Just how important is the Standard meta-game? Important enough to run endless data analysis scripts pulling information from countless replays of games on Magic Online for the sole purpose of identifying which decks are actually the most successful? Important enough to demand that people stop doing that exact analysis? This is the question that came up this past week when it became public information that Wizards had asked MTG Goldfish to stop publishing the match-up statistics they were gathering from Magic Online. The community outrage was predictable but the valuable questions still linger unanswered.

Should MTG Goldfish Solve Standard?

First off, let’s make sure we’re all on the same page here with what happened. Here’s the statement from MTG Goldfish that was left on Reddit:

R&D contacted us and asked us to remove the matchup win percentages and analysis. This was the feature that said Jeskai was 55% favored against Abzan Aggro. This feature was removed back in September. The winning decklists, the metagame breakdown, the strategy articles, and basically everything you see on the site today is unaffected and will continue to be there.
-MTG Goldfish (via Reddit)

Win percentage isn’t necessarily the most important statistic that MTG Goldfish is gathering here. I think the deck lists and the meta-game breakdown are more valuable. The win percentages however have a very specific and obvious effect on the Standard environment. People play the decks that have higher winning percentages. While none of this is necessarily news, the speed at which these percentages were being produced was happening at an alarming rate.

We asked MTGGoldfish to suspend the Constructed Metagame series on MTGGoldfish that compiles large volumes of MTGO tournament results to paint a picture of a current Constructed format. While these articles are informative and interesting, we feel that this level of data-driven metagame analysis ultimately damages the health of those formats.

Magic thrives on being a recurring puzzle for players to solve, and intensive data mining leads to a more rapid understanding of a new metagame. Solving the puzzle then becomes less interesting, and the format grows stale ahead of its time. The number of tournament-viable deck options for players is reduced, and player interest in the format shrinks along with it. This hurts everyone creating content for Magic players, which is ultimately why we stopped publishing such a high volume of winning MTGO decklists on our own site, and why other Magic content sites have also subscribed to this philosophy after becoming aware of this impact.

We appreciate MTGGoldfish’s cooperation in this matter, and while we expect some readers will be disappointed by this news, we hope players will understand that the decision comes from our desire to keep the game as healthy as possible.
-Wizards of the Coast (via Reddit)

So What’s the Outrage?

The Magic community isn’t thrilled about Wizards telling them what they can and cannot do in this case for a variety of reasons. For the most part, the community is very analytical and enjoys meta-game analysis of this depth. They want more numbers, more statistics, and more data. For Wizards to deny the community this data is a slap in the face to everyone that was voraciously consuming it. If Wizards has a problem with the meta-game then they should build a better meta-game, or they should just accept it and solve it in a way that doesn’t hurt the community. Furthermore, there is a strong sentiment that the data is still available, but just not available publicly. Anyone with access to the data will have a clear edge over people who don’t have access to that data. This creates a new level of privileged players that previously did not exist when the data was publicly available.

Is the Outrage Justified?

Somewhat yes and somewhat no. Let’s look at the claims Wizards makes in their request. First up, “Magic thrives on being a recurring puzzle for players to solve.” This couldn’t be less true. Mark Rosewater’s own psychographics of why people play Magic splits the community into three core personalities, none of which are into solving the meta-game. Only Spike wants to solve the meta-game as quickly as possible in order to win with the best deck. The J-Type personality is interested in flashy and clever plays while the T-Type personality wants to do big and impressive things. Neither the J or T players are really interested in the meta-game puzzle unless they’re also partly an S-Type player as well. Which personality thrives on the recurring puzzle?

Continuing on, “intensive data mining leads to a more rapid understanding of a new metagame. Solving the puzzle then becomes less interesting, and the format grows stale ahead of its time.” Standard as we know it lasts for approximately three months. If the format is “solved” in the first month through MTGO data mining, the implication is that people stop playing. Wizards goes on, “The number of tournament-viable deck options for players is reduced, and player interest in the format shrinks along with it.” Magic is a complex game and the idea that there really are only two or three best decks is deeply concerning for the design and development of the game. Shouldn’t the onus be on Wizards to build a better puzzle, not on the players to stop solving it so quickly?

Lastly, “This hurts everyone creating content for Magic players, which is ultimately why we stopped publishing such a high volume of winning MTGO decklists on our own site, and why other Magic content sites have also subscribed to this philosophy after becoming aware of this impact.” Okay, wow. Wizards is actually blaming this on the fact that content creators lose out? I’m not going to lie, at least 50% of content out there is trying to figure out what the best deck in Standard is. Wizards is deeply concerned that this content goes away when the meta-game is solved to early in its life. Again, is that a problem for the puzzle-maker or the puzzle-solver?

Do We Need Better Puzzles?

Of course, the answer isn’t necessarily building a better puzzle. Perhaps the onus should be on the puzzle-solving process. After all, there’s another puzzle to be solved that I don’t think Wizards is giving enough credit for. Once we know what the best decks in the format are, how do we actually play them to the best of our ability? You see, Magic, like any competition, is always going to be a copycat game. Look no further than MTG Goldfish’s weekly budget column. Every week Saffron Olive shows off a new 25-ticket deck and a few days later every single card has doubled in value. People see something successful and they want to do the same thing. This is why meta-game analysis of any type is valuable. Copying deck lists from the internet is literally almost as old as the game itself.

So why isn’t there more focus on actually playing the game of Magic? Why aren’t tournament coverage and content creation and the player community able to shift gears away from solving the meta-game puzzle and more towards analyzing the actual play-skill and lines-of-play employed by top Magic players. After all, that’s really what distinguishes a player like Patrick Chapin from someone like me. Sure, I could play the exact same 75 cards at a tournament, but the odds of Chapin finishing higher are pretty good, because he’s a more skilled player.

Moving Forwards

When the meta-game ultimately gets solved we should embrace that fact with open arms. The first puzzle is solved. It’s like a multi-layered dungeon. You cracked the first code and were rewarded with an awesome magical weapon. Now you have to move on to the next level of the dungeon where you actually learn to use and master that weapon. Magic is much the same. We spend some time solving the first puzzle and then we can focus on a greater puzzle. We complete the dungeon and move on to the next one when the format changes  with the release of a new set.

Do you know what really kills player interest in a format? Decks that cost a thousand dollars kill interest in a format. Competitive circuits that force the same format down our throats week after week kill interest in a format. A poor narrative and uninteresting coverage at major events kills interest in a format. Knowing which deck is the best deck doesn’t kill interest in a format. After-all, the Legacy meta-game has basically been solved for years but just over 2,000 players traveled to Seattle for the Grand Prix a couple weeks ago.

The bottom line is this: If Magic is ever going to be a wildly successful competitive game that attracts fans and viewers to watch the Pro Tour, then it’s going to have to be able to survive the kind of scrutiny and analysis that MTG Goldfish had been providing. Otherwise the ceiling for competitive Magic is going to be reached as quickly as meta-games are being solved.

What We Learned is a weekly feature here at Hipsters of the Coast written by former amateur Magic Player Rich Stein, who came really close to making day two of a Grand Prix on several occasions. Each week we will take a look at the past seven days of major events, big news items, and community happenings so that you can keep up-to-date on all the latest and greatest Magic: the Gathering community news.

Don't Miss Out!

Sign up for the Hipsters Newsletter for weekly updates.