I cannot get a pure online-online Metagame share for Miracles but, it had 36 Top4 placings out of 55 events in the last 2 months.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmlima
Printable View
I cannot get a pure online-online Metagame share for Miracles but, it had 36 Top4 placings out of 55 events in the last 2 months.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmlima
Trying to decipher this is difficult.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
So you used the "Major Events decks (50+ players)" option on MTG Top 8? Isn't that derived from the top placing decks though, not necessarily top 32 or top 64? Or did you comb through the events to find ones that did give top 32+ deck names?
Then this data set gave you 15-16% metagame for Miracles for top 32+ decks? (not including the top 8?)
Then you looked at how many times Miracles top 8'd those events and divided it by the number of events? To give you the average Top 8 representation of Miracles in a percentage form. And then you compared that percentage with the metagame percentage of Miracles (outside the top 8?) and found the percentage to be larger inside the top 8 rather than outside? "21.6%" compared to "16.0%" ie a 35% increase in representation.
So I guess the question is can you share your collection of data, or explain how you acquired it more clearly so we can replicate it?
And by "outside the top8" we're including the whole event (at least day two), or just the top 16/32?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jain_Mor
This is the most compelling evidence I've been presented with for Miracles being OP. Of course every tier one deck will see a larger percentage of top placements compared to its entry percentage (by definition), but a 35% increase seems like a lot - especially for a deck that's been the elephant in the room for so long.
An interesting follow up question would be to see if Miracles is even more over represented in longer events. While it's somewhat challenging to disentangle the pilot skill factor for large events (since we should expect stronger players to disproportionately be on Miracles when the stakes are higher), if we saw a larger enrichment of Miracles at the top of the field as event length grew, that would also point towards a Top ban as thr most logical remedy since you could reasonably argue that it was increased consistency rather than being overpowered that was the real culprit.
To have an easy look, you can just look at only the top8 recorded and see the win% of miracle. Data is really easy to collect then.
Taking the "live tournament last two months" on mtgtop8:
http://mtgtop8.com/format?f=LE&meta=72
It gives you 51.67 rate win percentage for miracle. Which is good but far from busted.
The amount of data is not huge, and the method is not suitable for any deck which is not over represented, but for miracle I believe it is an ok method.
And you avoid discussion on player skill by considering only people in top8 should be on average not that bad.
As I said, not just MtgTop8 but also TC decks, TCG Player and the like to get more decks to compare for the limited timeframe. Then I compared the metagame share these sites list with Day2/Day1 data I could find an ended with the ~16% (Some websites list Miracles at 15,3% and factoring paper & online its about 18%) for Miracles in the field in average. I did not look for T32 data as the number of events we have such complete data is marginal, so I felt forced to just look at T8 to get a decent amount of events around the globe (eliminating local factors like Miracles being even more popular in Europe than elsewhere). At this point we can compare the number of relevant events fired with the number of Miracles placing in Top8s during the same time. In the end, I compared the T8 spot percentage with the average metagame representation (because I obviously don't have the data for each specific event), which marks up to (depending on your parameters like tournament size and structure aka online/offline/both) 35% higher T8 representation than the metagame presence would imply (I took the extreme data here, just like I did for the metagame share (16% instead of the 18%) to get a peak result). The factor [T8 Percentage/metagame share] is the key component I use to define if a deck over-/underperforms in a metagame. I hope that was helpfulQuote:
Originally Posted by Jain_Mor
Consistency means nothing without power. 60 Plains is consistent, but it consistently does nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
Consitency is only valuable when a deck can consistently preform at a high power level; in which case it's not fair to blame Top rather than some of the most powerful cards to which Top allows consistent access.
This is what I've always believed (and it strongly suggests Miracles is top dog because of sign-up density more than the innate quality of the deck. Since you are looking at the just top8s (good players), the argument is more compelling.Quote:
Originally Posted by dte
How does this reconcile with the 35% increase from day two to the finals? It seems like Miracles is over preforming early in the events, but much less so when the rogue decks and scrubs have been weeded out. That's assuming the statistics you guys have provided are accurate and representative.
This is an absolute realistic scenario of Miracles not stumbling over random crap or the infamous "Round 1 Kid" in the early rounds due to its balanced construction able to beat Combo AND aggro with the default setup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
Excuse my ignorance, how did you get the win rate number? Is it something you calculated, if so how? Or is it somewhere located on mtgtop8 that I can't seem to find?Quote:
Originally Posted by dte
@Lemnear, could you please include some paragraphs in the future, would help a lot. So you're saying that you included as much live tournament data you could of any event size (whether it is just a top 8 listing or top16 or 32 or etc) to find an average miracles presence of ~16%. Then you looked at the number of miracles in the top 8 of those same events? You essentially found that in the top 8, miracles is ~22% of the format and including top 8 and all the other data miracles is ~16% of the format?
Sorry if you feel like you've explained yourself clearly, but I'm not sure I understand what you've done to the point I could replicate your efforts if I liked.
OMFG why I never think to do this? You're a genius!Quote:
Originally Posted by dte
This is easy. A deck's rank in the top8 tells you exactly how many matches it has won and how many it has lost. 5th-8th place have a 0-1 record (0% win-rate). 3rd & 4th are 1-1 (50%). 2nd is 2-1 (66.6%), and 1st is 3-0 (100%).Quote:
Originally Posted by Jain_Mor
You can't just average the win rates from each top8 though; count every match. eg, A deck that makes 3rd place (50%) one week and 1st (100%) the next has an overall 80% win-rate - not a 75% win rate!
Petition to make this the official card of this thread:
http://media-dominaria.cursecdn.com/...2677230734.png
Good suggestion, how does the reveal mechanic work irl?Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Cheese
I assumed the need for a sufficient baseline power level was obvious since we're discussing a tier 1 deck. There's nothing that precludes a deck from being dominant purely because it loses to variance less than the competition, and an advantage like that would make itself felt more the longer a tournament goes. One can argue whether that consistency is itself a sort of inappropriate power, but it's definitely not the sort of power that gets cards like Necro banned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
What y'all have to understand is this.
Thoes are big events, they likely will take the deck that has the best chance for them to top.
Local events are never like this and are never recorded and does not makeup the total share of decks at events.
My legacy night is nothing like anything I see here that y'all complain about.
Many that want bans are people that(99% sure) mtgo all day and with how mtgo is I'm not surprised at all that people play the same deck all the time.
I think legacy is just fine, it's that mtgo has caused a huge problem.
Bigger than when netdecking first started and xerox became a thing.
I'm saying that you can't measure a deck's power independently from the deck's consisgency. Or to the extent that you can, it's irrelevant because the favourably of a match-up is depencan on both; and that a deck's positioning is a function of the favourability of each possible match-up times the probability of that pairing.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
Reveal - Spend time and effort arguing about something on a forum where nobody with the power to change the situation will ever see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahg113
Kicker - Do math to support your point.
An 51.67% winrate in the Top8 against D&T, Lands, Infect and Grixis as the other DtBs (in the last months), which we consider more or less bad matchup for Miracles, isn't something you would call busted?Quote:
Originally Posted by dte
No, i took metagame numbers from the websites and from tournaments which have total breakdowns for Day1 and/or Day2. Single tournaments have no relevance for me as I don't know the metagame share for these; i just asume the numbers don't differ much from the bigger, MORE relevant tournamentsQuote:
Originally Posted by Jain_Mor
I took T8 of a much larger selection of T8s to get a decent sample size, I would be unable to get if I would just look at the few complete datasets like GPs, because otherwise such extreme examples like GP Columbus would weight far too much. I have to set such tournaments into relation with these w/o Miracles in T8Quote:
Originally Posted by Jain_Mor
It peaks at ~21% depending on the factors of your selection. You get different numbers depending on if you look at tournaments with 40/50/100/150/etc players and depending on if you factor continental differences or just take the US metagame as representative. The 16% is the statistic middle for paper tournaments as explained beforeQuote:
Originally Posted by Jain_Mor
Right I see, that makes a lot more sense. Thank you, and good idea.
Also good point regarding ~52% win rate IN the top 8 against other tier 1 decks that are meant to be favourable against miracles that have been gunning for it for the past 2+ years
@Sidneyious, that seems like a really bad point to make. I'm sure some peoples local FNM events were fine during the cawblade era of standard, doesnt mean that standard was fine. So you're basically complaining that people who play the format more than you, and play it with much wider experience/meta/deck selection than you are complaining about the format as a whole, because your local bubble of the meta seems fine? :really:
Doing the lords work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignore List AllStarSurvival can fit in pretty much every strategy in the combo-aggro-control-prison spectrum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie
One large meta does not equal the entire non recorded meta.
