North American Eternal Weekend 2017 Metagame Breakdown

@joshuabrooks There were 31 thousand copies of workshop printed.

@aaron-patten said in North American Eternal Weekend 2017 Metagame Breakdown:

@diophan I came across something that might also be relevant to what you're saying here in relation to the paper meta while I was doing some arithmetic on the number of copies of cards that have been printed. I found that if every player who owned a play set of Mishra's Workshop played their play set of Mishra's Workshop it would still only be 32% of the metagame at most simply because the number of Mishra's Workshops that have been printed should prevent it from exceeding that share of the round one meta.

This doesn't seem right at all. According to this source that I found, there were approximately 31,000 copies of Mishra's Workshop printed. There were more sources that seemed to agree with this number. Obviously many of these will be destroyed, locked in binders and everything else, but there's still a sizable number of cards out there.

Even if we assume only 25% of those cards still exist in a playable state, that is still 7,750 copies of Workshop out there which is enough for 1,937 playsets.

last edited by Hrishi

@hrishi That's still a strangely horrifying upper limit.

@jaco Thanks so much for putting this out there.

@joshuabrooks said in North American Eternal Weekend 2017 Metagame Breakdown:

@aaron-patten said in North American Eternal Weekend 2017 Metagame Breakdown:

@diophan I came across something that might also be relevant to what you're saying here in relation to the paper meta while I was doing some arithmetic on the number of copies of cards that have been printed. I found that if every player who owned a play set of Mishra's Workshop played their play set of Mishra's Workshop it would still only be 32% of the metagame at most simply because the number of Mishra's Workshops that have been printed should prevent it from exceeding that share of the round one meta.

Can you elaborate on this a little further? The most conservative estimate I've seen on the number of Workshops is ~6700 (no clue how accurate this is). Obviously a ton of those are sitting in binders, lost forever, or isolated from playsets. I'm curious how you got to your 32%. Not challenging you, but it's an interesting premise, so love to see more detail on your thoughts.

I did the math again and found that I had introduced a rounding error the first time around which is no surprise since I was mostly interested in making an estimate. The real number if I don't do any rounding at any point in the math is closer to 34%. I came to this number using the number of copies of Mishra's Workshop available vs the number of copies of the power nine available. There were 1100 Alpha Black Lotuses printed, 3200 Beta Black Lotuses printed and 185000 Unlimited Black Lotuses printed. That adds to a total of 22800 copies of the power nine assuming that everyone who owns a Black Lotus or a Mox also owns the rest of the power nine. This is of course not the case as we all know but we're going to make this an optimistic estimate for the sake of giving Workshp's availability the benefit of the doubt. There are 31000 Mishra's Workshops in existence so even if they were similarly all collected into play sets, which they aren't, we know that the maximum number of play sets that can be made is one quarter of that which is 7750 play sets. 7750 goes into 22800 three times meaning that if everyone who wanted to play workshops in any give area did there would still only be a third of the player base that would have access to a full play set of the card.

@hrishi said in North American Eternal Weekend 2017 Metagame Breakdown:

@aaron-patten said in North American Eternal Weekend 2017 Metagame Breakdown:

@diophan I came across something that might also be relevant to what you're saying here in relation to the paper meta while I was doing some arithmetic on the number of copies of cards that have been printed. I found that if every player who owned a play set of Mishra's Workshop played their play set of Mishra's Workshop it would still only be 32% of the metagame at most simply because the number of Mishra's Workshops that have been printed should prevent it from exceeding that share of the round one meta.

This doesn't seem right at all. According to this source that I found, there were approximately 31,000 copies of Mishra's Workshop printed. There were more sources that seemed to agree with this number. Obviously many of these will be destroyed, locked in binders and everything else, but there's still a sizable number of cards out there.

Even if we assume only 25% of those cards still exist in a playable state, that is still 7,750 copies of Workshop out there which is enough for 1,937 playsets.

We are in agreement with how many are available I just haven't concluded that every copy of Mishra's workshop around the world would be flown to Pittsburgh for the weekend along with the rest of the power nine so I'm using the known population to make an estimate as to what would be the expected number of play sets brought given their availability under the assumption that every player wants to win the event and knows that their best chance of doing so is to bring a play set of Workshops to the event and that each of them have equal means to do so on average over the entire population.

@oestrus Your not wrong. As a shops player I keep wondering when the blue players will just build the blue deck that beats shops, ie Oath or Landstill. They aren't hard to find. Maybe is MM was restricted we see this transformation? The blue decks seem kind of pushed into a weird space where outside of guys like Brian Kelley everyone is scared to play Oath and have a better shops mu. This Jan will be very interesting:)

Top 16 decklists typed out:

We've added a section titled "Standings After Swiss (21 Points or Better)" on the EC report page which is a sortable table showing all of the players 1-58 who had 21 points or better after Swiss rounds (IE. were within potentially one match of a Top 8 birth based on tiebreakers), alongside what deck they were playing. If anyone has any ideas for what you'd like to see added or visualized, feel free to DM me. I'll be adding more over the next week as I have time to flesh out the page.

@oestrus Shops have been dominate for a long time, so I think the results are there. Even if people want to argue against that, they can't ignore this basic problem: Mishra's Workshop gets better with every set. It's the Birthing Pod problem from Modern.

I used to play Dredge until Shops was too good to ignore. I agree that on average blue mages have more disdain for Dredge, and then over prepare based on that. But the decks have some fundamental differences. I won plenty of games at champs without drawing Workshop. The same was not true when I played Dredge at past champs. And when I did draw Workshop in Pitt, I only lost in the mirror. For other decks I was able to deploy too many threats too fast for them to keep up.

