That is an absurdly high number of miracles O.O
Printable View
That is an absurdly high number of miracles O.O
It's actually 366 points, considering #24, #33 and #42 are Miracles as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_Mcdonalds
Yet Miracles players will still argue the deck is not too OP and it's fine because "it is so hard to play". Twice the points like the best competitor, what a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie
And to that we say look at the most recent SCG Classic results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie
Yes, because a handful of data points counters 2 years worth of collection.Quote:
Originally Posted by CutthroatCasual
And you wonder why I keep freaking out in this thread? xPQuote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
@Dice, I don't think he's meaning to dispute any data. Rather to put it in context. 15% - 18% is a lot when the other top decks are posting something like 5% - 10%. But it still leaves a lot of room. People are pretty quick to point to GP Columbus as evidence for Miracles being OP - but nobody was saying that 50% of the top 8 is actually representative of Miracles performance or positioning!
15-18% means sometimes we get GP Columbus, but that is counter balanced by events like SCG Syracuse to give us the real picture which is somewhere in between.
I disagree. You get only a reliable image of the powerlevel if you set metagame representation in context with results to see if a deck is over-/underperforming in regards to its numbers in the field.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
When I joined this conversation I tried to suggest that, but I got crucified.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
What I'm saying is that if we want to look at just the top showings independent of representation in the meta, it's not fair to get up in arms about GP Columbus but ignore the big events where Miracles craps the bed.
Sometimes it seems like single data points are acceptable if they overstate Miracles presence, but not if they understate it.
Anyway, I don't think cutthroat was trying to refute Miracles' meta share - rather explaining why not everybody is upset with that meta share. That's all.
For my part, I understand why some folks want Miracles reigned in. But I don't get the impression that very many people who do are making the effort to understand why some people are okay with the meta as is. We're not ignoring data, were just not offended by it either.
Context? With a handful of data points you want to put a trend in context? That's not how Statistics work.
I will be honest, I don't look for these top 8's anymore. I don't go seeking out what's happening in the SCG classics, the GP side events or the BOM any more. I look for random shit like Stax, Stasis and this 8 Recruiters Coco idea that's around. If I want to play for real I have a 2/3s foiled Lands deck I am still shit with. I don't care what the rest of the other people are playing.
I also don't subscribe to the idea that snapshots in time are any indication of how something is progressing unless those snapshots are independently significant for some reason. An example of a significant snapshot would be the meta after the removal of Dig. Because after massive upheaval, you need to see where shit settles.
To me though, I am at that point where I understand we are all talking out of our arses here. I was talking to Steve today (From The Salt Mine) and made the point there, this thread is really for those of us who are bored/stupid/egotistical or have an axe to grind. For me, it's the first these days. Because this thread is not going to change anything. None of the big Legacy names come to this thread, none of them talk about it, none of them quote it. It's a shit show with no visible potential of changing anything. Not a dam thing.
And I know what you all think, I can line your names up, put you on your side of the fence and call it a day. None of you are changing your position, so the debate aspect is worthless, half of you either don't care about, understand or blatantly misuse numbers (I do actually know what I am talking about here, I have to take stats courses for my Psyc degree) and the rest of you just troll. At lest it's amusing. Well, until someone blows a gasket. At that point it stops being fun.
In the end all we can control is if we play or don't play. In my case a 4 Colour, 8 Recruiter, Coco deck sounds like a great reason to play. Not the question behind if one deck is safe or not.
The DTB stats include Modo legacy league results right? Is there anywhere on the web where you can see the online stats or the IRL stats seperate from each other? I'd hazard a guess that Miracles is more dominant online than in IRL, I'm curious how much more if so.
MTG Goldfish for MTGO. I am talking with them at the moment to try and set up their stats in such a way that I can use them in the se way I use Tc Decks stats.
Can confirm, I hope to one day be the Australian version of Nedleeds (this is a compliment).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
TC Decks (which the DTB is based on) uses only Paper magic tournaments, so no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jain_Mor
MtG Goldfish has MTGO data with some paper tournaments thrown in.
Magic Top 8 is mixed data, but has a filter function.
Choose your poison, doesn't really change the meta penetration of Miracles anyway since they're pretty equal in both Paper and Online.
GP Columbus is as anecdotal as every mayor event without Miracles in the T8. We need T16/32 data to include players who didn't miss T8 due to tiebreakers despite having a similar amount of points (to note: Columbus was even outstanding here) and then look if the metagame share equals the T8/16/32 data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
If we do however look at live tournaments data, the deck has 16% representation over the last two months with 1,73 placings per T8 (45 placings total) in average, which marks 21,63%. The deck is ergo overperformimg by a whooping 35% over its metagame share when it comes to T8.
Unfortunately, I don't have complete data sets for T16/32 to analyze decks with lower metagame representation
Interesting, thanks guys.
Edit: Am I the first happy customer from the B&R thread XD
If this is true, maybe the deck really has been pushed over the top (and I might need to change my position).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Where do you find this data? The best I was ever able to find was day 2 representation; and every time I looked it seemed Miracles' top8s were pretty much exactly proportional to its day to penetration.
Edit - just to be clear, you are saying that on average 16% of decks registered in (live) tournaments are Miracles?
So... How about that data Lemnear? Would be interesting to see.
Judging by this :Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
http://mtgtop8.com/format?f=LE&meta=72
Its actually 15%.
If you include online, it gets slightly worse, it goes up to 18%:
http://mtgtop8.com/format?f=LE&meta=39
BUT, look here for the non-online world in July :
http://www.tcdecks.net/metagame.php?...y&fecha=2016-7
I can only look at the metagame breakdowns delivered for the bigger tournaments like GPs or whatever data websites like MtgTop8 or others deliver for live tournaments (with the later not providing full breakdowns in most cases) and use these data to get the most accurate metagame picture.I excluded Online data, as the Miracles numbers in terms of metagame share and T8 are even higher than in Paper, due to the decks ability to perform well against fringe nonsense popping up online and the tournaments only being 4-rounder, so I was only looking at the mayor live tournaments which average in 16% metagame share for miracles from the data, I was able to collect from the websites. The Top8 percentage aka average T8 placings per tournament was calculated with the T8 results listed on the websites, divided by the number of different tournaments I had metagame data of (this includes tournaments with only Day2 data as you assumed correctly, lacking full data most of the times), which (given I remember correctly now) were 45 T8 spots. In regards to your question added via edit: That is what the data is saying. I was free to set that 16% in mayor live tournaments in relation with the average T8 spots. Take it with a grain of salt, as the often lacking T16/32 as well as Day1 data paint a pretty extreme picture and I am sure it would be less drastic if I had more and better data. The lacking T16/32 data in many cases also mean that I can't set Miracles into relation to Storm or Grixis as the two decks have a much lower metagame share. Storm for example had 15 T8 and 16 T16 placings in 36 tournaments with a 6% metagame share according to MtgTop8 (didn't compare it to other websites).Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead