Is Survival of the fittest worth buying right now? Because everybody is in a panic on ebay selling there Survival of the fittest. There is a ebay member selling 3XSOTF for $118. I would really like to buy the 3XSOTF. But I am really worried about them being banned. So what is everyone's opinion good deal are not? also what is everyone's opinion on how much SOTF will be worth if it dose gets banned?
You could read this thread, and the 2-3 other ones to figure that out.Originally Posted by codegeass
I doubt it, his garbage is all over here, Salvation, MOTL, etc. I can't seem to avoid the guy, no matter where I go. You can't always count on common sense prevailing, and codegeass has displayed pretty clearly that he has the intelligence level of a four year old. 5-6 threads, question addressed about a dozen times, and he still has to ask. I can't decide if he's trolling or not. How was he allowed to even join The Source? I'm sure our standards are better than that.
Delver enthusiast and avid practitioner of blind flipsmanship.
Follow me on Twitter: @AllSunsDawn
The link's on Starcitygames.com. You should ask him why he got a match loss at Grand Prix: Nashville. Let's just say you don't circle cards on the deck registration sheet and write, "What a bomb!".
As for SoTF, I don't see it getting banned because as many others have said it's a permanent that can be dealt with in many ways.
I Lol'd.
Wow! What a noob! Can't believe the "voices" in MTG community are actually whinny kids. Bleh.
There are plenty of permanents on the Banned list, some way more harmless than Survival (the format-devouring Land Tax for one...)
Of course, some of those "harmless" ones may not deserve to be there, but plenty of permanents are deservedly banned, because they are broken fast mana, or they allow degenerate combos or they are too powerful as engines. Survival is a bit of the "degenerate combo" problem, and a lot of the "powerful engine" problem.
Just being interactive isn't enough. Library of Alexandria is plenty interactive in a format with Wasteland running rampant- and a more incremental advantage than Survival to boot. Yet it belongs on the Banned list.
And unlike some of the other cards, Survival restricts future design space because it interacts with so many creatures, and creatures are exactly what Wizards has been pushing so hard.
-Killing on turn 4-5 with the attack phase is not degenerate. Dredge has an argubly stronger engine AND is faster.
- They aren't comparable as they are vastly different permenants. Counters, Pridemage, Krosan Grip, Natures Claim and a host of other cards can slow down or stop SoTF.Just being interactive isn't enough. Library of Alexandria is plenty interactive in a format with Wasteland running rampant- and a more incremental advantage than Survival to boot. Yet it belongs on the Banned list.
LoA is only stopped by a handful of cards. Blood Moon and Wasteland come to mind.
Note that I did do a comparison with Skullclamp.
-How does Survival restrict design space?And unlike some of the other cards, Survival restricts future design space because it interacts with so many creatures, and creatures are exactly what Wizards has been pushing so hard.
I do not think that SOTF should be banned. MT was a better ban even thought I was really mad about it. Because i had just spent $900 to complete my reanimator. In then bam they ban MT. While madness deck's are broken. There is way's to get around them. why MT was banned was because it constantly shut you down on turn 1-2 with reanimator and constantly win with tendrils on turn 1-2. Not only dose madness have to worry about extirpate but permanent removal and counter's. I don't know right now everyone is thinking they are going to ban it dose it need to be banned no. But i just picked up a playsets of vengevines for a $102 and SOTF are selling for 3x for around $125.
really really really ? get a life and grow up you baby loser.
The man does have a point though. Start by writing some coherent sentences and please for the love of baby Jesus use some punctuation.. Even if you are from a non-English speaking nation (like myself), at least take some time to make yourself understandable. A grammar mistake or something lost in translation is very forgivable if you show you at least made an effort to make yourself understandable.
We don't have those forum rules for nothing......
4th: 293/363
5th: 82/434
Vi: 159/167
Wl: 100/167
Te: 318/335
St: 132/143
Ex: 136/143
US: 235/335
3/8 Sealed boosters
1/8 Sealed boosterboxes
Only 632 cards left for a full Korean set, over 69% done (last update 05/27)
Always looking for sealed product!
sorry i thought I was using good english.
It hurt me when i read this, but then i re-read it 2 more times for more lolz and hurts. Try harder, i know i have to re-read my stuff several times and it's still kinda crappy.
I know the topic has been thoroughly discussed already, but Jared Sylva just provided complete data for SCG Nashville, Charlotte, and Boston, so I wanted to complete the discussion as I had previously promised: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/l...s_of_Data.html
The various Survival archetypes comprised 73 out of 540 decks (13.52%) in the field and had a 64.45% win percentage against the field (excluding the mirror). That 13.52% of the field grew to 39.58% (19/48) of the top 16 spots, 54.17% (13/24) of the top 8 spots, 58.33% (7/12) of the top 4 spots, and 100% of the finalists/championships.
Clearly, Survival wasn't dominating the top 16 because "half the field was playing it". It was dominating the top 16 because Survival decks rose to the top of the Swiss standings, and it continued to rise throughout the top 8.Code:N C B Tot Top 1: 1 1 1 3 Top 2: 2 2 2 6 Top 4: 3 2 2 7 Top 8: 4 5 4 13 Top 16: 5 7 7 19
Sylva also provided matchup analysis for those three tournaments against the most common archetypes:
- Merfolk: 35-17-1, 66.98%
- Goblins: 25-16-3, 60.23%
- G/W/B Rock: 30-19-2, 60.78%
- Countertop: 20-11-0, 64.52%
- Ad Nauseam: 14-10-0, 58.33%
- Zoo: 12-7-1: 62.50%
Everyone has their opinion on what kinds of decks "stomp" Survival--I've even heard on these forums that Merfolk, Zoo, and Goblins have positive matchups, but few people took this at face value, and the data show why. More credible were claims that the Rock and Ad Nauseam combo decks had positive matchups, but this is clearly not the case. Rather, the data shows that Survival has a very positive matchup against both decks (60% is roughly what you would expect for Goblins versus Merfolk, which is generally regarded as very lopsided).
Certainly, a great storm combo player might have better chances than these data suggest, but at that point, you're basically conceding that "you can compete in Legacy against Survival decks if you're playing storm combo and a professional pilot". Even then, there is probably no better Storm player than Bryant Cook, and his loss in GP Columbus was to Survival; so it's hard for me to believe that even in the hands of the best pilots, combo decks "stomp" Survival.
As a reminder, note that there was also no deck with a positive matchup in the three previous tournaments (Denver, Minneapolis, Baltimore) either:
- 27-22-5 (54.63%) against Merfolk
- 36-14-3 (70.75%) against Countertop
- 16-8-0 (66.67%) against Goblins
- 14-12-1 (53.70%) against Zoo
- 3-3-0 (50.00%) against Ad Nauseam
- 7-3-1 (68.18%) against Dredge
- 4-0-0 (100.00%) against Enchantress
- 9-1-0 (90.00%) against Charbelcher
Just to recap, after a rather innocuous but still strong showing at Denver (34-24-4/58.06%, weighed down by the weaker non-Vengevine decks which constituted more relatively more of the archetype at the time), Survival improved to put up unprecedented win percentages at Minneapolis (67-32-5/66.83%) and Baltimore (102-60-8/62.35%). It continued its dominance into the next three tournaments (as shown above). Across six tournaments, it has posted a staggering 64.63% win percentage and has yet to encounter a viable "bad matchup". More impressively, its top X penetration has gotten dramatically better in recent tournaments despite only a relatively modest increase in its prevalance in the overall field.
Last edited by lordofthepit; 12-02-2010 at 03:48 AM. Reason: Forgot link
Right. So what was the overall win percentage of Countertop/Zoo back when they were dominant?
Not that good, to be honest: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/l...y_Results.html
It' a pity that we don't have such detailed results for the european tournaments. I guess that combining the data the performance of Survival will lower a bit, reaching more reasonable levels.
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'm trying to assemble data from what's available, but some of the earlier tournaments (St. Louis I, Dallas/Fort Worth, and Richmond) will require me to dig into the actual spreadsheets.
Zoo managed to post 65.82% at Seattle, which is by far its most dominant performance. Between Atlanta and Minneapolis (a stretch of 6 tournaments), it managed to post 59.12%, which is by far the best of any non-Survival archetype. Of course, those six tournaments were bookended by two relatively poor showings (Baltimore, 51.79%; Orlando, 46.88%). It also didn't have near the top 16 penetration (despite being much more prevalent), it had quite a few bad matchups, and even though it performed the best of any archetype during this time, most people considered Ad Nauseam and Reanimator the best decks (more on that later). For the tournaments between Richmond and Baltimore, it posted 56.82%.
Countertop was pretty bad in 2010. It didn't even break even (49.78%) for the data I've looked at so far (excludes Richmond, DFW, and St. Loui Is, which I'll look at later). It failed to break 53% for any two consecutive tournaments for the 9 tournaments I'm looking at. Countertop was much more prevalent (i.e. represented more of the field) in 2009, for which I don't have data, but I'd be shocked if it won more than 55-60% that year.
Merfolk fared a little better than Countertop in 2009, but there were no two consecutive tournaments in which it broke 55% across both). Here I'm looking at the ten tournaments (excluding DFW and St. Louis I, which I'll include later). It finished at 53.84% for the year.
Ad Nauseam and Reanimator were wildly inconsistent even when they were "the decks to beat". Pre-banning, neither was able to post higher than 52% for two consecutive tournaments. Overall, Ad Nauseam is a shade over 50% (50.69%) between Indianpolis and Baltimore, while Reanimator is just below that (49.90%) Interestingly, Ad Nauseam has actually posted better win percentages after the banning, because players are less prepared for something which they're less likely to face (it was under 50% pre-banning). This is also why I think Countertop didn't necessarily have a much higher win percentage in 2009 despite being more prevalent (people were maindecking Grips and other hate).
This also makes the success of Survival that much more disconcerting considering it's posted amazing win percentages in every single SCG tournament since its debut while being the deck that everyone is targeting. Moreover, Survival/Vengevine builds (I assume that these decks are the ones explicitly labeled "U/G Survival", "U/G Madness", "G/W Survival", or "Ooze Survival") had a win percentage in excess of 62% at each of the six tournaments in which it's been featured.
When I get a chance, I'm going dig up complete data for all the archetypes from the SCG spreadsheets (I haven't included DFW and St. Louis early in the year, nor have I included the data from the last three tournaments, among others).
Survival decks only win consistently with Survival on the table. And it can always be dealt with in many different ways. Apparently Zoo posted identical results back in the day. Considering it certainly lost to Storm and Reanimator, which still had MT, I'd say Zoo was as dominant as Survival is now.
After all the noise about Survival though, I don't think WOTC will share this perspective when looking at the data you posted.
Well, if you look at today's statistical analysis over at SCG you see that people keep playing goblins and merfolk in an attempt to beat Survival. That fact is more disconcerting than the fact that Survival managed to win again.
"Our words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote