Home | About | Tournament Winning Decklists | Forums

Colorado Regional Results and Top 16 Decklists


#1

Top 16 Decklists Here!

I don’t know if y’all have heard, but uh… I like stats and numbers and stuff. Enjoy! :smile:


2016 Colorado Regional - ANALYTICS & T16 DECKLISTS POSTED
#2

Holy crap. That’s a LOT of stats. How hard was it to compile all this? This is awesome to see, excellent work!

I really like the Corp variety, almost balanced in the tournament. Ass-ton of the Kate faction, oops, I mean Shaper. :smile:

It wasn’t too bad - 12 Kate to 5 CT and 2 Hayley. Kate had a big majority, but not overwhelmingly so. Lack of experience with Hayley left her on the sidelines, I guess.

Looks like Corps are still generally stronger in play, likely due to RP and Caprice Nisei, I suppose. Of 47 splits, 32 went to the corp, and the corporation overall had 128 wins out of 223 games played.

Anarchs did best against Jinteki and Weyland, and were underdogs against HB and NBN. Criminals were strong all around until they ran into Weyland - they might as well have stayed home. Shapers end up not being the most balanced this tournament! They did poorly against NBN and Jinteki, but were strong against Weyland. Looking just at these numbers, one would think Anarchs are the way to go to be in “every” match-up. But it doesn’t take into account IDs, which changes things dramatically. One may gulp at HB:EtF, but smile at HB:ST!

The player faction pairing chart is very interesting. I had never thought about it before, but I wonder if your faction choice on one side influences your faction choice on the other side?

Of the top 30% of corp decks, 42% were NBN. Jinteki and HB reach only 17% each. Startling numbers. Runner decks in the top 30% were quite balanced, with Shaper having a small lead.

This is awesome data, thank you so much for your time and effort, @CrimsonWraith! Stuff like this is great information for people prepping for tournaments, and looking to see what a potential meta might be like.


#3

Hey, I do this for folks like you who enjoy seeing numbers and such like this. Well, I mean, I do it for myself, because I’m a stats geek who enjoys seeing numbers and such like this. If I can share my passion in a forum where others may enjoy it as well, why not? =)

It wasn’t terribly difficult to compile all of this. The decks by faction, identity deck counts, Corp vs. Runner match information, Faction v. Faction data, and Player Faction Pairings are all taken straight from Tobin’s Excel tournament tracker spreadsheet on BGG. I’ve heralded it for years over NRTM because of the analytics like this that the program kicks out. Admittedly, NRTM has since added most of this stuff as well. So this is normally the easiest data to compile and publish, because it’s all created for me straight from the spreadsheet. However, we didn’t actually use Tobin’s software for the tournament since we used FFG’s program, so I had to physically record the match data (Corp splits, Runner splits, sweeps, etc.) when players reported during the tournament, and then I spent an hour or so this morning recreating the tournament in the spreadsheet to get this data.

The 30% Top Decks comes straight from Acoo, where the Top 16 decklists are hosted. That part’s pretty easy… Using Meteor (and the ability to enter each deck in about 30 seconds via typing on Meteor) to create digital versions of all the hard copies of decklists from the tournament, then exporting those to OCTGN files and importing onto Acoo via the OCTGN files. Sounds convoluted, but it’s rather simple - though this method has resulted in a few errors here and there in the hosted lists on Acoo.

The final standings came just from doing a print screen from the tournament software, and the double-elim bracket is the one I used to help keep track of the games played post-cut (the tournament software tracks the double-elim matches and all for you but it has no visual bracket).

Take the results for what they are; while cool to look at, it is just a single event that took place in a location which often offers a fairly bizarre meta. If you’re trying to project the meta for future regionals, I’d take these results with a grain of salt and also factor in the results from Oklahoma, Idaho, Wisconsin, and Georgia. :smile:


#4

Five flatline decks in the top 8!


#5

Wow - I wish you had access to more stats (from other tournaments) because these analytics are amazing. Thanks!!

@Dragar - how many flatline decks were Weyland and how many were NBN variety in the top 8? That’s also interesting!


#6

Thanks for the work, @CrimsonWraith ! I love stuff like this. Some interesting points:

  • Wow, that’s a lot of Kate! 12 decks of Mac is a giant chunk of the field.
  • NBN was less than a quarter of the total field, but was the Corp with the most decks in the very top
  • NBN’s winrate against Shapers was a massive 77% - due to lack of Clot? If so, what would the winrate have looked like otherwise?

This is some intriguing data. Some might say this was a fluke of the local meta, but I think that we’ll see similar results as more info appears.

Again, thanks for the work, Crimson!

EDIT: Not every Shaper had Clot LOL


#7

Looks like only 1 Kate in the top 16 had Clot.


#8

But that doesn’t tell us how many Shapers overall had Clot, right? Just how many made it to the top… Although if it turns out that was the only one that’s not too surprising. I know a lot of players in my area who haven’t included it, simply because they thought everyone else did. I guess the rationale behind that is, “Everybody else is bringing it, so they’ll do the dirty work of keeping NBN down for me, so I can use the influence and deck slots on other things.”


#9

I did my duty #slottheclot


#10

Did it help? How were the NBN games?


#11

I’ve been preaching this for a while to the local players… Colorado has an aversion to good Kate decks that I just don’t understand.

  • 12 Kate decks at Regionals
  • Only 4 of those are PPVP Kate
  • Placing for PPVP Kate decks: 2nd, 4th, 6th, 24th
  • Placing for non-PPVP Kate decks: 19th, 20th, 23rd, 26th, 27th, 28th, 31st, 32nd
  • @Legate_Damar, only 3 of 12 Kates played Clot

The non-PPVP Kate decks include Opus Kate, Starlight Kate, Stealth Kate, Sage Kate, Au Revoir Kate, Paintbrush Kate, and Supplier Kate. :persevere:


#12

I think it would have helped if I had made it to the final match; Nick was running Astrobiotics. But the only other NEH I faced on the day was Sam’s asset spam midseasons, and it was useless there. And I lost to it. Twice. Like a chump.


#13

A true soldier in the PPVP Army. Way to march, son.


#14

@nungunz made it to the final match without Clot and said in the Kate thread that including Clot may have saved him in the upper bracket game against @nmh and would have helped in the lower bracket game against @Sirris. That said, Burke played Clot in his Noise Pawnshop deck and in his double-elim game against Nick got it into his heap with a Clone Chip on the table, and Nick expertly played around it the whole game.


#15

Damn, that’s pretty stark.


#16

Noise can’t really threaten the remote well enough to make Clot worth it.


#17

As @CrimsonWraith said, I finished 2nd with no clot #foolish.

I held me own against @sirris (6-5 timed loss in swiss and very narrow win in elims) and against @nmh (7-6 close game).

Clot could have definitely helped in both of those match ups for those final points. Great games either way!


#18

I can’t speak for your game against @sirris, but from my perspective, I have no doubt that Clot would’ve sealed the deal against me. You can fight through the hate in some scenarios, but definitely not against a late game PPVP deck if they’ve managed to keep up with you.


#19

Congrats to the winner, another regional won by NEH FA. Glad to see my fellow NBN players winning just like I predicted. Wow look at those NBNvsShaper numbers, yellow crushed green.

SmugFace.jpg


#20

If there’s one thing that NEH FA does well it’s crushing janky shaper decks that take forever to setup.