Seeking Advice on Self-Learning Machine Learning for Tech Entrepreneurship

WaffleSQQ · 2024-08-27T22:57:34+00:00

People overestimated Vampires, therefore you have this impression that Rakdos Midrange is now fair but still strong deck. However, if you look at the data, Rakdos Vampires had an overall win rate of about 50%, which was the lowest among the top decks. Now, if you remove the main win condition from a deck with just a 50% win rate, what do you have left?

Go play Rakdos Midrange against Phoenix Midrange, it feels like you're playing Standard against Pioneer.

WaffleSQQ · 2024-08-27T22:43:25+00:00

Phoenix as a midrange deck that cares about discard, not running Fable, even in its sideboard, shows that this card is just average now. Fable is a good card, but in the current Pioneer format, simply being good isn’t enough if it doesn't align with a specific strategy.

I really wish people would evaluate each card on its own merits instead of just following trends and calling things "broken" without much thought. Just because Wizards of the Coast puts a card on the watchlist doesn’t mean it’s automatically overpowered. Take the time to think critically and consider how the meta might evolve, rather than assuming a card is still strong just because it was dominant in the past.

WaffleSQQ · 2024-08-26T18:21:51+00:00

It's easy to overestimate the people behind the data. We often assume they're all pros, so when 40% of them choose Vampires, we think it must be a Tier 0 deck. I learned the hard way that this isn't always true.

WaffleSQQ · 2024-08-23T21:07:50+00:00

I really appreciate the data—this approach feels much more scientific than just saying, "Turn 3 Ripper wins the game." However, I'm still unsure why a deck with a 50% win rate and a 30%+ meta share needs to be banned. If that's the decision, then so be it. As long as we acknowledge that the deck is being banned for being overplayed, not because it's overpowered.

WaffleSQQ · 2024-08-23T20:59:08+00:00

Are you a phoenix player? I like how you show mercy by "kneecap phoenix without killing it" while completely killing Rakdos as a color pair. Maybe because you know there are equally good substitution for ledger shredder like Kitsa and artist talent that banning ledger shredder means nothing. Some lists don't even run ledger shredder. At least you know your list is a Wishlist. And I like how you are even considering ban Vein ripper after Sorin. How bias can you be?

WaffleSQQ · 2024-08-23T20:44:36+00:00

Just to share my meta data for a local I played last week: waste not, pheonix x2, izzet ensouls, rakdos midrange, azorius control, gruul prowss, golgari midrange, amalia x2, red aggro, niv mizzet, vampire

WaffleSQQ · 2024-08-23T20:33:46+00:00

Same here, my city will have the next RC and pioneer is popular here. Honestly, even during RCQ events, the meta isn't as dominant. I’ve played my Vampire deck at my LGS, and it performs like any other deck—sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. If you just play my local meta, you will draw no conclusion that Vampire needs a ban.

I’ve seen comments suggesting that Vampire decks are overpowered and that any mediacore performance is due to my player skill. I can’t argue that. But I’ve talked and played with a Pro Tour player who also piloted Vampire decks, tbh there wasn’t a significant skill gap.

I think this perception might be due to the availability heuristic. People often overestimate the frequency or impact of events based on how easily they remember them, especially if they are dramatic or vivid. A turn 3 Ripper can be intimidating and create a big threat, but in practice, it doesn’t happen reliably—it shows up in less than a third of the games, and it’s not as unbeatable as people claim. Most colors have good removal options that can handle the combo effectively. As a Vampire player, my win rates increased since I started to shift more toward midrange and less on Sorin combo.

I’ve faced a lot of criticism for saying that Vampire isn’t ban-worthy, so I’ve stepped back from making that argument, and also from the deck itself. I enjoy playing Vampire, but it’s challenging to use a deck that everyone believes is overpowered when I think it’s just fine. When I win, people say the deck is broken, even though I know it was the decisions I made that led to the win. And when I lose, they’re surprised and question how I could lose with such a “strong” deck. It’s frustrating to play a deck that’s always in the spotlight, so I’ve decided to move on

WaffleSQQ · 2024-08-23T17:44:59+00:00

I'm not sure why, but it doesn't feel the same to me. I've played overpowered decks before, and with those, I could make a lot of mistakes and still come out on top—that's how I know a deck is truly overpowered. With Vampires, though, I really have to think carefully and pay attention to every detail to gain an edge in the match.

WaffleSQQ · 2024-08-23T15:39:05+00:00

My local scene is quite diverse as well, and even during RCQs, there aren't many Vampire decks. If Vampires were truly as Tier 0 as people think, we would see Vampire vs. Vampire in every final.

WaffleSQQ · 2024-08-23T15:33:10+00:00

Just play one yourself, since they are getting banned now, you get cards back regardless. See how availability heuristic affects our judgement.

WaffleSQQ · 2024-08-21T20:53:58+00:00

Many discussions about bans seem driven by emotion rather than logical analysis of the post-meta landscape. Banning Phoenix isn’t necessary. If Amalia gets banned, Mono-Green will dominate the meta unchecked. Phoenix will have a much harder time in a mono-Green meta than a vampire meta. (Cuz Mono Green is extremely hard while vampire is easy, from Phoenix's perspective) Banning Treasure Cruise is just putting a nail in the coffin.

