[Article] March Metagame Breakdown

[Dr. Sylvan]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=7054

Discuss.

[Matt]

Æther Vial got WTF of the month, but six Geth's Grimoire, four Ice Storm, and four Æther Burst didn't?

[Dr. Sylvan]

Yeah, but [card]Geths Grimoire[/card] was actually mentioned in Darksteel reviews. Burst has been used in Constructed before, so it doesn't really elicit any surprise, and that Turnhout tourney back in October took all the novelty out of green LD. [card]Æther Vial[/card] was the card that made me say "WTF?"

That's right. I speak in abbreviations.

[Smmenen]

Were you surprised by the jump in the number of Force of Wills, relatively speaking?  

The last two months, no deck without 4 FoW has made top 8 in columbus, two tournaments with 24 and 18 people respectively.

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=5636

For the first time someone did what you do for Vintage.  Interesting results huh?


Steve

[Dr. Sylvan]

Were you surprised by the jump in the number of Force of Wills, relatively speaking?

Oct-Dec 2003: 207 FoW, 10 tournies
January: 72 FoW, 5 tournies
February: 104 FoW, 5 tournies
March: 164 FoW, 9 tournies

The progression is 20.7, 14.4, 20.8, 18.2 Force of Will per Top 8. So there's not really an increase. Sorry if that's not clear in the article; every previous instance has had a multiple of five tournies so it's been more straightforward to compare. Even I can't calculate the value for every card in terms of occurrences per Top 8, so there's some burden on the reader here.

The last two months, no deck without 4 FoW has made top 8 in columbus, two tournaments with 24 and 18 people respectively.

I was actually just talking about this with JP yesterday, and he said "Columbus and Hadley so don't count, because as i said earlier today, like half the people at the tournies are on the same team." Which I think is important. With a larger tournament, you dilute the force of personalities. Yet even in big places, you can see some of this. (eg, Minneapolis, where waSP's RG is clearly influential, making it the most-played deck and garnering two T8 slots.) In Colombus, it's pretty transparent that Mean Deck designs are the metagame, so of course they make Top 8. I'm not saying that they're not good, but their success among a small player pool isn't indicative.

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=5636

For the first time someone did what you do for Vintage.  Interesting results huh?

I'm not sure what your question is here. But it is obvious you write a lot more text in your issue articles than I write in my analysis articles. ;)

[Smmenen]

I was pointing out that my analysis of Rector was to essentially collect and collate all the tournament data I could from morphling.de and elswhere.  Before I began that analysis I asked someone to help me out - and I can't remember who it was - but essentially you have continued that same analysis through the same technique.   I think it is important that you have taken up the same technique becuase it is real tournament data that should be the basis for restriction and other policy changes.  

FYI, the size of the columbus tournaments this year were 24, 28, aned 18 respectively.  Hopefully there will be a way to get Origins data into your results.  

I think there is much that can be done with your approach - but the tends require a discriminating analyst.  I hope as you continue to do this you will begin to see more and more things that aren't apparent on the surface and will be able to report these to the community at large.

Steve

[Eastman]

Were you surprised by the jump in the number of Force of Wills, relatively speaking?  

The last two months, no deck without 4 FoW has made top 8 in columbus, two tournaments with 24 and 18 people respectively.

hmm, so according to this data, Force of Will is good?

We're really making progress lol.

[Smmenen]

There is a difference between saying a card is good and saying a card is indespensible.  That makes the difference in saying Stax is good to saying its unviable.

Steve

[Ric_Flair]

On the subject of Aether Vial:  It was seen in a lot of MirBC decks.  And it will likely make a few appearances at Regionals this year.  It is actually not that bad in Standard.  In Vintage....um...WTF.

On the subject of "Ae":  How do you get the letters to go together like that Matt and have it show up on the forum board?

I think that this series of articles is one of the most valuable things written about Magic, anywhere.  This is the very essence of what we are trying to describe in intuitive concepts, that is, for example, how good is Force of Will?  I would like to see, if granting wishes is possible, some sort of progression in graph form for the big cards: P9; The Big Four: Drains, Shops, Bazaars, and Masks; the staples: FoW, Duress, Wasteland; and the better restricted cards.  Maybe this stuff could be in a larger summing up piece, like right after a restriction changes everything.

The issue with Force is interesting.  I think the facts clearly show that it transcends merely being a good card.  It is something that the format MUST have.  Without it, the forces pulling on Vintage would rip it apart.  It is not merely another card.  It is an element of the format, almost as important as the rules themselves.  Clearly the format would be worse off without Force of Will, in comparison to a format with Force, but no mulligan rule.  The power of this card is just tremendous, so powerful, in fact, that it appears even in all of our extolling of its virtues we underestimated it.

[Smmenen]

Perhaps I wasn't clear in what I was saying in the post prior to Ric's.  What I was suggesting is not that Force of Will is indespensible for the format.  

What I was suggesting was far more radical: That Force of Will is necessary for a deck to be viable - meaning capable of winning a tournament.

Steve

[The Atog Lord]

To see how important Force of Will is to Type One, just look at what happened to Extended once that card was rotated out. The format became dominated by a host of combo decks, which in turn lead to a number of cards needing to be banned. Force of Will really does a lot to prevent Type One from being dominated by four turn games.

[Dr. Sylvan]

I think that this series of articles is one of the most valuable things written about Magic, anywhere.

This made my day. Thank you. :)

I would like to see, if granting wishes is possible, some sort of progression in graph form for the big cards: P9; The Big Four: Drains, Shops, Bazaars, and Masks; the staples: FoW, Duress, Wasteland; and the better restricted cards. Maybe this stuff could be in a larger summing up piece, like right after a restriction changes everything.

Already in the plans. :)

The biggest reason that there has been simply an outpouring of tabulated data and less trend analysis thus far is that today marked merely the fourth data point. Over the course of 2004, there are nearly infinite projects simmering the back of my mind waiting to be borne unto SCG as giant tables of data. The 21-Keeper summary was a mere trial run.

The unique gift of Type One (and theoretically the much-underplayed 1.5) is continuity. Directing my analysis at the PT formats would be much less rewarding, since they have just two evolutions per year (PT and Worlds), and each time they return to the forefront an entire cycle has been released. The mixed blessing here is that every Pro Tour is a surprise, but analysis can only be historical rather than trend-oriented. I think this continuity is a major factor in my interest in Type One. I can hardly wait to see what turns up next, really.

What I was suggesting was far more radical: That Force of Will is necessary for a deck to be viable - meaning capable of winning a tournament.

This time two-thirds of the tournaments had four FoWs in the winning deck. Last time it was 3/5. I don't know about "essential", but it's purdy helpful for most any deck.

[Smmenen]

What I was suggesting was far more radical: That Force of Will is necessary for a deck to be viable - meaning capable of winning a tournament.

This time two-thirds of the tournaments had four FoWs in the winning deck. Last time it was 3/5. I don't know about "essential", but it's purdy helpful for most any deck.

I should clarify that I'm not saying that this IS the case, but I'm suggesting that it might be true.  It's this kind of data that I find interesting.  One of the things about Type One that motivates me to write is to try and find something objecitve in the chaos.  The same thing drives you - but you paint with a broader brush.  Often Type One is too fragmented or disconnected to find some overlapping trend or truth.  If that's the case, then sometimes what it takes is someone to stand up and claim something is the case and then let things react to that.  The value in that is that there is then some basis - true or not - for everyone to react to.  That common thread or point of understanding creates the potential for a less fragmented metagame.  What has then happened is that you have something coherent for analysis where perhaps nothing existed previously.  The good Doctor may be in it for the data - the good scientist who is the objective observer.  I'm more interested in finding categorical truths that may be asserted and then supported or discredited.  

Steve

[Dr. Sylvan]

Support for me is not unanimous.

Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 18:15:52 -0500
From: G 17
To: Philip Stanton
Subject: Your most recent article.

I read your most recent article on Star City. As always, it was a poorly
written attempt at anything readable. I hated it a lot. You never ever
include a decklist which might actually help someone. As always you have let
me down. Your articles sucks ass compared to what a blind monkey could
write. Please, I beg of you, to stop writing your horrible articles. They
truly make my eyes bleed. Also, if you could, could you please stop
supporting communism?

-- A true fan of crap, Angry_Mexican

LOL. I guess I can't please everyone.

[Lockdown]

Eh... that guy is probably just some netdecking scrub looking for the "best" deck in the game that he can proxy up, use to beat his scrubby environment, and claim as his own invention so that all the other scrubs will bow down at his ugly, fungus-infected feet.  And supporting communism? WTF.  People like that aren't even worth listening to.  Anyways, good job.  I don't know what we would do if you weren't here to tell us that FoW is good .

[Ric_Flair]

Hey, I had the forum denizens attack me too and I WON the submission prize last week.  They are fucking retards.

As for Force of Will, I was saying exactly what I meant.  Force of Will is an indespesible part of the format.  It is almost as important as the basic rules.  Without Force in some deck, usually a winning deck, the format would be finished or the restricted list would really long and the banned list would have 20 cards on it.  Force of Will is WITHOUT A DOUBT the central card in the format.  Everything is centered on it.

Phil, you are rapidly becoming the official the Bill James of Magic.

[Smmenen]

As for Force of Will, I was saying exactly what I meant.  Force of Will is an indespesible part of the format.  It is almost as important as the basic rules.  Without Force in some deck, usually a winning deck, the format would be finished or the restricted list would really long and the banned list would have 20 cards on it.  Force of Will is WITHOUT A DOUBT the central card in the format.  Everything is centered on it.

.

I thought you were re-iterating my point.  Which is not to say that I disagree with you - quite the opposite - I just didn't want my point misconstrued becuase I think it is an important issue.

Steve

[Grand Inquisitor]

Since this is a 'metagame' discussion, I'd like to get some feedback on what the article reported.  In (Phil's) articles, although I like the single-card breakdown, I find the deck frequencies much more inviting.

From your list and the four summarizing points afterwards:

(1) Hulk ascendant

(2) Incoherent like your mom's 1337speak?

(3) Phil's Watch List

(4) Sweet mother of... someone played White Weenie!

Its been apparent (at least to me) since Long being neutered that Dragon and Hulk have been the most consistent performers.  This doesn't mean that they're necessarily the best pick for a determined metagame, but given their inherent power and resiliency, they are possibly the best choice for an unknown event.

Phil's stats make this point quite strongly for Hulk.  Additionally, if you look at the other decks that have some frequency in T8's, you'll see largely combo-control and anti-combo.  The exceptions being aggro decks that have a good chance against both combo and control (Workshop variants and FCG)

I may be looking at this wrong, but I think point #2 may be a little exaggerated.  I do see a pattern in the results.  What I see is that 13 of the top 30 decks are control (Hulk/Keeper), with Fish making it almost a two-thirds majority.  The blend of other decks shows that since we don't have a dominating or consistent combo build, that many decks are viable depending on what they happen to get paired against and their ability to take on blue-based strategies.  I think this is a good thing.

Points 3 & 4 aren't very relevant for metagame discussion, so I'll stop here.  Comments?

Also, on a side-note...

Columbus and Hadley so don't count, because as i said earlier today, like half the people at the tournies are on the same team." Which I think is important. With a larger tournament, you dilute the force of personalities.

While I agree that both of these metagames are dominated by local personalities, I don't think that's entirely different from certain European metagames where the top tables are consistently dominated by the same people, and what they choose to play.

Additionally, Hadley differs quite a bit from Columbus in that our tournaments are usually (slightly) bigger ranging from 25-40 instead of 15-25.  Also, the nature of our team and its members are much different from Meandeck.  Our metagame is much more fluid and less predictable except for the fact that you probably have a slightly higher chance of playing against control here than other places.

In our tournament last week the following decks were present in an approximately 30-person field:

Suicide
Hermit-Dragon
Mask
Landstill
Hulk
Keeper
Stax
Dryad
FCG
Control Slaver
Burn
Enchantress-Combo

This is a pretty diverse field, showing that people are always trying to exploit different pockets of the metagame by bringing different things to the table.

[Ric_Flair]

Here is another question about the numbers:  Does Hulk's seeming ascendancy benefit from the pluralistic nature of the metagame?

For example, saying that Hulk was the deck that showed up in Top 8's twice as much as the next best deck could have two possible readings:

1) Hulk is truly dominant because it is twice as good as the next best deck.

OR

2) Hulk is good, but not dominating because, while it did show up twice as much as the next deck, the sheer variety of decks in the Top 8 makes this claim seem more powerful that it really is.

Look at it like this:  If there are 10 tournaments that Phil counts, with Top 8s that is 80 decks.  Now suppose there is at least one copy of 30 different decks in those Top 8s, some represented more than once.  In this situation even if Tog did show up twice as often as the next best deck that is hardly dominance--in fact it shows the opposite--a well balanced metagame.  I am not saying that this is, in fact true, but merely to forestall arguments about Tog being too good.  

Aside from the pluralism argument there is another factor that may be warping the numbers: Type 1 recalcitrance.

This is sort of a confluence of a lot of factors:  nostalgia, netdecking, the TMD effect (whereby the words of certain people have enormous impacts on the metagame, and rightfully so *cough* STEVE *cough* and *cough* JP *cough*), and the cost of switching decks in this format.  These four things make it very likely that decks like Keeper and Tog will show up in some number regardless of their true viability.  

So, before the Hulk numbers start scaring people, let's just look at the whole picture.

[Dr. Sylvan]

(Do not be surprised if this table is later reproduced and elaborated upon in an SCG article.)

Real quick before I head to class, this is the summary of Everything, with some of the Decks We All Know We're Looking For bolded:

14,1,2,4 Dragon

1,3,5,9 Hulk Smash

9,1,2,3 Storm Combo

6,3,3,2 Stax*

2,4,2,5 Keeper
3,5,3,2 Madness
6,0,5,4 Rector

5,1,2,2 IsoKeeper
4,2,2,2 TnT

2,3,2,2 Stacker

0,2,2,4 FCG / Gobvantage
3,1,0,4 Fish

4,1,2,0 GAT (includes IsoGAT)
3,2,1,1 Goblin Sligh

1,1,1,2 Control Slavery
0,2,1,2 Landstill
2,0,1,2 SuperGro
2,0,1,2 Vengeur Masque

0,0,1,2 MadDragon
0,1,1,1 MUD / wMUD
0,2,0,1 Oshawa Stompy
1,0,0,2 Sligh
0,1,0,2 RG Beatz
0,1,1,1 Workshop Slavery*

0,0,0,2 Charbelcher
0,1,0,1 EBA
2,0,0,0 Monoblue
2,0,0,0 Reanimator
2,0,0,0 Suicide Black
0,1,0,1 UrPhid
2,0,0,0 Zoo

1,0,0,0 Oath
1,0,0,0 OSE
1,0,0,0 Shining
1,0,0,0 Void
0,1,0,0 Trix
0,1,0,0 BUG Funk
0,0,0,1 Modular Genesis
0,0,0,1 Affinity
0,0,0,1 Snake-Tongue
0,0,0,1 White Weenie
0,0,0,1 Terravore LD
0,0,0,1 The Rock
0,0,0,1 Secret Force

* One January deck classified as Workshop Slavery, upon reexamining the decklist, is more of "Stax with two Mindslaver", and was moved to count as such.

So, indeed, this agrees with GI. However, removing 2003, we get this at the top of the charts:

3,5,9 Hulk Smash
4,2,5 Keeper
5,3,2 Madness
0,5,4 Rector
2,2,4 FCG / Gobvantage
3,3,2 Stax
1,2,4 Dragon
3,2,2 Stacker
1,2,3 Storm Combo
2,2,2 TnT
1,0,4 Fish
1,2,2 IsoKeeper

Which still marks Dragon as good, but not at the uppermost echelons.

Also, the full chart above shows that there were more one-of occurrences in March's data release than in the previous three combined. This is the source of my incoherence statement, though as I said, there is some concern that this is due to a flood of reporting from previously disconnected (and thus outdated) metagames. The hypothesis that "combo-control and anti-combo" are at the top is certainly a fair one; I was more referring to the diversity at the bottom of the barrel for my point.

While I agree that both of these metagames are dominated by local personalities, I don't think that's entirely different from certain European metagames where the top tables are consistently dominated by the same people, and what they choose to play. Additionally, Hadley differs quite a bit from Columbus in that our tournaments are usually (slightly) bigger ranging from 25-40 instead of 15-25. [...] Our metagame is much more fluid and less predictable except for the fact that you probably have a slightly higher chance of playing against control here than other places.

This is a fair statement. Your tournaments are larger, and thus more diverse. 50 is a semi-arbitrary limit, but I think, a good one. If Hadley started giving out Lotii for 1st place, I'd include it, just like I want to include the NJ tournies when the prize is a Lotus.

I'll check out posts after GI's when I get back from class and edit in my replies here, or after any subsequent posts.

EDIT:

2) Hulk is good, but not dominating because, while it did show up twice as much as the next deck, the sheer variety of decks in the Top 8 makes this claim seem more powerful that it really is.

I believe this is mostly the case. Hulk is, right now, the deck with no bad matchups. Its answer to every deck is simply to trample right over it. Even Slavery is not really a horrible experience; it's another deck which Hulk can't beat if it gets a broken start, with some nontrivial gains in the middleground where neither deck gets an insane hand. This is what makes Hulk the new Keeper: perfect for a diverse metagame because of its ability to answer any deck.

Since I doubt that Hulk will ever reach GAT-like metagame dominance, the more important policy questions are:

-Is Hulk distortionary?
-Is Mana Drain distortionary?

These are what I'm watching for in the near future.

[MixedkNuts]

It's kinda funny to me that Pip did a doubletake over Vial because of what Vial does.  This is Type I, right?  The place where control decks with good counterspells are everywhere, and even combo decks run Force of Will?  If I'm a deck that plays creatures with a very small curve and I want to make sure that they make it through my opponent's countermagic, particularly if my creatures are going to be a problem for them once they resolve, Aether Vial seems like a very good choice.  Yes, of course it's rather dumb to use it if you are playing kids that cost 4-7, but if you are playing a Ravager Affinity list, or your curve of creatures sits mostly at 2-4, it could definitely be problematic for your opponent to deal with.  Besides, who doesn't love making creatures at Instant speed?

Obviously it's metagame dependent, and may be nothing more than a sideboard card, but it's at least worth consideration if you are playing an aggro deck in a heavy control environment.

--Knut

[Dr. Sylvan]

The problem isn't what Vial does, it's how long it takes to do it. Why wait two turns to cast the Mongrel instead of simply playing another threat immediately? It also struck me as generally worse than Illusionary Mask.

Plus, the deck it was in (#6) has "WTF?" written all over it. Mystic Snake itself was inches away from the WTF award.

EDIT: Here's the original tournament report from Anders Noer to give some insight into the actual deck.

[jpmeyer]

Wow.  That whole deck has WTF written all over it

[Matt]

Liquid Tempo-SnakeTongue!

[Dr. Sylvan]

OMG I'm so totally mentioned in Aaron Forsythe's article on magicthegathering.com.

Okay, so it's only in a footnote, but he did use the word "excellent", and not in a Bill and Ted adventuring reference kind of way.

[Smmenen]

Good Work - you have caught the attention of R&D.  

Stephen Menendian

[Dante]

Good Work - you have caught the attention of R&D.  

Stephen Menendian

Hopefully that will follow to "you have caught the attention of the DCI"...not that I think anything needs changing right now, but just so they have an accurate pulse on Type 1 (moreso than the incoherent scrub ramblings on most other sites or the once/year Gencon event).

Bill

[Smmenen]

R&D is the DCI in terms of deciding what to restrict or unrestrict.

Steve

[Dante]

R&D is the DCI in terms of deciding what to restrict or unrestrict.

Steve

I thought R&D was the design team that designed the cards and tested them to make sure (at least in block, limited, and standard) that the environment would be good.....people like Henry Stern.

..and that the DCI was the tournament/judging/rules arm that ensured the rules for running and sanctioning tournaments as well as dealing with banned and restricted list.

Are they not separate groups?

[Dr. Sylvan]

I think the distinction is that the DCI might make the announcement, but R&D figures out what cards go in and out of the card pool. I imagine they're the ones who consider changes to formats (like the 1.X rotation policy) and all B&R decisions. Notice that Buehler was talking about meetings (here) as a "we" without even mentioning the DCI specifically or as if he was simply in consultation with some higher authority that made the final decisions.

So Forsythe mentioning me at an opportune moment is basically saying 'we have your hand-delivered full summary of the dangers on the horizon, please keep making our job easier so we piss off as few people as possible, kthxbai', which I thought was rather nice of him.