mind Twist someone :D; even if it's mediocre.)

nedleeds

12-11-2015, 01:19 PM

You are all having a disingenuous discussion anyway when you are calling for either Top, Counterbalance, or Terminus to be banned. None are the most versatile, powerful card in the deck. Top isn't even the card that makes Terminus playable.

LevelUpLegacy

12-11-2015, 02:20 PM

Michael here. First and foremost I want to say upfront that the criticism and discussion is always appreciated. I would still like to address some points.

The show talked a lot about the nature of Miracles, and how it is good; but sweet little on whether or not it is in fact too good

I am of the opinion that the format will figure itself out. Matt has been trying to get something banned in miracles for the last 6 months. Next time we have these types of discussions we will be sure to be less vague about our stances and arguments.

The section on slow-play was interesting. One thing they neglected was the state of the clock. If I'm trying to go off G3 with High Tide, and there is 30 minutes left on the clock, I. Should feel free to take all the time I want - especially if I'm certain to concede if I fizzle.

This is something we address with regards to being in turns after 50 minutes or in an untimed top 8 match. Slow needs to apply at all points. If the situation you describe above comes up you should still be expected to take a reasonable amount of time to go off, not the full 30 minutes. The way slow play is enforced right now is why people take so much time in game 1's when they have 40 minutes left on the clock and then are scrambling in game 3 when they have 10. If it is enforced at all points equally (which means even when you have a lot of time on the clock) everyone will have a better tournament experience.

With specific regards to combo decks, I understand that you have to think through your lines before committing to one lest you lose the game. That however is part of what you signed up for. If you are unable to play the deck at a pace that is congruent with tournament standards then I would recommend that you not play the deck.

Conclusion:
It's unfair to dismiss such an in-depth argument with "LOL, but I can play stoneforge!!" or "LOL I can play Verdict!"
Do it; you'll find that current MUs that you have 55% against will become 45%. G1s that you have 45% against right now will probably become 20%. Like a normal deck you will have unbeatable G1s against the wrong decks and will have a hard time with Maverick (Thalia, disruption, lack of weakness to countertop, Thrun in the main), a hard time against D&T, and similar.

I was dismissive of the idea of banning Terminus because this is the first time I've heard a very thought out list of reasons as to why it should go. I hope the mods do not delete the post because it is a well developed point of discussion. I stand by that if a card should go it's counterbalance but I appreciate that there are other sides to the argument.

Julian23

12-11-2015, 02:41 PM

If I'm trying to go off G3 with High Tide, and there is 30 minutes left on the clock, I. Should feel free to take all the time I want - especially if I'm certain to concede if I fizzle

How much time is left on the clock is entirely irrelevant to Slow Play. It can be a helpful indicator for Stalling, but Slow Play can exist on turn1 of game1.
Also, whether or not you are going to concede in case you fizzle is also irrelevant to Slow Play.

That doesn't mean you can't take 30 minutes for your turn as long as you advance the gamestate and took take a lot of team for each individual decision. I usually recommend urging your opponent to make a player after 30 seconds of priority with no play; and definitely call a judge at 45 seconds. You should always watch the clock whenever you pass priority and don't see your opponent make an immediate play.

QBChaz

12-11-2015, 03:00 PM

The thing with Top in Miracles is that one can legitimately use up 75% of the round time without Slow Playing. Activating Top 8 times in a turn cycle is not Slow Play if there are gameplay reasons to do so (floating 3 for Grip, countering spells, digging for am amswer with fetchlands etc.) Taking 30 seconds per activation where the 3 cards are known, you are just choosing the order you want in the next phase is Slow Play.

Top makes matches take longer but its use is not necessarily Slow Play. However, for a non-Miracles Slow Play example with Top check out Louis Gentile in his match against Lossett at SCGNJ, so painful.

It is the Counterbalance interaction with Top that requires so many activations that bogs down the rounds.

Crimhead

12-12-2015, 07:21 AM

Michael here. First and foremost I want to say upfront that the criticism and discussion is always appreciated. I would still like to address some points.You're nothing but class, Micheal!

To elaborate, the meta game discussion made a lot of points about Miracles' bad MUs being inconsistent decks, apt to lose "to them selves" more than Miracles does. Ignoring that Thresh and other Tempo decks (especially Infect) all have +ve MUs vs Miracles and are consistent, does this really matter at all? If a deck is a 60:40 favourite vs Miracles, does it matter that those wins are on the back of explosive power and not consistency? Does it matter what you can blame your losses on? Do these poor MUs set Miracles back any less?

I think you were suggesting that the nature of the bad MUs prevented them from being total blow-outs? I question the relevance of this too. A deck like Lands has very strong MUs against a large chunk of the meta, but is kept down by a small number of very poor pairings (that, and the RL). Miracles doesn't have those very poor pairings (among the more prominent decks). What it does have is a much higher number of poor but not terrible matches which accumulate. Tournament data suggest Miracles over-all does not have an oppressive win-rate (a little better than 50/50), and it's kept down to about 15% of tops. 15% = 1.2 Miracles decks per top eight, and that's the bottom line.

I am of the opinion that the format will figure itself out. Matt has been trying to get something banned in miracles for the last 6 months. Next time we have these types of discussions we will be sure to be less vague about our stances and arguments.Your views on the format aren't very different. You both think the format needs a shake up at Miracles' expense; implying that its current prominence is having a negative impact. There is not very much discussion to back this up beyond a seeming distaste for the way Miracles plays. :frown:

Related - Merfolk plays FoW & Chalice. I guess that's okay because It's an aggro deck and not a hard control deck?

I do sense (in your cast, and on these forums), a bias against hard control. One of you had mentioned the meta being lighter than usual on combo. You know what Legacy lacks just as much as combo? Hard control! Give Miracles the axe, and hard control falls down to the 3-6% which is Lands. Can this be justified to give combo a boost - which already has Elves, Storm, S&T, and tier two decks like Dredge, Painter, and Reanimator?

How much time is left on the clock is entirely irrelevant to Slow Play. It can be a helpful indicator for Stalling, but Slow Play can exist on turn1 of game1.
Also, whether or not you are going to concede in case you fizzle is also irrelevant to Slow Play.Maybe we should establish why slow-playing is bad at all.

In chess, but more relevantly also in poker, each player has their own time bank. You can use your time for whatever you want. To think. To bluff by representing a tough decision you don't actually have. To size up your opponent and hope to break their stone-face, or even to purposely rattle them (which I would never do but is fair play). This is okay because it's your own time.

In MTG players can't have separate clocks because it handicaps some strategies. So if you use time questionably, you are unfairly using your opponent's time bank. On what's known to be the last turn of the match - especially if you know your opponent has no responses - why not make use of the available time?

On Becoming Verdict-Top or Stoneblade-Top:
Yes; I do understand that they can become Stoneblade, add Snaps, etc.. but that makes it a more interactive deck and very weak to D&T.Legacy has plenty of Midrange - Blade, BUG, D&T, Loam, plus some fringier decks. To all but eliminate hard control in favour of yet more good-stuff midrange would be a crying shame, IMO. I read your disclaimer - I know you are not calling for a ban, but I disagree that replacing Miracles with more midrange control decks would be a good thing.

Like a normal deck you will have unbeatable G1s against the wrong decks and will have a hard time with Maverick (Thalia, disruption, lack of weakness to countertop, Thrun in the main), a hard time against D&T, and similar.(Punishing) Maverick, Junk, and Aggro Loam have crossbred and evolved into the deck that is now 4c Loam - and I'm pretty sure it gives Miracles a hard time. I doubt even with a Miracles ban it will ever revert to its primitive roots. Chalice is just too good vs Elves, Storm, Lands, plus every single cantrip deck. That's going to remain a staple I think. And why give up the :b: splash (DRS, Lili, Hymn) or the PF combo? If you want KotR (or any midrange w/o SFM or :u:) I think 4c Loam is the only way to go.

btm10

12-13-2015, 05:48 PM

You're nothing but class, Micheal!

To elaborate, the meta game discussion made a lot of points about Miracles' bad MUs being inconsistent decks, apt to lose "to them selves" more than Miracles does. Ignoring that Thresh and other Tempo decks (especially Infect) all have +ve MUs vs Miracles and are consistent, does this really matter at all? If a deck is a 60:40 favourite vs Miracles, does it matter that those wins are on the back of explosive power and not consistency? Does it matter what you can blame your losses on? Do these poor MUs set Miracles back any less?

I think a big part of the criticism is that Miracles has favorable matchups against most Tempo decks (basically all of them except Infect, which is tempo-combo). RUG is ~50/50 against Miracles, but BUG is pretty soft (pre-board) to all but the "Legends" list and Grixis seems to be slightly weaker than RUG in the matchup. I agree that we're nowhere near needing to rein Miracles in, but getting these facts straight is important.

LevelUpLegacy

12-14-2015, 03:44 AM

When I say that the format will sort itself out I don't mean that it is in an unhealthy place. I think miracles is the best deck and that the meta will respond to that, not that it's at a point where a ban is needed or that the meta has been negatively affected by the presence of the deck.

I love miracles. I want the deck to be around forever. We just felt it was topical to discuss the power of the deck and possible bannings given the discussion around sensei's divining top in the last week.

-Michael

Crimhead

12-14-2015, 05:37 PM

I think a big part of the criticism is that Miracles has favorable matchups against most Tempo decks...
...getting these facts straight is important.Where do you get your information. The only stats on this I have (https://www.reddit.com/r/MTGLegacy/comments/3guyng/scg_legacy_results_for_major_archetypes_12415_8215/) are from a Reddit user (dafrk3in) who crunches SCG results sometimes.

Miracles vs:

Brug Delver: 11-12-3
Burn: 11-0
Death and Taxes: 27-24-4
Dredge: 5-9-1
Elves: 21-7-2
Infect: 11-17
Jeskai Delver: 3-4-1
Jeskai Stoneblade: 9-9-2
Mirror: 37-37-14
Omnitell: 17-10-2
Reanimator: 7-7-3
RG Lands: 10-15-4
Shardless Sultai: 10-16-5
Sneak and Show: 5-9-1
Storm: 20-19-10
Sultai Delver: 24-28-4
Temur Delver: 16-19-4
Other: 113-91-13
Overall non-mirror: 320-296-59

The data is a bit old - some of it dating back to the DTT era. Still it shows Miracles with at least slightly unfavourable results vs every single tempo deck we have data for.

What can you offer as evidence to the contrary?

btm10

12-14-2015, 08:07 PM

Where do you get your information. The only stats on this I have (https://www.reddit.com/r/MTGLegacy/comments/3guyng/scg_legacy_results_for_major_archetypes_12415_8215/) are from a Reddit user (dafrk3in) who crunches SCG results sometimes.

Miracles vs:

Brug Delver: 11-12-3
Burn: 11-0
Death and Taxes: 27-24-4
Dredge: 5-9-1
Elves: 21-7-2
Infect: 11-17
Jeskai Delver: 3-4-1
Jeskai Stoneblade: 9-9-2
Mirror: 37-37-14
Omnitell: 17-10-2
Reanimator: 7-7-3
RG Lands: 10-15-4
Shardless Sultai: 10-16-5
Sneak and Show: 5-9-1
Storm: 20-19-10
Sultai Delver: 24-28-4
Temur Delver: 16-19-4
Other: 113-91-13
Overall non-mirror: 320-296-59

The data is a bit old - some of it dating back to the DTT era. Still it shows Miracles with at least slightly unfavourable results vs every single tempo deck we have data for.

What can you offer as evidence to the contrary?

Just my own playtesting, backed up by conversations with other people, as well as a fairly broad consensus of people in the tempo threads here. This isn't fullproof by any means, but neither is the reddit data, and I have more faith in my playtesting partners than I do in a small sample of self-reported data, especially since it's contaminated with data from the Dig era.

Also, having listened to the cast now:

Michael, Matt - I thought a lot of your analysis was lacking, and the arguments against banning Terminus were both unnecessarily dismissive and poorly supported. You really didn't engage with them substantively at all, and arguing that Snapcaster/Swords backed up by Supreme Verdict is only marginally weaker than Terminus is silly on its face, especially in a format where one of the creature-heaviest decks runs full complements of Wastelands and Ports, and Elves often just kills before you can get to 1WWU. And I'm someone who agrees with your conclusions.

maharis

12-14-2015, 08:10 PM

Just my own playtesting, backed up by conversations with other people, as well as a fairly broad consensus of people in the tempo threads here. This isn't fullproof by any means, but neither is the reddit data, and I have more faith in my playtesting partners than I do in a small sample of self-reported data, especially since it's contaminated with data from the Dig era.

Completely right. The reddit project was admirable, but ultimately flawed as it was impossible to get complete, scientific data.

twndomn

12-14-2015, 08:39 PM

When people express their message, it is important to consider people's agenda.

"Miracles is not fun for the format"

"Miracles/SDT slows down the match"

These are common sentiments describing playing against the deck. Well..., what deck are you interacting against Miracles? Miracles of your own? Is storming people out of a Legacy tournament providing more fun factor than say sitting there watching your opponent spinning SDT? Who is actually making comments about the fun factor? Who are these people? Elf players? I am sorry, watching my opponent taps and then untaps some permanents indefinite number of times to determine if that turn is the game ending turn doesn't appeal to my definition of fun. Not pointing finger, I'm sick and tired of people hijacking the topic for his or her personal agenda.

There're 2 fallacies for the slow play complaints.
1. You're dead because you're locked out of CB-T already, you just don't want to concede.
It's as simple as that. People don't want to concede sooner because they feel they are entitled, or they might have outs. When in fact, you would have a better chancing of winning the next game by conceding earlier. Hence you're your own bane by not conceding. The Miracles player will sit there to find his/her win con at a reasonable pace legally, and that moment will come, who should be blamed here?

2. Top spinning takes too low
Again, why are you not calling a Judge for pacing? You're entitled to punish a slow Miracles player who is evidently, still at the learning curve. It's to your advantage, for you to preserve time. If you already won game 1 against this clumsy Miracles player, then you probably should not complain at all, since this Miracles player is stalling himself out of the match.

In conclusion, I'm aware that SCG commentators have mentioned that how boring matches involving Miracles are to commentate on. This in fact is not players' fault. Players don't get paid for the entertainment of stream viewers. Players pay a fee for a chance to win in a game that is skill-based, supposedly. Miracles, unlike DTT/TC, is not pushing out decks or forcing other decks to converge any more so than when it had arrived on the scene years ago. You can still play your Painter, Elves, Lands, and maybe win GP with it. Competitive tournament is a competition of skill, the goal is not to have fun. If you cannot find fun in competing, don't do it. Preach others to go easy on you so you can is an excuse at best.

GundamGuy

12-15-2015, 01:26 AM

Quasim0ff

12-18-2015, 12:49 AM

Two points: They aren't always slow playing even if it takes forever for the deck to kill you.

If you get stormed out at least you died pretty quickly (on average) and you'll have time to you know take care of business or get food etc. between rounds. I'd rather lose to Storm 100 times in a row then sit there for 50 min as my opponent has locked me out of the game and is playing at a decent pace but yet hasn't killed me yet.

TL;DR:

There is a difference between being toyed with before you are killed (Lands before stage, Miracles) and losing quickly (Storm, Belcher) one at least gives you time to recover before the next round.

So, with him having locked you out, you are simply neglecting to scoop up your cards, when you have no outs, in hoping he accidentally forgets to counter your spells, instead of going to game 2? Nice principle, pal.

If you neglect to scoop, even when him winning isn't really a question anymore, that's as much as you as on him, about getting food etc. between rounds.

Crimhead

12-24-2015, 06:37 AM

Completely right. The reddit project was admirable, but ultimately flawed as it was impossible to get complete, scientific data.
Whereas talking to some guys on the internet and "qualitative" play testing are supposedly more complete and more scientific? :eyebrow:

This is the problem with most so called play-testing. Many play testers do not record their wins and losses. They play a bunch of matches until they get a feel for the pairing. This means their results are ridden with misconceptions due to some matches sticking out more in their minds and some results being altogether dismissed:

When a player makes mistakes, has bad luck, or decides they were not running an optimal list or SB, they tend to put less weight in the results of the match (if they lose). Usually they will not be as quick to throw out the test if they win for the same reasons because they figure their opponents will make mistakes in a tournaments and that's part of the game. Also, if the player believes their deck to be a favourite anyway (whether they are right or wrong) they will be even more likely to dismiss a bad loss; but no matter how unlucky their opponent gets it's cstill a fair win because their deck is "supposed to" win that MU anyway. (There is a basic principle in psychology wherein people will seek out evidence supporting things they believe or want to believe, but more easily dishes or ignore everyone fence to the contrary).
People really notice blow-out wins and losses. When matches tend to be close, small advantages are hard to see. Suppose deck A is a sdolid 55% favourite over deck B, but that most of the time the games will be relatively close. After much play testing, and so many close matches, our testers might feel that the match is actually fairly even. They might not even notice that one deck won 11 out of 20 times. It's my belief that Miracles is kept in check not by a couple blow-out terrible MUs, but rather by a large number of moderately or slightly unfavourable MUs. This can be hard to see, and outright or invisible if the testers don't actually record their results!
Even if you playtest and diligently log your data, there is still the flaw that you are always testing the same pilot. If you are a little Berger than the average friend/acquaintance you test with, your results will be skewed in favour of the decks you yourself are piloting. The reddit project records results from matches between a wide spread of real tournament players in real tournament conditions. This means the skill differential between players will be a more fair representation.

