Posted on Aug. 25, 2017, 7:15 p.m. by Forkbeard
Just noticed the new 'Competitive Score' chart (right-hand side under the Mana-curve chart). I'd be curious to know how this score is calculated. Neat feature!
Perhaps proves what I've always known to be true, I'm a filthy casual.
Yeah, what a cool feature!
Little feedback on it: It would be cool if when I hover-over the graph, it told me a more precise %. You know, so I can brag when my Mimeo deck is more competitive than Forkbeard's.
August 25, 2017 7:24 p.m.
Where is this feature? I'm not seeing it on any of my decks.
August 25, 2017 7:26 p.m.
Update a deck or perhaps just 'Regen Charts' on the left (left-hand side, 3rd button from the bottom).
All of my decks have it now.
August 25, 2017 7:28 p.m.
It's new! Try clicking the button to "Regen Charts" on the left-hand side, near the bottom of all the buttons. Then wait 1-2 minutes and refresh the page. It'll magically appear under the mana curve chart.
August 25, 2017 7:29 p.m.
However it's calculated, it needs some work. It's telling me my deck Budget Robot Zoo is 2x more competitive than my bogles deck, which is very wrong (unless my zoo deck is better than I thought...?).
August 25, 2017 10:31 p.m.
Yeah, it says my deck Whack them bushes is more competitive than my most competitive deck, Cloudy with a Chance of Elfball, which is the same as my incredibly inconsistent janky combo deck built around Trash for Treasure. I like that it exists, but I don't think it's right.
August 25, 2017 10:46 p.m.
Yeah, the scaling does seem quite off. Of be interested to learn how its calculating.
August 26, 2017 12:37 a.m.
It claims all of my decks are competitive, so naturally I have no complaints.
August 26, 2017 2:01 a.m.
The real question is, are all of your decks competitive?
August 26, 2017 2:03 a.m.
Developers of the feature should show the data and metrics it uses. I'd like to know, and the feature seems somewhat arbitrary without numbers to support it.
August 26, 2017 3:50 a.m.
I saw it on my EDH decks and at least it got right that my stax and combo decks are almost at 100% while the aggro decks have only around 75%...looks like it knows what kind of cards are good in a certain format, maybe it compares them to the tags used for the decks
August 26, 2017 6:07 a.m.
..very slightly triggers me if we're being honest. I don't like an arbitrary score being slapped on my deck telling me how good it is, even if the score is high.
August 26, 2017 6:54 a.m.
I think it is impossible to score most decks accurately with any formula. Like, how can it possibly test all the interactions of the deck and all the combos, ect.. Like, I could make a deck that used all EDH staples and have labeled competitive if that's how they rate it, and it most certainly wouldn't be. Moreover, does it have a way for accounting for current metas? I could have a solid deck for last year that would get crushed now. That being said, I can't blame it for telling i'm a filthy casual, because well... It's not wrong.
August 26, 2017 8:49 a.m.
The feature is cool, but it's basically useless. As stated, how can an algorithm calculate the competitiveness of a deck? If it's not a tier 1, built by a GP winner in the current meta, your deck will never be up to competitive par. A playset of one card that hasn't been used in a competitive deck, could throw a potential tournament stormer into the "casual" area.
August 26, 2017 9:09 a.m.
To help drive said point home, consider that four bone pickers made it into amonkhet protour (as far as I can remember, correct me if I'm wrong), and they made finals.
August 26, 2017 9:19 a.m.
I think it should be a manual thing. You should be able to set it yourself to tell people how competitive a deck is, instead of an algorithm trying to figure out every complex card interaction.
August 26, 2017 9:40 a.m.
If a new set comes out, and a released card enhances a meta- Fraying Sanity in Mill for example- how does the website account for the increased synergies of cards that weren't used before the card was released?
I honestly don't like this feature. It's simply too general with an algorithm that can't possibly account for the variables of flavor and deckbuilding.
August 26, 2017 9:42 a.m.
Here's a question for the thread:
Would seeing a "casual" rating on a deck make you less likely to upvote/give advice? Why?"
I'm interested to see how this will effect people on a deck viewing level, not just a personal building level.
August 26, 2017 9:49 a.m.
I personally dont plan on even looking at the rating level until they at least explain how it works. I think some people will let it affect them negatively in terms of giving advice or even just being open minded to the deck in general, while others will likely be more likely to comment on a "casual" deck.
August 26, 2017 10:05 a.m.
I feel it is more of an EDH oriented rating. At least at the moment, I think the scoring is just a value they assign to each card. Which explains why non singleton-format-decks get weird scores. They might consist of a couple of playsets with high ratings but no synergy between each other but the scoring rates them "competitive".
August 26, 2017 11:47 a.m.
Seams to appear on some of my decks but not on others. Hitting "regen charts", or making an "edit" and save does nothing
August 26, 2017 1:03 p.m.
It doesn't show if your deck is private, when you've unprivated it you have to open it in another tap. If it still doesn't show just refresh a couple times.(This is what i've been doing)
August 26, 2017 1:16 p.m.
Oh really? I could only get it to work when it wasn't private.. Aite then
August 26, 2017 1:25 p.m.
That's super cute. I like looking at it. But I don't believe in it at all. It creates perception that doesn't need to be there. I don't think it has any merit to its account. I imagine a HUGE amount of posted decks are made with some local play in mind. To gauge even a tier deck that is tuned for local meta takes it out of the entire average because it isn't tuned to beat a pro meta. Is your deck bad? Maybe it's not as good against the meta average but if your local meta is skewed then you do what works for you. So does this mean your deck is less competitive in a pro meta versus an LGS, you bet. But how do you distinguish that in one cohesive score? You simply can't without a massive increase in the magnitude of records keeping.
I know this is splitting hairs. I just don't know how blind data like this is a good thing. This either needs to go or we need legitimate metrics It probably still should go. I'll take it as an option on settings.
August 26, 2017 1:47 p.m.
I agree, it needs to go. It's unnecessary, influences subjective perception, and in turn, will make metas less diversified by forcing users (that perceive this graph to be of merit) to use the same cards as everyone else's competitive deck.
Love the site, but even great sites make bad decisions sometimes!
August 26, 2017 1:55 p.m.
i think it goes by a combination of what hubs you have it listed under as well as cards that see the most play in the format the deck is in. at least thats my guess. so in that case, its not super reliable.
August 26, 2017 2:03 p.m.
I don't like it at all. There's obviously no algorithm that makes any sense here (or the Pros would be using it!) so it's nothing but a waste of screen space.
August 26, 2017 2:15 p.m.
Made display private to users for now, unless the deck is flagged Competitive. Will add additional options later.
The algorithm is a rough draft, which we will be tweaking as early as this coming week. Thanks for all the useful feedback.
August 26, 2017 2:39 p.m.
What is the algorithm actually based on currently though?
August 26, 2017 2:42 p.m.
Its based on the currently tagged casual and competitive decks on the site. Obviously, there is a lot of murky data lurking there, but as with most features on the site, its better to start rough and get feedback and tune. There's a lot of data, so there are a lot of knobs we can tune to try to shape the result into something that makes sense and is agreeable to most folks.
August 26, 2017 2:46 p.m.
I think the main difficulty will come with judging the synergies with an algorithm. There are a lot of cards out there that are only good because of other cards you pair them with
August 26, 2017 2:51 p.m.
yes, we've kept that in mind and it should account for that. it is not a flat "competitive score per card" as some have wondered.
August 26, 2017 2:54 p.m.
I don't know that you can use any of the player input. What someone flags might not be objective.
August 26, 2017 3:07 p.m.
@yeaGO, I also believe that the community doesn't care for it, because as Magic players, we have a need to understand a thing. This new, seemingly, subjective graph appears, and we don't have a clue as to how it works or how it's calculated. We become dubious like cavemen seeing fire for the first time. XD
Before we give constructive feedback, could you educate us a little more about how it works? I feel it would put a lot of minds at ease, and begin a more productive line of feedback for you.
August 26, 2017 4:08 p.m.
JUST DO IT THIS WAY yeaGO:
GRUUL? AWESOME DECK. VERY COMPETITIVE.
NOT GRUUL? THEN DIE!
SERIOUSLY THAT WOULD BE MORE USEFUL FOR MOST PEOPLE. PLEASE AT LEAST LET US TURN IT OFF.
August 26, 2017 7:11 p.m.
once its tweaked pretty well, i think just leave it to where it comes up only if you have the "competitive" tag on the deck selected, or rather its hidden from public view without competitive. but like i said, once its tweaked to where its determined according to a lot of factors.
August 26, 2017 10:20 p.m.
I've used one site that works waaaay better than this: https://edhrec.com/recs/ . It only works for commander but it actually rates each card's synergy in your deck and reccomends more synergistic combos.
August 27, 2017 7:47 a.m.
chaus12 I've used EDHREC for a while and never seen this feature. It's pretty solid actually! only, do you know what the percentages actually represent?
August 27, 2017 8:43 a.m.
The synergy percentages in EDHREC are calculated by the number of decks of any commander that play it minus the number of decks in that color combination that play it.
August 27, 2017 11:43 a.m.
filthyc4sual, do you mean (# of this-colored decks with it) / (# of total decks with it)? In other words how synergistic it is with this color combination specifically as opposed to their colors?
August 27, 2017 12:22 p.m.
Lets use an example commander. is a Sultai (BUG) commander. Dread Return sees play in 62% of Sidisi decks and has +40% synergy with Sidisi. This is calculated by taking the number of Sidisi decks Return sees play in MINUS the number of Sultai decks Return sees play in. If we look at , we see that Return sees play in 22% of these decks. 62% of Sidisi decks minus 22% of Sultai decks means it has +40% synergy with Sidisi
August 27, 2017 12:58 p.m.
So that card has that much synergy with that commander as compared to those colors?
August 27, 2017 1:04 p.m.
Yes. The problem is when something like Palinchron sees play in both Animar, Soul of Elements and Riku of Two Reflections and it has 0 synergy with both even though it goes infinite with them, or something similar.
August 27, 2017 5:14 p.m.
Thanks, that helps a bit. Though I'm not sure it helps understand why it says Dark Depths has 89% synergy with Ghave, Guru of Spores, even though it is rarely played in ghave lists. It says it is the most unique card choice in my current list