@doomfinite This "Birthing Pod" problem is so wrong when compared to Workshops... What about Dig and Cruise? What about Mentor? Do Island get better every site like Pod? What about Mountains with Abrade?

@fsecco Yes, they do. It's why Gush was restricted...the card was fine when it was previously unrestricted but subsequent printings pushed that archetype beyond every other archetype aside from Shops. Young Pyromancer, Dack, Dig, Cruise, Mentor, JVP... Cards do not have intrinsic power levels. They must continually be evaluated in the context of the current metagame. Sometimes that means unrestricting them, in the case of Thirst, Gifts, Fact or Fiction, etc. Sometimes that means restrictions...

@fsecco said in North American Eternal Weekend 2017 Metagame Breakdown:

@doomfinite This "Birthing Pod" problem is so wrong when compared to Workshops.

Can you elaborate a little more please?

The most important thing to come out of EW 2017 - Soly is actually posting relevant and useful things, instead of the usual worthless bullshit.

@chubbyrain Gush didn't get good because "every printing made it better". It got good because 1 specific printing make it awesome (Monastery Mentor). And I don't even think it (Gush) should've been restricted, at least not before Mentor, so your point fails me twice.
Now, I agree they must be evaluated in the context of the meta. That's this whole point of this discussion right, trying to do that - and I don't think Shops is there now. But I don't think is suffers a Birthing Pod problem - and I don't think that was even a Pod problem. If that's a thing, then GSZ also gets "better" every set, Demonic Tutor gets "better" every set. So no, I don't think that problem is real 🙂

I think the top 16 presents an very interesting set of information to the argument. For one, we have 4 more ravager shops added to the tally out of 8 additional decks. That would certainly lend credence to the 'shops is OP' crowd. But at the same time we also add 4 different decks which shows a diversity. Stoneblade, landstill, blue moon and dredge. When you hit the top 16 (and in a tournament this size, top 8 vs top 16 is tie breakers which is more about how your opponents did than about how you did) we suddenly go from a 2 deck format to a 6 deck format.

No, the sky is NOT falling. Yes, we have a clear tier 1 deck in ravager shops - 7/16 is clearly the deck to beat in the format. Whether its over-represented, under-represented as the top deck or exactly represented how you want a top deck to be is 100% your opinion. But its a fact that it put in 7/16 slots and no 2 other decks combined did that well.

After that we have 6 different kinds of other decks in the top 16. That is a fact, that can't be disputed. That means the top 16 decks were represented by 7 different archetypes!!! And it didn't even include a BUG deck which has been pretty popular lately so there's 8 decks. Can somebody look at these facts and tell me with a straight face that this is a wholly unhealthy meta? Keep in mind I have publicly stated my support for the restriction of workshop. But that is a wholly different issue and to be honest that discussion doesn't belong in this thread. I only bring it up to show that Im not a fanboy of shops trying to prop up my favorite archetype.

Now, having 1 deck be that dominant in and of itself is not a healthy aspect. However with so many decks being able to perform well, its hardly indicative of an unhealthy meta. The general meta is just fine. Its time we as players stopped doing a few things:

  1. Stop planning main deck for the blue vs blue match up so heavily that we ignore shops.
  2. When we lose round 1 to shops, stop blaming mental misstep. Its a card I also feel should be restricted. But its 2-4 slots in some decks. Its a symptom of the problem, not the whole problem. And constantly referring to MM means we'll never resolve the problem. Its like treating a fever by putting somebody in an ice bath and believing with all your heart that the ice bath will cure whatever ailment is causing the fever.
  3. Shops wins by doing 2 things - deploying annoying lock pieces alongside quick, hard-hitting threats. Non-shops players need to meet shops 1 of 2 ways: a) develop a strategy that ignore their lock pieces and can outrace their threats or b) Develop a strategy that can work within the confines of their lock pieces and destroy their threats.
  4. Stop whining and complaining for changes that are not supported by facts, especially here on these boards. I rarely post anymore because, to be perfectly honest, the boards are filled with that kind of rhetoric and its a real turn off.

The meta is as diverse as its been in a long time. In general, its healthy. There are parts that could be tweaked but in any given round of any given tournament you could face any number of decks. Compare this to 3 months ago when you went into a tournament and in any given round you were probably facing shops or mentor. We're in a good spot right now, folks.

last edited by Khahan

I apologize if this has been said already but the combo archetypes are almost absent from this event. Which is wrong because it seems like such a natural predator for these new aggro shop lists.

This is something i was wondering about too, why so few PO decks ? I would have bet for much more, does someone have an idea about why it is so ?
My first guess would be : people thought there would be lots of null rod. But i am not sure if it is a very convincing reason.

@albarkhane it isnt consistant enough for 10 rounds

@albarkhane said in North American Eternal Weekend 2017 Metagame Breakdown:

This is something i was wondering about too, why so few PO decks ? I would have bet for much more, does someone have an idea about why it is so ?
My first guess would be : people thought there would be lots of null rod. But i am not sure if it is a very convincing reason.

The field was 33% Null Rods (didn't check but Ryan mentioned this when we were discussing the results). To be honest, I wish I played my Drain Tendrils list. I've been doing well in Leagues with it this week at 26-9 (5 4-1's and 2 3-2's), but I wasn't confident piloting it through 10 rounds of Swiss two weeks ago. The deck is hard to pilot and I audibled back to Sylvan Mentor a couple of days before the event.

  • 86
    Posts
  • 35514
    Views