Softest compared to... GPs and PTs... right, so it's not as hard as a a tournament where the T64 will consist of a high % of pros.Originally Posted by Artowis
I beg to differ on both counts. There is no problem with the why. We don't ask why Burn or Counterslivers or Dream Halls or Stax isn't making top 8. I don't see why we need a 5 page thread investigating why Dredge isn't either.
I don't see why Dredge's lackluster performance is any more 'problematic' than any other poorly performing deck's performance.
On the second issue, graphs, facts and data definitely answer the why.
In the links I provided, you can find matchup grids, excel spreadsheets that have COMPLETE matchup data -- showing what every Dredge pilot faced every round. Someone industrious could extract and aggregate all of that matchup data and probably formulate some damned good reasons why Dredge isn't performing well, and if that isn't enough -- well I have alot of the decklists from those tournaments, so we could look at SBs and see if it has something to do with the quantity of gy hate they are facing.
Completely disagree. My contention that the difference in what Max and others are claiming and what the facts are showing is the difference between testing conditions and tournament conditions accords with the emprical evidence. Max's claims do not accord with the evidence.You can come up with reasons like the difference between testing and actual tournament play, but that has no more evidence supporting it than anything else that has been said.
The notion that Dredge's performance is merely a feature of incompetent pilots is completely refuted by the quantity of players at issue. There is no way that 81 players could all be incompetent, and no reason given to assume that Dredge pilots are any less competent on average than Merfolk, CounterTop, or Goblins pilots.
Moreover, anyone arguing that Dredge should be winning has the burden of proof to explain why. The facts are clearly stacked agaisnt that argument. Someone arguing that Zoo, CounterTop or Merfolk should be winning doesn't have such a burden of proof, becuase it consistently makes top 8. That's not a controversial claim.
Given that many people -- like Max -- are claiming that Dredge is amazing, I contend that the likely explanation is the difference between testing conditions and real-world tournament conditions.
In fact, the post just above yours makes that point for me:
This person admits that if he knew what he was playing against, he would have played differently.
In testing, you know what your opponent is playing, and even more importantly, exactly what hate they run.
I imagine Dredge would be a strong favorite to win if it knew exactly what tactics it would have to counter in every matchup. Yet, two things are true: 1) you don't know what your opponent is playing most of hte time in tournament settings and 2) you don't know exactly what they have in their deck or sb even after you know their archetype.
Even more importantly: one of the big reasons that testing is often flawed is because it assumes a static decklist. I imagine that most people -- including myself -- play against 'standard' decklists, yet if you are preparing for a tournament, there is no reason to think that you will play exactly the same decklist that you are prepared for. If you tweak your deck, there is no reason to think that other's won't either. If everyone who prepared with thorough testing, then clearly not everyone can win, and the difference is often because testing doesn't align with what people actually play.
It's amazing to me that people can simultaneously realize that tournament results suggest that a deck is better than it performs in their testing and yet be completely confident that the deck is easy to play. If I notice that a deck is consistently winning, but I (and/or my playtest partners) haven't been able to do well with it, I tend to consider the possibility that it's not so easy to play.
Magic is actually kind of a difficult game. Complexity is not reserved for your favorite deck.
Both of his keeps against Goblins are totally abysmal. Therapy for Crypt is also atrocious. Maindeck LED and Unmask is awful. Playing a permanent on turn one with that hand against Ponder, go is also pretty bad.
When in doubt, mumble.
When in trouble, delegate.
I don't think my opponent had awesome hands, but I 2-0'd dredge tonight in a 2man on MTGO... I was running Zoo. G1, Path on his Tribe or Imp was enough to slow him down, then a bolt on my dude later once he started to set up was enough to slow him down again (bye-bye bridge), with a blocker + path/bolts to stop his attempts at beatdown/DR with narcos and ichys.
G2, He leads with an outlet. I Path it, then drop a dude. He sets up Ichy and finds a narco. I'm able to kill one of mine in response to his therapy with Ichy, so I keep him off of Bridge BS again. Finally, I drop a couple of 1drops and have a swords and a path, along with a bolt, remove anything needed and kill him. He did have a baddddd breakthrough that saw him dredge like 20 cards and see 0 narcos, so I got a little lucky, but I also saw 0 of 7 sb cards.
I guess my point is that Dredge can vomit all over itself, fizzle, or just not beat the hate.
Were all 81 players incompetent? Probably not. People tend to exaggerate and lump those who don't play perfectly into the incompetent category. Then again, we are talking about the format where one guy lost the finals because he couldn't follow the rules of his own deck.
You could theorize that Dredge lost because of the difference between testing and tournament conditions. I could theorize that the Dredge players are simply not skilled enough to play the deck at the level required to win out. Both accord with your data. And even if you go through and see exactly what match-ups occurred, what SB hate was used, and other information of that sort you will still be at a loss for how it was played.
Play skill is most definitely a factor here.
In short, I wouldn't promote Dredge (or ANT) to the average player either. The data clearly shows how average players perform with those decks, and it is generally pretty bad.
And a player who is good enough to pilot one of those decks successfully already knows what to think of your conclusions.
Suddenly, Fluffy realized she wasn't quite like the other bunnies anymore.
-Team R&D-
-noitcelfeR maeT-
What evidence is there that the skill distribution -- I assume it's a normal bell curve -- is any diffferent for Dredge than it is for any other archetype?
I am skeptical of the claim that people misplay Dredge anymore than Goblins or ANT or Aggro Loam or CounterTop. Goblins may actually be more skill intensive with Dredge. Dredge decks follow simple algorithems for the most part. Goblins requires tutoring decisions, land drop decisions, trigger stacks, and a ton of other considerations.
There were 81 Dredge decks played in the SCG open series so far. If Dredge was good in the metagame in tournament conditions, it would have put more than 2 people into top 8s even if the skill distribution skews lower than for other archetypes. That's the bottom line.
Isn't, not close. For sure Goblins has a complex decision tree, but it's not even on the same level as Dredge.Goblins may actually be more skill intensive with Dredge.
When in doubt, mumble.
When in trouble, delegate.
Firstly, I'm not denying that there is a difference between testing play and tournament play. It is certainly relevant for reasons you've described.
I also agree that, generally speaking, the people playing deck X aren't any better or worse than the people playing other archetypes.
Instead, I'm offering two factors that I believe have a strong influence:
1) Forgiveness
We all make mistakes. Certain decks, like Zoo, are forgiving in comparison to some other decks. For example if I attack with my lone Nacatl and then play a post-combat Pridemage, that is a mistake. It may result in losing the game, but more often than not it won't. However if I'm playing ANT and make the mistake of miscounting my mana, it will frequently result in losing.
I also believe this is a very strong reason to choose a deck like Zoo. For a person who acknowledges that he/she makes mistakes and probably isn't going to play a complex deck perfectly, it is a wise decision to choose a forgiving deck even if it isn't theoretically as good.
2) Level of play
There is going to be a heavy dose of opinion here.
Some matches may appear to be one-sided at an average level of play, but change at a higher level of play. For example I've watched what I consider average players sit down with CB vs. ANT and the CB player will crush the ANT player nearly 100% of the time. But when I see what I consider high skilled players on both sides, it isn't nearly such a blow out and it approaches an even match. The point here is that even if both players are equally skilled, the match-up can change radically because the higher skilled players are taking advantage of nuances in the game that the average players don't even know exist. They are almost playing a different game altogether.
I'm not here to suggest that Dredge is performing poorly for just these reasons, but I do think they both have some pull.
Suddenly, Fluffy realized she wasn't quite like the other bunnies anymore.
-Team R&D-
-noitcelfeR maeT-
Sure. If they were making what I saw as misplays and they were winning, you might have an argument. But if it looks like a misplay compared to what I understand to be the right play, and they don't get there? Pretty sure we can call that play wrong.
Magic Level 3 Judge
Southern USA Regional Coordinator
Ahh,,,,you got us. I had a bet that you couldn't possibly be this obtuse in the overwhelming face of facts stacked against every facet of what you were saying. That just throwing out completely off hand one liners was no way to support any real position.
A tip of the hat to you sir. I love a good prank/trollingas much as the next guy, and you and Anusien got us good. Not that I'm saying anyone actually believed anything you were trying to sell, but keeping that little suspension of disbelief as long as you did was masterful.
~ Team Unicorn Motto
It does? Am I so mindblowing smart that I understood how to play Goblins within 10 minutes, or, which is more likely, I am not mindblowing smart but the deck is insanely easy to play?
Especially when playing dredge, mulling decisions are harder and take more experience, the decision when to draw instead of dredge is a hard one, and the hardest one: how to sideboard. It all takes quite alot of experience of playing the deck. Dredge, compared to other decks out there, is an above-average hard deck to play.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably delicious.
Team ADHD-To resist is to piss in the wind. Anyone who does will end up smelling.
