Printable View
If I didn't feel like having already put far too much time into the data, I'd calculate pure MTGO statistics and 150+ player paper events seperately, just to see how they differ. I wouldn't be surprised if Miracles is 20%+ of the online metagame, by just looking at Top4 data of the last 50 dailies
Post SCG support dropping, that's 99.5% of the Legacy currently being played. So by inference 99.5% of Legacy doesn't matter. Even Classics now are basically never cresting 7 rounds. Eternal Magic when reflected against Magic as competitive enterprise doesn't matter, and Competitive Magic as a means of earning money when reflected against anything else you could be doing with your time doesn't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian23
Didn't knew MKM stopped their Tournament Series, BoM Team stopped operating and WotC dismissed their GPs so SCG is the only Legacy Tournament organizer worldwide....Quote:
Originally Posted by nedleeds
...not to mention Ovinogeddon, Prague Eternal, the now two Eternal Weekends, all the 100-200+ people tournaments in Spain and the regular 300 player events in Japan. And that's only the one's I'm aware of from the top of my head. The Legacy meta is so much larger than whatever data you get from just SCG.
On another note, Randy just found Miracles:
http://i.imgur.com/gGDZVu2.png
Well for one using your data, delver decks have a combined share of more than miracles. So delver has a greater dominance.
Outside of the usual results you can find there are by far more popular decks than what we see.
Now can we get back to speculation and not "dominance" numbers that we don't fully have?
This is by far the worst analysis of legacy I've ever seen here. It totally ignores everything actually happening in tournaments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidneyious
Isn't this the same dude who bitches about how un-fun it is for Shops to lock you out of games?Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian23
Yeah. He demonized shops because of how fun it was. And pretty much acknowledged miracles needs a ban bit it's all good because he likes it
I feel like Homer in the tree house of horrors The Shining episode:Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
"Urge to Rant, Rising. "
http://i.imgur.com/JrjxtnD.png
I can almost smell the greed and grease emanating from his piggy fingers.
(Edited... fck me, I didn't want to post in here again.)Quote:
Originally Posted by nedleeds
Your classic got 9 rounds yesterday.
Do yourself a big favor and stop this. You make yourself look like a clown unable to juggle data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidneyious
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jain_Mor
Thanks for the "genius" (auto-infatuation pushed me to quote it).Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
And you are close for the win rate. But the reality is I counted by matches:
- 1st place equal 3 matches, 3 wins;
- 2nd place equal 3 matches, 2 wins;
- 3-4th places equal 2 matches, 1 win;
- 5-8th places equal 1 match, 0 win.
You sum it up and have your win percentage. I redid my analysis with all the 50+ players events that took place in 2016 for which top8 is recorded in mtgtop8.
It gave 58 placings:
6 first positions;
6 nd
17 3-4
29 5-8.
99 matchs, 47 wins. 47.5 % winrate.
Miracle win about half of its matches. Statistics is not big enough to be trusted more precisely, but shows a pretty even result.
But this should not be interpreted as "miracle is not dominant", it is the most represented deck. And so the one which take the most top8 shares. And seeing that on internet, the most picked deck for going to an event.
Very strange analysis, it is busted because it performs at about 50% winrate against the metagame?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
You can say that. It depends how much you consider decks to be similar. If we were splitting miracle decks in different categories and not differentiating between delver flavours, you would be right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidneyious
Truth is, miracle is using a very particular approach, and when you face it, it is a very different match than against most things. It is a game against miracle. While facing delver can involve chocking on manadenial like versus D&T, DRS calculations, combat calculations,... It is a more classic legacy game.
"Top8" does not equal "metagame", mind that. "About to 50% winrate" in the T8 can be busted depending on the actual distribution of opposing decks we can get from DtB data. ~50% winrate has a very different value depending on if you achieve that against Lands/D&T/etc or against Jund/Storm.Quote:
Originally Posted by dte
You can NOT say this, because it has ZERO relation with the performance of the deck. It's like claiming Affinity is dominant with 25% metagame presence just because two players joined your local 8-man tournament with their Modern Affinity decksQuote:
Originally Posted by dte
Really? Most metagames I have seen, being big journeys or locals, reflect quite well the deck distribution on mtgtop8.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
So I use this as a reflection of the metagame, and it is what I consider to build decklists and sideboards.
As it was all the decks which have reached a top8 in 2016 at any 50+ players event recorded in mtgtop8, I would say it was somehow representative of the general metagame. The fact is, that miracle is represented enough that its bad MUs have more chances to enter top8 than decks that have a poor miracle MU so I would agree that there is a minor twist here, but not a warping one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
That's something you often do, trying to use reductio ad absurdum by claiming that two propositions are similar, while they aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Claiming that Delver variants taken as a whole partake a bigger chunk of the metagame than miracle, taking into account every bit of metagame data that is available, has not much to do with the results of a single 8-man journey.
The topic of the last three pages was that Top8 data do NOT equal metagame deck distribution. Thats the reason for the buzz and is a prove that dedicated deckbuilding/sideboarding for Miracles is NOT effective, otherwise the deck wouldn't have such an overall and T8 specific performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by dte
If you want to argue with decks which prey for Miracles, you also need to look at how Miracles performs against them in the later rounds and T8 of a tournament. The point is, that we can't really see any significant effect of these decks in regards to Miracles performance statistics.Quote:
Originally Posted by dte
Sidneyious claims that a sheer metagame presence of a deck automatically makes it dominant, no matter if we see any if the decks present in T8/16/32 statistics and previously denies statistical evidence in regards to Miracles position based on his local metagame. This is absurd. Delver is 16,8% of the metagame (online+paper) while Miracles is ~18% (online+paper), so he plain lied that Delver has a higher metagame share than Miracles and you can see it with just one fucking look at MtgTop8 data. On top of that it made 6 out of 40 Top8 spots in the last 5 mayor events listed on the page. That makes less Top8 placings than it should have according to metagame shareQuote:
Originally Posted by dte
I didn't reply to that because I think like Julian that it's kinda irrelevant what happens in local metagames.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I mean, don't get me wrong, it is relevant in our dayly playing experience, but what you can share with the worldwide internet community about your half-infect metagame (for exemple)?
Here, on a global thread,
Once again, my experience of playing is that top8 metagame is quite close to global metagame. And if you do not lose your firsts couple of rounds, it gets closer and closer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I do not think I often see a tournament with less than 15-20% miracle players registering. It is a common deck to be seen.
I don't know what you call "dominant". The word has different meanings, and here it can be seen as the concentration (or representation), or as the efficiency (or winrate). Clearly, miracles and delver are dominant if you speak about representation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
The efficiency is something to look at if you want to chose which deck you want to play.
The representation is something to look at to know how to properly build your 75+.
Whatever is something to look at if you want to whine. Anybody can find a good reason.
The point is that metagame presence only is no indicator of if a deck is good in the metagame or not. You get that only if you set the metagame representation into context with the actual results (T8/16/32). It isn't hard to compare the Delver supertype to Miracles as I have presented the numbers already for both. Miracles has ~21% of T8 with ~16% metagame share (paper only) aka 35% overperformance and Delver (online+paper) 16,8% metagame share and 16,3% T8 spots which means that Dever UNDERPERFORMS according to the very small dataset of the last 5 mayor events
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I agree that presence is different than efficiency, and separated the two concepts in my previous post. As representation is something that is already easily and readily accessible, althought through minor biases, the discussion is mostly about how to determine efficiency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I would say that your dataset is too small to allow any relevant conclusion. 5 events?
I would suggest that you redo the exact same analysis with the 5 previous events, and then with the 5 previous one.
If you cannot (or do not have the time to do so, which would be understandable), give us the percentage for each of these 5, for us to see how your data have to be trusted.
If all your results are consistent, it is very interesting data indeed. If not, it would be nice from you to report so.
Actually... if you go to MTGgoldfish and sum up all Delver variants for the Leagues in August, there are more of them than there are Miracles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
You can grab the last ~40 events from MtgTop8 if you like and look at the average Delver supertypes in each of the tournaments. I had not the time to do it manually for a large amount of events, so I just took the last 5 mayor ones only. If you feel like it, you can also choose to filter out online data and just look at paper events like I did for Miracles.Quote:
Originally Posted by dte
As I said, I don't have the time to factor in several websites for a more detailed analysis for the Delver Supertype but just took a sample (MtgTop8 + last 5 mayor events).Quote:
Originally Posted by jmlima
Done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Actually, there are 168 decks in mtgtop8 registered for major legacy events in 2016. 25 of them contain CB main (15%), 31 Delver of secret (18.5%).
Just for the record, fuck Randy Buehler with a red-hot poker forever. He was the one that unilaterally decided land destruction was "un-fun" in the early 2000s and kneecapped a huge facet of the game because he was still butthurt about some losses in '95.
Fuck you, Randy.
Fuck you forever.
PS. - Thread is still a garbage fire.
Just for complete data: For all events in 2016 you get 16,1% Counterbalance and 17,3% Delver of Secrets. The relevant data at this point is Top8/ShareQuote:
Originally Posted by dte
Wait, they let Randy make design decisions?
Exactly what bet did they lose, how drunk were they, how good was the weed they were smokin (and where can I get it)
Market research is probably what led them to realize that land destruction is not fun. It is pretty obviously not fun for most players to lose a game because they got locked out and can't play their spells, whether it be via Counterlock or having no lands. In legacy we accept the possibility of having a not-fun game as part of the format but if standard had a bunch of prison strategies and land destruction, fewer people would be buying cards. They are a business - if most people who buy packs loved land destruction, they'd be printing one mana Stone Rains left and right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Cheese
With all respect due, the man had a point. I mean, no matter how your locked out of the fame, getting locked out sucks. Be that Counterbalance and Top or Crucible and Wasteland. The reason why we forgive Wasteland so readily is because we can play around it though, it's only a hard lock until you fetch a Basic. We feel like we have some small amount of control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Cheese
But having someone go "Daze, Waste, Stifle" is not at all fun.
I'm somewhat skeptical as to how informative it is to aggregate Delver decks in discussions of whether or not something from another deck is banworthy. If switching decks was easier then it might be an interesting proxy for what meta people anticipated going in to the event, but I don't think that everyone who registers a Delver deck was faced with a choice between RUG, Grixis, BUG, Ur, and 4c. If they had other options at all, I wouldn't be surprised if they were considering for instance, Shardless vs. Grixis or BUG Delver, or Ur Delver vs. Burn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Or Ghost Quarter, Loam for that matter...not even basics will save you!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
I am not waving flags in favor of bannings. I just think we all need to share a common ground of data to discuss IF everythings fine the way it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
P.S.: I don't have interrest in discussing Delver, but the topic was forced on me and potentially is a fitting point to compare performances/presence
Sucks for you, but that may be the very definition of fun to your opponent. I think trying to make the game fit every player's definition of fun is a fool's errand. Just make it balanced so that everyone has a fighting chance to achieve their own version of fun. Personally I think LD was a hell of a lot more fun than prison/soft-lock strategies, just because the LD player at least had to be actively trying to maintain that board position every turn instead of "achieve optimal board state, wait for win condition to appear".Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
To be fair, it could have been researched/market-based, but he certainly didn't make it seem that way at the time. Article, for reference:
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles...eek-2002-04-05
I'm positive LD and Countermagic were phased out for the same reason: most players didn't find it fun. LD is miserable in the fact it creates non-games and it's definitely been good for the game for it to be gone from modern design.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Cheese
'Actively trying to maintain that board position', so uh, don't forget to cast Stone Rain?
From the article:
Basically, I don’t think Magic is fun when only one person can play his or her spells. I also hate fast combo decks, for pretty much the same reason. Both combo decks and land destruction decks turn Magic into a solitaire game, where one person’s strategy is designed to prevent the other player from ever getting started. While I do think it’s kind of neat to have bizarre decks running around, keeping things interesting, I don’t think these particular decks make for the most fun games.
This is pretty uncontroversial. I played Modern storm for a while, and none of my friends - who are spikes, even - ever wanted to play with me for fun. Because...it wasn't fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HSCK
I agree in theory, but look at what Modern and Standard are as a result of modern design: lots of creatures being jammed into each other. Combo, land disruption, discard, countermagic, etc might not be that fun, but they keep things diverse, dynamic, and fresh. When you start kicking legs out from game design, the game gets less dynamic. Part of Legacy's strength is knowing that in any given round, you can play against fair decks, combo, control, or prison, and that you can be attacked from a bunch of different angles (LD, countermagic, etc). Some of those games might not be fun, but the overall experience should be more fun than 4 rounds of creatures butting heads.Quote:
Originally Posted by iatee
Creatures butting heads can be fun too and combat math / tricks / etc. is a level of interaction that's often missing in legacy. But I mostly agree.
To be fair, Modern right now has devolved into a bunch of decks that try to ignore each other as much as possible while trying kill as fast as possible. It has always been part of the format, but it seemingly only gets worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by iatee
As for the Buehler comment, given the amount the fucks WotC gives about Legacy, well-recognized people (from Wizards point of view) speaking out against Miracles is probably our only chance Wizards does something about the deck.
My comments were more directed toward dte, I just quoted your post because it was clearer. Sorry for the misunderstanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I'm somewhat ambivalent on whether something from Miracles should get the hammer. The more I play the deck the more I think that something should go and that, for a variety of reasons, it's probably Counterbalance. I'm open to debate on these points though.
This coming from the same 'nozzle that played 20 Counterspell.dec, has an archetype named after him, and who even has his golden signature printed on 75 worthless WC promo decks promoting said Counterspell.dec, finds a strategy "unfun" because it locks you out of playing Magic. Fuck that guy. Lets retroactively ban Rainbow Efreet just to spite him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Cheese
At least LD decks had an attack step and pretty much always gave you the chance to cast 1-drops. They also had to expend their own resources almost every turn to maintain advantage. You couldn't just sit around waiting for your opponent to make the first move and then decide if it was worthy of a response or not. It was never as broken or unfun as he made it out to be because of how many ways there were to play around it, even 20 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by iatee
Sounds like a personal problem to me.Quote:
This is pretty uncontroversial. I played Modern storm for a while, and none of my friends - who are spikes, even - ever wanted to play with me for fun. Because...it wasn't fun.
I think he is genuinely excited about Magic, which is great. But his views on what constitutes interesting Magic are warped and unfortunately his voice still echoes in the halls of Wizards. These are the guys who refused to play less than 4 Misstep, 1-2 Fluster and lose the maindeck Pyroblasts and would cry about losing to shops. Complaining while wielding decks with 13-14 lands, sometimes with no basics. Decks with like 2 plows. Never acknowledging that the chance of having mox, land, bolt/plow was better than shop, mox, golem (assuming you actually played removal). The cryback was an unwillingness to concede anything in game 1 in the blue cantrip circle jerk mirror. Then he finally decides to play real removal maindeck in the form of Snuff Out and he punts completely, not knowing how LSG or Snuff Out even work. Then proceeds to not talk at all about his savage punt but cry about how shops is still too powerful. Never mentioning his incompetence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Cheese
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/nD...=w1093-h581-no
Again all of this is 100% my fault.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us