Is it the format that's stale - or the players?

[wilyfungi]

Vileplume decks won 8 states; the top three cards are Luxray GL Lv. X, Garchomp C Lv. X, and Vileplume under the current rule format.

How many of the rogue decks won tournaments with a lot of people? I am not trying to be condescending because I am from a big state, but it is simply easier to place high with a Charizard when only one or two Gyarados are at your tournament. It is not an argument against the format being stale, in my eyes.

I think even in a format where you cannot really beat decks because of a specific day plan, it is fun - you can play Gyarados like 4 different "legitimate" ways. As someone who played MagnetsRock and tested it obsessively, I have to agree that Magnezone is not an answer to the top decks because of its inconsistent starts, Luxchomp punishes that too much

@kwisdumb you make a really interesting point (your initial post); I have no idea which I would rather have, but interesting to consider...I think I might not enjoy it as much, as I am a person who gets extremely bored of decks after about 2-3 months. I agree that your day pretty much comes down to your matchups right now though.

@chrataxe I do not think there is a good way to compensate for the fact that in a top 4 of 4 Luxchomps, 3 Luxchomps still have to lose for the 1 that wins. There is simply no true way to measure the true BDIF like that, since being used so much helps Luxchomp winning so much, but often runs into a log jam of 3 or 4 in the top 4, thus hindering other Luxchomps from winning directly. You do not have many finals of Vilegar/Vilegar, on the other hand.

Also, whoever said 80%, lol come on. Not everyone is making a deck with 1-3 $50 cards, and you cannot categorize other sp decks as "luxchomp variants". Luxchomp, Blazechomp, Dialgachomp, and Sableock are different decks. While Garchomp remains the key force in general, Luxchomp is the best because it has Luxray, and it is not like the constructions share 50/60 cards.

 

[chrataxe]

Chrataxe, you're making extrapolations that aren't supported by the parameters of your data collection.

1.) You're assuming that reported Top Cut is representative of the field as a whole.
3.) You weight all metagames equally (but that's another basket).
2.) If I'm not mistaken, the predictive power of your power ranking statistic increases with the sample size. E.g., at low frequencies, the predictive power decays. In other words, decks with very few top cut appearances/wins cannot necessarily be claimed to be "better" if played in greater proportions, as you have much less certainty.

1. I don't assume the reported TC is a representative of the field as a whole. I assume that the field has the same matchups, regardless...meaning, Dialga will always dominant Vilegar, Vilegar will always dominate Gyarados. I also assume that the field that doesn't top cut doesn't matter since a lot of that field is subpar players and bad decks.
3.(?) I don't weigh all metagames the same, hence my reply to Shadowguard. In my reply, I said that the stats I provided are a bit inconclusive as they don't have my analysis along with it. The stats aren't wrong. I can guarantee that I can make 20 predictions with my stats and hit 19 of them easily.
2.(?) I think I get what you are saying, but I'm not entirely sure. Is there more uncertainty with lesser numbers? Of course, but that is a statistical flaw, not a logical flaw. But, I can still make a logical conclusion and continue to collect data and see if my later data collection supporters my previous assumptions. I can say, thus far, they have. What I will say as a direct answer to you is this: I cannot actually claim the decks would do better because if the decks were played more, the meta would shift, thus making these stats essentially worthless because the stats are only good the the meta the were calculated in. As far as that goes, lets not look at this as the peanuts they are, lets remember to take into account the larger meta game. The larger the tournament, the better these numbers become because they encompass a larger meta.

So, let me clarify a bit:

1. Don't think of it as a "Power Ranking," I just couldn't find a better word for it. Nothing is weighted in it. If it were a true "Power Ranking," it would have a few things weighted, like win percentage, prevalence, and wins. Think of it this way: we KNOW Vilegar is a good deck. Despite the fact that it is good, Luxchomp out top cut Vilegar 5:1but its winning ratio was 2.8:1. We have plenty of data collected, so I think we can rule out (to a certain degree) bad data. So, here is the assumption I make; Luxchomp is the most predominant T1 deck out there. Being as that is the case, it doesn't matter how much Luxchomp is in the field, Vilegar will always have the same matchup against Luxchomp. So, if we assume that, lets say, one third of all Luxchomp players switched to Vilegar, Vilegar would easily out perform Luxchomp.

2. I think you are taking my stats waaaay out of proportion. The whole point of the thread is whether or not the players in the format are stale. The sole purpose of me putting those stats out there was to illustrate that there other decks that are doing very well, despite not seeing near as much play as Luxchomp and that IF they did see more play, the format wouldn't be as stale. Since the format doesn't change yet it could be less Stale, the only variable is PLAYER'S deck choice...and PLAYERS are choosing to play Luxchomp without even looking into or trying anything else, my stats merely point out that there are other viable options.

And, for what its worth, my meta-game analysis is posted here:

http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1976588#post1976588

---------- Post added 04/12/2011 at 11:50 PM ----------

@chrataxe I do not think there is a good way to compensate for the fact that in a top 4 of 4 Luxchomps, 3 Luxchomps still have to lose for the 1 that wins. There is simply no true way to measure the true BDIF like that, since being used so much helps Luxchomp winning so much, but often runs into a log jam of 3 or 4 in the top 4, thus hindering other Luxchomps from winning directly. You do not have many finals of Vilegar/Vilegar, on the other hand.

Sure you can, that is the concept of prevalence. Prevalence stands to reason that the more a deck is played, the more it will play itself. The less it is played, the less it will play itself. The other side to that coin that you flip is this: IF Vilegar was in the TC 71 times, it would have had a lot of mirrors. But, again, I also say to you the same thing I said to SG and to P_F, these numbers aren't meant to show any sort of analysis for the purpose of determining BDIF, they are simply here to show that there are other viable decks that are winning that aren't seeing much play and if they saw more play, would win more, thus the format wouldn't be as stale....AND, since the format isn't changing, the only variable is players choice.

 

[wilyfungi]

if anything, sableye run decks and vileplume run (namely gengar) decks are the only ones that seem to have an argument based on the evidence...extrapolating arceus winning Idaho into anything is especially ludicrous; the rest of the decks would very quickly fall far below luxchomp in %...they could win more, but would also lose way more, hence "stale"...I think I would interpret the "prevalence" as meaningful if they were all adjusted for state attendance size, otherwise all it says right now is maybe sableye/vileplume should be played more, dialgachomp should be played less imo

 

[NoPoke]

you can "prove" just about anything with numbers I tend to switch off the moment that I see an inappropriate level of precision in the processed data.

8 out of 10 cats agree.

 

[gallade]

you can "prove" just about anything with numbers I tend to switch off the moment that I see an inappropriate level of precision in the processed data.

8 out of 10 cats agree.

I remember seeing something like this in the onion.

It was asking kids "do you think that obamas new health plan is terrible, and would you like a lollipop?" 9/10 kids agree.