So I compiled all the data from all the SCGs tournaments, if this is more useful to anyone, though I actually think top 8 penetration is a better measurement, since to make top 8 you have to beat other decks that are winning but you can dick around in the loser's bracket without a chance to make any prizes by playing a deck that beats scrub decks and still look good.
But anyway, here's the match win percentage of various decks.
Team America: 69.7 / 33
UW Tempo: 65.1 / 63
Natural Order, includes Natural Order and Natural Order Progenitus: 59.1 / 110
Merfolk: 56.5 / 552
Belcher: 55.3 /208
Lands: 54.2 /131
Eva Green: 54.0 / 100
Zoo: 53.6 / 470
Aggro Loam: 53.4 / 176
Dredge: 53.4 / 262
Survival: 52.2 / 92
NO Bant: 50.8 / 63
Countertop 50.0/ 316
White Weenie: 50.0 / 18
Enchantress: 48.3 / 122
ANT: 47.1 / 282
Painter: 39.8 / 83
Burn: 38.3 / 154
Elves: 25.0 / 36
Ninjas!: 0.0 / 5
Anybody who wants the program/Excel file, send me a PM.
The program also compares head to head matchups, e.g. if you want to know:
Ichorid vs. Zoo: 12-13-1 (48%)
Ichorid vs. Zoo or Goblins: 19-22-2 (46%)
Yeah, I'm serious, Ichorid has LOST to Zoo and Goblins in the Star City Games.
It's also beaten combo and Merfolk:
Ichorid vs. Ant and Belcher: 13-12-0 (52%)
Ichorid vs. Merfolk: 15-13-1 (54%)
Last edited by Forbiddian; 04-14-2010 at 02:57 PM.
They're all about the same except for one. Wow, UW Tempo really stands out. It's probably the best deck ever invented. Interesting find, Forbiddian.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably delicious.
Team ADHD-To resist is to piss in the wind. Anyone who does will end up smelling.
Dredge is in the DTB forum, whereas the other mentioned decks are not. Maybe not a great reason why Dredge stands out among those decks, but a reason nonetheless (and its empirically provable!)
Also, and not just directed to Smmenen, I find it amazing how no other game or sport that I know singles out the tools over the players. Think of it, chess, basketball, poker, ping-pong, you name it, and all those sports/games are followed by participant performance, not the apparatus or strategy they use. Magic is certainly its own beast. Yet, we are not automatons and our actions are so hard to break down to statistical measurements (I know many here disagree, but even the great Thomas Khun saw the limitations of quantitative research).
Dredge is no different than other decks when I say this: of course the player has a deep impact on the results. How can you divorce the player from the results and then hold up stats that are based on player performances? Do you examine Nascar car models or do you examine the performance of drivers and their teams? It is utterly incredible to me that with so much variance in deck building and even deck choice (not to mention playing) that such considerations are regarded as irrelevant. All decks are subject to subjectivities and influences of their pilots therefore all such influences and subjectivities ought to be disregarded? Huh?
Not to beat the Frogboy Dredge article/shitstorm to death (because, quite frankly this is looking like a bar fight sprawling out of control, across several threads), but Max at least, in his first article, went through the card choices in his deck and explained why if you make different choices you may end up with very different results. It's funny that when everyone is throwing around figures of deck performance there is no consideration about which deck list is being played.
Anyway, I'm not claiming anyone here is right or anyone here is wrong, I just think deck performance statistics can only take this argument so far and that the pilots behind the statistics shouldn't be scoffed at as immaterial to the debate.
Who says the Internet isn't full of <3?
@ MMogg
Where is your tournament data (performance statistics) to support that claim? =).I just think deck performance statistics can only take this argument so far and that the pilots behind the statistics shouldn't be scoffed at as immaterial to the debate.
peace,
4eak
Wow, I'm not even sure how to respond to that. You either didn't read anything I said, or are trolling me. How can one have tournament data to support that pilots influence how a deck performs? That's like saying I need stats to prove that basketball players' ability influences how many points they score as opposed to the shoes they wear. Maybe if we keep track of all NBA players' shoes we can track and graph which shoes perform better over other shoes.
Basically I said quantitative methods can only take the argument so far, and you said, prove it with quantitative methods/results. Nice one. I don't think we need stats or tournament data to prove that human beings make choices and therefore influence results. And if you think I'm wrong on that, well, I can live with that, but this goes to the core of my epistemological and ontological beliefs.
Who says the Internet isn't full of <3?
Disclaimer: This is all my opinion and conjecture. You are free (and encouraged?) to disagree.
IMO not enough good players like to play combo. They would rather play something that gives them time to outplay their opponent than to lose to a random bad hand or something.
The issue is that whether you lose because you walked into a Ravenous Trap or because you drew a hierarch instead of an StP you still lost. I think that most people find it much more satisfying to "think" they had a chance and try to win than to to lose to "luck" (which is usually self produced, through skill and attitude).
Here is my theory: Dredge is a cheap deck and "Everybody knows it can't win g2 and g3 when the hate comes in" (even though the amount of people that have tested this theory are probably much less than those who subscribe to it). So we have a unique situation where an entry level deck is oft perceived to be bad by the "community in the know". This community (i.e. the Source or wheverever) is also usually where the better Legacy players come from. I think we perpetuate a situation that discourages higher caliber players from picking it up and with its price encourage entry level budgets (and old extended cards?) to come into the format who may lack the preparation that someone who has been playing Legacy since its inception may have.
Additionally, the deck is helluva foreign feeling to play. Using the graveyard as your library? Wanting to discard? I mean it goes against most of what we were taught is good/right/legal to do in MTG. This is very tough for me to get my head around and I have had some success with AdNT.
Lastly, I think combo in general doesn't have a big a draw to the playerbase as a whole. Some of us got into this game because of some type of fantasy wizard, creature battle, spell battle concept. Going off without swinging with dudes is someone how a very unfulfilling victory we me. I like sending my hit squad in to run over the opponent.
EDIT: @MMogg: 4eak is not a troll. I'm sure there is a misunderstanding.
Last edited by jazzykat; 04-14-2010 at 07:28 AM. Reason: Side comment.
I think 4freak was being ironical with regard to the whole thread ;)Wow, I'm not even sure how to respond to that. You either didn't read anything I said, or are trolling me. How can one have tournament data to support that pilots influence how a deck performs? That's like saying I need stats to prove that basketball players' ability influences how many points they score as opposed to the shoes they wear. Maybe if we keep track of all NBA players' shoes we can track and graph which shoes perform better over other shoes.
Basically I said quantitative methods can only take the argument so far, and you said, prove it with quantitative methods/results. Nice one. I don't think we need stats or tournament data to prove that human beings make choices and therefore influence results. And if you think I'm wrong on that, well, I can live with that, but this goes to the core of my epistemological and ontological beliefs.
Your point of course has some merits, but I think you shoul not compare Magic to Basketball, but instead to car racing. Take for example formula one: last year both Fernando Alonso and Kimi Raikkonen performed pretty bad. Was it entirely their fault? Of course not, since they were contenders for the title the years before. It happened that their "tool" performed pretty bad. They most probably did still pretty well with what they had, compared to someone who is less skilled or experienced. I for sure would have done a lot worse.
Magic is similar: a good pilot with a good deck will probably shine, but with the wrong "tool", even if he may perform better than other player with the same deck, he is likely to do worse than an average pilot with a better deck.
Team Stimato Ezio: You're off the team!
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
-Kierkegaard
I completely agree with what you said and certainly some decks/tools are better than other decks/tools. I also completely agree that statistical data has value and merit, I just don't think a 100% quantitative approach is appropriate and I don't think stats can truly quantify everything. For example, it is true that a player like Alix Hatfield did well with Reanimator at the recent Vestal tourney, and he also did fairly well with Zoo previously. In that case, as in with the case of many pro players, the pilot does matter. Now, this can be extended further than just how they pilot the deck and go onto deck choice. LSV talked about how he metagamed a deck (Blue-white? Dunno, I don't follow Standard) to stomp Jund, which he expected at that tournament, and he won. It perhaps wasn't the best deck in the format, but was the best deck to pilot for that meta, and such human decisions are hard to quantify with stats.I think 4freak was being ironical with regard to the whole thread ;)
Your point of course has some merits, but I think you shoul not compare Magic to Basketball, but instead to car racing. Take for example formula one: last year both Fernando Alonso and Kimi Raikkonen performed pretty bad. Was it entirely their fault? Of course not, since they were contenders for the title the years before. It happened that their "tool" performed pretty bad. They most probably did still pretty well with what they had, compared to someone who is less skilled or experienced. I for sure would have done a lot worse.
Magic is similar: a good pilot with a good deck will probably shine, but with the wrong "tool", even if he may perform better than other player with the same deck, he is likely to do worse than an average pilot with a better deck.
For me, quantitative methods lead us to ask certain questions that qualitative methods can answer.
Who says the Internet isn't full of <3?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