Bottom line - the Reddit project is a small sample size, but it is miles more scientific than testing without data collection, and light years more scientific than simply taking to other players about their experiences!

I offer data taken from real events without discrimination. Gundam disagrees, but offers no data at all. And you call me out for not properly backing up my claim? I don't think you are being fair.

GundamGuy

12-24-2015, 08:33 AM

Whereas talking to some guys on the internet and "qualitative" play testing are supposedly more complete and more scientific? :eyebrow:

This is the problem with most so called play-testing. Many play testers do not record their wins and losses. They play a bunch of matches until they get a feel for the pairing. This means their results are ridden with misconceptions due to some matches sticking out more in their minds and some results being altogether dismissed:

When a player makes mistakes, has bad luck, or decides they were not running an optimal list or SB, they tend to put less weight in the results of the match (if they lose). Usually they will not be as quick to throw out the test if they win for the same reasons because they figure their opponents will make mistakes in a tournaments and that's part of the game. Also, if the player believes their deck to be a favourite anyway (whether they are right or wrong) they will be even more likely to dismiss a bad loss; but no matter how unlucky their opponent gets it's cstill a fair win because their deck is "supposed to" win that MU anyway. (There is a basic principle in psychology wherein people will seek out evidence supporting things they believe or want to believe, but more easily dishes or ignore everyone fence to the contrary).
People really notice blow-out wins and losses. When matches tend to be close, small advantages are hard to see. Suppose deck A is a sdolid 55% favourite over deck B, but that most of the time the games will be relatively close. After much play testing, and so many close matches, our testers might feel that the match is actually fairly even. They might not even notice that one deck won 11 out of 20 times. It's my belief that Miracles is kept in check not by a couple blow-out terrible MUs, but rather by a large number of moderately or slightly unfavourable MUs. This can be hard to see, and outright or invisible if the testers don't actually record their results!
Even if you playtest and diligently log your data, there is still the flaw that you are always testing the same pilot. If you are a little Berger than the average friend/acquaintance you test with, your results will be skewed in favour of the decks you yourself are piloting. The reddit project records results from matches between a wide spread of real tournament players in real tournament conditions. This means the skill differential between players will be a more fair representation.

Bottom line - the Reddit project is a small sample size, but it is miles more scientific than testing without data collection, and light years more scientific than simply taking to other players about their experiences!

I offer data taken from real events without discrimination. Gundam disagrees, but offers no data at all. And you call me out for not properly backing up my claim? I don't think you are being fair.

I wrote about why I feel the way I feel in the B&R Discussion thread... and BTW it's based on data that you should agree with as long as you don't think the methodology for determining the Decks to Beat is horribly flawed.

The reddit project records results from matches between a wide spread of real tournament players in real tournament conditions. This means the skill differential between players will be a more fair representation.

The Reddit Project is flawed just like any voluntary response survey is flawed... I think your overselling the ability to get good information out of that project, given it's limitations... (you spoke earlier about bias in other data sources) so why ignore the inherent statistical bias that presents itself when the sampling isn't random.

Crimhead

12-24-2015, 11:34 AM

I wrote about why I feel the way I feel in the B&R Discussion thread... and BTW it's based on data that you should agree with as long as you don't think the methodology for determining the Decks to Beat is horribly flawed. . DTB methodology is solid, but it doesn't do what most people think it does. A deck's presence (and rank) in the DTB section does not intricate the decks strength or positioning in the meta - it's skewed to favour decks which are popular and see more play. DTB does exactly what the name says - it tells us which decks we are likely to face and a should therefore be perpared "to beat".

A DTB is typically (but not always) considered to be Tier 1. These decks are the most popular, prevalent decks in the format, and in many ways they help to define the rest of the meta

The Reddit Project is flawed just like any voluntary response survey is flawed... I think your overselling the ability to get good information out of that project, given it's limitations... (you spoke earlier about bias in other data sources) so why ignore the inherent statistical bias that presents itself when the sampling isn't random.AFAIK, we don't have any other actual data specific to MUs.

