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