Brainstorm
Force of Will
Lion's Eye Diamond
Counterbalance
Sensei's Divining Top
Tarmogoyf
Phyrexian Dreadnaught
Goblin Lackey
Standstill
Natural Order
Representing data is as far as a close field as it gets. There are many valid options, that might be considered.
It also depends of what you want to get out of the data. Win rate for a specific MU is one thing, but a logical use could also be to evaluate which deck to take between the few available to someone. In which case you don't necessarily care about whether a given MU has x% win rate or a lot of data points, you could just sum up all win and losses irrespective of against which deck those were collected.
That calculation is less logical than it seems. It assumes you will face the same meta represented in the data (the data are implicitly weighted in that sum). That makes strong model assumptions even though it seems like such a simple calculation of adding up Ws. Given the MU win rates you're free to adjust to any meta you expect for an event.
For example: Someone will 5-0 and 4-1 a couple MTGO Leagues, think they've broken the meta, perform poorly in a Legacy Challenge, and wonder why. Why didn't it win as much as expected? They're facing a different metagame. Leagues are full of combo and random brews. Big events are full of tier 1 fair blue. Their deck may do better against the League meta than the Challenge meta.
Edit: In simpler language, it's the whole "apples and oranges" thing. Summing wins mixes apples and oranges. If win rates vary by matchup (like most do), it depends on the meta. 20-2 vs Belcher and 0-5 vs Delver is a strong record of 20-7, but is bad for an event full of Delver. It's far more logical to start with the matchup win rates and weight them by the expected metagame (much more Delver than Belcher).
Last edited by FTW; 11-26-2021 at 05:47 PM.
This. Leagues are a mixed bag, if you try enough of them with any viable deck, you will get a 5-0, quite a few 4-1 and a crap-load of 3-2s, just based on the games you go against random junk someone is trying the viability of. The key here is to try enough of them, which means you may lose money to get that elusive 5-0, but you will get one of them.
Looking at any recent legacy data all I can say is that I remember the days when cards were banned in modern because they affected 'diversity', ie, Splinter Twin and the construction of URx decks. These days, as long as it sells, who cares.
This article below is quite interesting. Starts with a trip down memory lane to old (and now banned) past-glories and then takes us through the latest tournament and results (Cue in all monkey-is-ok fans).
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/articles...ghout-the-ages
Now that Eternal Weekend is over and (per their own tweet) bans are back on the table, when do we think anything would be coming down? I miss the old "on release" schedule because then at least we had dates to look forward to
Not sure it's just 3 loud guys but, what's pretty obvious, there is no agreement on what the problem is, neither on how to solve it. Which is usually the case when something is changing a lot but people are failing to accept change or the change is simply impossible to accurately being evaluated.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MTGLegacy/c...ix_legacy_now/
My $.02, people were used to a certain, slower moving legacy. Now they are getting hit in the face with new meta-changing cards every 3 months. This causes immense confusion but also makes it very difficult to evaluate if there is a problem (other than obvious stuff like modern's eldrazi winter). The only I can see is causing an issue that is displeasing a majority of people is the continuous changes and broken things appearing with the supplemental sets releases. But that's not going to change.
Kudos to WotC for doing something I never thought possible, turning every single format into a sort of standard where there is continuous demand for the new cards and ever changing meta-game causing more demand for new cards. That was a business master-stroke and one that, for all we can see, is going really well as set sales are increasing not diminishing, even in a covid world.
There are 2 aspects to this discussion.
One is the monke itself which is a clearly busted card and should go.
The other is that the card pool in legacy has been roided up so much over the last decade that diversity has decreased significantly.
What's left is so powerful that it's make-or-break on every threat.
It seems pretty impossible now to decharge legacy now.
Does anyone think there will be any changes post-Eternal weekend? I tend to think we won't see any changes, but there is a vocal section of legacy that wants either Daze or Ragavan banned.
Brainstorm Realist
I close my eyes and sink within myself, relive the gift of precious memories, in need of a fix called innocence. - Chuck Shuldiner
Daze might be annoying at times but how in freezing hell is it ban worthy?
On the other hand Ragavan just needs to go, it creates too many nongames where an unanswered Ragavan T1 or T2 just wins you the game.. eventually, but inevitably. But than again we would need a large scale ban in legacy to bring it back to "normality", but guess that's not gonna happen so we might as well welcome over new monkey overlord and listen to his sagas because somehows Urza's saga fits in every deck now as well...
It's really the combination of Daze + Ragavan that creates nongames.
Ragavan is clearly a problem.
The rationale for Daze is that Daze + CardX will be a problem next time. CardX's printing is inevitable due to FIRE design, while new Daze-effects are unlikely to ever get printed. So do they just keep warping the format and then ban every new CardX, or just ban Daze?
While I get that Daze is annoying, I still don't think it should be banned after being ok for so many years.
It is only really good for a few turns and way weaker if you don't have treasures from monkes to balance out the mana loss.
I would take out monke and saga and let it settle for a bit.
However, it seems like many crusty old men like me who have been playing legacy for such a long time still would prefer to have a format like it was about 10 years ago when it was more diverse and cards were not as overpowered.
Do people still remember Tarmogoyf?
With legacy going the vintage route and vintage being a MTGO only format, there is no real place to go for people who want to play old cards.
TRADE PROPOSAL:
You get:
Ragavan banned.
I recieve:
Brainstorm banned.
SavageSo yeah, Ragavan, Nimble Pilferer is fucking brutal. Do you know what else is also brutal? Chalice of the Void. Allosaurus Shepherd. Marit Lage. Combo decks killing you on Turn 1, backed by disruption. Endurance being evoked in response to your perfectly reasonable Turn 1 Doomsday kill. Legacy is fucking brutal. There's a term for the Legacy decks that aren't doing absolutely disgusting things: Tier 3.
Here's the source and rest of it: https://www.reddit.com/r/MTGLegacy/c...ate_of_legacy/
All Spells Primer under construction: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e...Tl7utWpLo0/pub
PM me if you want to contribute!
I'm old enough to remember Goblin Lackey,and the calls to ban it. It's certainly a very different card with very different saturation, but I fully expect WOTC to respond to Ragavan in exactly the same way.
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot
RIP Ari
Legacy UGB River Rock primer Click here to comment
There are currently 2000 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2000 guests)