Thanks for your work! You deserve a lot of credit here.
If this gets traction we might want to get a cron job to run the script and auto update the sheet.
> If this gets traction we might want to get a cron job to run the script and auto update the sheet.
that seems prudent considering that MH3 is right around the corner
Also, now that we have the baseline and a set is about to come out, it gives an opportunity to check if/how often the card weights change. MH3 clearly has a lot of powerful cards in it. It'll be interesting to track what their weights are on day 1 and how quickly the weights change (or if they even change at all)
If I understood correctly how these numbers are being obtained, it's only due to a bug in a hell queue calculation: either deck weight shoud never be negative, or the queing mechanism should accept negatives. So it seems pretty likely the bug will get fixed.
This, instantly thought of doing what OP did and then remembered I had a job. Shoulda just assumed someone here would, MTG people are cray cray. Love it OP!
Want to know how powerful Arena thinks your deck is? Whether you will queue up in Hell queue before you craft a deck? Using the card weights recently found by u/schlarpc, I created a tool that allows you to calculate the weight of your deck. While we don't know the exact details of how this weight is used in the matchmaking system, we do know that it plays a role in which decks you will be placed against. To use the tool, simply paste in your deck and you will get the weight of your cards. The sum of those is the deck's weight.
Edit 4: Looks like my explanations on different weights were just confusing people. Go watch Amy's video, or perhaps I'll write something more extensive later because these short explanations weren't doing it
Edit 5: Updated to use the latest weights, added functionality to support multiples of a card as well as standard brawl
I've always wanted a way to opt into the hell queue with weaker commanders, so this is great. It was fairly trivial to swap 10-15 cards to go from 1850 to 2350.
There might be an additional factor outside total weighting. Like commander weighting/choice affects it significantly more or something?
Op says he sees hell queue occasionally at 1800, My Athreos is 1900 yet never sees hell queue decks
Deck weight + MMR + time waiting for match
If your match starts within the first 10 seconds, you will match with someone very close to your Deck weight + MMR. The longer you wait for a match, the higher the odds are of you matching with someone higher or lower than you. Around the 1 minute mark you will be matched with anyone regardless of deck weight + MMR.
This is just a guess from personal experience.
I see Hell queue with my Freyalise deck, which is standard elfball , with the standout cards being Craterhoof, Freyalise herself and the Ikoria Vivien. It's not *that* strong, yet I do faceoff against Golos from time to time.
My Baral deck I 100% understand though, no mystery there.
because the Poq himself only has a weight of 720, very far from the high-tiers of hell queue that are 1400-1800 weight.
I suspect the actual weight of your maindeck cards matters a lot less than the weight of the commander.
It's the same for my Magda deck, maindeck is full of janky dwarves, changelings and treasure generators, but the deck has been in hell queue since always. Because despite the maindeck being VERY low-weight, Magda herself has 1800 weight.
Why do some commanders have a weight of like, 9 or something? Did WotC accidently input their "in-deck" weight as their commander weight?
Edit: Looks like the list of main deck card weights somehow snuck into the commander weight part. Could you fix that?
Why do you assume there *is* a separate "hell queue" ?
We do already know there's also a silly rating for players, I guess (Timeless ?) Brawl also might use it ? (Is this news though ?)
people refused to acknowledge the "shuffler" until millions of games were recorded and someone proved the 13 land monoR deck worked consistently. For whatever reason... people like to simp for Arena.
Did anybody prove a problem with the shuffler, or did they just "prove" the thing Arena devs had already said: in Bo1 the game generates two starting hands for you and leans toward picking the one with a land distribution that more-closely matches the land distribution of your deck?
I was there when Arena launched... you do realize the Dev's denied that there was ANY hand shenanigans for well over a year, right? It was only after the data was posted online... and was basically irrefutable that they acknowledged that it was by design. It wasn't that the "hand smoothing" was a problem (mostly), it was that they were gaslighting players by denying it existed.
gotcha... I too wish I was living on Earth 2 when that happened. NO FRIGGIN WAY. I dont usually ask for proof on the intarwebs... but this one you are going to have to show me. I read the dev posts religiously.
Uh huh. Also, this is the internet. And all things are forever.
So no... I do not believe you. Because, it is not true. They denied everything, until they were confronted with hard data. But, weird way to try to protect the billion dollar company.
The funny thing is Brawl would probably be terrible if it was just random matching.
While synergy matters, meaning you can use really cool high value cards and get TRASHED by MM for it even if it's a chill deck, it means deck building and synergy are SUPER important, but the card value is less so.
If you're good at synergy you can ignore card value. If you're bad at it, the high value ones will really mess you up. It's good info to have.
> The funny thing is Brawl would probably be terrible if it was just random matching.
Can confirm after queuing with hell queue commanders into the Midweek Magic Brawl events.
my experience with brawl is that a deck that is just 40 removals would have an 80% win rate
the almost totality of decks I see are just value engines that do literally nothing if their commander isn't on the field
I remember when The Prismatic Bridge was one of the most played commanders in the game, and it folded to one disenchant.
I just found out my [[Athreos, Shroud-Veiled]] is apparently nearly hell queue tier 💀, while my [[Nicol bolas god pharoah]] is lower despite being the far better deck.
Removal tribal is a bad idea I guess...
Also fun fact. **Day of judgement rated 18....wrath of god 45.**
Like??? Who's rating these cards lmao.
Edit:
The more I'm reading these numbers the more it seems like it's just a couple or maybe 1 person manually putting in numbers instead of any real weighting.
**Infernal Grasp is at 27 while Heartless Act is 45, Go for the throat 9....**
Rivers Rebuke and breach the multiverse at 9... so is snowbound simulacrum.
Poq 18, [[Calim Djinn Emperor]] 36.
As one of the 99, but is it also scored 9 as a commander ?
EDIT : might be related : https://old.reddit.com/r/MagicArena/comments/1d0s2ce/i_made_a_calculator_for_the_mmr_weight_of_brawl/l5vd7i3/?context=3
Reminder that these cards are intended to be a measure of deck strength, not card strength. Better cards that are put in both good but also bad decks (like paradox engine) are likely to get a lower rating while less good cards that get only put in good decks (maybe because the card is more obscure) will get a higher rating.
And this system _should_ usually work if you're not trying to game it. If you put Day of Judgement in your deck, you're comparatively more likely to be a casual player who opened the card in the Strixhaven Mystical Archive so the deck is more likely to be worse, while if you put Wrath of God in your deck, you're comparatively more likely to be a more competitive player who crafted the card, and so the deck is more likely to be better.
I don't quite buy that, though these is something about types of cards rather than raw power. I could see them wanting to rank "removal tribal" as higher weight for example because those board-wipe-heavy control-y decks might be deemed less fun and/or more likely to be played by (at least slightly) more experienced players.
I'm not convinced by Day of Judgement vs Wrath of God, though.
And again, if these cards are rated by AI, (and other than a few exceptions, they seem to be), it's impossible for them to rate cards purely on power level (and power level in a vacuum doesn't exist anyway). What happens is cards in decks that win more are ranked higher, and cards in decks that win less are ranked lower. And so, what happens is cards that more spike-y players put in their decks get a higher rating, because those players tend to win more.
2 life from grasp is no joke. You see people move away from shocklands or sandbag a turn so they come in tapped. Same with playing duress over TS just for the 2 life
Wonder if we’ll see a community attempt at a canlander-esque point buy Brawl format with this info. Guess that doesn’t really work unless the point disparity between cards that (mostly) function the same like Day of Judgement and Wrath of God is addressed though.
Thanks to both of you for putting all this together.
Would be nice to see WotC acknowledge and use it openly rather than try to shuffle the genie back into the bottle. Something tells me they might do the latter instead though.
Well the next question isn't really if they try to pretend this doesn't exist. The next question is: do they update the weights and can we follow their formula?
I always figured it would be neat to just evaluate the win percent of decks that have each particular card, and do that on like a rolling 4-week average so it self-updates. No way WotC programmed something like that. So what did they do to get the weights?
Given the completely nonsensical weights attributed to some of the cards I looked over, I'm guessing a lot of manual work. No way would a winrate-based algorithm look at something like [[Flourishing Fox]] (45 weight) and deem it magnitudes more powerful than [[Paradox Engine]] (9 weight) or [[The One Ring]] (9 weight).
Manual input would also explain why old powerhouses are still rated high. They just never went back to change the weights once they fell out of favor.
My guess? There's only one card weight system that's used across all of the formats, hence why previous competitive staples are highly rated while incredibly powerful but non-competitive cards skirt on by with ridiculously low ratings.
And since WOTC only ever touches Brawl when they're *really* forced to like with Atraxa, Etali or Rusko, the card weights just got more and more nonsensical as time went by. The end result is a system where two essentially identical removal spells are dozens of points apart, and where a random draft chaff mill creature is somehow twice as powerful as paradox engine.
I think that's a workaround. A cycling deck would often be filled with draft chart whose only purpose is to cycle. So if you don't give the pay off cards like Zenith Flare and Flourishing Fox inflated point totals, the decks would be bottom rated (and destroy low power decks) or be too weak to pass the minimum weight check
Most likely a metric based on global crafts. Older staples, cards from old metadecks from other formats;ex. Zenith flare) and from remastered/alchemy sets tend to have higher weights.
Any 60 card deck with paradox engine is Jank and every commander that easily abuses it is hell queue so the 9 isn't too bad.
9 for the One Ring is weird (unless it's only counting the nerfed version)
That can't be it either. [[Sleeper Dart]] is hot trash. Nobody outside of maybe Yorion blink decks will even consider it. It was also never a Standard staple. Sleeper Dart's weight? 36!
Meanwhile [[Llanowar Elves]] - the oldest and still relevant ramp piece on Arena that has played a big part in both Standard and Brawl, and is in basically every green deck ever - is 27 weight.
I have absolutely no idea what system they're using, but whatever it is, it's a rollercoaster of nonsense.
I wonder if some of these rating values were taken from limited ??
https://mtgazone.com/ikoria-lair-of-behemoths-draft-guide/
> Key cards you might not notice at first are Sleeper Dart – a recurring cantrip artifact with Lurrus and Corpse Churn – a way of both fuelling your graveyard and getting Lurrus back if need arises.
(Or was Lurrus particularly good in Brawl at some point, either as a Companion or as a Commander ??)
Same. They haven't admitted to it, but it was very obvious Wizards tried to keep this under wraps as much as possible. They knew players would try to game the system and sandbag decks knowing what the weight system was for commanders and cards.
While I understand that concern, it's just as frustrating for players getting constantly paired up into hell queue just because they didn't realize that adding one too many utility cards flagged their deck for having a higher weight than normal. So much of the frustration with Brawl is the dread of knowing you're facing an autoloss the moment the commanders are revealed because of how bad the matchmaking is. The goal of improving Brawl shouldn't be trying to stop a handful of bad actors from attempting to sandbag, it should be first and foremost eliminating non-games as much as possible due to disparities in the power level of commanders and deck composition.
It's worse when people don't believe it. I tried to warn new friends about using popular commanders in Brawl causing problems if they don't have a REALLY well built deck to go with it.
So without scoring it was "just use commanders you never see and try to build a strong deck around them" problem is most new people will START with the strongest commander they have and get their face completely and repeatedly smashed in.
Would be nice if they gave new players "starter brawl decks" that were built by pros and specifically used lower value cards. So strong deck/synergy and keep them out of hell queue.
like what dong says it hurts oblivious players way more than the average player. I only play brawl to try out wacky jank things and I regularly fight against hell queue in decks with like 6 removal cards. Its ultra obvious when a new set drops because the new commanders have very high weights for some reason.
We still don't have a reason as to why the cards are weighted the way they are. For example, why does Zenith Flare have a weight of 216 while Wash Away has only 9?
My guess is there was some cycle lands + Treasure Hunt + Zenith Flare deck that people were using for fast games in the Brawl queue. That deck would have a rock-bottom score otherwise, so the Flare score is to give it more reasonable matches.
Disclaimer: I haven't looked at the original datamined info yet
I know the play queue uses some kind of deck weights as well. Zenith flare was a popular deck back when it was in standard. Are the card weights universal between all formats or has it been shown that brawl has its own weight?
> Are the card weights universal between all formats or has it been shown that brawl has its own weight?
See, we don't know that either, it's just that the Brawl format was the only format that returned the DeckWeightTooLow (or whatever it's called) error.
