Printable View
Then feel free to remove those ... doesn't matter to my point as numbers remain equal before and after TNN in regards to those three named creatures and their part of the metagame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
The only difference between pre- & lost-TNN is that the use of SFM expanded even more
Of course SFM saw an uptick in play post-TNN. I mean, why would you want to play with just TNN when you can play with TNN + tutorable Equipment in allied colors?
HSCK -
I took the average # of top 8s, then ranked the decks accordingly. The average had to be used as not all decks charted in all 10 months. Did you do the same for yours?
Yeah, but I think what gives a better look at the meta is percentage? So the last few months TA is about 10% of all top 8s, while ANT is around 3%. I think when you say the pre-TNN meta is more diverse it makes more sense to point to percentages of top 8s and if there's a better spread it supports it better right?
Most popular decks per top 8 share percentage:
TA: 10%
Miracles: 6.8%
Deatblade: 6.6%
UWR: 6.4%
Sneak and Show: 5.9%
Blade Control: 5.9%
Elves: 5.7%
Jund: 4.9%
RUG: 4.2%
DnT: 3.6%
ANT: 3.6%
Total: 63.6% of all top 8 decks were these decks from Dec-Feb.
Just a small nitpick, but HSCK's data had Blade Control and Sneak & Show both at 28 points over that time period, so they should really both be occupying the same 5/6 slot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
I think you're misreading my post as some sort of attack on you. I'm not saying that you made a claim that Maverick was highly successful. My point was that it seems that Maverick was already on a downward trend and that while TNN certainly didn't help it any, TNN isn't the only factor to blame for Maverick's decline (ie, it was already on the decline before TNN came in). I'd be curious to see a month by month breakdown of Maverick's performance pre-TNN to see if that theory holds true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
Thanks for adding in Patriot into the Jan-Oct 2013 list. This is an example of where I think we can see that a new deck popped up and started trending upwards. Even in the short time it was on the Jan-Oct 2013 list, we can see it starting to put up good results and gain in popularity. It doing well in the Dec - Feb time period doesn't surprise me and while it was helped by TNN, I don't see TNN as the only factor of its success (ie, it was already climbing the rankings).
I was always under the impression that at least the American versions of Maverick tended to run 2-4 SFM? Miracles less so, but I can recall a time period when you'd see those Miracles lists that ran SFM in the main (and now you're starting to see some lists running it in the sideboard).Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
Poor Tarmogoyf and StP get no love? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
We won't even bring up Brainstorm, hah.
Not a problem at all. The number of decks running blue, tarmogoyf or StoP in these 2 statistics didn't vary that much between pre- and post-TNN.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esper3k
I call bullshit on the whole "TNN is to blame for the vanishing of Goblins, Maverick, Jund and other non-blue decks" which was present in this thread as well as the idea that TNN is to blame for a mysterious lack of diversity in the format which is obviously also not the case. The format is as blue as ever according to the presented statistic. Without actual percentages, we can't discuss the point in detail atm
The only thing we can clearly see is that blue is a better support-color for SFM than green (Maverick) and more people gave up on tarmogoyf in favor of SFM+StoP
HSCK -
I understand you now. I'll crunch the numbers and post in a bit.
The format went from ~60+% average of blue decks to ~65+% average decks ever since the release of TNN.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
There was definitely an increase in blue decks, although not as drastic as the one that Delver caused.
Sadly, quoting mtgtop8.com is worthless now as far as current data is concerned since they went full retarded and started including ALL MODO daily events, even those with 16-18 players, into the results, despite a vastly different tournament structure compared to bigger events.
So this is interesting. I focused more on the rankings and placement of decks (just like tcdecks.net does using their "Tier Decks" tool). Essentially, I did not care about what % of the Top 8 a particular deck accounted for, only what the average finish of that deck was. This goes back to my personal belief of caring less about field penetration, and more about the results/win/finish (obviously, high penetration + high win rate is paramount).
If you care only about average place finishes, then this is what the ranking would look like:
1. RUG Delver = 1.9
2. Jund = 3.0
3. Blade Control = 4.4
4. Miracles = 4.6
5. Sneak & Show = 5.0
6. Team America = 5.4
7. Death and Taxes = 5.8
8. BUG Control = 5.8
9. Maverick = 6.0
10. Elves = 7.1
11. Patriot = 7.3
However, if you want to know what % those decks were accounting for in the Top 8 (1,012 total decks), this is what you get:
1. RUG Delver = 16.4%
2. Jund = 12.9%
3. Sneak & Show = 9.5%
4. Shardless BUG = 9.2%
5. Miracles = 8.9%
6. Blade Control = 7.1%
7. Maverick = 6.1%
8. Team America = 5.8%
9. Elves = 4.6%
10. Death and Taxes = 3.8%
11. Patriot = 2.0%
These two sets of data are important as I believe it can give a much more accurate picture of what the meta looked like and how the decks were performing. For example, it is quite easy to see that RUG Delver was an absolute MONSTER. It averaged a 1.9 place finish (tops) while accounting for 16.4% penetration in the Top 8; it not only was showing up, it was winning too. Same thing with Jund. After that though, it gets interesting.
Blade Control had a relatively small showing at 7.1%, but finished at a respectable 4.4 average place. This would suggest that although Blade Control didn't have high penetration in the top 8, it finished well when it was in there. Sneak & Show had a super strong showing at 9.5% in the Top 8, but could only muster an 5.0 average finish; for a deck to have such high penetration, I would've hoped it performed better.
But to the actual point of contention, you can see that Jund went from 12.9% to 4.9% Top 8 penetration. Patriot went from 2.0% to 6.4%. Deathblade went from uncharted to a respectable 6.6%. Blade Control dropped from 7.1% to 5.9%, although I believe that Patriot and Deathblade's positioning had a great deal to do with Blade's decrease in Top penetration. Elves saw a minor uptick from 4.6% to 5.7%. Ad Nauseam went from uncharted to 3.6%. Maverick went from 6.1% Top 8 penetration to uncharted; major dropoff here. Shardless BUG went from a robust 9.2% Top 8 penetration to uncharted; this dropoff is also incredible.
HSCK, so that we can fully compare on all fronts, would you be able to crunch the numbers to show the average place finish of each deck, regardless of Top 8 % penetration? Just comparing the Top 8 % penetration, you definitely can see trends that support my theory. I'm interested in knowing if those decks that are seeing less Top 8 penetration are retaining their winning ability or if they're also placing worse now.
It is much easier to win with Sneak if the opponents don't know what they are up against. If this G1 advantage is removed many decks can increase their G1 percentage significantly, hence playing Sneak in a small local tourney or wining in a top8 is harder than getting to Top8 in a large "anonymous" tournament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
To the point of the meta being worse or better than before I don't see clear evidence in the statistics and percentages that diversity was hurt. From the trends we've seen in the data since TNN as well as my personal experience and observation there are a couple of factors which are "pro post TNN" (not pro as a card/design, but pro in the sense of the format is good):
1) It is tough to make a call for "the best deck". Pre TNN it was clearly Canadian imo. Post TNN I had my money on miracles as the best deck, however that deck is like 10x harder to play than BUG delver which is also very strong. But there are still enough people out there who believe UWr or Esper is the best deck. My point is if we would have made a poll on what the best deck is post TNN a big majority would have voted Canadian.. Now I am guessing things would be more spread out.
2) The "rock, paper, scissor" effect is still valid.
Each of the top decks has some seriously bad matchups. Miracles has issues with Esper, Esper with Jund, Jund with Storm(sneak), storm with UWR, UWR with Miracles, BUG delver with Elves, Sneak with DnT, ... As long as every deck has a somehow fair share of weak matchups it feels like the one with the best tuning/testing/gameplay will have the best chance to win.
3) As the meta is shifting you can be ahead of the curve and do some damage. For example: Lejay made a great meta call and a good finish with a blood moon/painter deck in Paris which preys on BUG. There was and is still room to innovate and surprise.
4) So far TNN has not been proven good enough on its own. It has a strong tie to SFM and there are only 2,5 decks out there able to abuse this synergy.
The important point is that it is not clear that a SFM+TNN deck is "the best" deck and you either play it or hate it. The argument "play it or ignore it" is not true imo. Jund and Miracles don't ignore it but have just very different built in ways to deal with TNN. And other decks "ignoring" it like Team America, Elves or Sneak ignore it for very different reasons.
Besides the old "unfun argument" you can also argue that SFM+TNN is the nail in the coffin for every midrange that is not Jund, but it is not like there were many other midrange archetypes before TNN.
I don't think that I ever argued that there was a best deck post-TNN, just that diversity has been reduced and that the meta had warped itself around TNN, in both direct and indirect ways.
Jund most certainly doesn't ignore it and has been gameplanning around SFM-TNN decks since November 2013. In fact, many current Jund sideboards have been overloading on TNN hate (6-7 cards isn't out of the question). Miracles most certainly does ignore TNN with Terminus x Supreme Verdict; replace TNN with any vanilla creature and Miracles simply ignores it and proceeds to cast a 1cc Wrath at Instant speed.
Again, the loss of % shares for the decks that care about TNN, but don't run it themselves, is there. The increase in % shares for the decks that don't care about TNN at all is also there. It slowly is becoming "play with TNN, don't care about TNN, or lose". The numbers don't lie. The only thing we don't know is how the Jan-Oct 2013 decks performed (actual finishes, not just Top 8 penetration) post-TNN, which I hope HSCK will be able to provide data for as I have.
For clarity:
Jund - 12.9% to 4.9% (-8.0%)
RUG Delver - 16.4% to 4.2% (-12.2%)
Shardless BUG - 9.2% to 0% (-9.2%)
Maverick - 6.1% to 0% (-6.1%)
Miracles - 8.9% to 6.8% (-2.1%)
Death and Taxes - 3.8% to 3.6% (-0.2%)
Blade Control - 7.1% to 5.9% (-1.2%)
Patriot - 2.0% to 6.4% (+4.4%)
Deathblade - 0% to 6.6% (+6.6%)
Elves - 4.6% to 5.7% (+1.1%)
Ad Nauseam - 0% to 3.6% (+3.6%)
Team America - 5.8% to 10% (+4.2%)
I've bolded the decks that best illustrate what I'm talking about and I hope that it's pretty obvious to all the the decks that care about TNN, but don't run it themselves, have seen a significant dropoff; the decks running TNN have seen a significant upward swing; and the decks not caring about TNN have also seen an upward swing.
I didn't keep track of specific placements, and I might have to hand that off to some one else to crunch as I don't have the time to do it. However, I would posit the last few months have more diversity as the top 10 decks have only 64% of the top 8 share, whereas your data set the top 10 has 84%. I'm sure over time there will be some consolidation, but that means there are a lot more decks making it to the elimination rounds more often doesn't it?
That is a result of flawed math once more. Claiming that decks started and fell from/to 0% is laughable. Just because a shitload of decks didn't make it into the T8 statistics presented here doesn't mean they are 0% of the worldwide metagame and we can make analysis based on that nonsenseQuote:
Originally Posted by HSCK
I see your point of how the meta warps around TNN and had similar thoughts about it Arsenal. I don't like the argument of "play TNN, ignore it or lose", because that sounds exaggerated. At the moment it looks like TNN did not "kill the format". It just killed midrange except for Jund. Since the number of viable midrange archetypes was very limited pre TNN it is just not such a big deal for the format. Overall the format is still diverse - some decks got better - some got worse and things keep moving.
The thing is, the whole "X card forced the meta to deal with it" argument can be applied to any number of cards we've seen. Deathrite Shaman, Delver of Secrets, Stoneforge Mystic, even Tarmogoyf all had that effect upon the meta. We occasionally get powerful cards that pop up and shake up the format, which I'm personally fine with. It's when those cards become overly dominating (such as Mental Misstep, for example) that I would believe is the bigger problem. I don't believe we've reached anywhere near that sort of dominance for TNN to be banned on those grounds at least.
The "unfun" argument, of course, is more nebulous and more open to debate.