It's also entirely possible that I am not aware of all the limitations you speak of. I understand the sample size is small. But all tournament data is similarly small and a subject to the same uncertainty. I know it is all SCG data, and represents the American meta. What else do you object to?

Just my own playtesting, backed up by conversations with other people, as well as a fairly broad consensus of people in the tempo threads here. This isn't fullproof by any means, but neither is the reddit data, and I have more faith in my playtesting partners than I do in a small sample of self-reported data, especially since.This is valid critism. Do you find the the actual tempo MUs have gotten easier for Miracles since the ban?

But I'll note Miracles was 20% of the meta then - now it's gotten worse and sits about 15%. So if the tempo matches are indeed easier, something else must have gotten harder! Either that, or maybe just fewer people are playing it?

apple713

12-24-2015, 01:28 PM

This may not be the right place to post but just lmk and ill move it

Why is miracles all of a sudden receiving so much hate? Counterbalance top has been around for years. The deck has received a few cards to make it better than its thoper version but its by nobmeans a plauge on the format. If anything its like a very slow combo deck. Granted its very resilent and has alot of answer but that doesnt mean its overpowered or worthy for bans.

So really whats the hype about?

jrsthethird

12-26-2015, 12:24 PM

Zoo was a natural foil to Counterbalance decks, often applying enough pressure by turn 3 that even the CB/Top lock wouldn't really help them, and they'd have to wait until turn 4 to tap out and play a sweeper. By that point, they're low enough that a Bolt/POP/single unanswered creature could finish them off. Terminus gave them a one-mana Wrath that can clear the board at instant speed, giving the deck an answer to aggro and ultimately killing true aggro decks in the format.

Given this, Miracles ascended to the top deck in the format (or top 3, at least) for an extended time. New players want to play top decks, so now we have a huge percentage of the field playing Miracles and the people who can't play at a fast pace make the entire archetype look bad. Before when it was just Sultai CounterTop with Goyf or whatever, or Esper CounterTop with Thopters, the decks weren't DTB, so there was a much lower percentage of the player base playing the decks, with a presumably higher percentage of those players being experienced/specialist players. Because what newb would pick up a deck with an awkward combo when you could play Maverick or Zoo or Merfolk instead and have a better chance to win?

Zombie

12-26-2015, 12:37 PM

GundamGuy

12-28-2015, 02:35 AM

. DTB methodology is solid, but it doesn't do what most people think it does. A deck's presence (and rank) in the DTB section does not intricate the decks strength or positioning in the meta - it's skewed to favour decks which are popular and see more play. DTB does exactly what the name says - it tells us which decks we are likely to face and a should therefore be perpared "to beat".

You should have kept reading.

So how are decks selected for the DTBF?

Rather than relying on arbitrary selection or decision-making based on conjecture which can be tainted by personal bias, decks are selected for the DTBF based on their performance at recent, large, competitive Legacy tournaments. Decks which make up a very large portion of the metagame are considered DTB's. Decks which are less prevalent but appear multiple times are considered DTW's. Archetypes which appear multiple times are considered ATW's.

The data used for selection is based upon Top 8's from the most recent Legacy tournaments with 33 or more players...

Bold was added by me.

Additional Info:

In light of both Grand Prix: Chicago and the third Bazaar of Moxen tournament, it has been decided to switch to a slightly more sophisticated system for determining deck scores, so that placements in larger tournaments receive an appropriately heavier weighting:

Points per placement = {Number of Swiss rounds} + {Number of Top 8 rounds won}

So really, the Decks to Beat are the most popular because they win the most... a deck that is widely played but does not win much won't be a Deck to Beat...on the other hand a deck that isn't widely played but places on top once won't make the decks to beat either... so on one hand you are right that a deck must also be both popular and good to be a deck to beat...

But the key here... is the And Good part... and based on how many Placement Points Miracles has been getting constantly for 20 or so months... it seems to have the And Good part down. What I take from this is Miracles is widely played and consistently places well regardless of other shifts in the meta.

Crimhead

12-28-2015, 06:21 AM

Did keep reading, nothing you've quoted contradicts what I quoted. It only make sense that Zilla isn't contradicting himself!

What I quoted (now in my SIG) is stating that frequency in top brackets actually =/= being tier one.

