Could someone compare the performance of U/R Delver during the TC era to Grixis Delver (Tempo) in the Dig era? I can't really get TCDecks showing me what it is I'm trying to see.
Printable View
Could someone compare the performance of U/R Delver during the TC era to Grixis Delver (Tempo) in the Dig era? I can't really get TCDecks showing me what it is I'm trying to see.
TC era was a meta in flux - at the very least the ban was too soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
I did some research in response to the ban, and found that for the last three months of the TC era U/R delver was a mere 10%-11% of mar top-8s. This seems really low to be considered a dominant deck - in fact Patriot Blade was marginally higher! But that's the story we were given.
I wish they'd included more detail - maybe they had MTGO data and their numbers were different than mine? The cynic in me suspects the were not 100% forthcoming with their reasons for the ban, which makes predicting future banned list changes a much harder task.
Well it's also not as if UR Delver was the only deck running the card either. It just made a previously marginally played deck into probably a top 3 deck in the format.
Here is the official explanation:Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
Nothing about too many decks running TC - just one deck supposedly hurting format diversity.Quote:
Blue-Red Delver decks have been so successful at tournament play that they are hurting the diversity of the format.
It's okay for weak decks to become strong and for strong decks to become weak. That's how the meta shifts, and this is generally not sufficient for a ban.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
Could've also been alluding to URx decks and not limiting it to simply UR only. You said yourself that patriot surpassed UR. That means 1/4 of the meta was URx Delver with cruise. That's pretty fucking miserable.
I never thought of that! Personally I think Patriot Delver plays very differently than U/R, but at least their explanation makes more sense that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
The decks play out somewhat differently sure, but in the end they were both Delver/Lightning Boltdecks with ancestral
I remember at least one pro coming out and saying that the UWR Pyromancer/Blade deck was the way of the future for Cruise decks - i.e. that it was better than UR Delver but just hadn't reached the same level of play. I'm not sure it ever did considering the ban came soon after that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
Earthcraft does also have potential with self-untapping creatures like Nettle sentinel.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
It had been roughly on par from mid-November till the ban. I do think the ban was premature - the meta was still adjusting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral_Arzar
It's.Still a card I'm glad is gone. I don't give a shit whhether the meta was able to adjust or not. That truly made me want to just main board 4 spirit of the labyrinth
Thank you very much! Sadly the numbers are a little too low hurting statistical relevance. I remember reading such an article when Mystical Tutor ANT and Reanimator where around, it very clearly showed the need to ban the tutor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
Even though the article doesn't fully support it, I still think Dig Through Time is problematic and hope we see a ban.
It might also be time to unban Mind Twist and Black Vise.
This is a situation where it's best to read the full announcement, not just the Legacy portion. In broader context, it's pretty clear that the whole post is a huge "our bad" on Treasure Cruise in Eternal formats and Modern. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason Dig went untouched in Legacy was the (not unreasonable) assumption that the extra U in the cost would make it prohibitive enough that only some decks would it and that Dig wouldn't be a strict upgrade over other CA engines. Those assumptions turned out to be incorrect but there were reasonable arguments to the contrary and I don't blame WotC for not banning Dig at the same time they banned Cruise. The meta may have been shifting when the banhammer came down, but the direction of that shit toward ever-more-powerful Treasure Cruise decks was apparent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
As for it being too soon for action on Dig - the relative lack of video footage since SCG cut back on Legacy coverage makes us more reliant on top 8/16 data, but we've known for years how powerful "raw" card advantage is in Legacy. Shardless BUG most prominently went to extreme lengths to make the most of Ancestral Visions, but there's a long history of Legacy decks that were able to exist simply because they cracked the code of drawing extra cards while everyone else was stuck grinding out card quality. It's not like people are grabbing Siege Rhinos with Dig in this format.
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...Deck-SelectionQuote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
I've been thinking about the way Dig Through Time and I can't help but wonder if this is the new normal. Maybe the BS+Ponder+DTT engine is here for good. There seems to be little uproar compared to how good the card actually is. Hm.
Little uproar? Everyone at my store pretty much agrees the card is busted. I think it's miserable. People have been bitching in this thread for months about thefucking card
FTFY.Quote:
Originally Posted by amon amarth
Regrettably, I think you're right.
I've completely stopped playing after DTT continued to stay in the format, making it miserable. The card is busted and it's a bad joke that it stays in the format that long. It dodged to chances to ban it already twice, so maybe the third time is the charm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amon Amarth
Thanks for the link.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
This is why the DTB section doesn't scale decks according to meta-penetration.Quote:
Ideally, the DTBF should provide a reasonably accurate model for creation of a testing gauntlet when preparing for an unknown metagame at a large, competitive tournament.
If you want to know which decks are the strongest compare results to the penetration. If you want to know which decks you are likely to face so you can meta accordingly, meta penetration (volume) is actually more significant than each deck's positioning.
Since you reject my explanation, how is it you can explain a deck meeting the criteria for DTB but not being tier one?Quote:
A DTB is typically (but not always) considered to be Tier 1. These decks are the most popular, prevalent decks in the format, and in many ways they help to define the rest of the metagame.
The numbers do show one thing with certainty - an archetype making top eight isn't necessarily indicative that that archetype is actually performing well. That's why we can have DTBs which are not actually tier one. And a single counter-example is sufficient to dispel that myth.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpoCk0nd0pe
Most event data doesn't incorporate meta-penetration. But anytime I've seen such data it tells a similar story - the supposed top decks are often average or under performers, while many more neglected decks (even blue-less decks) perform better than you might guess by looking at top8s alone. There's data like this on Reddit from time to time.
I've yet to see any data which suggests that the best blue-less decks perform significantly worse (accounting for penetration) than the best decks which do run blue (usually I see the opposite).
I beg to differ, Grixis is higher represented in Top8's than UR Delver ever was. UR Delver even never catched the highpoint of Miracles but nothing ever gets done against that deck because hard stack control is as much a sacred cow as Brainstorm (both go hand in hand actualy). I also don't know where your data is coming from but Patriot didn't even come close to UR Delver's numbers during TC. My data comes from TCDecks. See the chart here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7d...ew?usp=sharingQuote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead