DTB status

Hi, I had some free time and since the DTB section didn't get updated for a long time (last update is from August) I was very curious what would come out if it were done here and now. Well as I said I had some free time and although I am not aware of all the delicacies of computing them I think I have some basic understanding of how it works as described in the DTB section primer. I hope nobody is feeling set aside by my attempts ... the pure intention is to have some fun with numbers and provide a helpful result.

I will also make the Excel sheet available I did the computations with so anybody who fells like checking it (I would be grateful for that) can have a look at it I will give more detailed explanations in a second. If you want to skip the following section and are just interested in an updated DTB/DTW status please read on further down.

==================================

Here's some basic explanation of my approach:

There are 48 Events listed on deckcheck.net for the last 4 month I counted with player attendance > 32 (so starting with 33). Most events have 8 Top 8 decks (some have less) so I got 350 (384 possible) placings altogether. For each deck I noted down the placing in each event in a huge excel table named "Deck type and placing". On the bottom of the table the amount of placings are counted and the DTB/DTW status is computed.

DTB = Amount of placings * 100 / 350 > 6,25
DTW = Amount of placings * 100 / 350 > 3,75

Sounds simple.

Since I didn't know the details of the former DTB computation for giving a weight factor to larger tournaments I did the following: 6 Rounds are recommended for 33 player. Other values are recommended for larger tourneys so for e.g. 7 round tournaments > 65 players the factor I took is 7/6 = 1,2 and so on.

The computation of points also wasn't exactly known by me so here is what I did:

1st place = 8 points
2nd place = 7 points
...

and so forth down to the 8th place.

To keep the style of the DTB announcement I copied it over and amended it to mirror the results I got. Please check with care.

==========================================

----------------------
December 2009 Update
----------------------

Here is how we can sum up the state of Legacy as of 3rd of January taking into account all the autumn months Sept/Oct/Nov including Dec. Please enjoy with caution ;):

1) Number of events: 48 with 33 or more players.

2) The format hasn't changed much concerning the existing DTB except that Combo is on the rise. In addition some Tier 2 Decks have shown a notable amount of Top 8 presence like Enchantress or Reanimator where others have dropped from player's grace like Dreadstill or Landstill.

3) CounterTop is still one of the best decks, but it can be divided into several larger subtypes like Bant or Baseruption style decks, with Supreme Blue being the latest variant.

4) Merfolk and TempoTresh (Canadian Thresh) have gained a little less placings than before, but its lists are much more uniform, unlike CounterTop which remains a kitchen-sink archetype.

5) Dredge has claimed its seat in the DTB section. Alongside ANT's strong performance a highly visible amount of the legacy metagame belongs to Combo.

6) Zoo has left some of its former strength going down to DTW status. Goblins are becoming stronger showing more placings while Landstill doesn't break the DTW requirement of 14 placements this time.

Like the last time there are some decks placed well enough to show up on the radar: they are Enchantress, Faeries and LoamControl (WG) decks either with blue (for Intuition) or heavy black (pox-style).

In brackets you find the old number of placings from Autumn Update.

DECKS TO BEAT:
CounterTop 164 points in 30 (34) placements basically falling into two categories:
- Bant Aggro with CBT (many lists with NOProg) 84 points in 13 placements
- CounterTop (Baseruption, Supreme Blue Style, misc CBT decks) 80 points in 17 placements
ANT - 155 points in 26 (16) placements (rises from DTW to DTB)
Tempo Thresh - 150 points in 27 (31) placements
Dredge - 140 points in 24 placements (rises to DTB from established deck)
Merfolk - 115 points in 24 (30) placements (compared to Dredge the lower amount of points shows that Merfolk just did average in Top8)
Goblins - 107 points in 25 (20) placements (compared to Merfolk the lower amount of points shows that Goblins also did not perform too well in Top8)

DECKS TO WATCH:
Zoo - 78 points in 17 (25) placements (very low points indicate that most Zoo decks landed in the lower half of the Top8)

