59 decks participated in the survey. 49 of these are part of official Wagic, 3 more were created by a user and will become official shortly, the remaining 7 ones are pre-release decks done by me. Each deck played two games against each other deck, one as the first player and one as the second player. Wins and losses were tallied, and a percentage of won games was calculated as a final score for each deck. 3,481 games were played in total.
The following table lists each deck:
- its rank
- its name (e.g. "Treefolk")
- its deck number (for example, "Treefolk" is deck no. 48, and its filename is deck48.txt
- the number of matches (M) played (116 for each deck)
- the numbers of won (W) and lost (L) games
- the percentage of matches won (M%)
- the percentages of matches won as the first player and second player, respectively (1.P/2.P)
Code: Select all
Rank Deck # M W L M% (1.P/2.P)
1 Treefolk 48 116 92 24 79% (79%/79%)
2 Elfball 30 116 91 25 78% (78%/79%)
3 Soldiers 24 116 87 29 75% (83%/67%)
4 Jihad 32 116 86 30 74% (76%/72%)
5 Kinsbaile Cavali 56 116 85 31 73% (71%/76%)
6 Master of Ether 36 116 82 34 71% (66%/76%)
7 Justice 18 116 81 35 70% (72%/67%)
8 Bad Moon 20 116 81 35 70% (72%/67%)
9 Fairies 17 116 80 36 69% (69%/69%)
10 Elves 19 116 80 36 69% (67%/71%)
11 Kithkin 26 116 80 36 69% (69%/69%)
12 Undead Lord 40 116 80 36 69% (72%/66%)
13 Spectral Rack 33 116 79 37 68% (66%/71%)
14 Soldiers2 29 116 78 38 67% (72%/62%)
15 Selesnya 23 116 75 41 65% (67%/62%)
16 Burning 21 116 72 44 62% (62%/62%)
17 Angelism 31 116 72 44 62% (66%/59%)
18 Wrath 7 116 71 45 61% (55%/67%)
19 Bloodhall Ooze 58 116 71 45 61% (69%/53%)
20 Deep Blue 14 116 69 47 59% (62%/57%)
21 Fairie Archmage 44 116 68 48 59% (60%/57%)
22 Terror 12 116 67 49 58% (59%/57%)
23 Zuberi's Flock 41 116 66 50 57% (55%/59%)
24 Dragon 49 116 65 51 56% (60%/52%)
25 Craven Giant 59 116 65 51 56% (62%/50%)
26 Howlins 10 116 64 52 55% (62%/48%)
27 Heartmender 43 116 64 52 55% (55%/55%)
28 Tsabo 27 116 62 54 53% (59%/48%)
29 Plateau 4 116 61 55 53% (59%/47%)
30 Jungle 13 116 58 58 50% (53%/47%)
31 Depletion 28 116 57 59 49% (50%/48%)
32 Might Sliver 35 116 57 59 49% (48%/50%)
33 Inquisitor 8 116 55 61 47% (48%/47%)
34 Rats! 15 116 52 64 45% (41%/48%)
35 Ashenmoor Cohort 46 116 52 64 45% (52%/38%)
36 Vampires 53 116 52 64 45% (43%/47%)
37 Giants! 22 116 51 65 44% (50%/38%)
38 Bad Dreams 51 116 49 67 42% (53%/31%)
39 Magus Coffers 57 116 49 67 42% (43%/41%)
40 Snake Shamans 45 116 48 68 41% (38%/45%)
41 Yavimaya 6 116 47 69 41% (36%/45%)
42 Millage 50 116 45 71 39% (34%/43%)
43 Sleeper Agent 54 116 45 71 39% (47%/31%)
44 Alliance 11 116 44 72 38% (48%/28%)
45 Kobold Overlord 34 116 44 72 38% (43%/33%)
46 Wild Jhovall 55 116 42 74 36% (28%/45%)
47 Savannah 3 116 41 75 35% (33%/38%)
48 Noble Panther 47 116 40 76 34% (36%/33%)
49 Taiga 2 116 39 77 34% (31%/36%)
50 Viashino Warrior 42 116 38 78 33% (38%/28%)
51 Lafiel 25 116 36 80 31% (34%/28%)
52 Badlands 5 116 32 84 28% (28%/28%)
53 Ball Lightning 39 116 32 84 28% (34%/21%)
54 Shatter 9 116 30 86 26% (28%/24%)
55 Nightmare 1 116 29 87 25% (19%/31%)
56 Magnivore 52 116 26 90 22% (28%/17%)
57 Panda Hive 16 116 25 91 22% (24%/19%)
58 Terravore Turmoi 37 116 18 98 16% (19%/12%)
59 Pyromancer 38 116 15 101 13% (21%/ 5%)
Some remarks and caveats:
- Obviously, the current numbers have a *huge* margin of error due to only two games having been played between any two decks. There's always a chance that the stronger deck loses a game due to bad luck in the draw (mana screw, land flood, etc.). Due to this, I don't recommend to read any actual meaning into score differences of up to 10%.
- Also, some decks are affected by bugs. For example, "Savannah" is probably not living up to its potential in this survey, because the special abilities of its basilisks and cockatrices don't work currently. Other decks benefit from bugs - for example, "Treefolk" profits from the fact that it's currently impossible to trample over indestructible creatures.
- Furthermore, AI-vs-AI games aren't always indicative as to how strong this deck would perform against a *human* player. Example: The AI doesn't understand the card "The Rack" at all. If AI-1 has Racks in play, then AI-2 will nevertheless try to play most cards most of the time, which means that AI-2 will potentially suffer a lot of damage from the Racks. Therefore, AI-1 has a good chance to win this game.
Now pit AI-1 against a human player. This player will still suffer from the Racks, but he'll decide whether he *wants* to incur damage, or whether he saves some cards in his hand to prevent that damage. The player has much better control over this situation than an AI would have. As a result, an AI deck that scores well against other AIs because of its frequent use of The Rack, will probably score less well against human players.
- Finally, a deck that performs badly is not automatically a failure. Actually Wagic *needs* low-performing AI decks as stepping stones for beginner players, and not providing some would be bad game design. Nevertheless, it's good to know which decks perform well (and which don't) so that we can improve those that are meant to be *good* performers, but currently don't operate on this level.
Have fun, and discuss the results. I'll add my own observations shortly, some of the results really surprised me.
Edit: A total matchup table has been posted here.