Want to learn more about the metrics I use in tracking the metagame? You can find an explainer here.
We’re going to start with the Power Rankings today, in part because the back half of this post is going to be dedicated to the change in how Magic Online results are reported.
Power Rankings
Dropped from rankings: Rakdos Madness
10. Dredge (Not Ranked)
9. Elves (-4)
8. Jund Wildfire
7. Madness Burn (+2)
6. CawGate (+1)
5. Rally Red (-1)
4. Faeries (+2)
3. Golgari Gardens
2. Grixis Affinity
1. Blue Terror
Starting this week (and unless something changes), the amount of results we get from the Magic Online Challenges will scale with the size of the tournament and most Pauper tournaments will post solely the Top 8 finishers . If you are not happy with this change I would recommend that you let the powers that be know, but do so respectfully. I am not a fan of this and will do my best do continue to provide Pauper metagame information.
To further explore potential changes I am going to use the example of comparing the Top 8 performance of different archetypes to the Top 32 data I collect.
Let’s start with Blue Terror. This deck is at the top of my Power Rankings and also leads the way in Top 8 results with 18. Thus far in Lorwyn Eclipsed season Blue Terror has 15% of all Top 8 results. However it has 11.88% of the Top 32 metagame and 12.52% of my calculated Winner’s Metagame. These numbers, in context, tell a story of a deck that is popular but over-performs its relative presence in the format. If there is a reduction in the Top 32 data the full picture is obfuscated and all we see is a deck that is dominating in the Top 8.
Compare this to Grixis Affinity. Its 13 Top 8 finishes is 10.83% of the all Top 8s. That is the second most of any archetype this season. However Grixis Affinity is only 7.29% of the Top 32 metagame and 9.65% of the calculated Winner’s Metagame. Someone examining the Top 8 results could incorrectly postulate that Grixis is more popular than it actually is and over prepare for the matchup, only to find it less popular in the tournament than Madness Burn, Elves, and Rally Red.
To round this segment out let’s talk about Madness Burn. A dozen Top 8 finishes is good for 10% of all Top 8s which is roughly equal to its 10.42% of the Top 32 metagame. But it also has 8.51% of the calculated Winner’s Metagame. Yes, Madness Burn might be popular but these numbers tell a tale of a deck that makes it to the elimination rounds in part due to sheer numbers.
None of these vignettes tell the whole story and they all have to be examined in relationship to one another. The problem is that with potentially less data available, people may be going into these tournaments with worse information, make poor (or incorrect) deckbuilding decisions, and leave feeling like they did not understand the actual field of battle.
The previous four paragraphs talk about popular strategies. Decks outside of my Power Rankings comprise 27.08% of the Top 32 metagame and 22.9% of the calculated Winner’s Metagame. Combined they also make up 24.17% of the Top 8 finishers. These decks may not break through in the same way if not for being featured in the Top 32 decklist dump. Making Top 8 or 5-0 in a league is challenging (as it should be), but for people who are looking for something to work on – for an idea of something off meta that they can tune – the options for research are going to dwindle.
A model that reduces the overall information prioritizes innovation over iteration. Iteration here is the process of refining a deck, figuring out those final few slots to have an edge on the metgame. Innovation in a world with less salient data is going to be throwing new ideas at the wall in an environment where you can see the trees but not the forest, relying more on vague impressions of the landscape than a detailed map. A new deck might find a lane, but unless things align just so it could be lost to the data aether.
Any change will be hard for me. I have been tracking the Pauper metagame in a similar capacity since 2014. That’s almost a dozen years of data that have informed decisions and trends, a dozen years of muscle memory that have helped me navigate the world of Pauper.
Selfishly, this sucks.
I do not have the time to play multiple leagues a day to have even a vague notion of the metagame. I do not want to overcorrect for a run where I face red decks four times, only having it be dumb luck and then get my face mushed by a more representative sample. It stinks for me as a player and as someone who tries to help other people get into the format.
So where do I go from here? I am going to track the Top 8s (and any other data we get). I’m going to try and figure out the best ways to communicate this information. Swiss Record (Win+) and overall Win-Loss record (K-Wins) will still help give insight into how strong decks are in relationship to each other. But for the time being we’re going to be looking at trees.
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.
NerdtotheCore 