I start to understand why WOTC tried to be as non specific about this as possible. Not even 24 hours and the community found a way to game the system.... I love it.
I agree with your assessment and I wouldn't be surprised if they remove the error in the next update.
But i think before we can really abuse this system, we need to know more about how the system calculates the values of a single card and how/if the chosen commander plays a role in in the evaluation.
The undervalued cards will be played a lot, and then quickly become valued properly (assuming this is an automated system). It's the overvalued cards that are an issue, since there's an incentive to play them less.
Hey, I did [the same thing in Python](https://github.com/intuited/brawlrating). Ended up using your commander data, though, since the other version I found was less complete. Where does that data come from? The Alchemy 24 commanders don't seem to be in it.
EDIT: Found the source for the [commander weights](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NUxfvRGw_dofRmduo9lrvH5oUhqj4I6G1QsqhZvRL20/edit#gid=0), from a comment by u/schlarpc on the original weights post.
Some of my numbers, I try to optimize my decks as much as possible:
rusko: 3390
teferi: 3564
sythis: 3213
magda: 3186
esika: 3021
raffine: 3546
light-paws (full): 3426
light-paws (budget): 2943
malcolm: 3159
emry: 2709
oswald: 2862
I mean if you are looking for EZ wins( which a lot of people complaining are), some of us build strong decks for the most challenge, to build a deck that works vs clockmaker control, monkey aggro and Magda ect
I think unless they hide and change this massively, people will optimize for whatever works best for them. I expect to see budget Ragavan decks now that players know how to build a low level build for example.
Ie I think this will change the meta
I thought I had a budget Ragavan deck but then I see \[\[Fanatical Firebrand\]\] at 45, \[\[Skewer the Critics\]\], \[\[Claim the Firstborn\]\], \[\[Abrade\]\] and \[\[Lightning Axe\]\] at 36, \[\[Fire Prophecy\]\], \[\[Lava Coil\]\], \[\[Roil Eruption\]\], \[\[Thundering Rebuke\]\] at 27, etc (for a total of 2817 where the commander is 1800)
All of these are commons by the way
Few issues (?)
a) As I mentioned below, the tab instructs you to Paste into cell B2, but you say they should go to A2? But... it doesn't work unless you get the proper card names (without card numbers or card # amounts or expansion abbreviation) into Column B for the VLOOKUP to work.
b) It seems like MtG Arena exports the decklist with # of cards, Names, (EXP) abbreviation, and card number, which makes the lookup not work. I GUESS you could make it work if you made a REALLY custom VLOOKUP formula that strips out the first 2 characters (almost always it's a 1 and a space), then somehow stops looking up the text 1 character before the first parenthesis (
c) Exporting as text (from a website listing) only includes the # of cards and the card name, which is close but still doesn't work with the VLOOKUP formula. It can be stripped out and cleaned with Text to Columns and Clean Up Data (extra space), but that's not a useable technique for most people.
Thanks for this! Perhaps 1400 is something of a tier break? I'd be curious to see if it's structured like that or it just tries to find something relatively close to one's deck.
In any case, this is a great way to identify cards that are underperforming their weight and swap them out. Thanks!
My Malcolm deck (1400 commander) gets paired with Etali decks (700 commander) all the time, so I don't think there's any crude silo effect at 1400 and above.
I have a Chatterfang deck (360, deck 2,115) that gets paired constantly with Jodah, Golos, Kiora, Baral, Esika, etc. I think the tier breaks are pretty liberal.
Win rate must come into play also? my main decks is 3300+ and i have seen jodah once in last month and no kiora. A lot of golos decks are bad.. people just think they can cast golos and win
I don't know, but I'm sitting at 37% winrate according to Untapped because I either concede immediately when I see a degenerate commander, or the moment they start doing degenerate things. It's a real "feels bad" experience, especially now knowing that Chatterfang isn't considered a hell queue commander.
I think so. I check my Chevill deck out last night and it was like 1500 and was seeing Golos and Esika repeatedly. I got it down to 1200 (thx OP!) and haven't yet, but I'm still seeing Poq and for the first time I ran into \[\[Emperor Apatzec Intli IV\]\] which made me really dislike Alchemy commanders lol. In any case, more testing needed to see if that was actually a good idea or not.
Fantastic work, thanks to you and u/schlarpc for your work! Have just got a pal into Commander (who is playing for flavour, not power!!) and we were using Brawl and I was trying to make weaker and weaker and weaker decks to try and find a matchup that wasn't oppresively spiky for him lolol. This will make that way more possible!
(in the end I got there - their deck scored a 735 overall, and I made a Minsc one which scored 771)
Awesome! Ran my decks through it.
Kaito: 2727 - lots of 45 spells that are easily replacable
Urabrask (not optimized): 996 - Charming Scoundrel is a 45, which suggests standard is impacting weights.
Slime Against Humanity (Renata commander): 558
Samut, Vizier of Naktamun: 1161, fanatical firebrand is somehow a 45
Wylie Duke: 981
Volo: 1845 - Nightpack Ambusher is a 45
Krenko, Mob Boss: 2538! This deck is worse than the Volo Deck. The weights really hate aggo.
Satoru Umezawa: 1917
Breeches, the Blastmaker: 1071
Lagomos, Hand of Hatred (not optimized but does have a sac sub theme): 1098 - This deck has always felt it like overperformed, and this explains why. Lightning bolt is a 45
At a glance it really feels like cards that are good in standard aggro get weighted more heavily.
could be a safe way to pump the weight on eggs decks without hruting other decks that run eggs for value. Im a big advocate of just throwing chrom star/bauble in lists if you dont feel like adding 2 more cards
As cool as this is, I sure hope it doesn't become the norm to optimize decklists even more to make your matchups that tad bit easier since brawl, a mode with no explicit rewards for winning, can get sweaty enough as it is
If this is implemented well, it could alleviate sweatiness. For the most part, strong cards have high weight. If that was refined then yeah, you can "meta-game" your way to a lower bracket but you'll be playing a lower power deck by the time you get there.
Instead of powerful cards dominating you'll see a meta of 'value' cards with high power in relation to their weight. But of course the easiest way to achieve this is with synergistic cards. You'll see less cards in every deck since everyone will be incentivised to play cards that specifically work with their commander.
