Competitive Score?
TappedOut forum
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.
It says my joke deck with only bounce lands and pacts that instantly kill you is quite competitive, while my ramunap red deck is rated as nearly completely casual? Glad to see it has it's priorities in order :P
August 27, 2017 8:45 p.m.
Oloro_Magic says... #3
Grunyarth If it's your turn 1 lose deck then for me it shows the scale greatly on the side of casual is it possible you are reading it wrong?
August 27, 2017 8:49 p.m.
Hmmm... I guess more blue means it's casual then, i thought it was since the change in color was closer to competitive... thanks
August 27, 2017 8:59 p.m.
Oloro_Magic says... #5
Grunyarth, it's also based on the size of the text, the heading "casual" is slightly larger.
August 27, 2017 10:34 p.m.
freakingShane says... #6
I still don't have this feature. Am I the only one having this issue?
August 28, 2017 6:27 p.m.
freakingShane says... #7
Never mind. Of course I read how to fix this after the matter, haha. Thanks Forkbeard and Romer for telling me to Regen Charts and be patient! :)
August 28, 2017 6:59 p.m.
freakingShane says... #8
I commented my first comment before I read about doing that, but yes, I did that and I'm all up to snuff now, SaltySpecula! :)
August 28, 2017 7:11 p.m.
xWIDOWxMAKERx says... #9
I'd say the rating doesn't account for every possible combo but rather what cards are in your deck. I'd say it's more of a card rating than a "competitive vs casual" rating since the terms competitive and casual are relative to everyone here, including the owners of this website who created this rating.
I'd create new decks that consist of one card from your existing decks and make them private and prototype so we can test this theory. See if that rating rates your card as competitive or casual and if so then that's how our decks are defined as competitive vs casual.
August 29, 2017 9:03 a.m.
xWIDOWxMAKERx says... #10
Also, don't forget to add in your lands to pay for the mana cost of said tested cards... the rating scale shows up in this forumula. For example; my 1x Wayward Servant with 1x Plains and 1x Swamp shows as more casual than competitive. I think I'm on the right track here..
August 29, 2017 9:06 a.m.
That's not how it works. You'll notice that a deck without a good landbase is always very casual, no matter how good the rest of the cards in it are. It at least takes all components of a functioning deck into account separately. Moreover, if a card is really good, but not in the particular list, it makes the list more casual. For example, putting Dark Depths into a list with Doubling Season made the deck less competitive, even though both cards are very good.
August 29, 2017 9:06 a.m.
xWIDOWxMAKERx says... #12
...Or it's en equation of the pie charts and bar graph all rolled together to create the rating system. The coding is all here on the website and formulated based on what's already coded. We just have to figure out what triggers the scale to read more competitive and we'll know how the rating system works.
August 29, 2017 9:09 a.m.
I misread your first part. I thought you meant the entire list was based off adding up individual card ratings. I think there is a generic value assigned to each card, however there is definately something that accounts for unsynergistic combos, as well as a generic list of what cards should and should not be in a certain deck type. Possibly even what decktypes are considered more competitive, though I doubt that is there so early on in the testing of it.
August 29, 2017 9:12 a.m.
xWIDOWxMAKERx says... #14
I should've tested before posting but I think it's an equation of the charts that dictate competitive vs casual. Would I be right in assuming the more cards you can cast per turn is competitive regardless of what those said cards are? These charts aren't accounting for what cards we have but rather the mana cost per card times the number of those cards vs lands in our decks to cover the cost of said cards. I think that's more accurate to assume this is how the rating works.
August 29, 2017 9:22 a.m.
UrbanAnathema says... #15
I think people are needlessly freaking out here. While the feature needs to be tweaked, it's a feature that gives some more contextual data about a deck at a glance.
I think most lists here tend toward the casual, and I think a lot of people think their decks are more competitive than they are. This gives them a better sense of where they are and pushes them in the right direction at the very least, if their goal is indeed to make a competitive list.
August 31, 2017 9:49 a.m.
That's true to an extent, but it can also negatively effect people's views on decks that are good already
August 31, 2017 9:52 a.m.
Oloro_Magic says... #17
I don't really like the feature despite my most competitive decks getting pretty good ratings (well my test deck of the tiered U/W control I have private to test against is apparently only 64% competitive), I feel while useful there isn't a good way to rate the competitiveness of a deck as you never know what may be good at any tournament, for example I once went to a tournement where a Vengeful Pharaoh deck made the top 8. All decks start as jank and this feature, while great for experienced players, may discourage newer players.
August 31, 2017 10 a.m. Edited.
xWIDOWxMAKERx says... #18
I like it. As UrbanAnathema said, "it pushes them in the right direction". I am/was just curious to know what TO considers "competitive" thus their rating system; I'm almost certain it's a combination of their pie charts and bar graph.
In any case, I think it's a nice thing to have. I've been testing my death & taxes zombie deck against my mono blue mill deck and have lost 9x out of 10 to my zombie deck. After they added the rating system, now I see why I keep losing to my zombie deck, it's more competitive which now makes sense as my other deck is more casual.
August 31, 2017 10:29 a.m.
No... it's currently based on what cards are most common in competitive tagged decks of the same deck type. I just confirmed this. Regardless, they are planning to update it to be more accurate
August 31, 2017 10:35 a.m.
machineghost says... #20
You know a company is doing something wrong when no one wants the "features" they're adding.
Take a step back Tapped Out, talk to your users, find out what you could add to the site that would actually make people happy. Don't just add craziness no one wants.
Insulting half your users by calling their competitive decks casual is definitely not the way to go.
August 31, 2017 2:54 p.m.
While I myself don't like it that much, I have to say that it was meant more as a tool than an "insult". Assuming that they tweak it to a point of accuracy, it can be helpful for players who want to make their decks more competitive
August 31, 2017 3:09 p.m.
Oloro_Magic says... #22
I agree with Qolorful this isn't a bad feature it is just a bit of a shock really. The tool itself once it is more refined (it almost feels like it could run on a neural network) could be legitimately useful. The concern I have with it is the effect it could have on a new player who thinks they have made a great deck (and they very well might have) and then see it is casual because they don't use fetches and shocks. This could be disheartening to some players so at the very least there should be some sort of explanation for the bar on the site for those new players so they understand why their decks may be considered very casual. Overall though this isn't a case of introducing a feature no one wanted, it is simply a feature that was unexpected.
August 31, 2017 3:20 p.m.
I agree that if they had a "show more" tab with the bar to explain the rating it would be a feature I enjoyed
August 31, 2017 3:30 p.m.
UrbanAnathema says... #25
machineghost You're taking Magic way too seriously if you think a graph is an insult. It's making a determination that may be flawed, but it's at least based on real data. Also, you're not Tappedout's customer. You're using their (judging from your lack of a paid account) free service. It's just another analysis of the deck. These kind of automated analysis will always have their flaws.
Getting back to the point, we're talking about a subjective term here in the first place. I think the people who are freaking out about their deck showing up as less competitive should do one of two things.
A> Re-evaluate the deck and see what you can do to improve the rating.
B> Ignore it and move on with your day.
Apparently this is only even appearing on decks with the "Competitive" tag listed. If you're stating your deck is competitive, it's useful to have an independent assessment tool of just how competitive the deck might be.
Prior to this, anyone could just slap a "Competitive" tag on any deck. I fail to see how that was any more accurate than this is. At least this is backed up my some sort of methodology, not the biased opinion of the deck's author.
August 31, 2017 6:16 p.m. Edited.
I have non-tagged decks with competetive scoring. And what if I have a deck that shows a rating above what I feel it deserves. Accuracy means nothing without detailed analysis. I'm not interested in making a deck with a high rating. I'm interested in knowing what analytics are used to make such determinations.
August 31, 2017 6:56 p.m.
UrbanAnathema says... #27
It only shows to the owner not the general public if not marked competitive per yeaGO.
As to your question, I would refer you to Option B.
The methodology will be improved. We've been given reasonably definitive answers about the existing methodology. It's not meant to be accurate. It's a Beta version of a feature of the site. Folks should take a breath.
August 31, 2017 9:09 p.m.
precociousapprentice says... #29
I am watching this feature closely. My Queen Marchesa: Politics, Aikido, and Control deck shows up as 100% Competitive. I feel like it is good, wins a lot of games in mid range and casual metas, but the power of the deck is not something I would say is able to be put into an algorithm. It has some goodstuff type cards, but also many cards that are pretty theme, and the whole is much better than any of the parts. Queen Marchesa is definitely not tier 1. I wonder where the score is coming from.
September 1, 2017 11:14 a.m. Edited.
xclickitx it has already been explained. The current method as of the most recent update we've been given is cards most common to competitive tagged decks of the same type as the deck in question, and they are working on fine tuning it with features to increase accuracy still
September 1, 2017 11:49 a.m.
Calculations have been re-tuned with additional weighting coming in from the score of decks included as source data. Please report back any changes you notice after regen'ing charts or re-saving.
September 1, 2017 12:20 p.m.
Hmmm. After that tweak, I've noticed many of my decks have shot up to 100% competitive - where they used to be around the 50-60% competitive mark. Definitely not decks I would consider competitive. I'm flattered and all just... surprised.
Best example is my worst, jankiest deck that went from like 95% casual to 100% competitive: Doran's Ent Siege
September 1, 2017 12:48 p.m.
I don't think score is a good stat to use, because two copies of the same deck with different scores would be at different levels
September 1, 2017 1:17 p.m.
Oloro_Magic says... #35
My Turns deck which was originally at 81% competitive is now 100%. Though this is a competitive deck the original score seemed more accurate considering turns' place in the modern meta.
September 1, 2017 1:33 p.m.
Will details be released when it has been finalized?
September 1, 2017 1:55 p.m.
xWIDOWxMAKERx says... #37
lol yeah, my Sands of Time went from close to 40% competitive to 100% as well.
September 1, 2017 2:51 p.m.
My cat deck shot to 100% after editing a plains vs forest. So that's what brought me here. "Arahbo roar of world's."
September 2, 2017 1:06 p.m.
seems to be spot on. It thinks that You call that a hand? is 100% competitive.
September 2, 2017 5:24 p.m.
filthyc4sual says... #41
It thinks that Cloudy with a Chance of Elfball is 100% competitive too. Which it is ;)
September 2, 2017 5:27 p.m.
Vessiliana says... #44
Well, now all my decks are suddenly 100% Competitive. That seems weird.
September 4, 2017 3:57 a.m.
What does it mean if your deck is 100% competitive? Does it mean that it's good?
September 4, 2017 8:44 a.m.
areyoulookingatmyboobs says... #46
I'm a very new EDH player, and very casual. I've been tweeking my deck a bit, but after this update my competitiveness score shot up from like 23% to 100%. I'm flattered and all, but I know that ain't right.
Keep tweaking...it's a good idea despite what all the hand-wringers will tell you. I do think including a little link under the chart for "how is this calculated" would help people understand whether they want to pay attention to it or not.
September 4, 2017 12:32 p.m.
Where exactly is this "Regen Charts" button? I've never seen it before and I've yet to find it since reading this thread.
September 4, 2017 7:29 p.m.
Yeah, so I had a deck that was showing 92% casual- but I had just marked 19 island and 18 swamp (edh)to keep an accurate card count while i was building. Later, when I went back and fleshed out the mana with actual non basic lands, it jumped to 100% competitive.
September 7, 2017 1:26 p.m.
I think the competitiveness is based off of converted mana cost which seems pretty stupid to me
September 10, 2017 6:14 p.m.
I've seen a change in my decks' scores over the past few days. It's still a wonky metric, IMO, but it appears to have been tweaked this week.
Qolorful says... #1
Are you talking about the bar when you paste the decklist in? Like it shows you the most recommended to put in on one page and the most recommended to remove on the other?. I think the 89 assigned to DD was a score of 89 on the bad choice scale
August 27, 2017 5:35 p.m.