Honorable mention:
Bant Aggro - 59 points in 12 placements (points show that if it got Top8 it did very well)
Landstill - 54 points in 13 (19) placements (points indicate that if it got Top8 it did OK but did fall from DTW status due to lower amount of placings)
Faeries - 61 points in 12 placements (points show that if it got Top8 it did quite well)
Enchantress - 54 points in 11 placements (points indicate that if it got Top8 it did quite well)
The Rock- 28 points in 9 placements (points indicate that it underperformed if it got Top8)
AggroLoam - 43 points in 9 placements (points indicate that if it got Top8 it did OK)
Loam Control - 43 points in 8 placements (points show that if it got Top8 it did very well)
BantSur - 45 points in 7 placements (points show that if it got Top8 it did very well)
Survival - 33 points in 7 placements (points show that if it got Top8 it did OK)

Excel sheet is available here:

http://www.gamersdungeon.de/__gdc__/...BDTWstatus.xls

Your efforts are appreciated. The pointing system you used doesn't quite match the one used in the DTB update (1 point for each Swiss round + 1 for each elimination round won), but I hope I can still use some of the data from your spreadsheet.

I'll be back home on a non-tiny monitor starting Tuesday; I'll try and do the DTBF update this week.

Dredge would obviously become a DTB though. It's in the T8 for almost every event that I see on deckcheck.net.

The question here is: will both LED and non-LED builds be in the DTB? And in this regard - if you separate the two decks from the Dredge archetype, would they both have the numbers to be a DTB? From what I recall, the split of decklists in T8's is fairly even.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kicks_422

The question here is: will both LED and non-LED builds be in the DTB? And in this regard - if you separate the two decks from the Dredge archetype, would they both have the numbers to be a DTB? From what I recall, the split of decklists in T8's is fairly even.

---

I'll probably keep track of LED vs. LEDless lists, but they'll be counted together for DTB purposes, since they share the entire core strategy and game plan and only differ in supporting this with mana acceleration vs. backup engine kick-starters. In particular, playing against either feels fairly similar. Bloodghast vs. Ichorid would seem a slightly more meaningful division to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nihil Credo

I'll probably keep track of LED vs. LEDless lists, but they'll be counted together for DTB purposes, since they share the entire core strategy and game plan and only differ in supporting this with mana acceleration vs. backup engine kick-starters. In particular, playing against either feels fairly similar. Bloodghast vs. Ichorid would seem a slightly more meaningful division to me.

---

Exactly what I had in mind. A lot of lists lately played Bloodghasts.

BTW: I thought about how you compute the DTB (1 point for each Swiss round + 1 for each elimination round won). This means the amount of rounds can be derived from the amount of players like 33 attendants = 6 rounds, or 100 = 7 rounds and the elimination rounds (usually there should be 3 for Top 8) won are derived from the table below?

1st place = 3
2nd place = 2
3rd and 4th place = 1
5th to 8th place = 0

I think if I manipulate the formula of the second table of the Excel sheet this can be easily adapted and copied over to all other cells. It means that you have a base factor (swiss rounds) and dependent on the placing add a few more points. I will check this out and compare it to the last results from DTB section if the points are anywhere near the old. However I am glad you taking care of it anyway ;)

Not nearly enough praise in this thread - great work, Nekrataal (and actually Nihil_Credo and Peter_Rotten for previous updates).

When the DTB section becomes updated will those "old" threshold threads still be there or will they be moved someplace else? I personally see them as an eye-sore but there could just be a reason they are up there that I am not aware of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meister_Kai

When the DTB section becomes updated will those "old" threshold threads still be there or will they be moved someplace else? I personally see them as an eye-sore but there could just be a reason they are up there that I am not aware of.

---

They should be moved to some kind of archive forum. We don't have one currently, not one that's public anyway.

We'll be creating one, as we intend to institute a policy of refreshing DtB threads with new ones after they reach a certain length. It gets to be difficult for people to read through over a hundred pages to get to a point where they're current on a given deck. We hope to fix that problem. It's logistically difficult because we need people who are well versed with each deck who are willing to write/maintain current primers for ever major deck. We're working towards it, though.

Hey zilla.

When you create a new thread for a DTB, you might want to allocate two posts for the primer of each. There is a pretty restrictive character cap or some similar policy that makes it kinda hard to say everything you need to in a single post.

Thx,
Finn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Finn

Hey zilla.

When you create a new thread for a DTB, you might want to allocate two posts for the primer of each. There is a pretty restrictive character cap or some similar policy that makes it kinda hard to say everything you need to in a single post.

Thx,
Finn

---

This would ultimately be up to the poster of said primer. If they did want a second post established for more room, a PM to any mod could get the opening post split into two.

At some point down the road, perhaps at the end of the SCG series, it would be interesting to conduct a DTB evaluation of top8 performances in events with 100+ participants.

It's useful to look at the swiss rounds performance as an indicator of what one can expect to play, but that doesn't necessarily translate into a top performing deck, such as Goblins as of late.

I think this would give us a more accurate reflection of a national or international metagame.

Here's a preview of the results. I still need to add in the stuff that wasn't on deckcheck (mostly the few Yank tournaments posted here) and revise/turn the thing into a post. Play a bit in Excel/Google Docs with Page 3's search tags if you feel like it. I have to go get my new computer now.

I posted this in the Goyf thread but it's probably more useful here:


I thought some of you might find this interesting.

I compiled the data from the 20 largest Legacy events for 2009 on deck check. Here are some preliminary results:

Here is a breakdown of the decks that managed to reach the finals. 1st and 2nd often split so I included them together

40 decks total
18 distinct Archetypes were able to reach the finals.
66% of the archetypes lacked Goyf
60% of the total decks had Goyf in them. Any non-linear creature based strategy ranging from Zoo to Countertop ran Goyf.

38% of them were blue based decks with Goyf, 40% of those had countertop

35% were linear decks including combo, control, aggro (this needs to be broken down more)

20% were pure aggro-midrange aggro (Zoo-Loam)

7% Merfolk (they don't fit in to the other categories)

Blue with Goyf: 15 (5 archetypes)
7 thresh
4 Dreadstill (now obsolete with pridemage)
2 Countertop
1 Faeries
1 Bant

Linear strategies: 14 (9 archetypes)
3 ANT
2 Ichorid
2 Lands
2 Gobbos
Enchantress
Stax
Dream Halls
Reanimator
Dragon Stompy

Aggro-Midrange:8 ( 3 Archetypes)
4 Zoo
3 Loam
1 Survival

Tribal Aggro-Control:3 (1 archetype)
3 Merfolk (1 with Goyfs)

Storm combo is about the least linear strategy in magic.

Here is the break down of the whole top8 20 largest Legcy Events on deckcheck for 2009. N=160

20 distinct archetypes and 8 more outliers
58% of the 20 archetypes did not run goyf but...
60% of the decks in the top8s did have Goyf

36% Blue based (excluding Merfolk) 83% of these ran Goyf: 34% thresh, 26% Countertop

25% Non-tribal Aggro: 35% Zoo, 33% Loam

15% Tribal: 54% Merfolk, 33% Gobbos

24% Linear Non Tribal
16% Linear Combo: 40% ANT, 36% Dredge
8% Linear Control: 42% LANDS, 25% Stax, 25% Enchantress

Blue Based
20 Thresh
15 Countertop
8 Landstill
5 Bant
4 Dreadstill
4 Faeries

Aggro
14 Zoo
13 Loam
5 Junk
3 Survival

Tribal
13 Merfolk
8 Gobbos
3 Elves

Combo
10 ANT
9 Dredge
3 Belcher
2 Reanimator

Linear Control
5 LANDS
3 STAX
3 Enchantress

9 outliers
Painter
Team America
Dragon Stompy
Dream Halls
Rector Natual Order Combo
Faerie Stompy
Misc aggro x4 (uw vial, bw vial, gw, ww)


Hopefully this helps with modifying the DTB. The data suggests that both Loam and Dredge deserve DTB status

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emidln

Storm combo is about the least linear strategy in magic.

---

Tactically it is non-linear, but strategically it falls under the linear umbrella.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emidln

Storm combo is about the least linear strategy in magic.

---

Storm combo is linear in the sense that every path you take has the same goal - casting a bunch of spells in one turn and then casting a spell with the storm mechanic. Yes, you are making a lot of choices, but you are always going to the same place.

Belcher is a non-linear combo deck, as it can either storm into Empty the Warrens or accelerate into an activated 'Belcher. These two win conditions necessitate different answers on the part of the opponent. Compared to storm combo, you are making less choices, but by having two distinct paths to victory it is non-linear.

Dredge is linear; it seeks to gain massive card advantage by using its graveyard as its hand combined with filling it quickly with its namesake mechanic. Shut down the graveyard, you shut down the deck.

NO/Pro Bant is non-linear; it can win via its efficient creatures (countered by spot removal) but can also put a 10/10 pro-everything on the field (countered by sweepers and countermagic).

Agro Elves is linear; its acceleration doubles as damage potential and it quickly swings (sometimes with forestwalk) into the redzone. Take away combat, Agro Elves has nothing.

Goblins is non-linear; it would prefer to swing with lots of goblins, but it CAN throw goblins at you via SGC if it gets shut out of combat. Just having this backup plan makes Goblins non-linear. Zoo is non-linear in the same way; it wants to turn its critters sideways until you are dead, but if that plan fails it can throw its burn (previously used to clear the way) at the dome.

Hope this is helpful.

Why is the linear/non-linear thing relevant anyways? I don't really see the point.

Though I agree with Sevryn.

@Sevryn: Your definition of "linear" is non-standard and mostly nonsensical. "Linear" isn't a strategy term; it's a card design term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaRo, "Come Together"

The first extreme is linear design. In a linear design, cards are designed to clump together in obvious groups. They have a very narrow but focused synergy. When you look at the set, it becomes quickly apparent what cards belong together. Onslaught block is an example of a very linear set. The tribal spine of the design forces players to naturally connect cards that share, take advantage of or affect a particular creature type. Linear designs tend to be filed with linear mechanics. Linear mechanics force players to build decks around a single aspect of the cards.

---

The opposite of linear isn't non-linear, it's modular:

Quote:

---

Modular designs are open ended. The best metaphor for a modular design is bunch of Legos. Each individual piece can fit with many other individual pieces. The idea is “here's a box of Legos, what can you build with it?”
Unlike linear design, modular designs are much harder to grasp at first glance. The connections are not so obvious. Mirrodin is very much a modular design. It was created to allow pieces to have much wider synergy. Modular designs make use of modular mechanics. Modular mechanics are designed to maximize their use with other cards and do not tend to force players to have to play with a lot of a certain type of card.

---

Linearity has nothing to do with the number of available paths to victory; it has to do with the degree to which a card's power is reliant on the presence of other specific cards. Brainstorm, Bolt, StP, Goyf, Tseize, Top are mostly modular. Doomsday may be one of the most linear cards ever printed, since without a specific set of cards in the deck it's not just a blank, it will usually lose you the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nihil Credo

@Sevryn: Your definition of "linear" is non-standard and mostly nonsensical. "Linear" isn't a strategy term; it's a card design term.



The opposite of linear isn't non-linear, it's modular:

Linearity has nothing to do with the number of available paths to victory; it has to do with the degree to which a card's power is reliant on the presence of other specific cards. Brainstorm, Bolt, StP, Goyf, Tseize, Top are mostly modular. Doomsday may be one of the most linear cards ever printed, since without a specific set of cards in the deck it's not just a blank, it will usually lose you the game.