The basic idea is that everyone playing Miracles (or whatever) has some chance of placing. It follows that the chance of seeing Miracles in the top bracket is a funtion of both the power of the deck and the number of players who are pushing it. This is the most basic of mathematics (binomial expansion).

...a deck that is widely played but does not win much won't be a Deck to Beat...on the other hand a deck that isn't widely played but places on top once won't make the decks to beat either... so on one hand you are right that a deck must also be both popular and good to be a deck to beat... But if you take this further, it follows that the more popular a deck is the less good it has to be to qualify. A deck that is merely average can still make DTB - it just needs to be very popular. Hence the quote in my sig.

So how Dow we know if a DTB is tier one or merely decent but popular? Factor out the popularity quotient to isolate the desired variable (deck strength)! In other words, divide the number of top finishes by the number of players who ran the deck in those events. Miracles has shown repeatedly that its high frequency in tops is directly proportional to its density in the field on day two (no data released for day one).

GundamGuy

12-28-2015, 09:02 AM

A deck that is merely average can still make DTB - it just needs to be very popular. Hence the quote in my sig.

That's not true at all, you've also got to actually win...

And more importantly there is a causal relationship between success and how widely played a deck is...

Crimhead

12-28-2015, 09:36 AM

That's not true at all, you've also got to actually win...An average deck by definition does win - 50% of its matches. Each such deck that enters has an, eg, 1/256 chance of finishing 8-0. The more entrants there are, the more of these decks will be expected in the field. If 45-60 people out of 300 (15-20%) are playing an average deck, you can bet money you'll see that deck in the finals - even if it's a little worse than average. You claim to have a background in stats, so this should be very basic for you.

But you haven't offered an alternative explanation that accounts for the fact quoted in my sig. If you insist on rejecting (and ignoring) the philosophy behind the DTBF, maybe you should refrain from referencing the data it produces?

GundamGuy

12-28-2015, 11:05 AM

An average deck by definition does win - 50% of its matches. Each such deck that enters has an, eg, 1/256 chance of finishing 8-0. The more entrants there are, the more of these decks will be expected in the field. If 45-60 people out of 300 (15-20%) are playing an average deck, you can bet money you'll see that deck in the finals - even if it's a little worse than average. You claim to have a background in stats, so this should be very basic for you.

But you haven't offered an alternative explanation that accounts for the fact quoted in my sig. If you insist on rejecting (and ignoring) the philosophy behind the DTBF, maybe you should refrain from referencing the data it produces?

The alternative explanation is that casualtity runs the other way, and the reason Miracles is the most played deck is because it's also the best.

You keep down playing this but perhaps a 1/256 chance of going 8-0 is actually far above the expected value with other decks....

Your logic is that Miracles is actually only Good because 15-20% of the field plays it... and if only 2-3% of the field played it it wouldn't be a top deck anymore... where as my explination is that 15-20% of the field plays it because it's been shown repeated success for months and months and months, and was succesful even when only 2-3% of the meta was Miracles.

I also think 1/256 is an underestimate, which assumes that every match is a coinflip. We know that's not actually the case, Miracles best matchups are well over 50/50, but it's worst matchups are pretty close to 50/50 (with the execption of a few fringe decks that don't see much play for various reasons)

Crimhead

12-28-2015, 12:09 PM

The alternative explanation is that casualtity runs the other way, and the reason Miracles is the most played deck is because it's also the best. That doesn't explain at all how a deck can be DTB but not tier one. You keep avoiding this!

You keep down playing this but perhaps a 1/256 chance of going 8-0 is actually far above the expected value with other decks.... 1/256 is dead average. Are you really trained in statistics?
Think about it. If 256 players go eight rounds, exactly one deck will finish 8-0. An average deck by definition has 1/256 chance of being the winner. Any above average deck will have a better shot, and a bellow average deck will have a lower chance.

Also think 1/256 is an underestimate, which assumes that every match is a coinflip. We know that's not actually the case, Miracles best matchups are well over 50/50, but it's worst matchups are pretty close to 50/50 (with the execption of a few fringe decks that don't see much play for various reasons)I wasn't talking about Miracles. I was talking about a hypothetical "average" deck, and explaining how such a deck would produce big numbers if it was played in big numbers.

But Miracles really only has one very good tier one pairing, being Elves.

Your logic is that Miracles is actually only Good because 15-20% of the field plays it... and if only 2-3% of the field played it it wouldn't be a top deck anymore... where as my explination is that 15-20% of the field plays it because it's been shown repeated success for months and months and months, and was succesful even when only 2-3% of the meta was Miracles. I'm saying that if the deck is really as good as you think, 15-20% of the field playing it would result in more than 15-20% of tops! That's the difference between us - you think big numbers in the tops means a strong deck regardless of the number of those decks in the field. It makes me question your background in stats, that's for sure!

Basically what your saying is that it is not mathematically relevant that a high percentage of the field is playing Miracles because the fact that so many play it is further evidence that the deck must be good! Am I reading you right? Because there are two flaws in that logic!

Again, when we are crunching these numbers, why does it even matter why people play what they do? Even if I agreed that people play it because the have good reason to believe it's the best - even then I would expect it to put up twice as many tips as an equally good deck with half as many players.

GundamGuy

12-28-2015, 02:46 PM

That doesn't explain at all how a deck can be DTB but not tier one. You keep avoiding this!

That all depends on how you define Tier 1, the whole concept of Tiers is pretty arbitrary. The short answer to this question however is this is would be pretty rare. How it would happen is if a deck like Imperial Painter snuck into a handful of Top 8ths by preying on the meta one month, it could wind up on the decks to beat for a short period of time even though it's not actually a Tier 1 deck, because it can't do so consistantly. But again this all depends on how you want to arbitrarly decide what Tier 1 vs Tier 2 vs Tier 3 is... I don't think heading down this rabbit hole is of much use....

1/256 is dead average. Are you really trained in statistics?
Think about it. If 256 players go eight rounds, exactly one deck will finish 8-0. An average deck by definition has 1/256 chance of being the winner. Any above average deck will have a better shot, and a bellow average deck will have a lower chance.

I wasn't talking about Miracles. I was talking about a hypothetical "average" deck, and explaining how such a deck would produce big numbers if it was played in big numbers.

The problem with your 1/256 calculation is that there are actually 3 possible outcomes to any Magic Match, not two, and each outcome offers a different amount of Swiss Points, so it's not actually correct to count a draw as a loss, even though it's not a win. It's better then a loss. In an event with 256 players it is indeed possible for no one go to 8-0.

But ignoring that for a moment, lets play around with this "hypotheical 'average' deck" some.

Suppose A hypotheical deck has a 1/256 calculation of being the winner. If 32 people play such a deck then that deck has a 1/8 chance of being the winner, right? No that's actually not correct. That would be correct if we were talking about pulling balls out of a bag, the chance of pulling one of 32 black balls from a bag of 256 balls with a random pull is 1/8... the problem is Swiss isn't a random pull from a bag. Each outcome isn't actually equally likely. And the density of these outcomes with different likely hoods actually changes the base probability. In short this is a far more complex problem then you are attempting to make it.

But Miracles really only has one very good tier one pairing, being Elves.

It's not like you only ever play Tier one decks on your way to the top 8....

I'm saying that if the deck is really as good as you think, 15-20% of the field playing it would result in more than 15-20% of tops! That's the difference between us - you think big numbers in the tops means a strong deck regardless of the number of those decks in the field. It makes me question your background in stats, that's for sure!

Basically what your saying is that it is not mathematically relevant that a high percentage of the field is playing Miracles because the fact that so many play it is further evidence that the deck must be good! Am I reading you right? Because there are two flaws in that logic!

Incorrect for a lot of reasons. Reason number 1, each pilot of the same deck doesn't have the same probability of success, there is varriance inherent in the game of magic, and skill that makes this translation not so clear. Second the probabilities shift depending on the distribution of decks within the field, not just the number of people playing that deck.

And no, I am not saying it is not mathematically relevant, what I am saying is your overstaing the relevance. In a way what you are saying is that it doesn't really matter how good a deck is, as long as enough people play it... what I am saying is that looking at real statistics and probabilities for a moment, more players playing the same deck doesn't inhrently mean more success. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply as much, but for that to be true, Magic would have to be entirely a game of luck, involving no skill.

Do you actually think that Burn would have the highest win percentage if 40% of the field played Burn... (No, because decks that eat burn for lunch, would dominate them) being the most played deck is both a blessing and a curse when it comes to DTB... it means that people are building there decks to beat you... and making meta decisions with you in mind... (which doesnt' really matter to Miracles since it's the honey badger of decks...) so the question is which will have a bigger impact? The fact that your a larger precent of the field means you should get more top 8's... but it also means your a bigger target for getting metagamed.