Yesterday's Challenge Breakdown sparked some discussion. To be fair whenever I write about the dominance of Gush and Monarch the words start to fly. Still, I decided to go back and look at how these macro-archetypes have performed over a longer time span. I decided to start at the release of Ravnica Allegiance. I selected this point because it would give data from before the release of Ultimate Masters and the downshifting of Foil - a card that helped pushed Gush decks up another notch. This would give a decent before and after snapshot.
Unlike yesterday I will not be looking at Top 8s. Instead I will be going back to the Win+ metric. Win+ assigns a point value for each win above the last list with a winning or neutral record. Over the time period covered, this means that an X-2 record yielded a Win+ of score of 1. For each individual event I summed the Win+ score and then recorded the Win+ totals of Gush and Monarch, thus obtaining the win share of these macro-archetypes. These chart goes back to September 30th and includes every open Challenge between that date and April 7th. The only event not included is the March 31st Pauper Playoff. There were 27 different challenges tracked.
Gush only dipped below 20% of all Win+ points once in the time span recorded. It has just as many days around 60% as it does around 20%. On March 10th Gush had its best day over the past half a year and topped 71% of Win+. Over this span, Gush decks averaged 39.55% of all Win+ awarded (which follows the trend line).
Where Gush lives between 20% and 60%, Monarch lives between 5% and 40%. Monarch has a stronger growth trend than Gush but still closing the chart at under 40% - where Gush started. Monarch has three days above 40%. Over the time span measured, Monarch decks averaged 24.85% of all Win+ awarded.
And here is where we end up. Gush and Monarch, combined, rarely dip below 50% of all Win+ awarded. Small sample size is something to consider but this is over half a year's worth of data. Combined these two macro-archetypes averaged 64.39% of all Win+ awarded over these 27 Challenges. The trend line starts at 35% and ends at over 75% - that's a fairly consistent level of growth over six months. More than that, every time there is a downward turn the trend lasts for a week or two at most before they bounce back in force.
A Win+ of 1 equates to a Top 16 finish on average. Over the course of 6 months, Gush and Monarch can be said to have claimed almost 65% of all Top 16 slots, leaving 35% for every other archetype in the format.
And here is the rub. Pauper is an eternal format. For some that means playing with powerful cards and having a top tier that is relatively stable. For others that means being able to play with a wide variety of archetypes and having a chance to succeed. I tend to fall in the latter camp. I want Pauper to be a format of powerful things. At the same time I want it to be a place where, at the highest level of competition, people do not feel compelled to run either Gush or Monarch.
The data set used here is not perfect - it draws exclusively from Magic Online because that is where I can pull full Top 32 data. Still, over a fairly long span of time these two mechanics have proven themselves to be a good deal better than everything else in Pauper.
2019 is going to be a banner year for Pauper. I want to continue to be at the forefront of the metagame. If you like the work I do, please consider becoming a Patron. Thank you!
2 comments:
I appreciate all the attention to the warping of the format. I, too, enjoy the diversity of archetypes. But I would really prefer to leave Gush alone. It's banned in every other format. Cant't WOTC find a way to hobble blue without getting rid of such a fun card?
In my opinion, the "power level" argument (that is used to protect some cards from bans in pauper) is totally pointless for two reasons: 1) "power level" is relative. There's no absolutes in this discussion. Lotus petal may be a powerful card, but it pales next to black lotus. The power of a specific card or deck is determined by the comparison with other cards and decks. With that said, a brainstorm is a powerful card, but is even more powerful in legacy than pauper. Foil is a fringe card in legacy, but it can save games in pauper. A pauper deck will never be as powerful as a modern, legacy or vintage deck. It doesn't even make sense to compare with a commander deck, that is from a completly different format. So that leaves us with comparing pauper w/ standard, and takes me to my second point; 2) The format is difined by itself. By that I mean that formats are different in what they have access to, how they play, what cards they use, and pauper is very different from other formats (every format is a format on it's own). Some old hate cards, some sweepers, that see no play in legacy (for example), could totally ruin the pauper format, not only because they would be too powerful for the format, but because they mess with the way the format works. Formats play differently and pauper has it's own way. Some great standard cards could not see play (because of speed, or color variety), while other cards that see heavy play in pauper make no sense in other formats. In the end, my point is: there's no real point in talking about "power level". The format has to be healthy and has to make sense on it's own. It doesn't matter if the pauper format "loses power level" if it gets healthyer and more cohesive. Take a pyroclasm downshift, that is nothing special of a card, and you ruin pauper as it is today. Planar void, same thing.
I allways follow your word and like it very much. I do agree that this is a hot topic, tho I agree that pauper could use some bans. I'd deffinetly give a way a few cards for more decks.
Keep up with the good work.
Post a Comment