Topics

Hello everybody!

This time, with the international (well... yet just european) community in mind, I've written my report and the results in English. Below are the links to the Mannheim HL-forum.

So, feel free to browse through our results and if you like then go on and read my report .

Hello everybody!

Lately I’ve been browsing the internet on the lookout for Germany’s highlander scene. The result of my endeavor: There’s isn’t much of it.
So maybe I lost my googlemojo and miss the HL-Mekka by just an inch whenever I try to find it. But maybe â€" only maybe â€" there just isn’t much to find. That is besides magicplayer.org - of course - and some T8 lists.

That means there isn’t much reliable data that let’s us define tiers for highlander (for those of you that don’t know the concept of “tiers”: tier approximately means rank. You can find it being used for example in the IT-, financial or Automotive-Branch. It is also used in other “nerdesque” sports à la Street Fighter: Sagat would be god tier, Ryu and Rufus would be Tier A whereas Dan would end up being bottom tier.

I propose the following project: Let’s define the hypothetical highlander metagame that we would have if we had similar tournament attendances as the Legacy or Standard format.
   
You ask: “Why?” “What’s that !$§% good for?” “I know little Timmy always brings his BigWurm.dec to the tourneys, good ol’ Johnny has his “High Tide” deck and that arrogant prick Spike always pilots some kind of aggrodeck.”
Bottom line is: You know your meta.

I hear you guys.

You’re completely right. This project does not tell you anything about “your” highlander format. That will always be locally different and (because of low attendance) rather random.
What this project can do however, is to provide an ideal type. This will give us a deeper understanding of the format. A format, whose whole potential is yet to be discovered.

Allright my fellow magickers! What are the steps that must be taken? Just follow me…

Tiers in Magic are defined through matchup statistics. Let’s construct the following scenario:
3 decks called A, B and C
Deck A beats deck B
Deck A beats deck C
Deck B beats Deck C
Therefore deck C loses against the other two decks

We conclude:
Deck A = top tier
Deck B = mid tier
Deck C = bottom tier

Granted, this is a simplified model. Because of the random factors that are intrinsic to every magic game, we should rather construct the matchup concept as a probability variable. For example deck A beats deck B on a 6 to 4 basis. Or let’s sum that up to 100%: Deck A vs. deck B = 60:40

The matchup outcomes must be computed through test runs. So we need to play a series of games between to contenders. In the end we want to derive a trend from those tests so that we are able to say: Out of 100 games between two decks, deck A won 72 games whereas deck B won just 28 games. This can be expressed in matchup context: A vs. B is approximately 70:30

The above already shows us one way to build a matchup. It is the empirical prove of a matchup.

However we also want to look beyond mere statistical probabilities. We want to analyze the inner workings of a deck-vs-deck matchup. Therefore we must extract the essence of a matchup. I’ll give an example:

Empirical evidence: 20 games of MonoRedBurn vs. UW-Control yielded the following results: 13:7. This leads us to a matchup of 65:35

Theoretical evidence: MonoRedBurn beats UW-Control because UW-Control has no relevant clock on the burn deck. Furthermore it runs too many dead cards (like WoG, Moat etc.). Only in about one quarter of the games is UW-Control able to resolve relevant threats (cards that gain life, e.g. Baneslayer Angel et. al.)

(the above example is only a guess. I haven’t (yet) tested the matchup in a more analytical and precise way.)

Now that we know “what” exactly we must do, we need to know with “which deck archetypes” we have to do our testing.
I propose the better placing lists from the last HL-GrandPrix. Decklists that placed in tournaments with less than 20 players should not be taken into consideration.

Here are the standings from HL GP 7 after swiss

1. Reanimator 7-0-1
2. UWG Oath Control 6-0-2
3. UG AggroControl 6-1-1
4. Naya Zoo 6-1-1
5. Mono U Staxx 6-1-1
6. UG AggroControl 6-1-1
7. Bant Aggro 6-2-0
8. 5c Good Stuff
____________________________
9. Bant Aggro 6-2-0
10. 5c Staxx 6-2-0
11. Naya Zoo 6-2-0
12. Dark Bant AggroControl 5-0-3

Metagame Breakdown

23x 4-5c Goodstuff
15x UW(b/r) Control
12x Naya
12x Monorot (b)
9x UG(r)
7x Elves!
6x Staxx
5x Reanimator
5x Boros
4x RG Beats
4x WW
3x Mono U Control
3x Bant
2x GW
2x 4-5c Zoo
2x GBw Recursion
2x Oath Control

I will do my own testing. I’m very thankful to those that want to provide help and test matchups on their own. Please post your results!
To get things started and minimize working time I propose test series of 20 games per matchup. That should give solid insight for a specific matchup.
(We should start testing matchups within the field of decks that placed top 8 at the GP)

Hello everybody!

Here's my report (which is written in German): http://highlanderforum.kilu.de/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=42

It was fun in FFM and I hope I can go again, although the way to the banking town is a bit far.

I hope you enjoy my report!

Here's a link to the winning team's tournament report from a 2HG-Highlander competition held in Mannheim.

I hope you enjoy it!

http://highlanderforum.kilu.de/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34

(the report is written in German)