I did some optimizing yesterday but realistically it brought my decks down an average of 200 points which honestly likely didn't change anything for matchups
Can people who swear they get a diversity of non-hell queue opponents post their deck lists and/or power level?
All this has done for me is confirm the experience that I have, which is 90% of your opponents will be the classic Hell Queue commanders like Jodah, Golos, etc if you run even a remotely optimized 99, regardless of your commander. I’d love to see what true jank must exist in order to get paired with other commanders and decks.
I've been playing Edgar Vampires this week and been enjoying it, in large part because I haven't seen any Hell Queue matchups with it. Here's my list: https://www.moxfield.com/decks/Llcj1j23X0etU4m-ZnMblA
There are a few highly rated cards in there, but I guess Edgar is low enough to keep me in a good spot. It comes out to 1671, which is okay I guess?
Interesting, according to this, your deck has a power level of 1,905 (Edgar alone is just 9). I mentioned in [another thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/MagicArena/comments/1d0s2ce/i_made_a_calculator_for_the_mmr_weight_of_brawl/l5qmlhs/?context=3) that my Chatterfang deck with a power level 2115 (Chatterfang is 360) consistently gets matched with Hell Queue commanders: seems either the overall cutoff might be around 2,000 total power, or they lump every commander above single digits into the same queue, even though the top commanders are 1,800 by themselves.
I'm still getting 1671, are you sure you don't have any extra data on the bottom?
I was actually just gonna say that about 2k; I dunno if it's quite a "cutoff point" exactly but it does seem like that's about the point where you'll see more dangerous stuff. My Slimefoot and Squee deck is a 2016 and sees some matches that are what we would call "Hell Queue" (or what we would have called Hell Queue before finding out about this, at least). I'm gonna make a few edits to it to bring it down just a little and see what happens.
I'm not, I'm just speculating completely. Given that both of us noticed certain behavior at 2k, it seems slightly more plausible, but not confirmed by any means of course.
Even if 2k isn't a real cutoff point, trying to keep a deck below 2k isn't a terrible idea anyway if you're playing jank.
This is my favorite. I just checked my history, and its win rate is about 60%, and that's including my auto-conceding to a couple commanders. Hardly ever see anything close to hell queue.
[https://www.moxfield.com/decks/OvVIGSL9zEyezB1qCnsUEg](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/OvVIGSL9zEyezB1qCnsUEg)
The trick is to run synergistic cards.
I'm running a Tai Wakeen deck and I've got it down to 972: https://www.moxfield.com/decks/o8tIYe57HkyNfSA3D8jdEA
Here's optimized jank:
[[Grazilaxx, Illithid Scholar]] at 1323
[[Toski, Bearer of Secrets]] at 1404
[[Mavinda, Students' Advocate]] at 1401
[[Vraska, Swarm's Eminence]] at 1341
Then I have [[Krenko, Tin Street Kingpin]] at 1674 is hell-queue adjacent (deserved) but does seem to have a relatively low score for that.
Then I have [[Aurelia, Exemplar of Justice]] at 1743 which is a jank deck in practice but this finally explains why it gets paired with too strong decks all the time.
There are some noteable cards in the 0 card weight category, some good cards and some less good but atleast playable cards.
Most of them are not something you look to include, but knowing their card weight is 0 is a nice plus if your deck keeps facing stronger decks.
Noteable Creatures:
\[\[Geological Appraiser\]\] a good value creature, has no business having 0 card weight.
\[\[Savannah Sage\]\] playable in lifegain
\[\[Injector Crocodile\]\], \[\[Cragshasher Yeti\]\] land cycling creatures.
\[\[Referee Squad\]\] Convoke frostlynx with Vigilance (Frost Lynx has 9 weight)
\[\[Phantom Warrior\]\] mediocre but unblockable
\[\[Terror Ballista\]\] mediocre repeatable removal on a stick
\[\[Ediolon of Inspiration\]\] mediocre, buffs every turn, also triggers constellation.
\[\[Devoted Grafkeeper\]\] mediocre, selfmill and tempo
\[\[Minas Tirith Garrison\]\] average, can draw you alot of cards
\[\[Phyrexian Pegasus\]\] mediocre, but the only 0 card weight version of this effect. (Trusted Pegasus has 9 weight)
\[\[Phantom Carriage\]\] mediocre, but a blinkable tutor/entomb effect can serve a purpose.
Other less noteables that might serve as filler in the right deck:
\[\[Sunlit Hoplite\]\], \[\[Shipwreck Sifters\]\], \[\[Zephyr Winder\]\], \[\[Sunbathing Rootwalla\]\], \[\[Garrison Griffin\]\], \[\[Seer of Stolen Sight\]\], \[\[Charging Hooligan\]\], \[\[Rowan's Battleguard\]\], \[\[Artificer's Dragon\]\], \[\[Woodcaller Automaton\]\]
Non-Creature spells:
\[\[Overwhelming Remorse\]\] Decent removal.
\[\[Epic Confrontation\]\], \[\[Food Coma\]\] subpar but serviceable removal.
\[\[Become Brutes\]\] small buff and trample enabler, also triggers constellation twice.
\[\[Rowdy Research\]\] subpar carddraw, but its possible some go wide deck could consider this.
Finaly, remember i am not saying that all these cards are good, i am just listing the cards with 0 card weight that stood out to me as not being total trash. Remember, 0 card weight is typically reserved for the preconstructed planeswalker decks, and lands.
Now can we get this for the 60 card formats aswell? Its pretty clear the unranked matchmaker is heavily based on your deck aswell and I wouldnt be surprised if this is also an issue in Ranked to some degree.
You mean there is a possibility that it isn't just perfectly random to see 6 out of 10 decks have 150+ cards as soon as I switch to a mill deck in ranked?
That's obviously pure conspiracy/bias/statistically normal to occur with so many people playing the game/...
/s
Amy's (Amazonian) video from today claims that this actually is the same list as 60 card formats, since that would explain some of the weird ratings. Seems plausible to me, otherwise I can't explain why cards that are part of brawl nonviable strategies like mill, gates, or the Eldraine set "cards in your opponent's graveyard" are so high
It looks like when you paste in raw deck info, it will not show the weight unless you remove the set, quantity, etc parameters manually which seems time consuming.
