This could just as easily go in the thread about SCG getting rid of legacy but...
I noticed Saturday that on and off, the GP had more viewers than the SCG. This, I thought, was sure fire proof that SCG was wrong about legacy. After some quick research into Twitch's API, I wrote up a little BASH script to fetch the viewership numbers for both streams.
Quick info on the data below:
* The times for those vertical lines is based on tweets. As a result, they're not 100% dead on when the round started, but they're within one "tick" of me checking the viewership.
* I'm missing the SCG top 8 and top 4... not really sure why they wouldn't want to tweet about an important feature match... if anyone has estimates on those times, let me know and I can add them.
* Blank spaces in the graph are where Twitch's API didn't return a result. This will occur when the stream is down at the time of the poll or when Twitch's API doesn't respond. In one point on the SCG graph, you can see it die, then viewership drops hard for a few minutes. This is probably the stream going down and people taking a while to refresh the page and get counted again.
* The times are weird because I was lazy. Instead of pinging the API every 5 minutes, I pinged the API and then waited 5 minutes, so the resolution here is something like a check every 310 seconds.
Graph:
Quick takeaways:
* SCG's peak viewership (as measured as I did) was 2,340 viewers higher than the GP's; roughly an 18% difference.
* Sometime during GP Round 13, which is approximately when the SCG eliminations round began, SCG's numbers dropped precipitously. Though they returned, they were not nearly as strong. Do people not like watching the top 8?
* SCG peaked in its last Swiss round. The GP peaked during the finals. SCG's peak seems odd. That's like watching week 16 of the NFL but skipping the Super Bowl!
* More people watched the last round of the GP than watched the elimination rounds of the SCG
SCG conspiracy theory time:
SCG's numbers have one thing a little suspicious about them. In the 6 hours preceding their actual broadcast, during which they were showing replays, they averaged 2559 viewers, going below 2000 only for a few minutes. While I understand that some people may leave their computer on the stream or that people on the other side of the world might actually be watching, it seems very strange to me for the live broadcast to peak at 13071 and for the replay, even in the dead of night in their target market, to average 20% of that peak.
If anyone would like to see or play with the data, I've dropped it on PasteBin here
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
Goblins also won the very first Legacy GP - surely non-blue decks have won more than 3 Legacy GPs
Beautiful data. I had always been skeptical of claims that SCG Standard viewership numbers were much higher than SCG Legacy viewership, since it's not congruent with attendance, but I had no data to evaluate. Would it be possible for you to find data that either supports or refutes their claims?This could just as easily go in the thread about SCG getting rid of legacy but...
I noticed Saturday that on and off, the GP had more viewers than the SCG. This, I thought, was sure fire proof that SCG was wrong about legacy. After some quick research into Twitch's API, I wrote up a little BASH script to fetch the viewership numbers for both streams.
Quick info on the data below:
* The times for those vertical lines is based on tweets. As a result, they're not 100% dead on when the round started, but they're within one "tick" of me checking the viewership.
* I'm missing the SCG top 8 and top 4... not really sure why they wouldn't want to tweet about an important feature match... if anyone has estimates on those times, let me know and I can add them.
* Blank spaces in the graph are where Twitch's API didn't return a result. This will occur when the stream is down at the time of the poll or when Twitch's API doesn't respond. In one point on the SCG graph, you can see it die, then viewership drops hard for a few minutes. This is probably the stream going down and people taking a while to refresh the page and get counted again.
* The times are weird because I was lazy. Instead of pinging the API every 5 minutes, I pinged the API and then waited 5 minutes, so the resolution here is something like a check every 310 seconds.
Graph:
Quick takeaways:
* SCG's peak viewership (as measured as I did) was 2,340 viewers higher than the GP's; roughly an 18% difference.
* Sometime during GP Round 13, which is approximately when the SCG eliminations round began, SCG's numbers dropped precipitously. Though they returned, they were not nearly as strong. Do people not like watching the top 8?
* SCG peaked in its last Swiss round. The GP peaked during the finals. SCG's peak seems odd. That's like watching week 16 of the NFL but skipping the Super Bowl!
* More people watched the last round of the GP than watched the elimination rounds of the SCG
SCG conspiracy theory time:
SCG's numbers have one thing a little suspicious about them. In the 6 hours preceding their actual broadcast, during which they were showing replays, they averaged 2559 viewers, going below 2000 only for a few minutes. While I understand that some people may leave their computer on the stream or that people on the other side of the world might actually be watching, it seems very strange to me for the live broadcast to peak at 13071 and for the replay, even in the dead of night in their target market, to average 20% of that peak.
If anyone would like to see or play with the data, I've dropped it on PasteBin here
Mediocre (11-4, min cash) finish from me in my first GP.
I had been tracking GP attendance numbers for a long time, but I never really understood the magnitude of what those numbers were. The place was packed, and in fact, too crowded, despite the commendable efforts of the organizers and judges. I came to the realization that there were many more players that were interested in playing Legacy than can be fit into a convention center, even with every squished in. The real limiting factor to Legacy GP attendance is not the Reserved List, but venue logistics.
I grabbed this data live. If there's someone who's got a log of past events, you could do such an analysis.
However, I could start grabbing that data. Weekend after next is Standard, followed by Legacy, then Standard again. However, I suspect Legacy viewership will suffer from the fact that it's Thanksgiving weekend. It seems like a lot of the events I care about are on holiday weekends :/
But when there's more than one per hemisphere per year, will those numbers stand? They will, up to a point, but then the financial impact, as well as the "next GP is only 3 months, we can skip this one" effect will both kick in. At minimum they can go up to two or three per year. But it's Wizards.
Is near midday for me. SCG events start around 2300 here. Now my work hours let me do that, but many it would not. Watching a replay at a reasonable hour would make sense to those who live in different time zones.
It is better to ask and look stupid then keep your mouth shut and remain so.
I hope your afterlife is filled with eternal torment.
Fuck. Which one of my quotes do I drop for this?
I don't think you can compare the GP numbers to the scg numbers. For one, the GP is almost an annual event compared to the weekly events scg hosts. The demographic scg/wotc are going for think legacy is just too complex, they want the people from hearthstone that may become interested enough to make a jump, basically the people they have been catering to for years with the neutering of mechanics like counterspells, land destruction, combo, and pushing creatures hard in standard formats. The legacy community may be a vibrant one, but it isn't one that they need, especially since the community is a lot less interested in dumping money into new product.
Top 32 has been posted.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/c...ist-2015-11-08
@thecrav: What are you trying to imply regarding the viewership numbers of SCG Standard events?
delver 8
shardless 4
miracles 3
lands 2
dnt 2
infect 2
stoneblade 2
elves 1
loam 1
sneaknshow 1
burn 1
ant 1
merfolk 1
reanimator 1
alluren 1
Is this the guy who needed to borrow a coin, from Seans tale?The deck tech I really want to see is this one...
It's never been about the RL; don't let people who can't afford Legacy trick you into believing so.
Throughout Day 2 he tapped 2 Rishadan Ports (his only other 2 lands being Maze of Iths) to cast Life From The Loam, and tapped a Verdant Catacombs + Port to do the same thing (though in this instance he was going to win anyway). Not sure how those got by the judges...
Did he have Riftstone Portal in his graveyard? It can be easy to miss since the yard can get so big.
Team Info-Ninjas: Catchphrases so secret, I don't even know what they are!
Riftstone Portal?
Riftstone Portal.
Also it is the RL that's the issue, that is the reason people can't afford to play. Many want to, but are priced out due to cards that can't me reprinted.
It is better to ask and look stupid then keep your mouth shut and remain so.
I hope your afterlife is filled with eternal torment.
Fuck. Which one of my quotes do I drop for this?
Yup, that Riftstone Portal. It was in his yard the whole time and those plays were all legal.
Cockatrice: Bosque
Sad but this above is true. I actually did the survey for BFZ because apart from being an ok draft set it's pretty poor. I was really surprised that in a review of their product they started asking me about Hearthstone! Already I only play Modern and Legacy and if they are going to alter standard to go after the Hearthstone market then I'll never go back. I mean I do play Hearthstone (it's mindless enough for me to grab a game during my smoke break at work) but it's not, and should not, be seen as a competitor to real Magic. I do worry however that real magic is not what WOTC are into any more.
I have no idea what "real Magic" is, but Wizards is only interested in selling Standard and to a greater extent Limited. It makes perfect sense from their standpoint, for several reasons:
1.) It's easier to design for. It is nearly impossible for them to test cards for Legacy, Vintage and even Modern. Simply put, there are too many cards and not enough time (i.e. employee work hours) to really see what new cards will do.
2.) It means they have to worry a lot less about unsustainable power creep. There is only so strong they can make cards before we slip back to Urza's Block. Not to mention, if they make high power sets? People complain that cards are OP. Make low power sets? People complain that they suck. Not worth entering the harder design space if everyone is just going to bitch anyway. And guess what, the low power sets sell anyway!
3.) Wizards' concern is always, "sell the latest set." Limited is absolutely the best at this. Standard is second best. There is your support right there. Why support formats that don't/barely sell any product?
The Reserve List isn't some legally binding agreement. It is simply a good excuse as to why they "can't" reprint cards that they don't want to reprint anyway. I've said it time and time again, when Standard and Limited aren't the cash cows Wizards wants/needs them to be, you'll see a whole new outlook on Modern, Legacy and the Reserve List.
"The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
—Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote