This is continuing the topic of discussion that was started in the Tournament Winning Decklists thread, but I figured it needed a new on-topic home away from that thread. Dodd posted all the play stats for the ChiLo City Grudge Match over on the Netrunner Geeks Facebook page. I thought I would see how they compared to the meta at Worlds a couple of months ago.
I probably don’t need to clarify with you guys, but I’ll post this disclaimer anyway… I do not feel like I have a dog in this fight, I am a stats guy who loves digging into hard evidence and I find myself genuinely curious on the play data here, and I am quite curious to hear folks’ opinions and perspectives from both sides here.
There seems to be a very vocal group of folks who believe that limiting AstroScript to one copy per deck had a positive effect on the balance of the game and affected a healthy change in the diversity of Corps and/or Runners played at this year’s ChiLo City Grudge Match. The natural comparison for me to dig up was the field at Worlds, both because the faction/identity breakdown was readily available and because the field of factions/identities there was much lambasted for its lack of diversity around the internet.
After sitting down and looking at some of the stats, I felt like it was a pretty close comparison with neither side looking particularly more diverse, so I find it odd that one is praised for its diversity and the other criticized for the lack thereof.
So, my question here, one which I recommend you think on before scrolling down and looking at the stats, is… How do you define diversity in a meta?
Where do you need to see balance to feel like the game is in a healthy state? Is it how close the pool is to the top identity? Is it how close the “popular” identities are when compared with the rest of the pack? Is it how evenly spread the factions themselves are? Does none of this matter to you and you just want to look at the pretty numbers? Heh, very well then.
If I get around to it (or somebody wants to grab the numbers from me and do it themselves), I’d love to see some pie charts and bar graphs going on, but it’s well past my bedtime and all I have is an ugly unformatted spreadsheet, so I’m just going to post these here and see about making it look pretty tomorrow.
Context
Worlds had 238 players, ChiLo had 61 players.
Corp Factions
Percentage of players that played each Corp faction
Worlds
ChiLo
Worlds
42.86%: NBN (102 decks)
23.95%: Jinteki (57)
16.81%: Weyland (40)
16.39%: Haas-Bioroid (39)
ChiLo
36.07%: Weyland (22)
32.79%: Jinteki (20)
27.87%: Haas-Bioroid (17)
3.28%: NBN (2)
Runner Factions
Percentage of players that played each Runner faction
Worlds
ChiLo
Worlds
35.71%: Criminal (85)
34.03%: Shaper (81)
30.25%: Anarch (72)
ChiLo
39.34%: Criminal (24)
31.15%: Shaper (19)
29.51%: Anarch (18)
Corp Identities
Percentage of players that played each Corp identity
Worlds
38.24%: Near-Earth Hub (91)
13.45%: Blue Sun (32)
10.92%: Replicating Perfection (26)
10.50%: Engineering the Future (25)
9.24%: Personal Evolution (22)
3.36%: Making News (8)
2.94%: NEXT Design (7)
2.10%: The Foundry(5)
2.10%: GRNDL (5)
1.68%: Tennin Institute (4)
1.26%: Harmony MedTech (3)
1.26%: The World is Yours* (3)
1.26%: Building a Better World (3)
0.84%: Nisei Division (2)
0.42%: Cerebral Imaging (1)
0.42%: Custom Biotics (1)
0.00%: Because We Built It (0)
0.00%: Stronger Together (0)
ChiLo
29.51%: Blue Sun (18)
18.03%: Engineering the Future (11)
14.75%: Replicating Perfection (9)
8.20%: Personal Evolution (5)
4.92%: Building a Better World (3)
3.28%: Cerebral Imaging (2)
3.28%: NEXT Design (2)
3.28%: The Foundry (2)
3.28%: Tennin Institute (2)
3.28%: Industrial Genomics (2)
3.28%: The World is Yours* (2)
1.64%: Harmony MedTech (1)
1.64%: Nisei Division (1)
1.64%: Because We Built It (1)
0.00%: Stronger Together (0)
0.00%: Custom Biotics (0)
0.00%: Making News (0)
0.00%: Near-Earth Hub (0)
0.00%: GRNDL (0)
Runner Identities
Percentage of players that played each Runner identity
Worlds
26.05%: Andy (62)
18.91%: Noise (45)
17.65%: Kate (42)
7.98%: Chaos(19)
5.88%: Quetzal (14)
5.04%: Kit (12)
4.62%: Express (11)
4.20%: Gabe (10)
3.78%: Whizzard (9)
2.52%: Nasir (6)
1.68%: Reina (4)
0.84%: Iain (2)
0.84%: Exile (2)
0.00%: Silhouette (0)
0.00%: Professor (0)
ChiLo
21.31%: Andy (13)
18.03%: Noise (11)
16.39%: Kate (10)
9.84%: Chaos (6)
9.84%: Leela (6)
6.56%: Quetzal (4)
3.28%: Whizzard (2)
3.28%: Gabe (2)
3.28%: Express (2)
3.28%: Kit (2)
1.64%: Reina (1)
1.64%: Iain (1)
1.64%: Nasir (1)
0.00%: Silhouette (0)
0.00%: Exile (0)
0.00%: Professor (0)
Have at it folks, and g’night!
Major Edit #1: I messed up the formula for one of the rows on the identities page in one of my spreadsheets, causing some minor percentage errors in the identity breakdowns for both sides. Those have been corrected and the percentages above have been edited to depict the correct number. I added a couple of pie charts. I added some numbers for context alongside the percentages.