I think one thing to also keep in mind is that we're all working with very likely extremely flawed data as there's no way we can get the results of every tournament. Even where we draw the line at what is "major" and what is not is a fairly arbitrary judgment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Legacy metas are also notoriously known for being fickle based upon location as well, so while certain decks may be performing better at large tournaments, your local meta will very likely not reflect that of the overall meta.
What are you talking about? I didn't say that at all? 36% of decks hitting top 8s in the last 3 months of play have been outside the top 10 decks. The trend from Jan-Oct 2013 was 16%, I'm not sure what else to say except look at the decks too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I honestly give up. I started with the "unfun" argument but was quickly yelled at and told that I needed to provide statistics and data. I then provide statistics and data that very clearly supports my position, and now it's not good enough for reasons completely unknown to me. Okay.
Hi, welcome to The SourceQuote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
Wait, I'm confused, I don't think I said that about your data? I just said that the last few months have shown an increase in other decks top 8'ing, or are you referring to another poster?Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
I'm talking about Arsenal's statistic obviously and explained why suddenly the top 10 decks make suddenly 84% of decks in the metagame. The reason for that is that Arsenal's statistic treats any deck outside of the top 10's as 0% which is plain nonsense by calculating every deck that enters and leaves the top 10 with 0% per flawed definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by HSCK
Data are nice. I wish you would have worked with them more careful to have a point about TNN driving out non-blue decks, but if all non-blue decks that don't make it into your top 10 equal 0% in your calculation of the metagame distribution, you create an artificial top-heavy statistic especially if people try to compare data like HSCK. Maverick didn't drop to 0%. Neither was Ad Nauseam 0% unplayed prior to TNN. PeriodQuote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
You do realize that the % HSCK and I have been discussing are the Top 8 penetration %, and NOT the entire Legacy meta as you keep on insisting, right?
Just curious, but have there actually been 0 T8's by Shardless BUG and Maverick in the Dec-Feb tournaments (that we can mine data from of course).
@Arsenal: looking at the data from that post you did comparing the changes (posting from my phone so copy/paste sucks, sorry), how does the drop in Miracles (a deck you say is in the Ignore TNN category) and relatively small change to D&T (a deck that cares about TNN, but does not run it) fit into the overall picture? Ie, by the theory, shouldn't have Miracles also experienced an increase while D&T also should have suffered massive decrease (I'm actually surprised that it hasn't given all the horror stories we hear about it being killed by TNN). This isn't an attack, btw, I just am wondering about your thoughts on those two points.
Neither is 0, I'll check my notes to see but they both placed at least 3-7 times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esper3k
I dont remember any Maverick deck in particular off hand, but I do remember seeing a few Shardless BUG decks.
Well, D&T can mostly ignore TNN because it can fly other it and race it or take care of the equipement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esper3k
I'm more surprised that D&T is still there because of the additional hate vs TNN that affects D&T a lot.
This. TNN in a vacuum isn't that much of a concern to DnT because we race it in the air and have plenty of tools to destroy equipment. More concerning to DnT is the increase in TNN-hate in the form of sweepers and -x/-x effects. We realy have to be carefull not to overextend into those. I fear Team America much more than Patriot Delver when playing DnT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tylert
I also don't understand the hate on SFM. There is a lot more you can do against SFM than TNN. What I hate the most about TNN is that no matter your own boardstate, out of nowhere for 3 mana your opponent can change all of that or create somekind of a nobody-do-anything-kind-of-phase. This is especialy true for decks like Goblins, previously over-powering boardstates now mean nothing. But I have also experienced it even with a deck like MUD, you cast a fatty they cast TNN, you go some rounds of draw and go from both sides untill you or your opponent finds an answer (like the double bolt + TNN attack in my case :cry: ). I don't know but those games just feel stupid.
But if you're going to use that same reasoning, Jund and Maverick can ignore TNN or be put into the "can deal with equipment" camp. Both of those decks especially deal with equipment much better than D&T does (Jund packing Abrupt Decays, Ancient Grudge, etc. Maverick having GSZ for Qasali Pridemage on top of other hate if they want it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tylert
Jund is also in GB, which is particularly well suited for dealing with TNN and Maverick now has access to Thespian Stage / Dark Depths to go way over the top if they want to.
Again, I posit that Maverick was already on the decline before TNN and that the surge of people playing TNN drew people away from Maverick and Jund. I also think we'll see Jund slowly climb back up, although likely not to the numbers we previously saw.
However, as 1) Legacy metas are usually slow to shift 2) we haven't really had that much time post-TNN yet, so all we can do is watch and see what happens.
If Goblins has an overpowering board state, a 3/X wall for 3 isn't really going to do much to them. On top of that, they even have a nasty Protection from Blue guy to push through. TNN isn't great when your opponent has an overwhelmingly strong board state. TNN is best when you're ahead or need to break parity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nielsie
It's not that people hate SFM (at least I don't). I just recognize that it's more powerful than TNN. Sure, you can "deal" with it more easily, but it'll cost you 2 cards and one lesser played type of card (artifact removal vs creature removal) to deal with both. Combine that with it being an easily splashable 2-drop that can create a recurring Serra Angel (Batterskull), wipe your opponent's board in a few turns (Jitte), or deal +4 Damage while drawing you a card every turn (SoFI), one can see that it's always been SFM that's been the powerhouse in these decks. There's a reason why you often see 4x SFM, but rarely even see 3x TNN. It's not that SFM complements TNN, it's the other way around - TNN complements SFM.
Esper3k -
Some time ago, I asked that very same question re: Miracles decrease in play; I believe this was back in mid January. I was told by virtually everyone on these boards that Miracles is a tough deck to play through 6+ Swiss rounds plus a Top 8, inexperienced players were likely picking up Esper/Patriot over Miracles if deciding to play a UWx deck, TNN was the new toy that people wanted to play with, etc. All of these reasons sound plausible, but I don't have any hard data to theorize one way or the other. I suppose Miracles' players anecdotal "evidence" will have to suffice?
I have no idea why D&T has remained virtually unchanged in Top 8 penetration %. I'm not familiar enough with D&T vs. SFM-TNN decks to theorize anything. Perhaps D&T has a much better plan against SFM-TNN than it appears? Perhaps D&T is taking advantage of peripheral effects happening in the meta? I don't know. Maybe Miracles and D&T are the statistical outliers?
Lemnear -
Again, you do understand that HSCK and I have been discussing the Top 8 penetration % and NOT the entire Legacy metagame from deck #1 through deck #45, right? RIGHT? Our sample is Top 8's, not the entire Legacy meta. If a deck doesn't top 8, then it's statistical value is ZERO. Once it charts in the Top 8 (enters the sample), then it can be assigned a value greater than ZERO. Does this make sense to you now? We are discussing the % of decks that comprise Top 8's, not the % of decks that comprise the entire Legacy meta from top to bottom. We have stated that numerous times... not quite sure how you missed this.
Given the recent performance of Miracles at GP Paris, I would assume we'll see an uptick in Miracles being played (and thus T8ing) over the next few months. We saw a resurgence of D&T after GP Strasbourg as well as a surge of UWR Delver after GP DC. I don't see any reason why we wouldn't see the same after Paris (we're already seeing an upsurge of Team America).Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
At least for me (feel free to disagree), the performance of Miracles & D&T is not so much outliers, but more of a sign that TNN isn't as invulnerable and homewrecking to the format that many (not saying you have) claimed.
I think it's more plausible that people jumped ship to TNN decks due to all the hype and controversy and now the meta is adapting / people are discovering it isn't an auto-win, so people can feel like they don't have to play TNN anymore.
D&T still doing well doesn't surprise me as much as it continuing to maintain numbers. I believe D&T has a much greater "true believer" following than Maverick or Jund do. From what I've seen, you don't really get many players going "oh man, I love Maverick / Jund", but you -do- have a lot of avid fans of D&T. I think many of those players kept playing it and learned to deal with TNN, but I'm still also somewhat surprised that it hasn't dropped some in the T8 percentages due to getting hurt by TNN splash hate (although as TNN declines in play, TNN hate becomes less important).
This is all just brainstorm / theorizing, of course. We'll have to see over the next year or so how the numbers on things continue to pan out.
I never said it was invulnerable (TNN decks can be beaten... by other TNN decks or by decks designed to bypass TNN altogether, the statistics show this to be true), but it certainly has warped the meta, or at least the winner's meta. And if Miracles does see an uptick, which is likely for all the reasons you stated, then that will just further strengthen my argument as that'll be yet another "don't care about TNN" deck gaining % shares.
___________________________________________________________
HSCK -
Are you going to add November 2013 to your data?
I never said you said it was invulnerable (in fact, in my previous post - I actually said "not saying you have" claimed it!), but there have been wails and gnashing of teeth from many who have made claims such as "any fair deck with creatures automatically loses to it" and such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
If Miracles makes the climb back to its former percentages, I would say that it's not doing so because of TNN. It's doing so because the same factors that made it good pre-TNN are still the same post-TNN. The number of sweepers it has just makes it generally good against creatures. TNN doesn't change that. Creature decks are still being played and Miracles will always be great vs those as long as they're around.
I don't think anyone ever claimed that the meta wouldn't change because of TNN. I believe the crux of the argument is whether or not it shifted enough to be considered a bad thing. We still see greater numbers of SFM, Delvers, and DRS being played than TNNs. I would make the claim that those cards have shifted the meta much more than TNN has done, but I believe most people would still rather have them in the format than without.
I definitely think this is closest statement made yet to reality, and ultimately why I don't think banning is necessary. As the D&T players have pointed out, that deck's fall-off in success has less to do with TNN itself and more to do with the fact that their creatures get hit by a lot of the TNN answers, especially -X/-X effects and straight up sweepers like Terminus and Supreme Verdict (which are obviously the things that make Miracles powerful). The one-for-one TNN answers like Innocent Blood and Diabolic Edict, or the slow grindy answers like Liliana are actually much worse against dedicated creature decks than targeted removal like Abrupt Decay and Bolt, but D&T is vulnerable to the sweepers because it relies on a critical mass of dorks that die to the sweepers. I'm sure this also accelerated the decline of Maverick that may or may not have been underway in November, and the more recent decline in Elves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esper3k
That being said, I do think that TNN has had more of an effect than Deathrite Shaman on the best decks right now because DRS doesn't put design constraints on decks in the way that TNN dictates the type of removal that you have to have access to. Interestingly, another major factor I've considered when designing sideboards recently has been whether I have enough/good enough artifact removal. It's not uncommon to see decks capable of running 6+ ways of killing artifacts postboard in my meta, which really speaks to the power of equipment at the moment.
I'll try to, but I'm not sure if I'll do it by placement average along the way, sorry, I'm lazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
My original concern with November was that TNN was not widely available yet either so it might look odd.
Meh, I think for integrity's sake, you include November 2013 in the sample. Whether it supports your position or not, it's valid data that falls within our parameters. It needs to be analyzed.
Btw, does anyone remember what was happening around June and July 2013? Those two months saw very few 6+ round tournaments that I could mine Top 8's from.
Holiday/vacation/swimming? Look up the previous years if you'll find the same pattern. But I guess Aug would be the same then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
Working on November and starting March this weekend. Shardless BUG should be tied with ANT and DnT over the three month span with 17 top 8s of the 468 decks surveyed.
EDIT: Finished November, some interesting points:
Maverick was a monster which bucked its downward trend and what it would produce in later months, not sure what about November made it so popular, but it had 15 top 8s in the 248 deck sample size. RUG and ANT were the only ones better with UWR and Miracles also at 15.
From the data I've looked at, November was the last month where there was a tremendous consolidation of decks as more and more rogue decks creeped in during the Dec/Jan/Feb window.
This DTB shrinkage thing seems fun. Top 5: Miracles, playpastTNN.dec x2, TNN.dec x2.
We asked an expert for his opinion on the new DTB:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doge
Damn, I just looked at the DTB Section. Holy shit. Elves no longer a DTB? I wish that was true where I live!Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie
The DTB section is smaller because the required percentage was increased.