A thought experiment, if you will. I'd like to begin with a few basic assumptions, and see if we can make any coherent predictions based upon those. We've been around for awhile, after all, and we've seen the ebb and flow of decks.
Let's toy around with a sample metagame with the following characteristics. It's a LGS-style metagame, with the same 40 players coming each week (though they need not be 'weeks' at all, only iterations for our purposes).
Assumptions
1. Each player has perfect knowledge of the cards in everyone's decks. Decklists are required, published, and let's pretend that everyone cares enough to scrutinize them.
2. The same 40 players play in each event.
3. Card pools are unlimited. Any player can field any deck at any time. In reality, we have a fair assurance that half of the field is not going to suddenly start playing Lands, but in this realm (let's call it Magical Christmas Land), that can happen.
4. If a matchup is favorable for one side or the other, that side is victorious. Let's keep it simple.
No grave based decks, so people expect there to be little to no graveyard hate next week. 40 Players play dredge.
Ha ha, that's funny but it does get at a certain truth. There is no graveyard in the meta.
With 40 players, half of whom are playing Maverick, what are the Maverick matchups going to look like? There is a 19/39 chance that any given Maverick deck faces the mirror match. That's just about half, so 10 Maverick players play the mirror.
Of the rest, about about 3/10 will wind up facing RUG, while 7/10 will face the rest of the field, and they all have good matchups against Maverick.
The pattern would continue, and the Maverick players in the first iteration would probably experience either mirrors, or mostly unfavorable matchups. This is unpleasant, so given our assumptions, players who brought Maverick will be inclined to make another choice next time.
Similarly with the RUG players.... many of them will have unfortunate experiences, being paired against Maverick, but some will play Miracles/Omni-Tell and have a much better time of it. Against Goblins, it's about even (in my opinion anyway). The Maverick presence in this meta should be enough to discourage RUG for the next iteration.
And so on. Once we've determined what each pilot's experience generally would have been, we'll be in a position to determine what each might be likely to play next week. Probably Dredge and Reanimator will appear, but I wouldn't expect Miracles, Goblins, and Omni-Tell to disappear. Those are good decks that just had a great tournament. One of them, if not a Maverick deck, probably won.
The only things I'd say are pretty likely, right now, are that RUG and Maverick are likely to diminish in this metagame, with graveyard strategies, Goblins, SnT, and Miracles all rising.
I feel like I might be (dare I say) on the edge of understanding something about how a metagame tends to move, but it just doesn't seem to work out. For example, I thought that combo decks would adapt to Thalia by becoming Turn 1 decks, a la Belcher. That did happen, to some extent. But mostly, we saw the rise of Miracles and Omni-Tell decks. What am I missing?
can you show us the match-up numbers (or at least who is over who) to make it easier to figure out...
Basically, it will end up in a triangle where a third play control, 1/3 combo, 1/3 aggro and one idiot playing cheeri0s because he has an idiot ball that week....
If we are trying to predict SCG meta. There needs to be some sort of restrictions.
At SCG events there are people who can have access to every deck but theres also a lot of people who are locked into a limited number of decks. We need to establish some sort of restriction. Part of the meta can change decks any time and the other part can only change after a few iterations.
Its also hard to simulate 50/50 matchups without playing them out. Most mathups aren't actually 50/50 so flipping coins would misrepresent results.
With 40 players, half of whom are playing Maverick, what are the Maverick matchups going to look like? There is a 19/39 chance that any given Maverick deck faces the mirror match. That's just about half, so 10 Maverick players play the mirror.
Of the rest, about about 3/10 will wind up facing RUG, while 7/10 will face the rest of the field, and they all have good matchups against Maverick.
Well that's all fine and dandy, but the sample size is a little small.
Lets say your 1st round predictions are correct, barring Goblins barring an unfavorable match-up, it's close to 50/50.
So we know 50% of the Maverick decks playing the mirror will reach round 2, that's a given.
We can also assume, based on play skill, that 2 of the 3 playing against Canadian Thresh will also move one. Now let's assume that, based on the other 7 matches, 1 Maverick deck makes it out alive, which is possible.
In the 2nd round, that still gives us a meta-game of 40% Maverick. Yes, it dwindles, but the theory here is, more people playing the deck, the better chance the deck has of breaching top 8.
My questions is, if 3 people make top 8 with Maverick, which will be the largest % of the decks playing that day, and someone even wins with it, what's to say people will change their deck choices? Some may even gravitate towards Maverick in this instance, as it had the most decks in the top 8, as people like to ignore the % of the decks starting at the tournament.
But yes, Dredge would walk away with it if it were to go again next week.
How do we determine which deck choices people make.
In mental misstep times there were UW Stoneblade and NO RUG as the largest represented decks. However people didn't gravitate towards one or the other.
You mean if, given that someone is going to change decks and also given that more than one choice available seems to be equally good in the environment, which one do they choose?
That's a matter personal preference, impossible to really capture arbitrarily. In reality some folks are just contrarian. People play decks just because no one else is playing them, there's a certain card they like, and what have you. It's even culturally conditioned. I found in the United States the contrarian impulse was quite strong, and rogue decks are everywhere. No one playing the deck seems, to many, a great reason to play it themselves. In Beijing, that few people play a deck is a very strong argument against it: people tend to gravitate toward those popular decks, not away from them.
Changes
20 Maverick players -> 3/4 switch to GY decks, especially Dredge
7 players bring RUG -> 4 switch to decks with game against Maverick
5 players bring Miracles -> continue playing Miracles, some players join
5 players bring Goblins -> continue playing Goblins, some players join
3 players bring Omni-Tell -> continue playing Omni-Tell, some players join
Second Iteration proposal
7 Dredge
7 Miracles
7 Goblins
5 Maverick
5 Omni-Tell
3 RUG
3 Belcher (another deck with good game against Maverick)
3 Reanimator (some folks prefer this over Dredge for their GY work)
Does that seem like a reasonable prediction? Of course this is going to start to get tough with the inclusion of the graveyard decks, since their MUs are so dependent on the sideboard. This is already so complex that I'm resorting to hand-waving. Putting the SBs into it will muddy the waters even more.
Second iteration:
9 Players bring Maverick
5 Players bring RUG (RUG has a poor MU against Maverick, so slight decrease)
8 Players bring U/W Miracles (U/W Miracles stomps on Maverick)
6 Players bring Goblins (Still very good against Maverick)
6 Players bring Omnitell (Still very good against Maverick)
6 Players bring Dredge (No one is playing G/Y hate so there are gonna be some of these guys).
I have heard vague rumors of a moustache-dispensing vending machine in a distant laundromat, across the street from a tattoo parlor. However, this information is shaky, and time is of the essence.
To predict the shift, we must assume players will adjust for the meta.
But why stop there? If we can predict a meta shift, so can everyone else! Maybe players will not adjust to the current meta, but rather adjust for what the meta will be like after the shift. This is different to how a player would adjust if they assume everyone else will return with the same deck.
I hope you see the problem here. If the meta shift could be accurately predicted, the prognosis itself would affect how the meta would actually shift. This is akin to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in quantum mechanics, where the very act of measuring changes what's to be measured.
Imagine everyone played Maveric. Will they all come back with Storm to beat Maveric, or with Control 'cause they "know" everyone else will bring Storm?
Etc.
I'm afraid you cannot accurately predict how players will adjust. Perhaps with some real statistics about how real players actually adjust we could make a somewhat reliable model. but you can't get there on theory alone - this involves behavioural psychology..
That can easily be taken into account, I did that myself when I stated I would play Dredge the next round and Affinity the following.
I think part of this is how do people think? When I think of a deck to beat Dredge I think Affinity. Others may not. And who says behavioral psych can't be taken into account? It's called Game Theory
The only thing that is hard to consider is deck evolution.
We can only assume all the matchup data remains relevent. In reality each matchup might shift -+5%. Might be small but over 9 rounds of magic and hundreds of people, it can be considerable.
Completely new decks appearing is a whole different story.
I think this is way too concrete and exact. You need to take a step back and think in vague terms.
For example: if deck A emerges as a solid deck (out of a field of A-J), there will be a response to it. However, if deck A continues to "dominate", you can expect "anti-deck A" strategies to spring up.
New sets can also greatly impact metagame shifts. This includes hype that never pans out ("omg RTR is gonna change the game".....but nobody has figure out the set/optimizing the format for RTR yet).
There's also the odd chance of a deck being a "dark horse" against the meta and winning. Perhaps deck A's best matchup is deck C. What do we do if deck C now wins? Hysteria?
This is the beauty and frustration of magic. It's why the game is interesting to study: there's so much ebb and flow.
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 think you're right, my attempt was too concrete and exact, or at least pretended to be. It doesn't really capture the element of decision-making, or try to. I think what I'm really interested in, at this point, is determining in what way a meta will tend to move 'naturally,' that is, if each participant chooses a deck as though they would be bringing it to the very same tournament just concluded. I suppose if it gets this far removed from reality, the first posters are correct: everyone plays Dredge on week 2 and from there the problem is uninteresting.
The other thing I'm getting from this is that when one has access to multiple, powerful linear decks, just bringing a different one each week can be very potent (per Raggedjoe's point).
The other thing I'm getting from this is that when one has access to multiple, powerful linear decks, just bringing a different one each week can be very potent (per Raggedjoe's point).
I think the answer to my original question is no.
Thanks for making me realize I didn't explain this. I feel the best way to game the described meta is to pick a deck with little to no representation that is linear and is tough to beat without hate, especially one with good matchups vs the field. If there are few decks with counters, beat the combo decks with Dragon Stompy. Aggro decks are wrecked by Affinity and Dredge. The key is that you don't actually play the games, we are counting a win as a positive %. Well, considering no Affinity hate, Affinity is positive vs just about every deck.
the first posters are correct: everyone plays Dredge on week 2 and from there the problem is uninteresting.
That would only make sense if everybody thought nobody else would be changing decks. If people reacted that predictably nobody would bring Dredge because everyone else supposedly would be.
That would only make sense if everybody thought nobody else would be changing decks. If people reacted that predictably nobody would bring Dredge because everyone else supposedly would be.
Unless you next level everyone and bring a form of Dredge that is good against the mirror.
Unless you next level everyone and bring a form of Dredge that is good against the mirror.
Sure, but the point is you can't predict what everyone will do.
Some people will not adjust - they will bring the same deck or mix it up without thought given to the meta.
Other people will bring the deck that would have been optimal in last week's meta.
And other people might try to predict the meta shift and bring a deck that's optimal for the meta they anticipate.
You have to know the players very well to accurately gauge their reaction. If you don't know them, you can't get inside their heads.
Here's why the meta shift cannot possibly be predicted logically:
Not everyone choses there deck logically.
If everyone did, it would still be impossible to predict the new meta. If you could predict the meta logically, there would be an optimal deck for that meta. But, since everyone is choosing they're deck for logical reasons, everyone would bring that one deck and it would no longer be optimal. This is infinite regression.
Maybe you can assume a lot of people will still play Maveric, and a lot will bring Dredge; but if you don't know the players you might be surprised. Yes, you can make sound choices based on educated guesses, but you can't predict the shift with any kind of precision or accuracy. Here's a summary of why meta shifts cannot be predicted by logic:
Let's toy around with a sample metagame with the following characteristics. It's a LGS-style metagame, with the same 40 players coming each week (though they need not be 'weeks' at all, only iterations for our purposes).
Assumptions
1. Each player has perfect knowledge of the cards in everyone's decks. Decklists are required, published, and let's pretend that everyone cares enough to scrutinize them.
2. The same 40 players play in each event.
3. Card pools are unlimited. Any player can field any deck at any time. In reality, we have a fair assurance that half of the field is not going to suddenly start playing Lands, but in this realm (let's call it Magical Christmas Land), that can happen.
4. If a matchup is favorable for one side or the other, that side is victorious. Let's keep it simple.
Initial Conditions
20 players bring Maverick
7 players bring RUG
5 players bring Miracles
5 players bring Goblins
3 players bring Omni-Tell
Overall record: 139-98-15
Total number of matches: 252
Win percentage ignoring draws: 58.649789
Win percentage including draws: 55.158730
[180 classic cube]
Ha ha, that's funny but it does get at a certain truth. There is no graveyard in the meta.
With 40 players, half of whom are playing Maverick, what are the Maverick matchups going to look like? There is a 19/39 chance that any given Maverick deck faces the mirror match. That's just about half, so 10 Maverick players play the mirror.
Of the rest, about about 3/10 will wind up facing RUG, while 7/10 will face the rest of the field, and they all have good matchups against Maverick.
The pattern would continue, and the Maverick players in the first iteration would probably experience either mirrors, or mostly unfavorable matchups. This is unpleasant, so given our assumptions, players who brought Maverick will be inclined to make another choice next time.
Similarly with the RUG players.... many of them will have unfortunate experiences, being paired against Maverick, but some will play Miracles/Omni-Tell and have a much better time of it. Against Goblins, it's about even (in my opinion anyway). The Maverick presence in this meta should be enough to discourage RUG for the next iteration.
And so on. Once we've determined what each pilot's experience generally would have been, we'll be in a position to determine what each might be likely to play next week. Probably Dredge and Reanimator will appear, but I wouldn't expect Miracles, Goblins, and Omni-Tell to disappear. Those are good decks that just had a great tournament. One of them, if not a Maverick deck, probably won.
The only things I'd say are pretty likely, right now, are that RUG and Maverick are likely to diminish in this metagame, with graveyard strategies, Goblins, SnT, and Miracles all rising.
I feel like I might be (dare I say) on the edge of understanding something about how a metagame tends to move, but it just doesn't seem to work out. For example, I thought that combo decks would adapt to Thalia by becoming Turn 1 decks, a la Belcher. That did happen, to some extent. But mostly, we saw the rise of Miracles and Omni-Tell decks. What am I missing?
Overall record: 139-98-15
Total number of matches: 252
Win percentage ignoring draws: 58.649789
Win percentage including draws: 55.158730
Basically, it will end up in a triangle where a third play control, 1/3 combo, 1/3 aggro and one idiot playing cheeri0s because he has an idiot ball that week....
540 Peasant cube- Gold EditionSomething SpicyAt SCG events there are people who can have access to every deck but theres also a lot of people who are locked into a limited number of decks. We need to establish some sort of restriction. Part of the meta can change decks any time and the other part can only change after a few iterations.
Its also hard to simulate 50/50 matchups without playing them out. Most mathups aren't actually 50/50 so flipping coins would misrepresent results.
Well that's all fine and dandy, but the sample size is a little small.
Lets say your 1st round predictions are correct, barring Goblins barring an unfavorable match-up, it's close to 50/50.
So we know 50% of the Maverick decks playing the mirror will reach round 2, that's a given.
We can also assume, based on play skill, that 2 of the 3 playing against Canadian Thresh will also move one. Now let's assume that, based on the other 7 matches, 1 Maverick deck makes it out alive, which is possible.
In the 2nd round, that still gives us a meta-game of 40% Maverick. Yes, it dwindles, but the theory here is, more people playing the deck, the better chance the deck has of breaching top 8.
My questions is, if 3 people make top 8 with Maverick, which will be the largest % of the decks playing that day, and someone even wins with it, what's to say people will change their deck choices? Some may even gravitate towards Maverick in this instance, as it had the most decks in the top 8, as people like to ignore the % of the decks starting at the tournament.
But yes, Dredge would walk away with it if it were to go again next week.
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane Studios for the amazing sig.
NO RUG: Primer
Tempo Thresh: Primer
In mental misstep times there were UW Stoneblade and NO RUG as the largest represented decks. However people didn't gravitate towards one or the other.
That's a matter personal preference, impossible to really capture arbitrarily. In reality some folks are just contrarian. People play decks just because no one else is playing them, there's a certain card they like, and what have you. It's even culturally conditioned. I found in the United States the contrarian impulse was quite strong, and rogue decks are everywhere. No one playing the deck seems, to many, a great reason to play it themselves. In Beijing, that few people play a deck is a very strong argument against it: people tend to gravitate toward those popular decks, not away from them.
Overall record: 139-98-15
Total number of matches: 252
Win percentage ignoring draws: 58.649789
Win percentage including draws: 55.158730
Level 1 Judge
Currently Playing:
W Death and Taxes
BGR ScapeWish Nic Fit
BGR Punishing Nic Fit
There may also be a few Enchantress as barring Omni Tell all the decks have unfavorable Enchantress match-ups.
Overall the meta should shift towards combo decks regardless of GY interactions due to the number of Fair Decks in the meta
Paper: WUR Waffle Control, RG and U Tron
MTGO: U Tron, BRG Living End, B Infect
Testing Modern on MTGO and helping to craft decks on a Budget
I stream!
Hermit Druid Combo:
Changes
20 Maverick players -> 3/4 switch to GY decks, especially Dredge
7 players bring RUG -> 4 switch to decks with game against Maverick
5 players bring Miracles -> continue playing Miracles, some players join
5 players bring Goblins -> continue playing Goblins, some players join
3 players bring Omni-Tell -> continue playing Omni-Tell, some players join
Second Iteration proposal
7 Dredge
7 Miracles
7 Goblins
5 Maverick
5 Omni-Tell
3 RUG
3 Belcher (another deck with good game against Maverick)
3 Reanimator (some folks prefer this over Dredge for their GY work)
Does that seem like a reasonable prediction? Of course this is going to start to get tough with the inclusion of the graveyard decks, since their MUs are so dependent on the sideboard. This is already so complex that I'm resorting to hand-waving. Putting the SBs into it will muddy the waters even more.
Overall record: 139-98-15
Total number of matches: 252
Win percentage ignoring draws: 58.649789
Win percentage including draws: 55.158730
20 players bring Maverick
7 players bring RUG
5 players bring Miracles
5 players bring Goblins
3 players bring Omni-Tell
Second iteration:
9 Players bring Maverick
5 Players bring RUG (RUG has a poor MU against Maverick, so slight decrease)
8 Players bring U/W Miracles (U/W Miracles stomps on Maverick)
6 Players bring Goblins (Still very good against Maverick)
6 Players bring Omnitell (Still very good against Maverick)
6 Players bring Dredge (No one is playing G/Y hate so there are gonna be some of these guys).
EDH:
RNorin the WaryR <-Link! (Primer - Mono Red Control)
GUEdric, Spymaster of TrestUG <- Link! (Mini-Primer - Dredge)
Duel Commander:
WUGeist of Saint TraftUW <- Link! (Aggro-Control)
BGSkullbriar, the Walking GraveGB <- Link! (Aggro)
BUGDamia, Sage of StoneGUB <- Link! (Extinction Control)
Church of the Wary
But why stop there? If we can predict a meta shift, so can everyone else! Maybe players will not adjust to the current meta, but rather adjust for what the meta will be like after the shift. This is different to how a player would adjust if they assume everyone else will return with the same deck.
I hope you see the problem here. If the meta shift could be accurately predicted, the prognosis itself would affect how the meta would actually shift. This is akin to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in quantum mechanics, where the very act of measuring changes what's to be measured.
Imagine everyone played Maveric. Will they all come back with Storm to beat Maveric, or with Control 'cause they "know" everyone else will bring Storm?
Etc.
I'm afraid you cannot accurately predict how players will adjust. Perhaps with some real statistics about how real players actually adjust we could make a somewhat reliable model. but you can't get there on theory alone - this involves behavioural psychology..
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
I think part of this is how do people think? When I think of a deck to beat Dredge I think Affinity. Others may not. And who says behavioral psych can't be taken into account? It's called Game Theory
Level 1 Judge
Currently Playing:
W Death and Taxes
BGR ScapeWish Nic Fit
BGR Punishing Nic Fit
We can only assume all the matchup data remains relevent. In reality each matchup might shift -+5%. Might be small but over 9 rounds of magic and hundreds of people, it can be considerable.
Completely new decks appearing is a whole different story.
For example: if deck A emerges as a solid deck (out of a field of A-J), there will be a response to it. However, if deck A continues to "dominate", you can expect "anti-deck A" strategies to spring up.
New sets can also greatly impact metagame shifts. This includes hype that never pans out ("omg RTR is gonna change the game".....but nobody has figure out the set/optimizing the format for RTR yet).
There's also the odd chance of a deck being a "dark horse" against the meta and winning. Perhaps deck A's best matchup is deck C. What do we do if deck C now wins? Hysteria?
This is the beauty and frustration of magic. It's why the game is interesting to study: there's so much ebb and flow.
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
The other thing I'm getting from this is that when one has access to multiple, powerful linear decks, just bringing a different one each week can be very potent (per Raggedjoe's point).
I think the answer to my original question is no.
Overall record: 139-98-15
Total number of matches: 252
Win percentage ignoring draws: 58.649789
Win percentage including draws: 55.158730
Thanks for making me realize I didn't explain this. I feel the best way to game the described meta is to pick a deck with little to no representation that is linear and is tough to beat without hate, especially one with good matchups vs the field. If there are few decks with counters, beat the combo decks with Dragon Stompy. Aggro decks are wrecked by Affinity and Dredge. The key is that you don't actually play the games, we are counting a win as a positive %. Well, considering no Affinity hate, Affinity is positive vs just about every deck.
Level 1 Judge
Currently Playing:
W Death and Taxes
BGR ScapeWish Nic Fit
BGR Punishing Nic Fit
That would only make sense if everybody thought nobody else would be changing decks. If people reacted that predictably nobody would bring Dredge because everyone else supposedly would be.
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
Unless you next level everyone and bring a form of Dredge that is good against the mirror.
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane Studios for the amazing sig.
NO RUG: Primer
Tempo Thresh: Primer
Sure, but the point is you can't predict what everyone will do.
Here's why the meta shift cannot possibly be predicted logically:
Maybe you can assume a lot of people will still play Maveric, and a lot will bring Dredge; but if you don't know the players you might be surprised. Yes, you can make sound choices based on educated guesses, but you can't predict the shift with any kind of precision or accuracy. Here's a summary of why meta shifts cannot be predicted by logic:
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats