aa[quote=“Alexfrog, post:73, topic:364”]
I am saying that it should be incredibly clear to everyone that Andromeda has performed better than Gabe in the recent past, both on an averaged ELO level (OCTGN), and high ELO level (Worlds). Additionally, the gap wasnt a small gap, but was rather large. In terms of OCTGN win rates, Andromeda is closer to The Collective than she is to Gabe. The difference between Andromeda and Gabe (~6-7% in Spin-Cycle data), is larger than the difference between Gabe, the #2 runner, and Whizzard, the #4 runner.
[/quote]
Do you know that OCTGN has preconstructed starter decks?
Will you reject that a lot of players use OCTGN only for trying some game?
Do you think that A:NR first-timers will netdeck worlds final deck or play with starter deck?
I think that everyone should take a step back because things are getting heated. This thread has diverged a bit from it’s original purpose (in no small part my blame). I imagine that in particular @running_bear and @Alexfrog are actually probably in agreement on more then it would seem.
The point that I wanted to make in my initial post was that the evidence showed that Andromeda dominated during the Plugged in Tour meta, performing about as well as you could expect an identity to do. Andromeda was the runner deck that defines the PIT meta.
There are arguments that the data we have is not conclusive. This is fine, and I agree with that. We will never have 100% conclusive evidence at any point in this game about metagame knowledge. Unattainable conclusive evidence is not my interest, instead I am interested in operating under a Bayesian framework, looking at the small data that we have and seeing what it points at.
Of course none of our data is perfect, and yea maybe everyone is collectively missing the real “best” decks, but ultimately all that we can work with is with the data we have. The PIT meta has come and gone, and Netrunner is a game that moves fast enough that all we are objectively ever going to be able to do is look back at these small meta snapshots and try to see what performed the best. This is especially the case considering that decks are only relevant within a specific metagame. The “best” deck is more a property of a specific meta then an inherent part of the deck. I expect (and hope) that Netrunner’s meta has a healthy amount of fluctuation and change.
I think that @running_bear brought up some great points on places where Gabe may perform better (these places are just not the PIT meta). That is worth a discussion on it’s own, and I think that discussion is probably best in it’s own thread.
I strongly suspect that Gabe actually outperformed Andromeda in the PIT meta, given that I think the ratio of Andromedas to Gabes was more than 12-7. We really need more information about field composition before making a lot of these statements.
If you think the data presented here conclusively proves Andromeda is the best then you should also believe that it conclusively proves that Shapers, Anarchs, and Jinteki are complete junk factions. I don’t know that you can say “Well, n00bs like Shapers” to forgive their abysmal performance relative to participation and not admit that something like that could be going on in an Andromeda vs. Gabe debate. Ultimately the game is a little over a year old with a small card pool and a national meta that didn’t even exist before GenCon… seems a little early to be acting like all of our questions have been answered.
Even if we had the field composition and it showed that Gabe didn’t outperform in terms of its presence, it would still be irrelevant to people who think Gabe is better in the hands of a strong pilot. They would simply argue the strongest players picked Andromeda and therefore wave the data away.
Discussing the above further is meaningless because it’s a purely subjective argument.
Sure, Gabe can be better in a meta where Corps run a smaller number of big taxing ice. This was not the case for PIT, Worlds or any serious tournament in the last few months. Therefore Andromeda is a better meta choice in general.
To get this thread possibly back on track…
H&P might go some way to improving Gabe’s performance. With the arrival of Sillhouette (and eventually Laramy Fisk) it seems inevitable that the card pool will grow in such a way as to reward hitting HQ harder - this will be good for Gabe but probably less useful than Andromeda who (currently) is a bit more versatile but favours R&D digging.
I just saw this quotation. It seemed highly applicible to what happened in this thread:
“Modern man is so committed to empirical knowledge, that he sets the standard for evidence higher than either side in his disputes can attain, thus suffering his disputes to be settled by philosophical arguments as to which party must be crushed under the burden of proof.”
– Alan Crowe
AlexFrog, this is truly inspired. I’ll have to remember this the next time I have an argument with my friends about which Arkham Horror character is better. (its Mandy Thompson, BTW)