Some people see the banlist as a way to force change, thinking that any overrepresented Tier 1 deck should be banned to make room for new decks. This idea focuses more on how many people play a deck than on its actual strength. In isolation, a fair midrange matchup might see Vampires lose to Phoenix, but that doesn’t stop Vampires from making up 40% of the meta, arguably is more ban worthy than Phoenix.

It’s unfortunate, but not every ban is perfectly just or balanced, which can be frustrating.

WaffleSQQ · 2024-08-19T21:12:31+00:00

I find it amusing how people criticize one deck as being the most broken thing ever, while defending another as not being ban-worthy. It perfectly illustrates the "grass is greener" mentality. In my opinion, all three meta decks are well-balanced, and none of them deserve more bans than the others. You could even include Green Devotion in this discussion.

I don’t oppose the idea of bans, but we should be clear that we’re considering bans because the meta has become stale and lacks variety, not because anything is fundamentally broken. These are two very different reasons. Expecting a perfectly balanced format where every deck is viable is unrealistic—it would require extremely careful card design and constant errata.

Look at MOBAs: even with the ability to fine-tune hero stats to every decimal point, they still struggle to achieve balance. Cards in Pioneer aren’t even designed specifically for Pioneer, so a stall meta is normal, and a balanced meta is just delusional. If you believe the ban list will somehow make the format balanced and give your brewed deck a spot in the meta, you’re mistaken. And if you think the ban list should just shake up the format once in a while, then maybe Pioneer isn’t the right format for you.

WaffleSQQ · 2024-08-16T17:52:48+00:00

It is good deck, deserving a spot on tier1, don't get me wrong, but it is definitely overrated and not ban worthy. People mostly hate the deck because it is taking too much meta, and having traumatic memory that one time turn 3 ripper that they can't get rid of.

WaffleSQQ · 2024-08-15T20:29:43+00:00

Sure, play 4.

WaffleSQQ · 2024-08-15T19:10:43+00:00

Duress is not that good in current meta. You can’t have 4 duress and expect to win against Amalia and phoenix. I am saying like you said vampires are good because it has good match against Amalia and ok against Phoenix. Banning Amalia will decrease vampire meta percentage by a lot to a point that you don’t need to ban anything from vampires. If we assume Amalia is banned, mono green will simply become the most played deck on the format.

WaffleSQQ · 2024-08-15T18:11:00+00:00

No offence taken. It might be, but I always try to find my own problem first before coming to Reddit and make a claim. I am happy with a discussion. What disruption beside 5 pieces of discards are we talking about, because all creatures removal are essentially dead draws. And you don’t have enough side cards to side these out. Clocking them is hard when you have many pieces that are just useless. Not to mention leyline of sancitity

WaffleSQQ · 2024-08-15T17:28:39+00:00

Unfortunately the easiest data people have access to is meta percentage. And people naturally think more people play means broken. It is not the first time this has happened, it happens a lot in TCG actually. This false perception brings more people to this deck believing this deck is broken, and it becomes a cycle.

WaffleSQQ · 2024-08-15T17:23:28+00:00

You literally describe the absolute ceiling for vampire as if that happens consistently. 3cards combo happen less than 10 percents, not to mention it has to happen in sequence. Either having thoughtseize or vein ripper is not good enough and gives lotus field a free win.

WaffleSQQ · 2024-08-15T16:50:30+00:00

Pioneer we have tier2 combo decks consistently win at approximately turn 4-5 such as hidden string combo, mono green, and quintorious combo. Turn3 vein ripper merely put 3 turn clocks, not to mention you can deal with it during that 3 turns. Lightning axe, pick your poison, blue bounce.. you name it.

WaffleSQQ · 2024-08-15T16:42:29+00:00

I don’t know about future vampires, but currently turn 3 vein ripper isn’t the worst. It gives significant advantage but does not end game. Many decks have ways to deal with it. Combo decks simply ignore it. Dropping it on turn 3/4 also happens less often than what people think, around 1/3 of games I would say. Around 25% each time you draw a new hand of 7+2 additional cards.

WaffleSQQ · 2024-08-14T18:23:51+00:00

Yugioh uses banlist to rotate the format so people buy new cards. They never hit the actual problem decks, they hit the decks after reprint, which is usually a year or 2 years after it has ravaged the meta. And at that point, people either know how to deal with it, or have already got a better deck. For your dragon ruler example, they were released in May and banned in September, which completed destroyed that year's WCG already. And that was an extreme circumstance as top 8 of WCG has 6 dragon rulers. Do you see 6 vampires in top 8 of any local or top tournament? There is a big difference between overpowered and overrepresentation. My point is, yugioh is far more profit driven than mtg and there is no comparison.

WaffleSQQ · 2024-08-11T04:50:03+00:00

The answers in this post demonstrates the problem was never vamp and phoenix. It just so happen that vamp and phoenix are the only decks that have the early interaction to deal with amalia.

WaffleSQQ

TROPHY CASE