Disclaimer
This is NOT intended to be an end-all solution on figuring the top decks for a given time. This formula is encouraged as supplemental statistical backing. Determining a top deck should still be done through means other than relying on stats.
Intro
If there was a statistical way to measure a deck's success, would you take note of it? Perhaps you want to assess the top decks of the month beyond eyeballing the success rates. The following information is a statistic-driven-analysis for computing a deck's success.
When looking at a deck that is having a lot of success, there's very little one can do aside from argue whether or not it should be considered an elite-class deck. The argument commonly spills over into assessing the rankings and outcomes during tournaments.
However, if a deck got #1 out of a field of 30 or a field of 130, there was no real way to weigh the two. You can say "well the larger field's win is more impressive" but there is something missing. Additionally, there's something missing while comparing a deck that made a Top 8 out of a large field vs a deck that got first place out of a mid/small field. This formula hopes to bridge the gap for everyone.
Again, it should be used in conjunction with other methods of saying a deck is at the top of the format or not. Stats help shape an assessment but should never be the only thing to consider.
The Formula
Number of Tournament Players
[Rank + 1.5 (Difference between Rank and #1)]
Edit: the bottom is computed to 1 number, then that number divides into the top aka total players (opposed to any different order). I included brackets because I think this aspect was unclear. It has been this way since the start but I think I was not 100% clear. Apologies...
Additional:
- Much like a batting average, a higher "score" correlates to a "bigger success"
- This formula is computed per deck, per tournament
- All scores for the same deck are averaged; providing a final score
*Any tournament lacking information -- such as the total number of players in the field or a full Top 8/16 are not seen as fully reliable and should be disregarded
*Scores are pulled from sites + generally larger scaled events (not somebody's Friday-night basement league)
Breaking Down the Formula - Number of Tournament Players: Simple enough, this is the total field of competitors. A larger field will be weighed higher -- as it should be
- Rank: The placement of the deck. Did the deck finish 1st, 2nd, 5th, 8th, 16th, etc
- 1.5 x Difference in Rank and #1: This is again used to weigh the deck's placement against it winning the entire tourney. One and a half times the difference of first place and the rank works well.
Example
Let's say you and a friend bring the same deck to two separate tournaments.
Tourney A: 30 People // You: 8th // Friend: 2nd
Tourney B: 50 People // You: 2nd // Friend: 8th
Tourney A
Your Score: (30 people divided by 18.5 [8+1.5(7)]) = 1.622
Friend's Score: (30 people divided by 3.5 [2+1.5(1)]) = 8.571
Tourney B
Your Score: (50 people divided by 3.5 [2+1.5(1)]) = 14.285
Friend's Score: (50 people divided by 18.5 [8+1.5(7)]) = 2.703
Your AVG: 7.95
Friend AVG: 5.637
Deck's Score: 6.794 (overall average of you and friend)
Although you both had a 8th place finish and a 2nd place finish, the difference comes from the size of the crowd you placed against. This is an important concept that gets overlooked. The more tournaments played would help provide a truer score for both you and your friend (consistency).
What This Leads To
I wouldn't post this information without meaning for it to be implemented somehow. After discussing with people about reshaping the Legacy Forums, it was suggested that this rating system pop up. While I acknowledge there is no absolute way to determine the success of a deck, I seriously suggest trying this out. As time goes on, more scores will be compiled -- adding consistency to the scores
Hopefully others can help out with this system in terms of input and interest.
Bias + Shortcomings
Without a doubt there are issues/problems/bias/shortcomings to any rating system.
- Number one, this is not the end-all to evaluating decks.
- Number two, there will be a minimum number of appearances a deck needs to effectively display its rating.The formula itself does not compute this.
- Number three, scores will be refreshed now and then. As time goes on, certain months' worth of scores will be cleared
- There's only so much data to collect. With the exception of very large tournaments, many organizers only submit the Top 8. Sometimes it's not practical to have a Top 16.
- The formula has no "red lines" in terms of separating the elite from the rest. Like the # of appearances, this number will be discussed.
======
Scores
February Top 5 Decks with over 5 Appearances
1. Threshold [Counter-Top] :: 17.620 // 13 Appearances
2. Team America :: 12.448 // 7 Appearances
3. Landstill :: 11.857 // 13 Appearances
4. Goblins :: 11.118 // 10 Appearances
5. Aggro Loam :: 9.923 // 14 Appearances
Black = Feb // Blue = March // Orange = Cumulative
------------------------- 43 Land/Lands.dec :: 1.405 // 1 Appearance // Lacks a Primer
8th of 26 - 1.405
Affinity :: 5.207 // 6 Appearances
2nd of 52 - 14.857
3rd of 35 - 5.833
5th of 22 - 2.00
8th of 32 - 1.729
4th of 41 - 4.823
6th of 27 - 2.0
ANT (Ad-Nauseam-Tendrils) :: 6.442 // 8 Appearances
6th of 18 - 1.33
6th of 26 - 1.925
8th of 35 - 1.891
8th of 41 - 2.216
1st of 35 - 35.0
8th of 55 - 2.972
4th of 32 - 3.764
7th of 39 - 2.4375
Aggro Loam :: 9.923 // 14 Appearances // Lacks a Primer
4th of 26 - 3.059
4th of 24 - 2.824
1st of 28 - 28
7th of 52 - 3.25
2nd of 13 - 3.714
5th of 35 - 3.182
T2 of 66 (2nd) - 18.875
5th of 23 - 2.09
3rd of 19 - 3.166
3rd of 43 - 7.166
1st of 41 - 41.0
6th of 32 - 2.370
3rd of 70 - 11.66
2nd of 30 - 8.571
Burn :: 8.608 // 7 Appearances
1st of 35 - 35.0
4th of 26 - 3.059
4th of 22 - 2.588
2nd of 43 - 12.286
5th of 30 - 2.727
7th of 30 - 1.875
5th of 30 - 2.727
Deadguy :: 9.349 // 4 Appearances // Lacks a Primer
T2 of 66 (2nd) - 18.875
7th of 19 - 1.1875
2nd of 55 - 15.714
8th of 30 - 1.622
Death and Taxes :: 1.407 // 1 Appearance
6th of 19 - 1.407
Doran [BGW Aggro] :: 4.0775 // 2 Appearances
T8 of 66 (8th) - 3.567
4th of 39 - 4.588
Dreadstill = 7.593 // 7 Appearances
2nd of 26 - 7.429
T8 of 66 (8th) - 3.567
6th of 26 - 1.926
2nd of 19 - 5.429
8th of 35 - 1.891
5th of 32 - 2.909
1st of 30 - 30.0
Elves [Aggro] :: 9.8125 // 2 Appearances
1st of 18 - 18
7th of 26 - 1.625
Elves [Combo/Storm] :: 26.0 // 1 Appearance // Lacks a Primer
1st of 26 - 26.0
FaeStill and/or Faeries :: 5.464 // 3 Appearances // Lacks a Primer
T4 of 66 (4th) - 8.8
6th of 35 - 2.593
3rd of 30 - 5.00
Goblins :: 11.118 // 10 Appearances
8th of 24 - 1.297
4th of 52 - 6.118
4th of 19 - 2.235
6th of 43 - 3.185
4th of 41 - 4.823
1st of 30 - 30.0
2nd of 30 - 8.571
4th of 70 - 8.235
1st of 39 - 39.0
2nd of 27 - 7.714
Goyf Sligh [R/G Aggro-Burn] :: 4.027 // 8 Appearances
8th of 35 - 1.892
6th of 22 - 1.30
6th of 39 - 2.88
8th of 23 - 1.243
3rd of 35 - 5.833
7th of 35 - 2.00
2nd of 37 - 10.571
3rd of 39 - 6.5
Ichorid [Dredge] :: 5.062 // 12 Appearances
2nd of 28 - 8.0
4th of 42 - 4.941
2nd of 39 - 11.143
5th of 19 - 1.727
5th of 41 - 3.727
6th of 41 - 3.037
3rd of 41 - 6.833
3rd of 44 - 7.33
7th of 44 - 2.75
8th of 44 - 2.378
7th of 70 - 4.375
3rd of 27 - 4.5
I.T.F (It's the Fear) :: 12 // 1 Appearance // Lacks a Primer
2nd of 42 - 12
Landstill :: 11.857 // 13 Appearances
1st of 13 - 13.0
3rd of 26 - 4.33 (UW/b)
7th of 26 - 1.625 (U/wb)
1st of 22 - 22.0
4th of 23 - 2.706 (UW/g)
6th of 35 - 2.592 (UW/bg)
6th of 55 - 4.074 (UWb)
2nd of 32 - 9.142 (UWb)
2nd of 41 - 11.714 (UWb)
4th of 44 - 5.176 (UWb)
5th of 44 - 4.0 (UWb)
1st of 70 - 70.0
8th of 70 - 3.783
Merfolk :: 6.645 // 16 Appearances
7th of 24 - 1.5
3rd of 13 - 2.166
6th of 42 - 3.11
2nd of 26 - 7.429
3rd of 39 - 6.5
1st of 19 - 19.0
4th of 35 - 4.117
3rd of 55 - 9.166
4th of 55 - 6.470
5th of 41 - 3.727
5th of 41 - 3.727 (different tourney than above)
3rd of 37 - 6.166
2nd of 44 - 12.571
5th of 70 - 6.363
2nd of 39 - 11.142
4th of 27 - 3.176
The Rock [Traditional Style] :: 6.534 // 5 Appearances // Lacks a Primer
1st of 24 - 24.0
7th of 23 - 1.4375
7th of 41 - 2.5625
8th of 41 - 2.216
5th of 27 - 2.454
Staxxx [White] :: 5.295 // 5 Appearances
8th of 18 - 0.973
2nd of 24 - 6.857
T8 of 66 (8th) - 3.567
2nd of 41 - 11.714
5th of 37 - 3.363
Team America :: 12.448 // 7 Appearances
1st of 24 - 24
6th of 24 - 1.77
3rd of 24 - 4
8th of 42 - 2.2
1st of 43 - 43.0
3rd of 41 - 6.833
3rd of 32 - 5.33
Threshold [Counter-Top] :: 17.620 // 13 Appearances
1st of 35 - 35
2nd of 35 - 10
4th of 35 - 8.5
6th of 35 - 2.593
T8 of 66 (8th) - 3.567
1st of 39 - 39.0 (Progenitus)
4th of 43 - 5.059
5th of 55 - 5.00
1st of 41 - 41.0
4th of 41 - 4.823
1st of 44 - 44.0 (Progenitus)
1st of 27 (Progenitus) - 27.0
4th of 30 - 3.529
Thresh [No Counter-Top] :: 9.321 // 10 Appearances
5th of 26 - 2.363
4th of 24 - 2.824
4th of 35 - 4.117
7th of 35 - 2.188
3rd of 22 - 3.66
7th of 35 - 2.1875
1st of 32 - 32.0
1st of 37 - 37.0
3rd of 30 - 5.0
7th of 30 - 1.875
WW [Traditional White Weenie]:: 2.364 // 1 Appearance // Lacks a Primer
5th of 26 - 2.364
Zoo [Multicolor Aggro] = 7.160 // 9 Appearances // Lacks a Primer
6th of 24 - 1.77
5th of 35 - 3.182 (Bant Aggro)
3rd of 23 - 3.83 (Bant Aggro)
6th of 23 - 1.704
3rd of 41 - 6.833
8th of 41 - 2.216
1st of 41 - 41.0
7th of 27 - 1.6875
6th of 30 - 2.22
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
I actually like this idea. I don't think there should be a limit on the # of appearances for a deck. Maybe make a note beside a deck noting it's rating once it hits a set # (say 10-15) of appearances and then continue on with the rating. Also, maybe leave the ratings up until the release of a new set. That way we'll see how the changes in the meta affect how a deck is doing over all for the year. Just a thought.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't buy Alara!
Join the Crusade against Mythic Rares!
We aren't anyone's milking cow!
(\ /)
(o.O)
(> <)
Bunny says so!
The only reason you'd want a minimum is to provide consistency. As of right now, UWx landstill has 1 appearance and it won. That's not the best representation of any deck. But I agree with the other things you've said. This will fall into place with time
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That which nourishes me, destroys me
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
I agree. If we just give it a little time, and especially with the GP around the corner, the meta will take a much more definite shape and we'll be able to better judge the top decks. I will go ahead and make my guess now. For what those decks will be, and I'll probably be wrong.
Top decks:
Dreadstill
AnT
Thrash
Balanced Thresh
Team America (Questionable)
Aggro Loam
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
SKRules on Dark Rit art
5th is just a guy snapping his fingers. Maybe Nicol Bolas can get mana that way, but I can't.
Thanks for the comments, I'll try and answer each of them as best as I can. This is a very long post but is not meant to be a flame/rip in any way. There are many interesting ideas and comments by Frozen_Fire going on. There is a lot to answer.
-First of all, Legacy is not a tournament format like T2 or Extended. We don't have PT, PTQ, etc. That means we have less material than other formats that are more based on tournament. With less material, it's harder to track decks.
Perhaps in your area Legacy is hard to find. Around the places I live (house and college), I have access to Legacy tournaments. Sure, Legacy tournaments do not sprout up as much as FNM, but there are plenty of tournaments that go on. I find extended tournaments significantly harder to find than legacy (part of the reason I jumped to Legacy years ago) -- plus I'd much rather compete in the deeper format.
Anywho, I really have to disagree with the "legacy is not a tournament format" statement. Legacy is based on tournament play as much as the other formats -- if not more. Wheras T2 and EXT have increasingly warped into "play deck A or deck anti-A" --- legacy has numerous options due to a B/R list that is tweaked and tinkered with.
Regarding the "less material to track" -- it all comes back to tournaments being held. Yes, i'd say legacy events are held at a lower rate than T2 or EXT -- but the rate isn't as large as you think. It also deals with the player-base and player-age of Legacy players (which I believe is slightly older/higher than other formats...affecting scheduling and frequency to some degree).
So Harder that maybe we can't talk about "PRO Player" decks, but only about "Tier" decks (The Tier definition is based on the popularity).
I disagree and agree about what you're saying. I think the difference is the word choice you use. I've talked to others about this on the "how do we organize the forums?" thread so I feel I should sum it up for you -- this could also answer some other comments of yours I haven't touched upon in the process:
Elite (Tier 1) (consistent wins, top 8s) Competitive (Tier 1.5/2) (top 8s some of the time or very present in the meta) Developing Competitive (new decks, unproven decks, decks that "coulda been a contenda" and have ambition to be competitive/elite)
Popularity does AND doesn't play into this. A deck would have to have some representation. Occassionally a rogue decks wins it all and comes out of nowhere -- but nothing happens to it. Sometimes it sparks a large shift in the meta/format. I see the Elite decks as essentially the "cream of the crop" --- they are your marquee decks that you expect to see in the Top 8 and envision facing off against in the finals (since you're obviously gonna want to dream big). I see Competitive as "stuff you're probably going to face." The difference is the results of Elite vs Competitve. Elite beats out Competitve nearly every time -- thus making more top finishes + making higher places + has higher consistency. Developing is self-explanitory.
The difference between the Top and the rest is the "invisible line" on separating decks. This concept is always argued and always brought up when discussing format representation and "what's the deck to beat." This thread + concept of giving decks a rating is meant to suppliment people's notions of "what is the best?" Instead of going by eyeballing placements and general "i think this is better than that" -- I'm trying to give another aspect. I am very happy some people will at least want to try it out and see if it works. I mention that it's not meant to be the definitive way to judge decks (since stats are very 2-dimensional). The point of all of this is to provide players with a suplimental way of judging the best.
EDIT: there are also decks that are extremely hard to build. Imperial-Painter I would consider being a great deck (definitely a competitive deck) -- but the cards are impossible to obtain. The Imperial Recruiters are $$$$ + very very rare so the deck is under-represented in this regard. Then again, costs is a known factor in MTG and obviously tie into performance and appearances.
So, for now, I think that would be good if we take an effort to estabilish some assignment or priority to the various Fish primers.
...I need your opinion about those decks....
W/G or R/G Haterator
Truffle Shuffle
Aluren
Fish by color (like I said above) including Standstill Faerie/Ninja variants
Faerie Stompy and Stompy decks by color
The main issue is the presence of any of those decks + being outdated. Aluren is gone. Simply put, the format + cards available to help it do not stand a chance against the cards that hurt it. I do not expect a comeback for this is the near future (but I do not rule it out).
The Fae decks are interesting because they are "fish" but not. For example, U/G fae is distinct enough to make it as its own thing (thus making Fae stompy a "deck"). However, its variants are very tied to UWB Fish or U/x Fish in general. In many cases, the lists are in a grey-zone. As for the other lists, they are simply not out in force or got meshed together/evolved into some of the stuff you see out on the forums now.
EDIT: I think it's also important to group things by strategy. This concept was discussed at the AIM chatroom on organizing the forum. Going by color is really counter-productive on many levels. Yes, Fish can be built with U/x ---> any 2nd color + any 3rd color (if at all). However, there's no need to make a trillion threads that are just swapping out 8-10 cards. Group by strategy would be the best way to go.
@Naz
If we're going to group all elves together I'm going to need to update the primer quite a bit.
That's a mistake on my part. I have to update + add stuff
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
Do the points erode over time, or do you just rank them in order of points gained over the course of time.
Big problem I see coming... Chicago GP. Winner out of ~800, that is a lot of points, making the winning deck the single #1 deck, and we know the format shifts. I would say because of the banned list, but that's not true; it is more because of the new sets that come out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In Vintage (Type 1) > Budget Deck Discussion forum:
This point was raised in the AIM chat, and I think that the amount of time that "points erode" was questionable, as some decks weather new expansions better than others. Having points erode after 3 months seems like a good plan; I'm just not sure how accurate that will be.
This point was raised in the AIM chat, and I think that the amount of time that "points erode" was questionable, as some decks weather new expansions better than others. Having points erode after 3 months seems like a good plan; I'm just not sure how accurate that will be.
Yea, i'd assume a physical amount of time is a better gauge than expansion/MTG timescale. However, it's going to be interesting to see how Chicago factors into all of this. Between Chicago + Chicago Side events, there will be a temporary spike with some decklists. Depending on what happens, I may factor in Chicago as a "second score"
Normal Score (with Chicago score) ....something like that
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That which nourishes me, destroys me
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
I don't know if Chicago should be underweighted. It's a GP for goodness sakes. Those events decide metagames for some time, or the meta shifts in response to the GP meta.
I guess just pointing out the boost in score would be nice.
I don't know if Chicago should be underweighted. It's a GP for goodness sakes. Those events decide metagames for some time, or the meta shifts in response to the GP meta.
I guess just pointing out the boost in score would be nice.
Valid claim. We'll see what happens!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That which nourishes me, destroys me
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
On a more general note than the formula provided there are a number of statistical tests that could be adapted that take account of the number of events. You would be testing roughly the probability that a deck would get that result or set of results (or better) by random.
This is a very interesting path to go down. I personally am terrible at math -- and it was by the grace of god that I figured out the formula (pretty simple really). What you propose is interesting but I wouldn't want to do it lol.
There's also an issue of "auto-assuming" the odds of certain matchups and assessing a rating to the outcome. I'm not really a fan of that -- since MTG has too many random things: bad draws, misplays, poor plays, unexpected scoops, momentum, sudden loss, and general "i win, you lose, you couldn't determine this beforehand."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That which nourishes me, destroys me
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
what I am not understanding is why the "first out of 38" nets a score of 38??? shouldn't it net a lower score...? unless we are going with the assumption that the higher one scores in this system the better the deck is?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero." -- Varsuvius, Order of the Stick
what I am not understanding is why the "first out of 38" nets a score of 38??? shouldn't it net a lower score...? unless we are going with the assumption that the higher one scores in this system the better the deck is?
yes, higher is better (i think that's mentioned in the OP).
first of 38 would mean:
38 [participants]
1 [first place] + 1.5(0)
= 38.0
---------
Quote from TheLion »
If we assume that every tournament was DCI sanctioned, then it is rather easy, since they are held with the Swiss system.
Not every tourney is official. This is especially true of large side-tournaments that unfold...they're just as good as official main-stage tourney's. GP Chicago will have numerous side events worth considering/useful + there are "unofficial" venues that do not get sanctioned. I would not assumed that everything is sanctioned nor would I assess that non-sanctioned venues do not count.
Quote from King Canute »
Number of rounds won may skew it a little as it assumes all decks are equal. If you beat a deck that won the three previous rounds (in 4th round) should that be worth more than a deck beaten in the first round or not?
That's a nice counter-point. That's why I did not factor that into final scores...not to mention you'd have to get the actual scoring/resulting material of every tourney you're considering.
If one wanted to determine the "momentum" both players had going into the match, a ton of issues pop up -- but above all, collecting this + sorting it out + figuring out how to assess this would be cumbersome to say the least. If anyone wants to create a system for that, good for them -- I personally think an overall placing does the job.
Not to mention a rating/statistic does not equal an "end all" method for figuring out what deck is the best. It only supplements thoughts.
Quote from The Lion »
My question was rather: Why is this factor needed at all. Why 1.5 and not 2.5 or 0.5?
Why the difference between the deck's finish and first place?
Quote from The Lion »
And how did you get to this formular, which doesn't look really intuitive?
I'll take that as constructive criticism, since I'm interpreting the tone harsher than you probably meant. When thinking about "rating" a deck, I took the factors/variables that are readily available + show consistency.
- Tournaments submitted to major sites (Deckcheck is pretty damn good at collecting things. TheSource is also good -- and work in accordance with D.C): builds credibility.
- Participants: Definitely a factor when assessing how successful a deck was at a particular date/tourney
- Placement (aka Rank)
- Diff between 1st place and Rank (DBFAR): I consider this a factor. Was the deck near the top? You may say simply the rank is all you need...but when considering Participant #, the combination of placement and tournament size should have another barometer. This is especially true of well-reported large tournaments. This once again brings us to GP-sized events. Tracking a Top32 would be a great indicator (close to top? middle of the "top 8"? etc.
- 1.5: There is some consideration towards this, but yes, there is no definitive reasoning other than what I am going to say that could explain my choice (TheLion, you may find this irrational or a nice answer).
DBFAR needed something to be paired with, IMO. I felt that leaving it alone resulted in "decent" discrepencies for overall rating numers. They could have been broader. 2 and above was too much/created too much of a difference IMO. 1.5 was in that "just right" area of producing respectable numbers for the denominator -- resulting in a nice spread of ratings.
If you want an alternate and silly answer, the format is 1.5 so that could also be a reasoning (if you're looking for another answer).
The formula as a whole: Larger is better, smaller is worse. I originally had it inverted (like a pitcher to ERA)...but felt that larger being better is indoctrinated with success. The formula as a whole fits the factors it does through the way it does based on what is consistently calculatable + used to show consistency. MTG has alot of uncalculable variables such as "luck" and things in which no formula can assume -- so you can say the whole thing is crap.
Nevertheless, it rewards good placement with a higher number than bad placements while also factoring in the amount of people in attendance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That which nourishes me, destroys me
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
A lot of what you want to calculate into your formula, you'll never have. Most of the time you will have Top 8, and if you are lucky their record going into the Top 8.
I think this is why you just need to calculate placesover the period of 2-4 months and have3 different groupings for decks. Pro(The current Hot Decks), Competitive(Those that have proven themselves a few times in the past), and Rogue/New Concepts(Those that have yet to make several Top 8's, or win a tourney.)
While we could create a perfect formula to tell us what the best decks are at any given time, most pros will tell you that it is really useless. You play a deck that:
1. You know well
2. Has good match-ups against most of an expected field
3. Has a chance at winning games against bad match-ups
4. Can carry a sideboard to cover bad match-ups
5. Leaves room for improvement against good match-ups
6. Allows you to out play your opponent
7. Is not overly stressful to play.
#6 is a big one. Why do you think you see many of the same names in Legacy at tourneys, and in other formats. It is because skill is the deciding factor in most matches, even the bad ones.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In Vintage (Type 1) > Budget Deck Discussion forum:
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
Fine, now the Op is clearer to read and it's also Clearer the situation about the unassigned primers. Warden, if no one reserved the Faestill thread, I'll start the work on it.
By the way, what do you want to do about the Fish situation?
Greetings,
Frozen_Fire
I'll make a thread in the main legacy area...I looked at results for Fish decks (lumped together on deckcheck) and the decks are sooooo different from one another. I just exclude it for the moment from my ratings but there's been a few non-merfolk-fish variants doing well (ninja-still in particular).
I'd check the primer assignment thread about Faestill...if it's open, go for it.
I also need info on survival decks (to distinguish) but finding people who play it + know everything about the archetype is hard.
If anyone has a suggestion on how to properly separate all the survival decks, give a shout out (by color is generally unfavored). I'd say "by strategy" but there's a bunch of strategies...there has to be a more generic umbrella to lump a few under.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That which nourishes me, destroys me
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
Keep it up, Warden! This is certainly interesting information, and it involves a lot of number crunching I wouldn't want to do!
Thanks Capt,
I think it's interesting seeing the breakdown of February. Compiling info for March would be interesting as well, especially with the recent GP Chicago and the big push Counter/Top had.
As of February, CB/Top Thresh proved to be the best deck by a considerable margin. Team America also did well, but did not show up in as high a quantity as expected. I was surprised at some of the suspected "big guns" not looking as impressive statistically as you'd think.
ANT, Merfolk, and Ichorid did not do as statistically impressive as they are hyped up to be -- information like this came as a big surprise to me as I was calculating things. I am a big fan of merfolk and expected it to be a top 5 easily, ANT as well, but the numbers tell a different story. March information will definitely add more info to the mix.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That which nourishes me, destroys me
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
INTRO
Well, I had a very long and detailed post explaining a new formula, but IE locked up, and it got lost, but I took a day off to cool down and decided to come back and type up most of it again.
What I am trying to address is the need for solid, explainable, and adaptive formula. We need a formula that defines what we want as a standard for how we judge decks, not something that puts only value on the number of players at an event. Warden, this is in no means saying your formula is bad, it isn't. I just think by creating a formula that measures as many characteristics of a tourney as possible is best.
While I have not added play skill into this formula, if we really wanted to, we could do it. We would just need all the players DCI ratings the deck faced and the Deck's Pilot DCI rating. I think without a better way to view results via the DCI, this is not productive right now, but I could do it.
What do we want to Judge?
First of we need to really decide what is important to giving values to decks. Obviously we want to take in to factor the place the deck finished, how large the tourney was, and how difficult it was to finish.
This right now breaks the formula into 3 parts:
Tournament Length, Place Finished, & Tounament Difficulty
Tournament Length
This part is actually pretty simple, all we need to do is determine the accepted number of rounds before the Top 8 is decided. I recommend 5 rounds. by factoring in 5 rounds it still allows for tournaments with less than 5 rounds, but the value is lessened, as in shorter tournaments, luck has a higher factor.
This segment of the Formula can be expressed: (R/5)
Place Finished
This falls right in line with tournament length, for how this portion is calculated. What we have to do is determine what we want accepted finishes to be above. I recommend using 8th place when Top 8 is played out, if Top 8 is not played out we could choose to use 4th place as the accepted value.
This segment of the Formula can be expressed: (P/8) or (P/4)
Tounament Difficulty
This is the only difficult portion of the formula. We can use this to remove value or add value to decks that perform in tournaments that are easier or harder to make better finishes. If a tournament has 33 or 64 people it must play one more round than if it had only 32, however it is much easier to finish better if it only has 33 players rather than 64.
The same could be said for a tournament that has 65 or 128 players with a cutoff being achieved at 65 players. The intent is to reduce the luck factor as well as add to the importance of stronger decks.
We have to decide how much this would reflect on the value of a finish. I think 20% is a good value. Even at the worst event, a deck would still gain a large amount of value.
This segment of the formula can be expressed: 0.8 + 0.4 x [(N - C) / (C / 2)] / 2
Full Formula
[(R/5) / (P/8)] x [0.8 + 0.4 x [(N - C) / (C / 2)] / 2] = V
or [(R/5) / (P/4)] x [0.8 + 0.4 x [(N - C) / (C / 2)] / 2] = V
R = Rounds in Tournament P = Place Finished N = Number of Players Entered C = Cutoff for Determining Number of Rounds or Cut to Day 2 V = Deck Value from Event
Why it is set this way...
By setting this formula up like this, we calculate that a finish in respect to 8th (4th for events that did not play off Top 8) place in a tournament with a number of rounds in reference to 5 rounds could be valued by +/-20% depending on the cutoff level as defined by attendence.
IDEAS
This is just an idea, but I would like to see a shift to a more advanced formula. I am willing to work with any factors we decide on, and the formula above might need a little tweaking.
Once the value of a deck is found I think the best way to calculate the overall value is to take the highest valued event and add it to the average of all the other events.
Determininga decay rate of points is important (such as 5% each week of total values, or maybe 20% each month, maybe even 5% of each event value each month.) and will help keep older decks from remaining on top with no recent finishes.
So, what do you all think?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In Vintage (Type 1) > Budget Deck Discussion forum:
This is NOT intended to be an end-all solution on figuring the top decks for a given time. This formula is encouraged as supplemental statistical backing. Determining a top deck should still be done through means other than relying on stats.
Intro
If there was a statistical way to measure a deck's success, would you take note of it? Perhaps you want to assess the top decks of the month beyond eyeballing the success rates. The following information is a statistic-driven-analysis for computing a deck's success.
When looking at a deck that is having a lot of success, there's very little one can do aside from argue whether or not it should be considered an elite-class deck. The argument commonly spills over into assessing the rankings and outcomes during tournaments.
However, if a deck got #1 out of a field of 30 or a field of 130, there was no real way to weigh the two. You can say "well the larger field's win is more impressive" but there is something missing. Additionally, there's something missing while comparing a deck that made a Top 8 out of a large field vs a deck that got first place out of a mid/small field. This formula hopes to bridge the gap for everyone.
Again, it should be used in conjunction with other methods of saying a deck is at the top of the format or not. Stats help shape an assessment but should never be the only thing to consider.
The Formula
[Rank + 1.5 (Difference between Rank and #1)]
Edit: the bottom is computed to 1 number, then that number divides into the top aka total players (opposed to any different order). I included brackets because I think this aspect was unclear. It has been this way since the start but I think I was not 100% clear. Apologies...
Additional:
- Much like a batting average, a higher "score" correlates to a "bigger success"
- This formula is computed per deck, per tournament
- All scores for the same deck are averaged; providing a final score
*Any tournament lacking information -- such as the total number of players in the field or a full Top 8/16 are not seen as fully reliable and should be disregarded
*Scores are pulled from sites + generally larger scaled events (not somebody's Friday-night basement league)
Breaking Down the Formula
- Number of Tournament Players: Simple enough, this is the total field of competitors. A larger field will be weighed higher -- as it should be
- Rank: The placement of the deck. Did the deck finish 1st, 2nd, 5th, 8th, 16th, etc
- 1.5 x Difference in Rank and #1: This is again used to weigh the deck's placement against it winning the entire tourney. One and a half times the difference of first place and the rank works well.
Example
Tourney A: 30 People // You: 8th // Friend: 2nd
Tourney B: 50 People // You: 2nd // Friend: 8th
Tourney A
Your Score: (30 people divided by 18.5 [8+1.5(7)]) = 1.622
Friend's Score: (30 people divided by 3.5 [2+1.5(1)]) = 8.571
Tourney B
Your Score: (50 people divided by 3.5 [2+1.5(1)]) = 14.285
Friend's Score: (50 people divided by 18.5 [8+1.5(7)]) = 2.703
Your AVG: 7.95
Friend AVG: 5.637
Deck's Score: 6.794 (overall average of you and friend)
Although you both had a 8th place finish and a 2nd place finish, the difference comes from the size of the crowd you placed against. This is an important concept that gets overlooked. The more tournaments played would help provide a truer score for both you and your friend (consistency).
What This Leads To
I wouldn't post this information without meaning for it to be implemented somehow. After discussing with people about reshaping the Legacy Forums, it was suggested that this rating system pop up. While I acknowledge there is no absolute way to determine the success of a deck, I seriously suggest trying this out. As time goes on, more scores will be compiled -- adding consistency to the scores
Hopefully others can help out with this system in terms of input and interest.
Bias + Shortcomings
Without a doubt there are issues/problems/bias/shortcomings to any rating system.
- Number one, this is not the end-all to evaluating decks.
- Number two, there will be a minimum number of appearances a deck needs to effectively display its rating.The formula itself does not compute this.
- Number three, scores will be refreshed now and then. As time goes on, certain months' worth of scores will be cleared
- There's only so much data to collect. With the exception of very large tournaments, many organizers only submit the Top 8. Sometimes it's not practical to have a Top 16.
- The formula has no "red lines" in terms of separating the elite from the rest. Like the # of appearances, this number will be discussed.
======
1. Threshold [Counter-Top] :: 17.620 // 13 Appearances
2. Team America :: 12.448 // 7 Appearances
3. Landstill :: 11.857 // 13 Appearances
4. Goblins :: 11.118 // 10 Appearances
5. Aggro Loam :: 9.923 // 14 Appearances
Black = Feb // Blue = March // Orange = Cumulative
-------------------------
43 Land/Lands.dec :: 1.405 // 1 Appearance // Lacks a Primer
8th of 26 - 1.405
Affinity :: 5.207 // 6 Appearances
2nd of 52 - 14.857
3rd of 35 - 5.833
5th of 22 - 2.00
8th of 32 - 1.729
4th of 41 - 4.823
6th of 27 - 2.0
ANT (Ad-Nauseam-Tendrils) :: 6.442 // 8 Appearances
6th of 18 - 1.33
6th of 26 - 1.925
8th of 35 - 1.891
8th of 41 - 2.216
1st of 35 - 35.0
8th of 55 - 2.972
4th of 32 - 3.764
7th of 39 - 2.4375
Aggro Loam :: 9.923 // 14 Appearances // Lacks a Primer
4th of 26 - 3.059
4th of 24 - 2.824
1st of 28 - 28
7th of 52 - 3.25
2nd of 13 - 3.714
5th of 35 - 3.182
T2 of 66 (2nd) - 18.875
5th of 23 - 2.09
3rd of 19 - 3.166
3rd of 43 - 7.166
1st of 41 - 41.0
6th of 32 - 2.370
3rd of 70 - 11.66
2nd of 30 - 8.571
Burn :: 8.608 // 7 Appearances
1st of 35 - 35.0
4th of 26 - 3.059
4th of 22 - 2.588
2nd of 43 - 12.286
5th of 30 - 2.727
7th of 30 - 1.875
5th of 30 - 2.727
Deadguy :: 9.349 // 4 Appearances // Lacks a Primer
T2 of 66 (2nd) - 18.875
7th of 19 - 1.1875
2nd of 55 - 15.714
8th of 30 - 1.622
Death and Taxes :: 1.407 // 1 Appearance
6th of 19 - 1.407
Doran [BGW Aggro] :: 4.0775 // 2 Appearances
T8 of 66 (8th) - 3.567
4th of 39 - 4.588
Dreadstill = 7.593 // 7 Appearances
2nd of 26 - 7.429
T8 of 66 (8th) - 3.567
6th of 26 - 1.926
2nd of 19 - 5.429
8th of 35 - 1.891
5th of 32 - 2.909
1st of 30 - 30.0
Elves [Aggro] :: 9.8125 // 2 Appearances
1st of 18 - 18
7th of 26 - 1.625
Elves [Combo/Storm] :: 26.0 // 1 Appearance // Lacks a Primer
1st of 26 - 26.0
FaeStill and/or Faeries :: 5.464 // 3 Appearances // Lacks a Primer
T4 of 66 (4th) - 8.8
6th of 35 - 2.593
3rd of 30 - 5.00
Goblins :: 11.118 // 10 Appearances
8th of 24 - 1.297
4th of 52 - 6.118
4th of 19 - 2.235
6th of 43 - 3.185
4th of 41 - 4.823
1st of 30 - 30.0
2nd of 30 - 8.571
4th of 70 - 8.235
1st of 39 - 39.0
2nd of 27 - 7.714
Goyf Sligh [R/G Aggro-Burn] :: 4.027 // 8 Appearances
8th of 35 - 1.892
6th of 22 - 1.30
6th of 39 - 2.88
8th of 23 - 1.243
3rd of 35 - 5.833
7th of 35 - 2.00
2nd of 37 - 10.571
3rd of 39 - 6.5
Ichorid [Dredge] :: 5.062 // 12 Appearances
2nd of 28 - 8.0
4th of 42 - 4.941
2nd of 39 - 11.143
5th of 19 - 1.727
5th of 41 - 3.727
6th of 41 - 3.037
3rd of 41 - 6.833
3rd of 44 - 7.33
7th of 44 - 2.75
8th of 44 - 2.378
7th of 70 - 4.375
3rd of 27 - 4.5
I.T.F (It's the Fear) :: 12 // 1 Appearance // Lacks a Primer
2nd of 42 - 12
Landstill :: 11.857 // 13 Appearances
1st of 13 - 13.0
3rd of 26 - 4.33 (UW/b)
7th of 26 - 1.625 (U/wb)
1st of 22 - 22.0
4th of 23 - 2.706 (UW/g)
6th of 35 - 2.592 (UW/bg)
6th of 55 - 4.074 (UWb)
2nd of 32 - 9.142 (UWb)
2nd of 41 - 11.714 (UWb)
4th of 44 - 5.176 (UWb)
5th of 44 - 4.0 (UWb)
1st of 70 - 70.0
8th of 70 - 3.783
Merfolk :: 6.645 // 16 Appearances
7th of 24 - 1.5
3rd of 13 - 2.166
6th of 42 - 3.11
2nd of 26 - 7.429
3rd of 39 - 6.5
1st of 19 - 19.0
4th of 35 - 4.117
3rd of 55 - 9.166
4th of 55 - 6.470
5th of 41 - 3.727
5th of 41 - 3.727 (different tourney than above)
3rd of 37 - 6.166
2nd of 44 - 12.571
5th of 70 - 6.363
2nd of 39 - 11.142
4th of 27 - 3.176
The Rock [Traditional Style] :: 6.534 // 5 Appearances // Lacks a Primer
1st of 24 - 24.0
7th of 23 - 1.4375
7th of 41 - 2.5625
8th of 41 - 2.216
5th of 27 - 2.454
Staxxx [White] :: 5.295 // 5 Appearances
8th of 18 - 0.973
2nd of 24 - 6.857
T8 of 66 (8th) - 3.567
2nd of 41 - 11.714
5th of 37 - 3.363
Team America :: 12.448 // 7 Appearances
1st of 24 - 24
6th of 24 - 1.77
3rd of 24 - 4
8th of 42 - 2.2
1st of 43 - 43.0
3rd of 41 - 6.833
3rd of 32 - 5.33
Threshold [Counter-Top] :: 17.620 // 13 Appearances
1st of 35 - 35
2nd of 35 - 10
4th of 35 - 8.5
6th of 35 - 2.593
T8 of 66 (8th) - 3.567
1st of 39 - 39.0 (Progenitus)
4th of 43 - 5.059
5th of 55 - 5.00
1st of 41 - 41.0
4th of 41 - 4.823
1st of 44 - 44.0 (Progenitus)
1st of 27 (Progenitus) - 27.0
4th of 30 - 3.529
Thresh [No Counter-Top] :: 9.321 // 10 Appearances
5th of 26 - 2.363
4th of 24 - 2.824
4th of 35 - 4.117
7th of 35 - 2.188
3rd of 22 - 3.66
7th of 35 - 2.1875
1st of 32 - 32.0
1st of 37 - 37.0
3rd of 30 - 5.0
7th of 30 - 1.875
WW [Traditional White Weenie]:: 2.364 // 1 Appearance // Lacks a Primer
5th of 26 - 2.364
Zoo [Multicolor Aggro] = 7.160 // 9 Appearances // Lacks a Primer
6th of 24 - 1.77
5th of 35 - 3.182 (Bant Aggro)
3rd of 23 - 3.83 (Bant Aggro)
6th of 23 - 1.704
3rd of 41 - 6.833
8th of 41 - 2.216
1st of 41 - 41.0
7th of 27 - 1.6875
6th of 30 - 2.22
*This thread was approved by Johm000 and those who discussed revamping the forums
Dalkon PM'ed this to me, so I added the them: http://www.magic-league.com/deck/49642/legacy_t15.html#Aggro%20Loam314 (Dalkon says its of 66 people?)
Edit: Being Updated March 13th -- Feb calculations are done!
-Warden
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
Join the Crusade against Mythic Rares!
We aren't anyone's milking cow!
(\ /)
(o.O)
(> <)
Bunny says so!
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
Top decks:
Dreadstill
AnT
Thrash
Balanced Thresh
Team America (Questionable)
Aggro Loam
Perhaps in your area Legacy is hard to find. Around the places I live (house and college), I have access to Legacy tournaments. Sure, Legacy tournaments do not sprout up as much as FNM, but there are plenty of tournaments that go on. I find extended tournaments significantly harder to find than legacy (part of the reason I jumped to Legacy years ago) -- plus I'd much rather compete in the deeper format.
Anywho, I really have to disagree with the "legacy is not a tournament format" statement. Legacy is based on tournament play as much as the other formats -- if not more. Wheras T2 and EXT have increasingly warped into "play deck A or deck anti-A" --- legacy has numerous options due to a B/R list that is tweaked and tinkered with.
Regarding the "less material to track" -- it all comes back to tournaments being held. Yes, i'd say legacy events are held at a lower rate than T2 or EXT -- but the rate isn't as large as you think. It also deals with the player-base and player-age of Legacy players (which I believe is slightly older/higher than other formats...affecting scheduling and frequency to some degree).
I disagree and agree about what you're saying. I think the difference is the word choice you use. I've talked to others about this on the "how do we organize the forums?" thread so I feel I should sum it up for you -- this could also answer some other comments of yours I haven't touched upon in the process:
Elite (Tier 1) (consistent wins, top 8s)
Competitive (Tier 1.5/2) (top 8s some of the time or very present in the meta)
Developing Competitive (new decks, unproven decks, decks that "coulda been a contenda" and have ambition to be competitive/elite)
Popularity does AND doesn't play into this. A deck would have to have some representation. Occassionally a rogue decks wins it all and comes out of nowhere -- but nothing happens to it. Sometimes it sparks a large shift in the meta/format. I see the Elite decks as essentially the "cream of the crop" --- they are your marquee decks that you expect to see in the Top 8 and envision facing off against in the finals (since you're obviously gonna want to dream big). I see Competitive as "stuff you're probably going to face." The difference is the results of Elite vs Competitve. Elite beats out Competitve nearly every time -- thus making more top finishes + making higher places + has higher consistency. Developing is self-explanitory.
The difference between the Top and the rest is the "invisible line" on separating decks. This concept is always argued and always brought up when discussing format representation and "what's the deck to beat." This thread + concept of giving decks a rating is meant to suppliment people's notions of "what is the best?" Instead of going by eyeballing placements and general "i think this is better than that" -- I'm trying to give another aspect. I am very happy some people will at least want to try it out and see if it works. I mention that it's not meant to be the definitive way to judge decks (since stats are very 2-dimensional). The point of all of this is to provide players with a suplimental way of judging the best.
EDIT: there are also decks that are extremely hard to build. Imperial-Painter I would consider being a great deck (definitely a competitive deck) -- but the cards are impossible to obtain. The Imperial Recruiters are $$$$ + very very rare so the deck is under-represented in this regard. Then again, costs is a known factor in MTG and obviously tie into performance and appearances.
I was the last one to post on the most recent UWB Fish thread and specifically talked about this issue
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=3621989&postcount=5
The main issue is the presence of any of those decks + being outdated. Aluren is gone. Simply put, the format + cards available to help it do not stand a chance against the cards that hurt it. I do not expect a comeback for this is the near future (but I do not rule it out).
The Fae decks are interesting because they are "fish" but not. For example, U/G fae is distinct enough to make it as its own thing (thus making Fae stompy a "deck"). However, its variants are very tied to UWB Fish or U/x Fish in general. In many cases, the lists are in a grey-zone. As for the other lists, they are simply not out in force or got meshed together/evolved into some of the stuff you see out on the forums now.
EDIT: I think it's also important to group things by strategy. This concept was discussed at the AIM chatroom on organizing the forum. Going by color is really counter-productive on many levels. Yes, Fish can be built with U/x ---> any 2nd color + any 3rd color (if at all). However, there's no need to make a trillion threads that are just swapping out 8-10 cards. Group by strategy would be the best way to go.
@Naz
That's a mistake on my part. I have to update + add stuff
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
Big problem I see coming... Chicago GP. Winner out of ~800, that is a lot of points, making the winning deck the single #1 deck, and we know the format shifts. I would say because of the banned list, but that's not true; it is more because of the new sets that come out.
Nothing says budget help like receiving $5000 in recommendations.
I guess leaving out Time Walk, Timetwister, and Ancestral Recall is budget.
Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc
Yea, i'd assume a physical amount of time is a better gauge than expansion/MTG timescale. However, it's going to be interesting to see how Chicago factors into all of this. Between Chicago + Chicago Side events, there will be a temporary spike with some decklists. Depending on what happens, I may factor in Chicago as a "second score"
Normal Score (with Chicago score) ....something like that
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I guess just pointing out the boost in score would be nice.
Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc
Valid claim. We'll see what happens!
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
This is a very interesting path to go down. I personally am terrible at math -- and it was by the grace of god that I figured out the formula (pretty simple really). What you propose is interesting but I wouldn't want to do it lol.
There's also an issue of "auto-assuming" the odds of certain matchups and assessing a rating to the outcome. I'm not really a fan of that -- since MTG has too many random things: bad draws, misplays, poor plays, unexpected scoops, momentum, sudden loss, and general "i win, you lose, you couldn't determine this beforehand."
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
the 1.5 means
one and a half times (the difference between the deck's finish and first place)
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
yes, higher is better (i think that's mentioned in the OP).
first of 38 would mean:
1 [first place] + 1.5(0)
---------
Not every tourney is official. This is especially true of large side-tournaments that unfold...they're just as good as official main-stage tourney's. GP Chicago will have numerous side events worth considering/useful + there are "unofficial" venues that do not get sanctioned. I would not assumed that everything is sanctioned nor would I assess that non-sanctioned venues do not count.
That's a nice counter-point. That's why I did not factor that into final scores...not to mention you'd have to get the actual scoring/resulting material of every tourney you're considering.
If one wanted to determine the "momentum" both players had going into the match, a ton of issues pop up -- but above all, collecting this + sorting it out + figuring out how to assess this would be cumbersome to say the least. If anyone wants to create a system for that, good for them -- I personally think an overall placing does the job.
Not to mention a rating/statistic does not equal an "end all" method for figuring out what deck is the best. It only supplements thoughts.
I'll take that as constructive criticism, since I'm interpreting the tone harsher than you probably meant. When thinking about "rating" a deck, I took the factors/variables that are readily available + show consistency.
- Tournaments submitted to major sites (Deckcheck is pretty damn good at collecting things. TheSource is also good -- and work in accordance with D.C): builds credibility.
- Participants: Definitely a factor when assessing how successful a deck was at a particular date/tourney
- Placement (aka Rank)
- Diff between 1st place and Rank (DBFAR): I consider this a factor. Was the deck near the top? You may say simply the rank is all you need...but when considering Participant #, the combination of placement and tournament size should have another barometer. This is especially true of well-reported large tournaments. This once again brings us to GP-sized events. Tracking a Top32 would be a great indicator (close to top? middle of the "top 8"? etc.
- 1.5: There is some consideration towards this, but yes, there is no definitive reasoning other than what I am going to say that could explain my choice (TheLion, you may find this irrational or a nice answer).
DBFAR needed something to be paired with, IMO. I felt that leaving it alone resulted in "decent" discrepencies for overall rating numers. They could have been broader. 2 and above was too much/created too much of a difference IMO. 1.5 was in that "just right" area of producing respectable numbers for the denominator -- resulting in a nice spread of ratings.
If you want an alternate and silly answer, the format is 1.5 so that could also be a reasoning (if you're looking for another answer).
The formula as a whole: Larger is better, smaller is worse. I originally had it inverted (like a pitcher to ERA)...but felt that larger being better is indoctrinated with success. The formula as a whole fits the factors it does through the way it does based on what is consistently calculatable + used to show consistency. MTG has alot of uncalculable variables such as "luck" and things in which no formula can assume -- so you can say the whole thing is crap.
Nevertheless, it rewards good placement with a higher number than bad placements while also factoring in the amount of people in attendance.
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I think this is why you just need to calculate placesover the period of 2-4 months and have3 different groupings for decks. Pro(The current Hot Decks), Competitive(Those that have proven themselves a few times in the past), and Rogue/New Concepts(Those that have yet to make several Top 8's, or win a tourney.)
While we could create a perfect formula to tell us what the best decks are at any given time, most pros will tell you that it is really useless. You play a deck that:
1. You know well
2. Has good match-ups against most of an expected field
3. Has a chance at winning games against bad match-ups
4. Can carry a sideboard to cover bad match-ups
5. Leaves room for improvement against good match-ups
6. Allows you to out play your opponent
7. Is not overly stressful to play.
#6 is a big one. Why do you think you see many of the same names in Legacy at tourneys, and in other formats. It is because skill is the deciding factor in most matches, even the bad ones.
Nothing says budget help like receiving $5000 in recommendations.
I guess leaving out Time Walk, Timetwister, and Ancestral Recall is budget.
Question, though: aggro loam is listed as doing well, yet I don't see a thread for it... am I missing something, or is it just in the works?
Trades
Articles
Winner of SSC 1 & ">3 & 6
Thanks for the sentiment. I appreciate it.
I thought we had Loam (it's quite a popular deck)...I have to fix a bunch. Probably will update this tonight (thursday US Eastern) or Friday
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
- Entered in like 6 more touney's worth of material
- Revamped how the thing looks (all alphabetical)
- Cleanups and stuff
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I'll make a thread in the main legacy area...I looked at results for Fish decks (lumped together on deckcheck) and the decks are sooooo different from one another. I just exclude it for the moment from my ratings but there's been a few non-merfolk-fish variants doing well (ninja-still in particular).
I'd check the primer assignment thread about Faestill...if it's open, go for it.
I also need info on survival decks (to distinguish) but finding people who play it + know everything about the archetype is hard.
If anyone has a suggestion on how to properly separate all the survival decks, give a shout out (by color is generally unfavored). I'd say "by strategy" but there's a bunch of strategies...there has to be a more generic umbrella to lump a few under.
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
*I included a "top 5 of febuary" list
Deck from march will come later, I apologize but I could only fit in time to work on Feb at the moment
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
Thanks.
Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc
Thanks Capt,
I think it's interesting seeing the breakdown of February. Compiling info for March would be interesting as well, especially with the recent GP Chicago and the big push Counter/Top had.
As of February, CB/Top Thresh proved to be the best deck by a considerable margin. Team America also did well, but did not show up in as high a quantity as expected. I was surprised at some of the suspected "big guns" not looking as impressive statistically as you'd think.
ANT, Merfolk, and Ichorid did not do as statistically impressive as they are hyped up to be -- information like this came as a big surprise to me as I was calculating things. I am a big fan of merfolk and expected it to be a top 5 easily, ANT as well, but the numbers tell a different story. March information will definitely add more info to the mix.
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
INTRO
Well, I had a very long and detailed post explaining a new formula, but IE locked up, and it got lost, but I took a day off to cool down and decided to come back and type up most of it again.
What I am trying to address is the need for solid, explainable, and adaptive formula. We need a formula that defines what we want as a standard for how we judge decks, not something that puts only value on the number of players at an event. Warden, this is in no means saying your formula is bad, it isn't. I just think by creating a formula that measures as many characteristics of a tourney as possible is best.
While I have not added play skill into this formula, if we really wanted to, we could do it. We would just need all the players DCI ratings the deck faced and the Deck's Pilot DCI rating. I think without a better way to view results via the DCI, this is not productive right now, but I could do it.
What do we want to Judge?
First of we need to really decide what is important to giving values to decks. Obviously we want to take in to factor the place the deck finished, how large the tourney was, and how difficult it was to finish.
This right now breaks the formula into 3 parts:
Tournament Length, Place Finished, & Tounament Difficulty
Tournament Length
This part is actually pretty simple, all we need to do is determine the accepted number of rounds before the Top 8 is decided. I recommend 5 rounds. by factoring in 5 rounds it still allows for tournaments with less than 5 rounds, but the value is lessened, as in shorter tournaments, luck has a higher factor.
This segment of the Formula can be expressed: (R/5)
Place Finished
This falls right in line with tournament length, for how this portion is calculated. What we have to do is determine what we want accepted finishes to be above. I recommend using 8th place when Top 8 is played out, if Top 8 is not played out we could choose to use 4th place as the accepted value.
This segment of the Formula can be expressed: (P/8) or (P/4)
Tounament Difficulty
This is the only difficult portion of the formula. We can use this to remove value or add value to decks that perform in tournaments that are easier or harder to make better finishes. If a tournament has 33 or 64 people it must play one more round than if it had only 32, however it is much easier to finish better if it only has 33 players rather than 64.
The same could be said for a tournament that has 65 or 128 players with a cutoff being achieved at 65 players. The intent is to reduce the luck factor as well as add to the importance of stronger decks.
We have to decide how much this would reflect on the value of a finish. I think 20% is a good value. Even at the worst event, a deck would still gain a large amount of value.
This segment of the formula can be expressed: 0.8 + 0.4 x [(N - C) / (C / 2)] / 2
Full Formula
or
[(R/5) / (P/4)] x [0.8 + 0.4 x [(N - C) / (C / 2)] / 2] = V
R = Rounds in Tournament
P = Place Finished
N = Number of Players Entered
C = Cutoff for Determining Number of Rounds or Cut to Day 2
V = Deck Value from Event
Why it is set this way...
By setting this formula up like this, we calculate that a finish in respect to 8th (4th for events that did not play off Top 8) place in a tournament with a number of rounds in reference to 5 rounds could be valued by +/-20% depending on the cutoff level as defined by attendence.
IDEAS
This is just an idea, but I would like to see a shift to a more advanced formula. I am willing to work with any factors we decide on, and the formula above might need a little tweaking.
Once the value of a deck is found I think the best way to calculate the overall value is to take the highest valued event and add it to the average of all the other events.
Determininga decay rate of points is important (such as 5% each week of total values, or maybe 20% each month, maybe even 5% of each event value each month.) and will help keep older decks from remaining on top with no recent finishes.
So, what do you all think?
Nothing says budget help like receiving $5000 in recommendations.
I guess leaving out Time Walk, Timetwister, and Ancestral Recall is budget.