TheManaDrain.com
February 20, 2019, 02:52:32 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: MTGO P9 Metagame Breakdown: February Edition  (Read 3285 times)
Chubby Rain
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 742



View Profile Email
« on: February 27, 2016, 10:54:14 pm »

Alright, after an hour of so trudging through replays by myself because MTGO decided Ryan was not special enough to have access to the event literally right after it ended (!define "Quality"), Ryan and I are please to present this February's metagame breakdown:

Top 16: http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-premier-2016-02-29

Shops: 19 (22.9%) - 61.2% MWP
Ravager: 12 - 60.1%
Aggro: 3
Stax: 2
Other: 2

Combo: 18 (21.7%) - 44.0% MWP
DPS: 12 - 46.2%
Doomsday: 2
Belcher: 2
Other: 2

Gush: 17 (20.5%) - 51.4% MWP
Jeskai Mentor: 11 - 49.3%
Delver: 3
Other: 3

Dredge: 12 (14.5%) - 48.4% MWP
Traditional: 11 - 46.4%
Pitch: 1

Oath: 7 (8.4%) - 37.1% MWP
Control: 4
Odd: 2
Oathstill: 1

Big Blue: 5 (6.0%) - 40.0% MWP
Painter: 3
Tezz Academy: 1
Jeskai Control : 1

Other: 5 (6.0%)
BUG Fish: 2
Hatebears: 1
Eldrazi: 1
Suicide Dark Depths: 1

Conclusion:

Shops was by far the best archetype by every possible measure: it won the whole thing, put up a 60+% match win percentage, and dramatically overperformed relative to its percentage of the metagame (50% of Top 8, 50% of Top 16 while being 23% of the field. While this is only one event, it is a data point in favor of a possible restriction to the Shops archetype.

Friends do not let friends play Oath - Without Rich Shay and thediabetical to boost the numbers of the Oath archetype, it put up a 36% win percentage this month.

Edit: I did some additional work going back through Shops player's matches and filtering out the mirrors (which would tend to push the archetype towards 50%). Without the 20 mirror matches, Shops had a match win percentage of 66.3%.

« Last Edit: February 29, 2016, 03:48:56 pm by Chubby Rain » Logged

"Why are we making bad decks? I mean, honestly, what is our reason for doing this?"

"Is this a Vintage deck or a Cube deck?" "Is it sad that you have to ask?"

"Is that a draft deck?" "Why do people keep asking that?"

Random conversations...
Holden1669
Basic User
**
Posts: 38


View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2016, 11:29:21 pm »

Thanks for pulling all this data together. That's some impressive results for Shops.
Logged
diophan
Basic User
**
Posts: 185


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2016, 12:33:58 am »

Since I was interested I computed some individual matchups by hand. Assuming I didn't make errors during the process:

22-11 Shops vs. Gush
9-9 Shops vs. Dredge
12-2 Shops vs. DPS
6-4 Gush vs. DPS

The sample size on the last one is small, but that in particular was surprising to me. Perhaps the dominance of shops over gush implies that more gush players skewed their sideboards to do well versus DPS?
« Last Edit: February 28, 2016, 01:36:22 am by diophan » Logged
jcb193
Basic User
**
Posts: 410


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2016, 10:57:29 am »

While this is only one event, it is a data point in favor of a possible restriction to the Shops archetype.

First of all, thank you both for putting the time in to make these calculations.  I find it very interesting and I know it's a thankless job.  

I don't want to start another B/R restriction hijack, but with VSL and the ubiquitous shops vs blue mentality right now, it seems like we are in the age of frequent Vintage restriction assessment.  It's impossible to claim that biases do not exist in these discussions (my own, even here).  Last month Gush put up more egregious numbers, and yet nothing was said. I know month to month results aren't statistically profound, and neither is the VSL inbred micrometagame, and yet these discussions persist.  MTGO at least offers a large metagame and somewhat level financial playing field (although I think Oath is underrepresented due to unique card cost).  

This month's Shops:  (22.9%)  61.2 MWP%
Last months Gush: (14.6%) 58.2 MWP%    

Is there an official ratio we should be using that might make these discussions a little less open to player bias?  What do you think it should be?

Great work guys. Thank you-
« Last Edit: February 28, 2016, 11:21:39 am by jcb193 » Logged
xerxes
Basic User
**
Posts: 41


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2016, 12:32:20 pm »

I would much rather WOTC just make a super narrow hate card than any restriction. Something like a land that comes into play destroying two artifacts as long as you control no other permanents. Right now, the workshop hate cards are just not strong enough given the fast clock of the golem.
Logged
diophan
Basic User
**
Posts: 185


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2016, 12:38:15 pm »

I think there are 2 important differences between what happened with gush in the last month versus this one:
*Shops did way better this time. To contrast with what Matt wrote above, in January there was 1 gush deck in the top 8 (I don't think Brassman's deck is philosophically a gush deck). Also I just calculated Gush's win percentage in January without mirror matches and it's 59%, as compared to the 66% that shops put up this month.
*Gush was not being gunned for last month and was played by very few people. Shops was thought to be the best deck going into this one.

My intent (and I imagine Matt's as well) with this data was not to be prescriptive. Rather this sort of data collection is so rarely possible that it is worth doing when it is relatively easy.

My personal takeaway from this data is that you cannot play a blue deck which has no game against shops G1 in the online meta. Shops is too large a portion of the metagame, and it is too difficult to be guaranteed a G3 win on the play, to fold in game 1 every time. Playing 4 mental misstep, 2-3 flusterstorm, 0 Dack Fayden, 0 artifact hate, 14-15 land, 4 gush, and having your only wincons require you to chain together spells presumably gives you a sub 25% chance of winning the first game. I think calling for shop restrictions running this sort of a maindeck is ludicrous.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2016, 09:51:04 am by diophan » Logged
Chubby Rain
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 742



View Profile Email
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2016, 03:08:06 pm »

Is there an official ratio we should be using that might make these discussions a little less open to player bias?  What do you think it should be?

No, of course not, which leaves it open to interpretation and therefore inevitable bias. I'm not on team Restrict Golem but I am taking note of this tournament: the fact that Shops was the most played archetype and the best archetype in this event makes it's showing more impressive than Gush's showing last event - the more prevalent a deck is, the more it's MWP should trend towards 50%. There have also been those that argued Shops has not won an event and this contradicts that.
Logged

"Why are we making bad decks? I mean, honestly, what is our reason for doing this?"

"Is this a Vintage deck or a Cube deck?" "Is it sad that you have to ask?"

"Is that a draft deck?" "Why do people keep asking that?"

Random conversations...
Islandswamp
Tournament Organizers
Basic User
**
Posts: 328


MTGGoldfish Writer


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2016, 10:47:41 pm »


Conclusion:


Friends do not let friends play Oath - Without Rich Shay and thediabetical to boost the numbers of the Oath archetype, it put up a 36% win percentage this month.

That makes me sad. I haven't played Oath in a while, but it's always one of my favorite decks. It wasn't that many events ago that an Oath deck won.
Logged

Check out my articles @ www.mtggoldfish.com  www.puremtgo.com Follow me on Twitter: @josephfiorinijr - Watch me make EPIC PUNTS on Twitch.TV @ http://www.twitch.tv/josephfiorini06

Just like a car crash,
Just like a knife.
My favorite weapon
is the look in your eyes.
You've run out of lies...
Cafe_Cafe
Basic User
**
Posts: 10


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 29, 2016, 12:32:11 am »

...after an hour of so trudging through replays by myself ...
Thanks for taking the time to do this Chubby. Great work.
Logged

Upkeep... Oath.
Smmenen
2007 Vintage World Champion
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 6392


Smmenen
View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 29, 2016, 01:12:47 am »

Excellent work and thanks to Ryan and Matthew for putting this together.

I think it's important not to overreact to a single event.  If we had three straight events of similar results, then I would be inclined to agree with some of the critics - but there have been enormous fluctuations from month to month.

Please keep this up!
Logged

matori
Basic User
**
Posts: 57


McLovin


View Profile Email
« Reply #10 on: February 29, 2016, 01:11:29 pm »

Deck lists are up :
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/vintage-premier-2016-02-29
Logged
thecrav
Basic User
**
Posts: 219


Seems good.


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #11 on: February 29, 2016, 02:24:03 pm »

I think it's important not to overreact to a single event.  If we had three straight events of similar results, then I would be inclined to agree with some of the critics - but there have been enormous fluctuations from month to month.

With a large-scale (756 players) legacy event being held in the North East and a North American Grand Prix this weekend, there are certainly a lot of players missing this event and potentially skewing the data with their absence.
Logged

Instead of tearing things down we should calmly explain our opinions.
MirariKnight
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 428

Lotus, YawgWill, Lotus, Go

xHollyw0odx
View Profile Email
« Reply #12 on: February 29, 2016, 02:38:11 pm »

I think the insane amounts of Shops in the Top 16 is more of a testament to the fact that it was a well positioned deck that day than anything else.
Which of course means that once you get deeper in the tournament, the ones that are better prepared for the mirror will triumph, hence the Porecelain/Coercive Portal build doing well. Interesting.

Thanks again guys for doing this analysis, awesome data to have. 
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.056 seconds with 19 queries.