All B/R update speculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HSCK

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.

---

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 Arsenal

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.

---

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. Period

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Esper3k

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.

I dont remember any Maverick deck in particular off hand, but I do remember seeing a few Shardless BUG decks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Esper3k

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.

---

Well, D&T can mostly ignore TNN because it can fly other it and race it or take care of the equipement.
I'm more surprised that D&T is still there because of the additional hate vs TNN that affects D&T a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tylert

Well, D&T can mostly ignore TNN because it can fly other it and race it or take care of the equipement.
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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tylert

Well, D&T can mostly ignore TNN because it can fly other it and race it or take care of the equipement.
I'm more surprised that D&T is still there because of the additional hate vs TNN that affects D&T a lot.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nielsie

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arsenal

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?

---

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).

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arsenal

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Esper3k

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arsenal

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'll try to, but I'm not sure if I'll do it by placement average along the way, sorry, I'm lazy.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arsenal

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.

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

So interaction, such diverse, wow.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zombie

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:

---

Damn, I just looked at the DTB Section. Holy shit. Elves no longer a DTB? I wish that was true where I live!

The DTB section is smaller because the required percentage was increased.