And? Are we to debate over data we just don't have? My Nic Fit dominated local meta is not represented in this data so the data is flawed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidneyious
When you go to the doctor does he take all your blood or just a sample and work from that?
Apples and oranges.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
If sites like mtgtop8 could track every local meta the %# will be extremely different and this conversation won't be happening.
Instead we should be talking about specifically cards that will help shape the meta and not make it crash into a turnpike.
That's why I never look at results anymore because it does not represent the whole of legacy in the world.
If your argument is honesty "We can't get 100% of the data therefore no data has any value" you are a moron.
https://cdn.meme.am/instances/60553773.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
Have you read most of his posts?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
What do you mean? The "Gentlemans agreement" part of Miracles being less played in locals but only in big tournaments or the "MTGO data is warping", which is nonsense, because i EXCLUDED those data from the start?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidneyious
This potentially is one of the stupidest posts ever on this thread and we have had people talk about Brainstorm being skill intensive as a defence.
There's definitely zero percent chance that some people play for fun at their weeklies and take their good deck to tournaments that they have to pay a heap of money to attend and/or are important events. Definitely not possible that people play Legacy for fun when there's nothing on the line...:rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Not exactly. The top8s are not populated exclusively by tier one decks. Going just by mtgtop8, we get these numbers for the last two months:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jain_Mor
Grixis - 11%
Eldrazi - 7%
ANT - 5%
S&T - 5%
D&T - 4%
BUG - 7%
Lands - 4%
Infect - 2%
That accounts for 45% of the top8. The numbers might be different depending on your method, but these are probably close. If we consider Miracles to be ~20% (mtgtop8 calls it 17%) that leaves ~35% of top eight spots going to decks that are not tier one or DTB.
This means only ~56% of Miracles' (non-mirror) top8 matches are actually against "other tier one decks that are meant to be favourable against miracles".
Since we seem to agree that Miracles is very god vs tier 1.5, tier 2, and rogue decks, It should follow that if we took those decks out of the equation, Miracles win rate in the top8 would be considerably lower than ~52% - probably lower than 50%.
On the one hand, it's a little disconcerting to hit a deck with the hammer when it's advantage comes from being very good against bad decks and/or bad players; but is barely favoured (if at all) vs the other half dozen or more tier one decks. I hope people can sympathise with this point, even if it's not enough to sway you.Quote:
Originally Posted by LemnearThis is an absolute realistic scenario of Miracles not stumbling over random crap or the infamous "Round 1 Kid" in the early rounds due to its balanced construction able to beat Combo AND aggro with the default setup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
On the flip side, tier two (or 1.5) decks are important to the meta. It's certainly a good thing if these decks are close enough to the "big boys" that minor meta variations (eg, at the local level) can be enough to make one of these decks favoured under the right conditions. It's also arguably very much a plus if a player can take a < tier-one deck (for budget reasons or for a personal fondness) and still have a reasonable chance to place - especially if they play very well.
The viability of < tier-one decks is a contributing factor to format diversity. One could argue that with a collective 1/3 meta share in the top8s, rogue and tier 1.5-2 decks are sufficiently represented. So the real issue here isn't that Miracles is pushing second tier decks out of the meta, but rather that it has an (unfair?) advantage compared to other tier-one decks on account of having better matches vs those weaker decks!
It's a strange situation. If we are on the same page here, we can at least refute the notion that everybody should be playing Miracles; because that's only true if people are playing tier-two decks. One could instesd argue that everyone should be playing a tier one deck (which is almost self evident), and that if they did Miracles would no longer be the "best deck".
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
On another note, I think the CN2 spoilers should debunk the idea that WotC doesn't care about Legacy. Looks like they want to make some money off it! This makes a ban seems likely, especially given Miracles' dominance online. However, I think they will wait to see how the meta adjusts first. Looking back, this may have been going on for some time now...
Miracles didn't fully developed and thrive until some point in 2014. By late 2014, the format had been turned on its head with delve spells. At this time the best decks were Delver decks (TC era), and then Omnitell (DTT). After the Dig ban, only six months later (barely time for the dust to settle), the format was again turned on its head with Eldrazis. The meta has barely had time to adjust, and we have an incoming boost for D&T.
I can see it could be frustrating to see Miracles reign for so long, but arguably meta shifts are a bad time to ban cards becuase there is never certainty that Miracles will endure the next shake up as successfully as it did the last one. Put another way, Miracles has not dominated a specific meta for longer than a six month stretch.
I'm hoping D&T becomes big enough that we can bury this topic forever. Between D&T and Miracles, maybe the meta will be sufficiently ripe for some decks like Infect or Enchantress to really thrive? I guess we'll have to sit back and watch, because I can't see a ban coming so soon after CN2, especially if they didn't ban anything in July.
Also, the conversation has been both pleasant and "productive" lately. It's easy for perfectly nice people to become impatient or less civil in the impersonal environment that is the internet; myself included. Last couple pages have been really nice. :smile:
My local has prizes, that's worth winning with my good deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevestamopz
I don't really build to have "fun".
I'd say my post was the most intellectual post here.
Most posts are whining and crying name calling and general absurdery.
I disagree. Your understanding of how a sample works, how stats work and what you can do with them is flawed. Your comment that you do not have 100% of all collectable Data points everywhere means that we can not talk about a large and highly detailed at points sample is foolish at best and stupid at the least. It is akin to claiming that we need to test a shipment of Bananas for disease, but unless we test each individual Banana in the shipment nothing we do is worthwhile. Its just not true. While the data we have is not 100% complete, no one would ever claim it was. But that does not make it useless. Thats why its called a "Sample" and not a "Bible".Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidneyious
But if from your point of view this topic (the numbers) is of no consequence, then fine. If that is your view back out of the thread while people are talking numbers. Because these last two pages have been as close to an agreement two warring factions have come to finding common ground and we do not need someone who has nothing to add getting in the middle of that.
Most of the time it is yes, but these last few pages have been much better. Let the people talk right now. I am hopeful of what may yet come.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidneyious
I didn't put it in context with the metagame structure, just tried to make a point in regards to Miracles having obviously a positive percentage not only during the previous rounds (see: the previous discussion about metagame share and top 8 presence), but ALSO within the T8 and against the other DtBs. I might should have done that - Sorry for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
Its open for interpretation if the data hints at Miracles having a good matchup against other DtBs (the majority?) or not
Edit:
This thread just asks for getting out of hand at times. Its just important to leave some fights behind and get a fresh start :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidneyious
Damn it Sidneyious, you made me agree with arch-douche menace13.
http://i.imgur.com/JbTdlZr.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Sidneyious
If you can not take all the numbers then you can not make a decision on the whole.
By many here's logic if medical field was mtg tournament reports then we should have a cure for the common cold.
No one has "all the numbers" like ever. This is a truth not limited to MtG.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidneyious
Then stop saying miracles is dominant or this is because it's only a thing in mtgo and the occasional big event.
I mean if you're trying to say we should ban brainstorm because it causes the common cold, then I think we should give you a raise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidneyious
@Crimhead, I think that is what people have been generally trying to say. The presence of Miracles greatly narrows the format down. Which in my mind is one of the characteristics / appeals of legacy. It plays fun police far too well against all archetypes and forces the resultant successful decks in its presence to behave in certain ways. I mean it seems clear to me that the format is thoroughly distorted around miracles.
You are free to come up with data to prove TCdecks, MtgTop8, etc and the resulting statistic wrong. I dunno why you keep arguing with MTGO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidneyious
Come up with data that contradicts more than 2 years worth of collection or stop. Do one of those two things. I don't care which but if you want us to stop talking about the data we have, prove it false. Until you do, leave the topic alone. Because you have no idea what your talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidneyious
Do note, saying "But there is more data out there" does not disprove, undermine, weaken or contradict what we have already. It's not an argument unless you can find large amounts of data we have missed or are intentionally ignoring. If you find this data, I am happy to add it to all future calculations.
I think those two are by far the two most important, one might even argue the only important stages. Everything else isn't really important. Something does well in a 30 person tournament? Whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidneyious