Re: [SCD] True-Name Nemesis
I definitely understand your point on meta shifts and looking at pre-TNN data. I think that the core of the issue is what we consider "too format warping" or "healthy enough." Barook brought up a point in another thread that he wants more color diversity, TNN has obviously made Blue better as blue midrange is now a thing, and that before it was essentially dead.
My thought is that having around 11 decks that you could probably call tier 1 is a healthy format. I think that TNN without SFM is not all that powerful, and SFM without TNN is less powerful, but definitely better than TNN without the Mystic.
Re: [SCD] True-Name Nemesis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HSCK
I definitely understand your point on meta shifts and looking at pre-TNN data. I think that the core of the issue is what we consider "too format warping" or "healthy enough." Barook brought up a point in another thread that he wants more color diversity, TNN has obviously made Blue better as blue midrange is now a thing, and that before it was essentially dead.
My thought is that having around 11 decks that you could probably call tier 1 is a healthy format. I think that TNN without SFM is not all that powerful, and SFM without TNN is less powerful, but definitely better than TNN without the Mystic.
There will always be 11 decks that you can call tier 1. That certainly doesn't mean it's a healthy format if those 11 decks mainly consist of "play a deck with Card X, play a deck that doesn't care about Card X at all, or prepare to lose alot". If a card reduces format diversity, which I believe TNN has (the adjusted data will either prove me right or wrong), that isn't a healthy format.
Also, I think I'm going to expand my analysis to the top 15 decks. I've been coming across some 8/9/10 decks that actually aren't 8/9/10 decks once I've adjusted and previously 11/12/13 decks all of a sudden take their place(s). This is important as this will give us a more accurate view of the meta pre-TNN and post-TNN.
Re: [SCD] True-Name Nemesis
I don't think you're always going to have 11 decks that perform at a tier 1 level though, those are when bans happen after all like the MM era or the Survival era where there only 3-4 tier 1 decks. Do you think at Wizards they're saying, better have at least these X decks performing well or X number of decks performing well as their indicator? I am curious to see how the meta's shifted, particularly where Blade Control was before to after.
Re: [SCD] True-Name Nemesis
The adjusted data is almost completed for Jan-Oct 2013. I'll share some initial observations from my adjusted data (33+ player tourneys only, Top 8 only from those tourneys, no SCG Invitational data included at all, rounded up/down to the nearest .5):
1.) Jund was an absolute beast from Jan-Oct 2013. It charted every month, never finished lower than 5th, and was actually trending upwards in my data whereas it was trending downwards in thecouncil's unadjusted data.
2.) Blade Control's complete drop out of the meta beginning June 2013 is puzzling as I don't recall any format altering shakeups at that time. It should be noted that it was already trending downward since January 2013 and June 2013 is when Jund began it's upward trend to bully status.
3.) Maverick performed better in the adjusted data, although only slightly; 7th adjusted, 8th unadjusted. Despite many, many posts to the contrary, Maverick was most certainly a deck pre-TNN. :tongue:
I'll finish up the data this weekend hopefully and release my full findings for you all to observe, fact-check and we can finally discuss the meta using "good" data.
Re: [SCD] True-Name Nemesis
Arsenal, don't forget that things outside Legacy can have an impact on the format. I'd be willing to bet that Jund's boost was at least partially due to its dominance in Modern and the ease of porting it between the two formats. I've known a few people who finally made the jump to Legacy when they realized they were 6ish dual lands from a Legacy deck, more or less.
(I know that's outside your data. I'm just offering that not all format shifts are due to purely metagame considerations.)
Re: [SCD] True-Name Nemesis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mewens
Arsenal, don't forget that things outside Legacy can have an impact on the format. I'd be willing to bet that Jund's boost was at least partially due to its dominance in Modern and the ease of porting it between the two formats. I've known a few people who finally made the jump to Legacy when they realized they were 6ish dual lands from a Legacy deck, more or less.
(I know that's outside your data. I'm just offering that not all format shifts are due to purely metagame considerations.)
While I get what you're saying, I'm not going to really take that into consideration. I mean, I was told countless times that the only thing that matters when talking about banning a card was data. Not anecdotes, not subjective "coulda/shoulda/woulda" theories, etc... just data.
If we're going into theories and such, then I'd be glad to share my theories as to why Deck X performed such and such way while Deck Y performed the opposite, but that isn't what I'm trying to accomplish. Again, no anecdotes, just data.
Re: [SCD] True-Name Nemesis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Arsenal
2.) Blade Control's complete drop out of the meta beginning June 2013 is puzzling as I don't recall any format altering shakeups at that time. It should be noted that it was already trending downward since January 2013 and June 2013 is when Jund began it's upward trend to bully status.
Deathblade kind of pushed Stoneblade out. Everyone would just started playing deathblade instead of stoneblade because it was the new thing.
Re: [SCD] True-Name Nemesis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
goblinsplayer
Deathblade kind of pushed Stoneblade out. Everyone would just started playing deathblade instead of stoneblade because it was the new thing.
The data doesn't support that theory. Blade Control stopped charting in June 2013, DeathBlade's only apprearance in the top 10 decks from Jan-Oct 2013 was July 2013. If DeathBlade had continued placing in August, September, October 2013, I'd get on board with your theory, but it really was just a flash-in-the-pan deck during that 10 month stretch and by no means replaced Blade Control as Blade Control actually stopped charting before DeathBlade started charting.
Re: [SCD] True-Name Nemesis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Arsenal
The data doesn't support that theory. Blade Control stopped charting in June 2013, DeathBlade's only apprearance in the top 10 decks from Jan-Oct 2013 was July 2013. If DeathBlade had continued placing in August, September, October 2013, I'd get on board with your theory, but it really was just a flash-in-the-pan deck during that 10 month stretch and by no means replaced Blade Control as Blade Control actually stopped charting before DeathBlade started charting.
If I remember correctly Shardless BUG had a really good stoneblade match up. I think that stoneblade dropped off the map after the legendary rule change b/c shardless was the better jace deck.
Re: [SCD] True-Name Nemesis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
testing32
If I remember correctly Shardless BUG had a really good stoneblade match up. I think that stoneblade dropped off the map after the legendary rule change b/c shardless was the better jace deck.
I can sorta get on board with that, although M14 wasn't released until July 19th, 2013 and Blade Control had completely fallen of the face of the Legacy map well before that.
Re: [SCD] True-Name Nemesis
I always thought it was Jund who pushed Stoneblade out, mainly because prior to TNN it was a complete dog to Punishing Fire.
Re: [SCD] True-Name Nemesis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nihilis
I always thought it was Jund who pushed Stoneblade out, mainly because prior to TNN it was a complete dog to Punishing Fire.
That's likely it. Jund began the year strong with multiple #1 finishes, then began to slide, landing at #5 for June 2013. July 2013, however, saw Jund's ascension and began trending upward again towards #2/#3 for the fall of 2013; this is also the exact month that Blade Control stopped charting completely. I'd have to go back and check, but I believe the summer is also when Punishing Fire really took off; the beginning of 2013 saw primarily non-Punishing Fire builds dominating the format.
Re: [SCD] True-Name Nemesis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Arsenal
That's likely it. Jund began the year strong with multiple #1 finishes, then began to slide, landing at #5 for June 2013. July 2013, however, saw Jund's ascension and began trending upward again towards #2/#3 for the fall of 2013; this is also the exact month that Blade Control stopped charting completely. I'd have to go back and check, but I believe the summer is also when Punishing Fire really took off; the beginning of 2013 saw primarily non-Punishing Fire builds dominating the format.
In my opinion, it was the combination of 1) losing hard to anything with Punishing Fire, including Jund; 2) getting out-grinded by other blue midrange decks like BUG and Deathblade; 3) getting out-controlled by a more dedicated control deck in Miracles; and 4) having a mediocre to poor combo matchup.
True-Name Nemesis has completely solved the first two issues, while indirectly helping out the latter two by enabling a higher blue count and allowing for more dedicated hate cards in the sideboard.
Re: [SCD] True-Name Nemesis
Someone mentioned getting numbers of TNN in the top 200 decks in GP Paris. I would be interested in that information. The other thread was closed, so I guess I will use this one.
Re: [SCD] True-Name Nemesis
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazin...gppar14/day2#4
Quote:
Here's what the field on the second day of Grand Prix Paris 2014 looked like. Below you will find listed the decks of 180 players, six others chose to run rogue builds of which only a single copy made the cut.
Deck: Number:
BUG Delver 25
Miracles 15
Storm 13
Elves 12
Sneak & Show 12
WUBG Deathblade 12
UWR Stoneblade/Delver 10
Merfolk 10
Death and Taxes 9
Jund 8
Stoneblade 8
Omni-Tell 7
Shardless BUG 5
RUG Delver 5
Dredge 4
Imperial Painter 4
Junk 3
Reanimator 3
Belcher 3
"Farmville" 2
BUG Control 2
Lands 2
Maverick 2
Nic Fit 2
UR Delver 2
BUG Delver leads the way, and that's not the only Delver deck out there. Including the Blue-White-Red Stoneblade/Delver hybrid as well as RUG Delver and Blue-Red Delver, they account for almost a quarter of the field. Similarly, the various versions of Stoneblade make up more than 16% of the metagame. Miracles, though in second place in the above table, can claim only half of that.
Out of the group of 180 day 2, only 30 or so decks played TNN on a glance (I know some BUG Delver decks used TNN as well). So, roughly 17% of the meta is using TNN.
Compare this with Brainstorm usage: 12 of the Top 16 used it...
After seeing the recent GP results, I'm going to wager that WoTC will not ban TNN. Some deck variety has been lost, but it's not prevalent enough to get banned.
Re: [SCD] True-Name Nemesis
It is hard to argue for or against this card. It just has an apparent lack of thought incorporated into it.
Re: [SCD] True-Name Nemesis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jtos84
It is hard to argue for or against this card. It just has an apparent lack of thought incorporated into it.
The card is a true nemesis. I think we can agree on that.
Based on the data it looks like TNN has revived Blade decks.
Re: [SCD] True-Name Nemesis
I am not convinced it is good for the meta game. I also do not care if it stays for now. The only problem to me is getting players to stop complaining about it.
On the topic of reviving blade decks, they were fairly underpowered and somewhat akward in Legacy. It would take one hell of a ridiculous card to keep them around.
Also, I thought merfolk had tails, not legs?
Re: [SCD] True-Name Nemesis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jtos84
The only problem to me is getting players to stop complaining about it.
"Play Elves/ANT/SnT/Miracle Control"
"Play Modern and let me enjoy Legacy"
"Play Food Chain Combo"
Re: [SCD] True-Name Nemesis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DragoFireheart
Out of the group of 180 day 2, only 30 or so decks played TNN on a glance (I know some BUG Delver decks used TNN as well). So, roughly 17% of the meta is using TNN.
Compare this with Brainstorm usage: 12 of the Top 16 used it...
After seeing the recent GP results, I'm going to wager that WoTC will not ban TNN. Some deck variety has been lost, but it's not prevalent enough to get banned.
Actually, it was 14 out of 16 decks that ran a full set of BS (Painter and Elves were the only non-blue decks iirc).
TNN is still responsible for the absurd high number of blue decks since the vast majority of decks that can answer/ignore TNN also run blue.
