@diophan Thanks again for the scripts! I used the classifications and built the archetype and tagging into the spreadsheet formulas. For anyone out there up to debating classifications of different archetypes I am open to suggestions for improving the current setup.
The current systems uses the presence of certain cards to generate a score for each deck, and the highest scoring archetype wins.
If we want to take this further a few ideas I have are:
- Adding a weighting factor to each card in a given deck archetype. This would allow certain cards to weight towards the score higher than others (things like Oath of Druids and Survival would be prime candidates for this)
- Either adding a sub-archetype that is more specific than the current overall archetypes, or expanding the current archetypes.
The tagging system works at the moment, but doesn't have an associated win % breakdown, but that will be coming in the near future.
This is an absolutely incredible repository of data and information. Thank you so much for putting this together and maintaining it.
A few cool things:
- The pilot tab has every player who has played in a Challenge in the last year or so.
For players who have more than 30 matches, here are some notable results:
- @The-Atog-Lord: 62.79 match win %
- @brianpk80: 61.83 match win %
- Ecobaronen (Andreas Peterson, easily one of the best players in Vintage right now): 52.17 match win %
- @Montolio: 65.43 match win %
- Smmenen (myself) 64.52 match win %
- Paul Reitzl (Littledarwin): 54.55 match win %
Other notable players:
- @IamActuallyLvL1 (Justin Gennari): 65.12 match win %
- @diophan: 63.33 match win %
- @Thiim 56.52 match win %:
- Lampalot: 63.33 match win %
- @ChubbyRain: 70.59 match win %
- Jazza: 55.93 match win %
That's pretty amazing.
What that means is that, if you are really good at Vintage, your win percentage is probably in the 60s. Or maybe you might just be Chubbyrain, good
Howdy again, thanks for the kind words @Smmenen and everyone who has taken the time to take a peak. I wanted to make a few notes here about changes / updates to the sheets.
- While the sheets are locked, it is not fully read only. Any sheet containing date ranges at the top has those cells unlocked so you can update the views accordingly.
- Almost all of the formulas are dynamic enough to update whenever I push new data to the spreadsheet, which should now be occurring weekly. (Saturday night for Vintage Challenge data, Sunday /Monday night for published deck lists).
- Feel free to make suggestions / ask questions either in this thread or directly in the comments area of the spreadsheet, I am always open to adding features or views that others feel are useful, and willing to help out with any questions anyone has.
Thanks! This is really useful, so I'm sure I'll have more questions in the future
My main question though is just to clarify, that the overall match win % for archetypes is "Known OP Match Win %," correct?
Also, for your metagame breakdowns, are these complete breakdowns or just the top 32 decklists?
@smmenen The 'Overall Match Win %' is the total win% for that archetype over all matches (including those where the opponents deck is not known). The 'Known Match win %' is the win % against top 32 decks, which are the only ones we know.
To be very specific on the data included:
- For Archetypes/Decks: We only have the top 32 decks from each challenge, and while we have records of every match for those archetypes ('Overall Match' numbers), we only know the opponent archetype if the match was against another top 32 deck ('Known Match' numbers).
- For Players: Because we don't include archetype in these numbers, all matches played by that player that we have record of are included, even if it is using or against an unrecorded deck (non top 32 decks).
- Byproducts: I chose to include the overall win% and known match win % in all archetype numbers, as they are both technically skewed in opposite directions.
- Overall win % (against all decks) is skewed upward because it only contains results for when the archetype top 32'd a tournament.
- Known match win % (against top 32 opponents) is skewed downward because it is against only the stronger performing opponents.
- The 'Unknown' archetype represents all of the results for what ends up being 33rd place and below, showing the overall win% for those decks, and the win% against known decks.
- Exact data collected:
- Full match lists with player, opponent, and overall game results from every vintage challenge I was able to pull (I did miss 8 weeks or so over the last 11 months)
- Full deck lists from every Top 32 Vintage Challenge since 1/1/2018.
While I recognize this does taint the results to some extent, the relative numbers over enough time I think still give a good picture of each archetype's strengths and weaknesses.
A final note: If people think it would catch on, the solution to the missing data problem would likely be the creation of a form allowing players to submit their deck lists (or even just the general archetype) and pushing it to the spreadsheet. I'm hesitant to put the time into it if it's not going to be used, but would still very much like an avenue to complete the missing data.
- Original Sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bywx8Uu5zuPx5jQx7hArmD6bummMOv1tlYSpIt4YGnk
- Top 8 / 16 / 32 analysis per player: (Thanks @IamActuallyLvL1 for the idea!)
- Source data folder: (Vintage Challenge Results only)
Note: I am actively working on a clean solution to the data filtering problem. (If you try to filter the data everything turns to mush because of formula's) The best solution might just be to download the raw data and work from there. To do this:
Click 'File' -> 'Download As' -> 'Tab separated values (.txv)' and then you can either open it in your favorite viewer/editor, or upload/paste into your own Google Sheet.
@smmenen Howdy Steve. Unfortunately the updates made to the UI have restricted my ability to access the match results. If at some point in the future they reenable that portion of the UI I may bring the system back online, however it doesn't look likely at this point.