---

My post will have no real content, but thanks.

People have been saying "Linear" to describe decks a lot, and I had NFC what they were talking about. I still don't know why it really matters to proclaim a deck or card's linearity, but at least I know what people are talking about.

Funny how the last few posts have focused on the term linear rather than the data and conclusion that Dredge and Aggro-Loam belong in the DTB forum.

Typical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nihil Credo

@Sevryn: Your definition of "linear" is non-standard and mostly nonsensical. "Linear" isn't a strategy term; it's a card design term.

---

I don't see why it can't be both. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Sevryn's analysis, provided he's created a sufficient definition for his terminology (and I'm not saying he has - I'm just talking about terminology here) then why not address the definition rather than the term? I mean, there seem to be plenty of players making up words for their on MtG philosophies, so why can't Sevryn jump on the bandwagon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TorpidNinja

I don't see why it can't be both. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Sevryn's analysis, provided he's created a sufficient definition for his terminology (and I'm not saying he has - I'm just talking about terminology here) then why not address the definition rather than the term? I mean, there seem to be plenty of players making up words for their on MtG philosophies, so why can't Sevryn jump on the bandwagon?

---

Because the word "linear" is already taken, of course. If he wants to define a new concept he should pick a word that doesn't already carry a specific meaning for anyone who reads magicthegathering.com.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SMR0079

Funny how the last few posts have focused on the term linear rather than the data and conclusion that Dredge and Aggro-Loam belong in the DTB forum.

Typical.

---

Who said that Aggro LOam belongs in the DTB ? Not from my conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nekrataal

Who said that Aggro LOam belongs in the DTB ? Not from my conclusions.

---

Using the top 8 data from the largest 20 Legacy events listed on deckcheck - both Aggro Loam and Dredge meet or exceed the appearance threshold that other current DTB such as Merfolk, ANT, Gobbos, Landstill.

In order of appearance:

20-Thresh 13%
15- Countertop 9%
14- Zoo 9%
13 - Merfolk 8%
13 - Aggro Loam 8%
10 - ANT 6%
9 - Dredge 6%
8 - Gobbos 5%
8 - LAndstill 5%
* Percentages are rounded

I prefer using a metric that looks at large top 8s rather than smaller events or swiss appearance. Otherwise you just have to much variance. Minimally, events should be limited to those with 7 rounds or more, I think the cut off is 67 players? Correct me if I'm wrong on that number.

Interestingly, Threshold is the only deck that had more than 9% reach top 8. You could make an argument to against Dredge, but then you would also have to eliminate Gobbos and Landstill for having lower numbers. Deciding on a 5% cut off is reasonable to me when you account for the formats diversity.

I added a couple of events I had access to onto the T8 thread: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...d=1#post418923

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SMR0079

Using the top 8 data from the largest 20 Legacy events listed on deckcheck - both Aggro Loam and Dredge meet or exceed the appearance threshold that other current DTB such as Merfolk, ANT, Gobbos, Landstill.

In order of appearance:

20-Thresh 13%
15- Countertop 9%
14- Zoo 9%
13 - Merfolk 8%
13 - Aggro Loam 8%
10 - ANT 6%
9 - Dredge 6%
8 - Gobbos 5%
8 - LAndstill 5%
* Percentages are rounded

I prefer using a metric that looks at large top 8s rather than smaller events or swiss appearance. Otherwise you just have to much variance. Minimally, events should be limited to those with 7 rounds or more, I think the cut off is 67 players? Correct me if I'm wrong on that number.

Interestingly, Threshold is the only deck that had more than 9% reach top 8. You could make an argument to against Dredge, but then you would also have to eliminate Gobbos and Landstill for having lower numbers. Deciding on a 5% cut off is reasonable to me when you account for the formats diversity.

---

When I do exactly that for the time period I have raw data for I have just 1! Aggro Loam list in the big tourneys in Top 8. My data with tourneys > 60 players:

Dima Game 1K Series - Legacy 05.09.2009
Dragons League Trieste 06.09.2009
Ovino 4, Milan 12.09.2009
Mercadiade 2009 - Legacy 29.09.2009
Master of Geddon II 04.10.2009
DragonsLeague Master of Geddon - Padova 04.10.2009
Bourgoin-Jallieu : Last Chance CdF Legacy 17.10.2009
Finale Coupe de France Legacy 2009 (Bourgoin-Jallieu) 18.10.2009
Alifromcairo Trophy 24.10.2009
The Reckoning 08.11.2009
Lotus Moxen Bazaar Legacy @ Jupiter Games in Vestal, NY 14.11.2009
Iserlohn Legacy Cup 2009 14.11.2009
Legacy Academy Trieste 29.11.2009
Bourgoin Jallieu - Legacy VII 29.11.2009
Year-end Legacy Manila 2009 19.12.2009

However after discussion with more ppl here in my playgroup I think that the DBT status should be done on different levels like shorter and longer time periods or smaller and bigger tourneys. All these results may be interesting a may be different AND valid. Since this is tiresome to do via Excel only a database driven application can help here ;) Would be great to get access to the deckcheck data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SMR0079

Using the top 8 data from the largest 20 Legacy events listed on deckcheck - both Aggro Loam and Dredge meet or exceed the appearance threshold that other current DTB such as Merfolk, ANT, Gobbos, Landstill.

In order of appearance:

20-Thresh 13%
15- Countertop 9%
14- Zoo 9%
13 - Merfolk 8%
13 - Aggro Loam 8%
10 - ANT 6%
9 - Dredge 6%
8 - Gobbos 5%
8 - LAndstill 5%
* Percentages are rounded

I prefer using a metric that looks at large top 8s rather than smaller events or swiss appearance. Otherwise you just have to much variance. Minimally, events should be limited to those with 7 rounds or more, I think the cut off is 67 players? Correct me if I'm wrong on that number.

Interestingly, Threshold is the only deck that had more than 9% reach top 8. You could make an argument to against Dredge, but then you would also have to eliminate Gobbos and Landstill for having lower numbers. Deciding on a 5% cut off is reasonable to me when you account for the formats diversity.

---

When I do exactly that for the time period I have raw data for I have just 1! Aggro Loam list in the big tourneys in Top 8. My data with tourneys > 60 players:

Dima Game 1K Series - Legacy 05.09.2009
Dragons League Trieste 06.09.2009
Ovino 4, Milan 12.09.2009
Mercadiade 2009 - Legacy 29.09.2009
Master of Geddon II 04.10.2009
DragonsLeague Master of Geddon - Padova 04.10.2009
Bourgoin-Jallieu : Last Chance CdF Legacy 17.10.2009
Finale Coupe de France Legacy 2009 (Bourgoin-Jallieu) 18.10.2009
Alifromcairo Trophy 24.10.2009
The Reckoning 08.11.2009
Lotus Moxen Bazaar Legacy @ Jupiter Games in Vestal, NY 14.11.2009
Iserlohn Legacy Cup 2009 14.11.2009
Legacy Academy Trieste 29.11.2009
Bourgoin Jallieu - Legacy VII 29.11.2009
Year-end Legacy Manila 2009 19.12.2009

However discussion with more ppl I think that the DBT status should be done on different levels like shorter and longer time periods or smaller and bigger tourneys. Since this is tiresome to do via Excel only a database driven application can help here ;) Would be great to get access to the deckcheck data. Maybe I can use the rss feed to build something up or talk to Evilbernd who runs the site since he lives nearby and I know him from some private tourneys he organized.

Hate to be an ass, but what is the status on the update? Can we expect it by the end of the month?