Mr Hyena
12-10-2009, 08:50 AM
(Anyone may repost this article, but only under the basis that I am credited and nothing in the article is altered.)
The Danger of relying on Statistical Evidence and SJC/Regional Attendance when deciding the state of the Game.
Good Evening/Morning/Day. Today's article is partially based on the statistical article produced by Mr Kevin Tewart of Konami(US). In this article, the readers are given the deck spreads of the last 4 SJC tournaments (Indianapolis, Orlando, Austin, Columbus). Now, the main gist of the article (in this Writer's humble opinion) is that deck diversity is what is most important to maintain. In this article, I shall be analysing if this is truly the correct course of action in maintaining the Yu-Gi-Oh! game.
The Newcomer viewpoint:
As Mr Tewart's article came from the Konami blog for the game, a blog written for Newcomers only it may seem at first glance, we shall look to the intended audience for our first musings on how we should look to deck diversity.
We have all been newcomers at one point, thinking our rag-tag, mish-mash of cards we call a 'deck' is good, and so we intend to take it to Official Konami-sanctioned Tournaments. So, if we take this into consideration, we can begin to understand that deck diversity would be a great thing for a new player. This much is certain it seems. The ability to take any deck you build to a tournament and have a fun time, even if they do not top, is fun to these players.
So by looking to the statistics provided in the Konami article, then do we have deck diversity for newcomers?
Columbus SHONEN JUMP Championship (November)
23% – Blackwings
11% – Lightsworn
10% – Chaos
8% – Destiny Heroes + Zombies
8% – Twilight
40% – Other
As it can be seen, we do have a diverse metagame as it appears from the results shown above. Twilight to a newcomer however, would be exactly the same as a Lightsworn deck, so that would bring Lightsworn up to 19%, closer to Blackwings with 23%. This is fine, as it is not dominating, in deck number terms.
But do the numbers shown above prove that we do have a healthy meta for newcomer players? Yes. This is true to an extent. Newcomer players are able to face-off with their decks versus any of the above mentioned decks. However, can we tell the strength of the above decks in order to get an understanding of how well a newcomer would be able to do or be able to last?. No. We cannot. This is why further looks need to be made into the deck.
In order to determine how good the metagame is for new players, to see how healthy it is, detailed analysis must be made of each individual deck. While Lightsworn are not dominating in numbers terms, its widely-known that they are currently the deck of the format so far (they were the winner of the last SJC, further evidence for this). This deck, with the pivotal card called ''Judgement Dragon'', it is fairly clear that newcomers do not stand much chance without running one of the above decks.
To be fair, this isn't much different from the last format or the format before that. The metagame is still not friendly to newcomers.
The Competitive Viewpoint and The Casual Viewpoint: Two Sides of a Coin
Now we have learned that the metagame is varied, with a fairly wide number of decks being run (though not as much as it was in the format of September 2007) we can begin to appreciate how we should look and use our statistical evidence.
Its long been understood that the competitive viewpoint to the game is that deck diversity takes second place to how much skill the format would require. For this article the writer will define skill as how often the better player wins.
So to gain an understanding of how the Competitive viewpoint would react to the statistical evidence presented above, we can draw a simple conclusion. They do not care. The statistical evidence does little to show how skilled the format is, as it lacks any analysis of the decks to see how skillful/'lucksacky' they are, in order to determine the format's merit themselves. (though most competitive players understand this already.)
In stark opposition to this view, is the Casual player (who will no doubt also attend tournaments not to win, but to play for fun). The Casual player's viewpoint is that deck diversity itself is what is most important. In comparison, this juxtaposes the Competitive viewpoint. They view a wide variety of decks as a healthy metagame.
The casual player's idea of a perfect metagame is one in which they could take their Fortune Lady/Volcanic deck to an SJC/Regional and be able to do pretty decent with it.
As we look at this, we come to our first important conclusion: All 3 groups want decks to have a fairly equal chance to win or to do reasonable.
Getting to the Gist of the Problem: Conclusion
So, we can now see that what players really do want, and we have the statistical deck spreads. Can we use these both to come to a conclusion?
Yes, we can.
By going by the statistical evidence, the format would be fine. We have many decks, with indicates a healthy meta. But by looking at the decks closely we can understand the problem that is hurting our deck diversity, but is not showing up on the statistical radar: ''Judgement Dragon'' and his Lightsworn friends. This single deck, taking up less places at our offical tournaments is actively hurting the game. Why?
From a Newcomer point of view, the deck's imbalanced cards such as 'Judgement Dragon' prevent the newcomer player from being able to do anything at all at such a tournament. From a Casual point of view, the Lightsworn themes healthy amount of support and its imbalanced cards prevent casual decks like Fortune Ladies from being successful. From the Competitive point of view, the deck is problematic because it requires very little skill, the milling mechanic reducing the game down to a case of probabilities. The ease-of-play of the deck is also a dislike to the competitive side.
The Lightsworn deck is not shown as problematic in the statistical evidence, but it is shown everywhere else and in the opinions of those who really do play the game.
The Final Word: What Should Be Done?
In order to fix the game it is still early in the format in order to decide on banlist use. Instead, what the writer would advise would be to take what is learned in this article, and do not tout the statistical evidence as a sign of a healthy game, without an extensive analysis along with it, or we will develop a biased viewpoint.
Do not be lax in your approach to the game. Large amounts of product say that players are buying product. That is all. It does absolutely nothing to show how good or bad the game is.
More interaction must happen between Konami and the playerbase at large, in order to get an idea of how players feel with the decks that are making up the meta.
By doing a combination of these things, the writer feels like the quality of the game will improve, the banlists will improve, the meta will improve and player's perceptions of Konami will also improve. Thank you for reading.
The Danger of relying on Statistical Evidence and SJC/Regional Attendance when deciding the state of the Game.
Good Evening/Morning/Day. Today's article is partially based on the statistical article produced by Mr Kevin Tewart of Konami(US). In this article, the readers are given the deck spreads of the last 4 SJC tournaments (Indianapolis, Orlando, Austin, Columbus). Now, the main gist of the article (in this Writer's humble opinion) is that deck diversity is what is most important to maintain. In this article, I shall be analysing if this is truly the correct course of action in maintaining the Yu-Gi-Oh! game.
The Newcomer viewpoint:
As Mr Tewart's article came from the Konami blog for the game, a blog written for Newcomers only it may seem at first glance, we shall look to the intended audience for our first musings on how we should look to deck diversity.
We have all been newcomers at one point, thinking our rag-tag, mish-mash of cards we call a 'deck' is good, and so we intend to take it to Official Konami-sanctioned Tournaments. So, if we take this into consideration, we can begin to understand that deck diversity would be a great thing for a new player. This much is certain it seems. The ability to take any deck you build to a tournament and have a fun time, even if they do not top, is fun to these players.
So by looking to the statistics provided in the Konami article, then do we have deck diversity for newcomers?
Columbus SHONEN JUMP Championship (November)
23% – Blackwings
11% – Lightsworn
10% – Chaos
8% – Destiny Heroes + Zombies
8% – Twilight
40% – Other
As it can be seen, we do have a diverse metagame as it appears from the results shown above. Twilight to a newcomer however, would be exactly the same as a Lightsworn deck, so that would bring Lightsworn up to 19%, closer to Blackwings with 23%. This is fine, as it is not dominating, in deck number terms.
But do the numbers shown above prove that we do have a healthy meta for newcomer players? Yes. This is true to an extent. Newcomer players are able to face-off with their decks versus any of the above mentioned decks. However, can we tell the strength of the above decks in order to get an understanding of how well a newcomer would be able to do or be able to last?. No. We cannot. This is why further looks need to be made into the deck.
In order to determine how good the metagame is for new players, to see how healthy it is, detailed analysis must be made of each individual deck. While Lightsworn are not dominating in numbers terms, its widely-known that they are currently the deck of the format so far (they were the winner of the last SJC, further evidence for this). This deck, with the pivotal card called ''Judgement Dragon'', it is fairly clear that newcomers do not stand much chance without running one of the above decks.
To be fair, this isn't much different from the last format or the format before that. The metagame is still not friendly to newcomers.
The Competitive Viewpoint and The Casual Viewpoint: Two Sides of a Coin
Now we have learned that the metagame is varied, with a fairly wide number of decks being run (though not as much as it was in the format of September 2007) we can begin to appreciate how we should look and use our statistical evidence.
Its long been understood that the competitive viewpoint to the game is that deck diversity takes second place to how much skill the format would require. For this article the writer will define skill as how often the better player wins.
So to gain an understanding of how the Competitive viewpoint would react to the statistical evidence presented above, we can draw a simple conclusion. They do not care. The statistical evidence does little to show how skilled the format is, as it lacks any analysis of the decks to see how skillful/'lucksacky' they are, in order to determine the format's merit themselves. (though most competitive players understand this already.)
In stark opposition to this view, is the Casual player (who will no doubt also attend tournaments not to win, but to play for fun). The Casual player's viewpoint is that deck diversity itself is what is most important. In comparison, this juxtaposes the Competitive viewpoint. They view a wide variety of decks as a healthy metagame.
The casual player's idea of a perfect metagame is one in which they could take their Fortune Lady/Volcanic deck to an SJC/Regional and be able to do pretty decent with it.
As we look at this, we come to our first important conclusion: All 3 groups want decks to have a fairly equal chance to win or to do reasonable.
Getting to the Gist of the Problem: Conclusion
So, we can now see that what players really do want, and we have the statistical deck spreads. Can we use these both to come to a conclusion?
Yes, we can.
By going by the statistical evidence, the format would be fine. We have many decks, with indicates a healthy meta. But by looking at the decks closely we can understand the problem that is hurting our deck diversity, but is not showing up on the statistical radar: ''Judgement Dragon'' and his Lightsworn friends. This single deck, taking up less places at our offical tournaments is actively hurting the game. Why?
From a Newcomer point of view, the deck's imbalanced cards such as 'Judgement Dragon' prevent the newcomer player from being able to do anything at all at such a tournament. From a Casual point of view, the Lightsworn themes healthy amount of support and its imbalanced cards prevent casual decks like Fortune Ladies from being successful. From the Competitive point of view, the deck is problematic because it requires very little skill, the milling mechanic reducing the game down to a case of probabilities. The ease-of-play of the deck is also a dislike to the competitive side.
The Lightsworn deck is not shown as problematic in the statistical evidence, but it is shown everywhere else and in the opinions of those who really do play the game.
The Final Word: What Should Be Done?
In order to fix the game it is still early in the format in order to decide on banlist use. Instead, what the writer would advise would be to take what is learned in this article, and do not tout the statistical evidence as a sign of a healthy game, without an extensive analysis along with it, or we will develop a biased viewpoint.
Do not be lax in your approach to the game. Large amounts of product say that players are buying product. That is all. It does absolutely nothing to show how good or bad the game is.
More interaction must happen between Konami and the playerbase at large, in order to get an idea of how players feel with the decks that are making up the meta.
By doing a combination of these things, the writer feels like the quality of the game will improve, the banlists will improve, the meta will improve and player's perceptions of Konami will also improve. Thank you for reading.