BW-on Meta Match-ups Thread (Only designated contributors may record rounds)

RE: BW-on Meta Match-ups Thread (Record your rounds here!)

RobertBenjamin said:
There is a disadvantage in doing that which is your sample size will be small and biased towards the deck-building preferences of the players you choose to be in the said team. You have to keep in mind the meta covers a wide range of players and not a limited number of players.

The clear example of this was the fate of the Top Cut folks who played among themselves prior to Nationals and came to the tourney with decks that reflected the builds that suited the match-ups against themselves and not against the wide meta. This resulted in none of them making top cut in US Nationals.
Click to expand...

There are inaccuracies in any way I do it, and this way is a lot easier to record. Not to mention the contributor team will continue to grow.
The way we're doing it now is having a small group of players who are about the same skill level playing every deck, if we accepted players of other skill levels it would throw off the data too much.
Also, they will not apply to just that skill level, there's a saying that goes "as above, so below," and in statistics that means if something is true for one group, it can likely be true for another group, for example, if I interview 10 people about whether or not they like the taste of blood, and 9 of them say yes, it's reasonably fair of me to assume that those 9 people speak for 90% of the people in that area, and so that way I don't have to ask everybody in town the same question.
If you think you're around the same skill level as the current team and would like a spot on the contributors list, PM me with the application.
 
RE: BW-on Meta Match-ups Thread (Record your rounds here!)

I am not interested if the results will be based on a small number of people play testing the decks. I do hope you forewarn people that your results is based on a subset of players and might not reflect the match-ups in their specific meta in their local leagues. Good luck and more power in your efforts though.
 
What we are trying to do (I think) is to see what each decks matchups are.
Ex. (this isn't legit)
Ho-oh vs. Garchomp/Altaria
Trying to find out which deck beats what.
 
RobertBenjamin said:
I am not interested if the results will be based on a small number of people play testing the decks. I do hope you forewarn people that your results is based on a subset of players and might not reflect the match-ups in their specific meta in their local leagues. Good luck and more power in your efforts though.
Click to expand...
Okay, but as I just said, the idea is that if we keep it strictly to this skill level it is more likely that it will reflect other skill levels or metas.
 
RobertBenjamin said:
There is a disadvantage in doing that which is your sample size will be small and biased towards the deck-building preferences of the players you choose to be in the said team. You have to keep in mind the meta covers a wide range of players and not a limited number of players.

The clear example of this was the fate of the Top Cut folks who played among themselves prior to Nationals and came to the tourney with decks that reflected the builds that suited the match-ups against themselves and not against the wide meta. This resulted in none of them making top cut in US Nationals.
Click to expand...

I agree. Seeing as you're running a statisctic on how decks do against other decks, there are too many variables that can affect the outcome of the matches for you to have a set group of "Contributors"

Player Matchups:

Beginners vs Beginners
Beginners vs Intermediates
Beginners vs Advanced
Intermediates vs Advanced
Advanced vs Advanced

The degree of difficulty varies on the skill level of the players, I.E, Advanced player vs Beginner Player. This way, an advanced player can post results for a Tier 2 deck (for example) as being a tier 1.5 to 1 just because they're winning against players with less skill.


Deckbuilding Skills:

The same model applies to this section. An advanced player with better deckbuilding skills can, and will outplay an intermediate or beginning player. Players that know how to handle a certain deck will know how to get around or deal with it, anticipating what the opponent is trying to achieve.

Teching: Intermediate - Advanced players have better judgement on what should be teched into a certain deck. Not all decks have techs, but can be gamechaning.

Net-Decking: Newer players will use tournament winning lists (Proven, Strong decks) but will lose to the better player because they don't know how to pilot the deck well enough, especially in certain situations that can determine the outcome of the game. This can (to a certain degree) make a good deck, look bad, based on these statistics.


These are just a few things that can affect the results of your surveying. Like Robert said, if you have the better players going out there to get the results, you're missing important data because you're setting a bias by reducing the amount of data being reported. Whether your "contributors" are advanced players or not.


LORDY JONES said:
There are inaccuracies in any way I do it, and this way is a lot easier to record. Not to mention the contributor team will continue to grow.
The way we're doing it now is having a small group of players who are about the same skill level playing every deck, if we accepted players of other skill levels it would throw off the data too much.
Also, they will not apply to just that skill level, there's a saying that goes "as above, so below," and in statistics that means if something is true for one group, it can likely be true for another group, for example, if I interview 10 people about whether or not they like the taste of blood, and 9 of them say yes, it's reasonably fair of me to assume that those 9 people speak for 90% of the people in that area, and so that way I don't have to ask everybody in town the same question.
If you think you're around the same skill level as the current team and would like a spot on the contributors list, PM me with the application.
Click to expand...

By picking your surveyors, you are removing the "community" feel to the statistic. Not all players will be able to submit results because they aren't good enough to meet your standards.


LORDY JONES said:
Okay, but as I just said, the idea is that if we keep it strictly to this skill level it is more likely that it will reflect other skill levels or metas.
Click to expand...

If you are basing your stats on a certain skill level, this wont provide accurate data for OTHER skill levels or metas. Just because Masters division is tearing up the meta with a certain deck doesn't mean Juniors and Seniors will.
 
Thanks Puckstopper, I see what you're saying now.
That's quite the post by the way.
In any case, I'm happy with the way we're doing things now and I don't think I'll be changing it. It seems that with every option there are too many things that can be wrong with the way we do it, so I'm just gonna stick to the way that is easiest on myself.
 
On the other hand, what LJ is doing is removing the uncertainty of the very random variable which is skill level. By using players with almost equal skill level, the assumption is made that these results will be applied to intermediate/expert level. In the end, this is what we always look at. Testing decks are only accurate when players are of the intermediate/expert level and not of those beginners.

What LJ is doing is simply removing the uncertainty and randomness that having everyone from the community contribute. We all know PB isn't the most competitive forum in here which is why LJ is right in picking out specific players.

But you have to put the decklists on the front page as basis for your decks.
 
iisnumber12 said:
Ho-oh EX

vs. Garchomp 4-0
vs. Hydreigon 4-3
vs. Empoleon 3-1
Click to expand...

I guess it can still be accurate to some extent.. At least for your pool of players.. I'll send in an application.
 
Alrighty, here's tonights and todays game records:

Hammertime

VS Darkrai/Hydreigon/Mewtwo/registeel 1-0
VS Garchomp Alteria 3-1
VS Gothitelle/Accelgor/Darkrai/Mew 1-0
VS Terrakion/Terrakion EX 1-1
VS Zekeels 1-0
 
Darkrai/Sableye/Crushing Hammer/Enhanced Hammer? haha

dmaster out.
 
Terrakion EX/Terrakion/Mewtwo EX
2-0 Amoonguss Ninetales (Who adds in Sableye to dat (Catcher fodder a bit??)
 
Updated thread with everything but the Hammertime stuff, I'll add hammertime and it's games so far to the thread tomorrow.
 
Empoleon beat Zekeels 2-1
D/H beat Zekeels 4-1
Garchomp lost to Zekeels 1-2
Ho-oh lost to Zekeels 1-2

And yes we were testing Zekeels :p.

Garchomp is actually 3 3 vs. Zekeels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top