Hopefully at least Matt and Ryan can/will keep participating and mining for the Premier events for us.
Anyway, I assume that "if you participate in a tournament you'll be able to replay any of the matches from that event" means we are fine as long as one of us continues to play in the P9 challenges. If we're both busy we might need to recruit some help though.
Yea, that part wasn’t super clear to me. If you just have to “participate” in an event, I’m willing to chip in a couple bucks to have someone join and drop just to have “participated.” If that works, someone will probably come up with a bot and a subscription site that monitors all that crap (which they’ll then disable)
If they made it public after a delay, say a month, I think it would be a better compromise.
Heck, even more than a month would be fine. Perhaps after the next premiere event so that you can’t use last month’s event data to metagame.
This is to keep the format from getting solved/stale
I don’t think that there’s ever a best 60-card deck but there certainly gets to be points where there’s a best “deck” where there’s a best 50-55 cards. Personally, I find the meta-gaming that occurs in those remaining slots to be every bit as interesting. WotC would rather have major changes that are easier for newer players to understand.
I think this is especially true in Vintage where two “decks” might have only a handful of cards different between them but they are considered completely different decks. Take the various Vault or Workshop decks as an example.
However it's not clear to me 1) that this kind of analysis is actually useful in the wild,
It’s certainly plausible that it’s useful. Actually determining whether it’s useful would require something like building a deck in a complete information vacuum and comparing its results to a deck built after examining recent decks.
As an example:
If I see that no one played Dredge in the last P9 event, I might be inclined to skimp a little on my Dredge hate. Another player might look at the data and determine that players are likely to skimp on Dredge hate and therefore Dredge is a good plan. Then you get the “next level” where I know that you know that I know that Dredge is underplayed!
This next bit, I’m going to take an extremely negative view, so be prepared to possibly be annoyed by the pessimism of my conclusions.
WotC has said in the past that many B&R decisions are primarily driven by tournament results. While we cannot know the precise metrics that they use with this data, an overview of the data should at least support their conclusions. Having more tournament data allows players to more accurately audit the DCI’s B&R decisions.
A few recent B&R changes (or lack thereof) across multiple formats indicate that this data-drive decision making is not the case. Rather, WotC, through their control of the DCI (a whole other thing I’m not a fan of) is attempting to sculpt formats to their vision of the formats, rather than what is “healthy” or “diverse.”
To be clear, by WotC’s own announcements or lack thereof, a spell may put 32 out of 32 possible copies in the top 8 of a major event and not be banned. But Lodestone Golem, with around half those numbers, causes “Mishra's Workshop–based decks [to] continue to be significantly overrepresented, reducing the competitive metagame.” [source]
My conclusion: At least a part of the reason for further reducing the amount of information available to players is to conceal WotC's manipulation of the formats while claiming to be data-driven.