Want to learn more about the metrics I use in tracking the metagame? You can find an explainer here.
Due to some issues on Daybreak’s end, only two Challenges were able to fire this past weekend. Neither of the Challenges were particularly well attended, with Friday’s featuring two players with 1-5 records making the Top 32. These finishes tend to have a confounding effect on singular weekend data, decreasing the number of overall wins in the pool which in turn makes the decks at the top of the metagame appear potentially stronger than their actual performance. For example, Kuldotha Red may have been the most popular deck in the Top 32 last weekend, but it performed…well…I’ll just show you.
Adjusted Meta Score Above Replacement seeks to measure how well an archetype performs compared to the average Top 32 deck in a given weekend, adjusted for the number of appearances in the Top 32. It is normalized to the most popular deck in the field on a week to week basis. Kuldotha Red, with five more finishes than the next archetype, was tied for 10/11 out of 15 over last weekend. Dredge, with two total Top 32 finishes (both of which were in the Top 8, including a win) was technically the best performing archetype with numbers that are mind boggling and also an outlier.
Data is only as good as the context in which it is presented. I could easily post an image of my shocked face, double pointing at the image on Dread Return declaring “THIS DECK IS BACK FROM THE DEAD” with the subheading “Is Pauper on its way to the grave?” to get clicks, only to tell you that despite the numbers I wouldn’t recommend Dredge next week. Oh to operate in the attention economy.
So what is the full context of last weekend? Small Challenge field obfuscate actionable data. Given the field size and overall number of wins we end up information that we cannot easily use to predict how the metagame may react. In other words I cannot in good conscience make a recommendation in part because there is not real basis for said declaration.
And that in it of itself is another problem. I have used this space to talk about the relative health of Pauper. There are multiple decks you can pilot to success and despite the format being a bit top heavy things are largely in balance. The best decks in the meta jockey for position and help to keep each other in check. While things vary from week to week the flavor is starting to become stale. Is a format really healthy if people aren’t excited to play it?
To be clear I am not saying this is the case. There could be any number of reasons people are not trying their hand in these events. At the same time it has been hard to ignore the slow decline in participation. Could there be correlation to dissatisfaction with Pauper? Possibly. It could be that other formats are better than they have been in quite some time and people are playing other tournaments. Cube is more readily accessible these days and could prove an attractive diversion. Or maybe you’re like me and after a week of working at a computer the idea of sitting in front of one for your free time sounds about as much fun as walking barefoot in the snow after a hot shower.
Regardless, the low numbers have caught my attention. And if the trend continues then it could be indicative that despite all the good there is in Pauper that it might be time for a change. Just because something is stable and balanced does not mean it is good; just because something high powered is strong in the format doesn’t make it inherently bad.
I want to take a moment to thank all my Patrons. I am going to do my level best to keep providing you with the kind of content that brought you here in the first place. If you are interested in supporting my work, you can sign up for my Patreon starting at just $1.
Can’t make a commitment to Patreon? I have a Ko-Fi where you can make a one time contribution.
Looking for another way to support my work? Click here for my TCGPlayer affiliate link. Any purchases through the link let the folks there know you like my content!
NerdtotheCore 