NYSE #4 - Complete Metagame Report

@vaughnbros

I don't think you realize how bad you make yourself look and Chubbyrain did the same thing in the other thread.

1- it disrupts the thread completely. I came here to see speculation about metagame developments or a theoretical explanation/breakdown for this event. Instead I get a sterile conversation with walls of texts where each party is neither clearly wrong or clearly right but are trying to push their opinion on the other, and it rapidly degenerates into personal attack and such things.

2- You guys get really angry with Steve's way or arguing and thus make yourselves look less gentleman-y than before. I mean you guys are respected in the community for your innovation and effort, but when you went down this road you lost some amount of respect (at least in my eyes).

3- Arguing with a lawyer seems like a bad idea/waste of time, especially when Steve is obviously biased about the card Gush and not being entirely honest (although in retrospect his point of view seems more in accordance with what the metagame is going through now). If you really believe someone's arguments to be lazy or fallacious why would you continue (or even start) arguing with them. Personally if someone is being stubborn with "absurd" arguments I would just stop the discussion, what's the point going on ?

I mean why is it easier to get pointless arguments than constructive stuff on this forum. Why do (some) people have to behave like this, snobbish and snapping at other people who they believe wrong instead of using a more constructive and tactful approach?

@Macdeath Honestly? I don't really care if you feel "lesser" of us. You clearly don't know either me or Matt well if you think that we would.

As I just stated please PM me if you'd like to discuss.

Ok, in an effort to get wheels back on the cart here, I have a question for the other members of the peanut gallery who aren't myself. How do you use this data, if at all? And subquestion, to what extent do you consider the above archetypes to be 'decks' and to what extent are they just individual cards?

It seems to me that this new BrianKellyesque hybridization of decks has made the above statistical work (which is in fact awesome) more and more difficult as the venn-diagram of decks gets blurred. I heard Kelly himself say the other day that he considers Shops decks to now be a subset of the Thorn of Amethyst archetype... He was half joking, and the joking half is funny... but it was only half. As primarily an Oath player, this is pretty tough for me, since decks that just contain Oath of Druids are all labeled Oath... yet they vary incredibly within that category, from Control style Oath that I just love... all the way to that Burning/Omni/FaceSmashing Oath that Kai was on during the VSL play-in... Thoughts?

@Topical_Island said:

Ok, in an effort to get wheels back on the cart here, I have a question for the other members of the peanut gallery who aren't myself. How do you use this data, if at all? And subquestion, to what extent do you consider the above archetypes to be 'decks' and to what extent are they just individual cards?

It seems to me that this new BrianKellyesque hybridization of decks has made the above statistical work (which is in fact awesome) more and more difficult as the venn-diagram of decks gets blurred. I heard Kelly himself say the other day that he considers Shops decks to now be a subset of the Thorn of Amethyst archetype... He was half joking, and the joking half is funny... but it was only half. As primarily an Oath player, this is pretty tough for me, since decks that just contain Oath of Druids are all labeled Oath... yet they vary incredibly within that category, from Control style Oath that I just love... all the way to that Burning/Omni/FaceSmashing Oath that Kai was on during the VSL play-in... Thoughts?

The data is a tool - I use it along with my own personal experiences to shape my opinions on the metagame and influence deck construction. It is not the end-all-be-all and it never was meant to be. The true value is looking at the results over time - for the reasons @vaughnbros pointed out, the data from one event is limited and best viewed as a range rather than a discrete point value (for the same reason that if you flip 4 coins and have 3 heads, you don't assume that the odds of flipping heads is 0.75). More data equals more certainty.

Regarding your subquestion, decks are never just about the individual cards but about the synergies and interactions between them and with the cards in the opponent's deck. When I brew something up, I try to think about every possible interaction, from the obvious - like Gitaxian Probe + Cabal Therapy - to the obscure - like taking advantage of Thing in the Ice flipping and Containment Priest having flash to effectively "counter" a Barbarian Ring trigger from Dredge. This doesn't change on the archetype level - synergies still exist. Just having Gush in your deck enables you to play a control game - I think Steve on the VSL stated he plays Doomsday like a control deck. You have virtual card advantage from a lack of mana sources or you have other cards in your deck like Dack or either Jace to convert the returned lands into raw card advantage or further manipulate your deck. One of the most common mistakes I see players make with Gush decks is that they play too aggressively and lose the advantage their deck has in the late game, like tapping out against Storm to land a Mentor instead of keeping mana up for Flusterstorm. Now, individual cards can change certain dynamics but to a limited degree. I don't want Sudden Shock if my opponent is playing Thing in the Ice instead of Mentor, but Thorn of Amethyst is going to be great against almost any Gush deck. Does that answer your question - it's a complex topic?

Hybridization is another limitation of data-collection. Deck classifications are messy. I'm reminded of the Uncertainty Principle in quantum physics - the more you know about a particle's position, the less you can know about the particle's motion. The more detailed you make your classifications, the less of a sample size you have from which to draw conclusions. So what we have done is establish two levels of classification: a kind of macroscopic view that lumps decks into rather generic archetypes, and a more detailed "subarchetype" view that for instance breaks "decks with Oath of Druids" into "decks with Oath of Druids and Omniscience" or Salvagers, or just Griselbrand, or Tendrils of Agony. These views tell us different things but it is a challenge to balance them appropriately.

last edited by ChubbyRain

@KirdApe said:

Awesome job guys, so wanted to see this level of a breakdown! MD Defense Grid is big for Storm being able to go off. Both the event itself and this writeup & commentary will help me to better refine my particular build.

isn't defense grid standard? at least it is in Ohio from what I've seen.

@mediumsteve said:

@KirdApe said:

Awesome job guys, so wanted to see this level of a breakdown! MD Defense Grid is big for Storm being able to go off. Both the event itself and this writeup & commentary will help me to better refine my particular build.

isn't defense grid standard? at least it is in Ohio from what I've seen.

My goal is to do something similar to what MTGGoldfish has done with their format staples. That seems like a good thing to look at - what percentage of DPS decks are running maindeck Grids and how many.

To everyone, are there other things like this you are curious about?

i'm nowhere as fluent in statistics as mr Ballester, but I have been curious about data mining since long time ago. In my understand it's too difficult to state if a card is successful or not: it's always related to the rest of the deck. For example: is gush the best draw engine available? It seems so. How is thirst compared to gifts? Fof is performing well? Do hatebear decks perform better with duals and fetchlands or only with rainbow lands? Which is the best tinker robot around? Should mentor decks play 3 or 4 mentors? Are 5c decks over 50% in win percentage or lower? Lots of stupid questions and hard to answer (or even answered, hard to make any sense outside fun facts).

I think your work is really nice Matt, and if somebody has time proficiency woth data mining tools, it would be nice to lend you a hand going deeper in data.

I posted a link to the decklists in the original post. Sorry for the delay but things got pretty hectic on both ends.

We have also created a post on EC with all 157 decklists (links) in a sortable table, and the metagame breakdown as well.
http://www.eternalcentral.com/nyse4-vintage-open-all-decklists-and-metagame-breakdown/

Having all of the decklists from this available is a cool way to see exactly how 157 Vintage players approached one of the biggest and most prestigious events of the year, by seeing exactly how they each built their decks. Thanks again to Matt and Ryan for all of their hard work on this. Enjoy!

  • 70
    Posts
  • 60895
    Views