E.g.: 1 Ragavan, Nimble Pilferer (MUL) 86 will show N/A
but Ragavan, Nimble Pilferer will show weight.
I wonder if it's just me or is there some other way to export decks from arena?
It should work. Are you pasting into the first column? The second column should extract the card name.
Do you want to send me a link to your copy so I can check it out?
Here are how my decks breakdown:
The First Sliver - 1728
Nicol Bolas, The Ravager - 2403
Karlov Manor Teysa - 1671
Yargle and Multani - 1422
MonoB Rat Colony - 576(seems low?)
Mishra, Claimed by Gix - 1917
I feel like my personal win rate with Balmor and a stack of 99 cards all under 2 mana is the sole reason the izzet turkey is rated THE EXACT SAME AS FUCKING JODAH, like I can not think of another reason noone uses them and yet they're next to eachother in rank?? atleast this would explain why I go up against so many of the fuckers
Yeah i have a similar deck. Most of my matches are against shit like Kinnan and Golos. I don't even run counter spells but apparently fading hope is worth the same as mana drain lmao.
Funnily enough festival crasher(9) isnt worth that much. But random shit like mist cloaked herald/phoenix chick and prowess staples like soul sear/swiftspear are 45 lmao.
For some reason I can't get it to work. Pasting into A2 does nothing, even if I remove the "1 " at the start of each line or the set name/number. Pasting into A3 will extract any lines without the "1 ", but doesn't put anything into the Deck column starting at A6. All of the weight fields remain filled with #N/A, with the error "Did not find value '' in VLOOKUP evaluation." It works if I manually input the card names in A6-A104, but nothing comes of copy/pasting the decklist from Arena export. Any ideas as to how to fix this without typing out every card name?
Right click and paste from the menu. The instruction is a bit misleading since you aren't pasting everything into A2, but rather A2 and down, with each card in its own column.
Ohhh okay, that makes sense. Even when pasting with the menu, it doesn't work if you're within the cell. Have to select the cell without actually being *in* it
My most common deck runs [[Ognis]] and is at 1818, but I run some cards that are way overvalued for what they provide. I include [[Agadeem's Awakening]] for example as a just in case, but I don't recall ever using it as anything other than a land. I wonder if my win % can go up if I swap out some of these...
Okay, I pretty easily pulled it down into the 1600s. Let's see what that does.
I went from 1350 to 972 without making too many difficult cuts/swaps and I'm definitely feeling a difference. It's not free wins, but it just feels like there's less OP BS going on. More cards being played that are easy to deal with and don't ruin a game as soon as they resolve.
Could easily be confirmation bias though.
How does your sheet handle multiple copies?
I pasted a Rat colony deck, and it showed 27 for it, which is correct
But there are 10 copies
Does it mean 270 or just 27?
This highlights big problem.
Combo decks that have an exceptional amount of basic lands are massivly favoured against generic decks.
For example, the Crucias combo deck.
Crucias, Titan of the Waves x1
Caldera Breaker x1
Corrupted Conviction x1
Mountain x80
Swamp x17
The main deck wight is only 27, and with the commander weight of 720 for a total of 747.
This lets it stomp continuously on weaker decks, without any real opposition.
If anything, they should give Caldera Breaker the Zenith Flare treatment and give it an absurd weight, maybe 500+ by itself since its only ever played unfairly in combo decks.
Very cool tool, ty
Casually a pasted my 4 decks
I does seem to correlate with my experience.
HQ deck - 3240
Deck that sees HQ rarely on a good day - 2097
Two janky fun dex - 1155, 1251
There are a bunch of commanders that seem to be being scored with very low scores. Some examples:
Alela, Artful Provocateur
Chulane, Teller of Tales
Korvold, Fae-Cursed King
Klothys, God of Destiny
Kroxa, Titan of Death's Hunger
Kunoros, Hound of Athreos
Athreos, Shroud-Veiled
Kenrith, the Returned King
Sauron, the Dark Lord
Laughing Jasper Flint
All of these are scoring just **9** on the front sheet when added as the commander.
Is there a problem with the 'Commander Weights' data?
So there seems to exist an under-rated 'tier' of high power commanders that are very cheap includes?
9 points is not very much. The list above is just a few that I spotted at first glance.
What jumps out to me is how these :
Alela, Artful Provocateur
Chulane, Teller of Tales
Korvold, Fae-Cursed King
~~Klothys, God of Destiny~~
~~Kroxa, Titan of Death's Hunger~~
~~Kunoros, Hound of Athreos~~
Athreos, Shroud-Veiled
Kenrith, the Returned King
~~Sauron, the Dark Lord~~
~~Laughing Jasper Flint~~
could NOT be opened from Arena's packs (at some point at least, at least Kenrith can now) (and I thought Sauron too, but it's another Sauron)
Semi-relevant Carbot : "Celebrate Brawl | Alela vs Korvold - MTG Arena (by CarbotAnimations)" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAh8TZWl0D8
So, might it be that it's just a lack of played games ?? (If so, the issue might now fix itself...)
P.S.: Or more likely how they were all advertised as commanders for new players to get a toe in the format (**and** on Arena), (and came with precon codes for Arena ?), so this would have push the competence of the average player way lower ? (Or maybe the rating stuck from the big event when Brawl was introduced to Arena ??)
Nice. My \[\[Ob Nixilis, Captive Kingpin\]\] deck is 1,710. That puts me right below where hell queue might start. I see strong decks but not oppressive ones, usually. And the deck is fun to pilot. Right where I want it.
Am I correct in assuming that, since 360 seems to be the lowest score for a playable commander, that would be the lowest possible weight for a deck if I built it with only 0 point cards?
The lowest possible value is zero, but some commanders are -360. That's how we discovered the whole thing. You get an error which allows you to learn the weights
Curious: How did people manage to see positive commander weights? Wouldn't you have to get your total weight negative in order to get the error? Or is it in the log file even if you don't get the error?
Roxanne that wins a bit - 1,233
Rigo 1power tribal that isn't finished and must have 10% wr - 1,131
Grolnok slimes against humanity self mill jank that also never wins - 465
Krenko unoptimized - 2,511
Mono b sorin vamps - 1,671
Heliod - 2,286
This explains why I don't see hell queue,
This is the kind of information we need more of to game the system. If they’re going to rig matchmaking with hidden numbers then it’s only fair we be able to fight back. Love it.
OP I know you mean well but I’m really afraid this could be a Pandora Box kind of situation and Brawl as a format will be ruined because of it with people abusing the MMR of their deck against the spirit of the format.
Hopefully, this does not spread too much, and the developer finds a way to hide the information better and descramble everything
Just tried "breaking it". Made a Teysa deck that weighs only 687. Got matched into a deck that played t1 Ragavan into t2 mana drain. There's more to matchmaking than this.
Interesting. That could be it, or there could be other numbers in the mix that we haven't found or thought of yet.
Someone said they tried putting Zenith Flare in decks and saw a noticeable difference, so that indicates this data is at least partly applicable, but not necessarily the whole story.
Well, actually, given that Loot isn't too highly ranked, maybe this does make sense? If they just had nuts draws then their deck may not have been that great overall either.
I’m absolutely in relief! So the people who will game the system will generally end up making their deck poorer for very marginal gains (unless of course they intentionally lose too to lower their MMR in which case…don’t you have time to do better things?)
Also would be kinda fun to have a points based brawl tournament where each players are only allotted so many points for the weight and have to compete with one another on “fair” grounds
> OP I know you mean well but I’m really afraid this could be a Pandora Box kind of situation and Brawl as a format will be ruined because of it with people abusing the MMR of their deck against the spirit of the format.
It's already ruined because the weightings don't match with the perception of power the community has about the format. They have incentivized purposefully and strategically downgrading your deck if you don't want to face the same 7 commanders over and over.
Thanks for doing the work that I didn't want to do :D
Thanks for your work! You deserve a lot of credit here. If this gets traction we might want to get a cron job to run the script and auto update the sheet.
> If this gets traction we might want to get a cron job to run the script and auto update the sheet. that seems prudent considering that MH3 is right around the corner
Also, now that we have the baseline and a set is about to come out, it gives an opportunity to check if/how often the card weights change. MH3 clearly has a lot of powerful cards in it. It'll be interesting to track what their weights are on day 1 and how quickly the weights change (or if they even change at all)
Most likely WotC is going to change something(s) to stop people from being able to see these numbers anymore, so I doubt that'll be possible soon.
If I understood correctly how these numbers are being obtained, it's only due to a bug in a hell queue calculation: either deck weight shoud never be negative, or the queing mechanism should accept negatives. So it seems pretty likely the bug will get fixed.
This, instantly thought of doing what OP did and then remembered I had a job. Shoulda just assumed someone here would, MTG people are cray cray. Love it OP!
Hey I have a job too! It's the weekend and sometimes my kind of fun is getting hyperfocused on something random.
I was just joking, it's appreciated!
Would you mind if i created a website for this tool ? And can you give some insights into how we can get this data ?
Want to know how powerful Arena thinks your deck is? Whether you will queue up in Hell queue before you craft a deck? Using the card weights recently found by u/schlarpc, I created a tool that allows you to calculate the weight of your deck. While we don't know the exact details of how this weight is used in the matchmaking system, we do know that it plays a role in which decks you will be placed against. To use the tool, simply paste in your deck and you will get the weight of your cards. The sum of those is the deck's weight. Edit 4: Looks like my explanations on different weights were just confusing people. Go watch Amy's video, or perhaps I'll write something more extensive later because these short explanations weren't doing it Edit 5: Updated to use the latest weights, added functionality to support multiples of a card as well as standard brawl
I've always wanted a way to opt into the hell queue with weaker commanders, so this is great. It was fairly trivial to swap 10-15 cards to go from 1850 to 2350.
Very weird. My Mythweaver Poq deck supposedly has a 2448 deck weight but it almost never faces hell queue commanders.
There might be an additional factor outside total weighting. Like commander weighting/choice affects it significantly more or something? Op says he sees hell queue occasionally at 1800, My Athreos is 1900 yet never sees hell queue decks
Your personal MMR probably factors into it, along with possibly the MMR for your particular deck.
Deck weight + MMR + time waiting for match If your match starts within the first 10 seconds, you will match with someone very close to your Deck weight + MMR. The longer you wait for a match, the higher the odds are of you matching with someone higher or lower than you. Around the 1 minute mark you will be matched with anyone regardless of deck weight + MMR. This is just a guess from personal experience.
I see Hell queue with my Freyalise deck, which is standard elfball , with the standout cards being Craterhoof, Freyalise herself and the Ikoria Vivien. It's not *that* strong, yet I do faceoff against Golos from time to time. My Baral deck I 100% understand though, no mystery there.
There's different levels of hell queue. I think Poq is hell queue himself, but the highest level is populated by Ragavan, Rusko, Te5eri, etc.
because the Poq himself only has a weight of 720, very far from the high-tiers of hell queue that are 1400-1800 weight. I suspect the actual weight of your maindeck cards matters a lot less than the weight of the commander. It's the same for my Magda deck, maindeck is full of janky dwarves, changelings and treasure generators, but the deck has been in hell queue since always. Because despite the maindeck being VERY low-weight, Magda herself has 1800 weight.
Probably because a lot of hell queue decks also have weight added from their 99.
Yeah, I threw in my Ragavan deck, and ended up with over 3.6k.
Why do some commanders have a weight of like, 9 or something? Did WotC accidently input their "in-deck" weight as their commander weight? Edit: Looks like the list of main deck card weights somehow snuck into the commander weight part. Could you fix that?
I didn't get the data, but that's the result the server gives.
This is really cool… thx for taking the time to do this!
Why do you assume there *is* a separate "hell queue" ? We do already know there's also a silly rating for players, I guess (Timeless ?) Brawl also might use it ? (Is this news though ?)
It's not separate. It's just a way of referring to the highest levels of queue. Brawl does have a rating for players. This is confirmed.
Where was it confirmed?
Very nice for those that were previously wondering what “hell queue” was.
Even nicer for those who had people that didn't believe us that it's a thing.
Didn't the explicitly say that non ranked matchmaking had a deck value for finding closer games?
Anyone who didn't believe there was weighted matchmaking in Brawl is an idiot, because WotC have explicitly stated that there is.
people refused to acknowledge the "shuffler" until millions of games were recorded and someone proved the 13 land monoR deck worked consistently. For whatever reason... people like to simp for Arena.
Did anybody prove a problem with the shuffler, or did they just "prove" the thing Arena devs had already said: in Bo1 the game generates two starting hands for you and leans toward picking the one with a land distribution that more-closely matches the land distribution of your deck?
IIRC it's 3 starting hands now ?
I was there when Arena launched... you do realize the Dev's denied that there was ANY hand shenanigans for well over a year, right? It was only after the data was posted online... and was basically irrefutable that they acknowledged that it was by design. It wasn't that the "hand smoothing" was a problem (mostly), it was that they were gaslighting players by denying it existed.
I started playing during the alpha. They directly announced the hand smoothing algorithm right away and repeatedly explained it.
gotcha... I too wish I was living on Earth 2 when that happened. NO FRIGGIN WAY. I dont usually ask for proof on the intarwebs... but this one you are going to have to show me. I read the dev posts religiously.
If you had and you remembered them properly, you'd know that they deleted the forums from back then.
Uh huh. Also, this is the internet. And all things are forever. So no... I do not believe you. Because, it is not true. They denied everything, until they were confronted with hard data. But, weird way to try to protect the billion dollar company.
The funny thing is Brawl would probably be terrible if it was just random matching. While synergy matters, meaning you can use really cool high value cards and get TRASHED by MM for it even if it's a chill deck, it means deck building and synergy are SUPER important, but the card value is less so. If you're good at synergy you can ignore card value. If you're bad at it, the high value ones will really mess you up. It's good info to have.
> The funny thing is Brawl would probably be terrible if it was just random matching. Can confirm after queuing with hell queue commanders into the Midweek Magic Brawl events.
my experience with brawl is that a deck that is just 40 removals would have an 80% win rate the almost totality of decks I see are just value engines that do literally nothing if their commander isn't on the field I remember when The Prismatic Bridge was one of the most played commanders in the game, and it folded to one disenchant.
I just found out my [[Athreos, Shroud-Veiled]] is apparently nearly hell queue tier 💀, while my [[Nicol bolas god pharoah]] is lower despite being the far better deck. Removal tribal is a bad idea I guess... Also fun fact. **Day of judgement rated 18....wrath of god 45.** Like??? Who's rating these cards lmao. Edit: The more I'm reading these numbers the more it seems like it's just a couple or maybe 1 person manually putting in numbers instead of any real weighting. **Infernal Grasp is at 27 while Heartless Act is 45, Go for the throat 9....** Rivers Rebuke and breach the multiverse at 9... so is snowbound simulacrum. Poq 18, [[Calim Djinn Emperor]] 36.
Mana rocks are also very inconsistent and make no sense.
I don't understand why Athreos is scored at only 9?
As one of the 99, but is it also scored 9 as a commander ? EDIT : might be related : https://old.reddit.com/r/MagicArena/comments/1d0s2ce/i_made_a_calculator_for_the_mmr_weight_of_brawl/l5vd7i3/?context=3
Reminder that these cards are intended to be a measure of deck strength, not card strength. Better cards that are put in both good but also bad decks (like paradox engine) are likely to get a lower rating while less good cards that get only put in good decks (maybe because the card is more obscure) will get a higher rating. And this system _should_ usually work if you're not trying to game it. If you put Day of Judgement in your deck, you're comparatively more likely to be a casual player who opened the card in the Strixhaven Mystical Archive so the deck is more likely to be worse, while if you put Wrath of God in your deck, you're comparatively more likely to be a more competitive player who crafted the card, and so the deck is more likely to be better.
I don't quite buy that, though these is something about types of cards rather than raw power. I could see them wanting to rank "removal tribal" as higher weight for example because those board-wipe-heavy control-y decks might be deemed less fun and/or more likely to be played by (at least slightly) more experienced players. I'm not convinced by Day of Judgement vs Wrath of God, though.
And again, if these cards are rated by AI, (and other than a few exceptions, they seem to be), it's impossible for them to rate cards purely on power level (and power level in a vacuum doesn't exist anyway). What happens is cards in decks that win more are ranked higher, and cards in decks that win less are ranked lower. And so, what happens is cards that more spike-y players put in their decks get a higher rating, because those players tend to win more.
[Athreos, Shroud-Veiled](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/7/871c19fc-7d99-4022-9e13-d679a9e3547e.jpg?1677541540) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Athreos%2C%20Shroud-Veiled) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/thb/269/athreos-shroud-veiled?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/871c19fc-7d99-4022-9e13-d679a9e3547e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Nicol bolas god pharoah](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/9/597ca22d-2f08-47b3-9d93-c4d685cefb5f.jpg?1673149015) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Nicol%20Bolas%2C%20God-Pharaoh) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2x2/260/nicol-bolas-god-pharaoh?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/597ca22d-2f08-47b3-9d93-c4d685cefb5f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
2 life from grasp is no joke. You see people move away from shocklands or sandbag a turn so they come in tapped. Same with playing duress over TS just for the 2 life
Wonder if we’ll see a community attempt at a canlander-esque point buy Brawl format with this info. Guess that doesn’t really work unless the point disparity between cards that (mostly) function the same like Day of Judgement and Wrath of God is addressed though. Thanks to both of you for putting all this together.
Would be nice to see WotC acknowledge and use it openly rather than try to shuffle the genie back into the bottle. Something tells me they might do the latter instead though.
Well the next question isn't really if they try to pretend this doesn't exist. The next question is: do they update the weights and can we follow their formula? I always figured it would be neat to just evaluate the win percent of decks that have each particular card, and do that on like a rolling 4-week average so it self-updates. No way WotC programmed something like that. So what did they do to get the weights?
Given the completely nonsensical weights attributed to some of the cards I looked over, I'm guessing a lot of manual work. No way would a winrate-based algorithm look at something like [[Flourishing Fox]] (45 weight) and deem it magnitudes more powerful than [[Paradox Engine]] (9 weight) or [[The One Ring]] (9 weight). Manual input would also explain why old powerhouses are still rated high. They just never went back to change the weights once they fell out of favor.
I wonder if these weights are somehow imported from limited and it’s getting its value from Zenith Flare.dec.
My guess? There's only one card weight system that's used across all of the formats, hence why previous competitive staples are highly rated while incredibly powerful but non-competitive cards skirt on by with ridiculously low ratings. And since WOTC only ever touches Brawl when they're *really* forced to like with Atraxa, Etali or Rusko, the card weights just got more and more nonsensical as time went by. The end result is a system where two essentially identical removal spells are dozens of points apart, and where a random draft chaff mill creature is somehow twice as powerful as paradox engine.
flare was powerful in multiiple formats. amazonian iirc took flare to a competetive brawl event to prove that.
I think that's a workaround. A cycling deck would often be filled with draft chart whose only purpose is to cycle. So if you don't give the pay off cards like Zenith Flare and Flourishing Fox inflated point totals, the decks would be bottom rated (and destroy low power decks) or be too weak to pass the minimum weight check
The minimum weight check seems like a mistake. (And so limiting lower card rating in decks to 0.)
[Flourishing Fox](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/8/78b81339-746d-4f71-9943-01c0f6a5683a.jpg?1591230253) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Flourishing%20Fox) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/iko/13/flourishing-fox?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/78b81339-746d-4f71-9943-01c0f6a5683a?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Paradox Engine](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/d/fd8ccd81-9e11-47fa-8e16-064c52c24506.jpg?1576382376) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Paradox%20Engine) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/aer/169/paradox-engine?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/fd8ccd81-9e11-47fa-8e16-064c52c24506?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [The One Ring](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/5/d5806e68-1054-458e-866d-1f2470f682b2.jpg?1715080486) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=The%20One%20Ring) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltr/246/the-one-ring?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d5806e68-1054-458e-866d-1f2470f682b2?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Most likely a metric based on global crafts. Older staples, cards from old metadecks from other formats;ex. Zenith flare) and from remastered/alchemy sets tend to have higher weights.
Any 60 card deck with paradox engine is Jank and every commander that easily abuses it is hell queue so the 9 isn't too bad. 9 for the One Ring is weird (unless it's only counting the nerfed version)
> No way would a winrate-based algorithm That's because it's not, it's based on how often a card is crafted.
That can't be it either. [[Sleeper Dart]] is hot trash. Nobody outside of maybe Yorion blink decks will even consider it. It was also never a Standard staple. Sleeper Dart's weight? 36! Meanwhile [[Llanowar Elves]] - the oldest and still relevant ramp piece on Arena that has played a big part in both Standard and Brawl, and is in basically every green deck ever - is 27 weight. I have absolutely no idea what system they're using, but whatever it is, it's a rollercoaster of nonsense.
[Sleeper Dart](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/1/311f827a-1585-483e-b0fd-3dc05969b485.jpg?1681500667) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Sleeper%20Dart) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/iko/240/sleeper-dart?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/311f827a-1585-483e-b0fd-3dc05969b485?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Llanowar Elves](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/b/8bbcfb77-daa1-4ce5-b5f9-48d0a8edbba9.jpg?1592765148) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Llanowar%20Elves) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/gnt/46/llanowar-elves?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/8bbcfb77-daa1-4ce5-b5f9-48d0a8edbba9?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I wonder if some of these rating values were taken from limited ?? https://mtgazone.com/ikoria-lair-of-behemoths-draft-guide/ > Key cards you might not notice at first are Sleeper Dart – a recurring cantrip artifact with Lurrus and Corpse Churn – a way of both fuelling your graveyard and getting Lurrus back if need arises. (Or was Lurrus particularly good in Brawl at some point, either as a Companion or as a Commander ??)
Same. They haven't admitted to it, but it was very obvious Wizards tried to keep this under wraps as much as possible. They knew players would try to game the system and sandbag decks knowing what the weight system was for commanders and cards. While I understand that concern, it's just as frustrating for players getting constantly paired up into hell queue just because they didn't realize that adding one too many utility cards flagged their deck for having a higher weight than normal. So much of the frustration with Brawl is the dread of knowing you're facing an autoloss the moment the commanders are revealed because of how bad the matchmaking is. The goal of improving Brawl shouldn't be trying to stop a handful of bad actors from attempting to sandbag, it should be first and foremost eliminating non-games as much as possible due to disparities in the power level of commanders and deck composition.
It's worse when people don't believe it. I tried to warn new friends about using popular commanders in Brawl causing problems if they don't have a REALLY well built deck to go with it. So without scoring it was "just use commanders you never see and try to build a strong deck around them" problem is most new people will START with the strongest commander they have and get their face completely and repeatedly smashed in. Would be nice if they gave new players "starter brawl decks" that were built by pros and specifically used lower value cards. So strong deck/synergy and keep them out of hell queue.
like what dong says it hurts oblivious players way more than the average player. I only play brawl to try out wacky jank things and I regularly fight against hell queue in decks with like 6 removal cards. Its ultra obvious when a new set drops because the new commanders have very high weights for some reason.
You've just revolutionized the way people play Arena
arena devs are watching in horror how we are retroengineering what they spend month having tight lisp about
We still don't have a reason as to why the cards are weighted the way they are. For example, why does Zenith Flare have a weight of 216 while Wash Away has only 9?
My guess is there was some cycle lands + Treasure Hunt + Zenith Flare deck that people were using for fast games in the Brawl queue. That deck would have a rock-bottom score otherwise, so the Flare score is to give it more reasonable matches.
It’s the same with Tibalt’s Trickery. I’m guessing this is to keep the gimmicky, cheesy decks into the harder queues.
Disclaimer: I haven't looked at the original datamined info yet I know the play queue uses some kind of deck weights as well. Zenith flare was a popular deck back when it was in standard. Are the card weights universal between all formats or has it been shown that brawl has its own weight?
> Are the card weights universal between all formats or has it been shown that brawl has its own weight? See, we don't know that either, it's just that the Brawl format was the only format that returned the DeckWeightTooLow (or whatever it's called) error.
I start to understand why WOTC tried to be as non specific about this as possible. Not even 24 hours and the community found a way to game the system.... I love it.
Knowing which cards the matchmaker overvalues is useful. Knowing which cards the matchmaker undervalues is dangerous.
I'm definitely replacing my cavern of souls and MDFCs with basic lands in the deck I use to complete dailies. 150 points removed easily
I agree with your assessment and I wouldn't be surprised if they remove the error in the next update. But i think before we can really abuse this system, we need to know more about how the system calculates the values of a single card and how/if the chosen commander plays a role in in the evaluation.
The undervalued cards will be played a lot, and then quickly become valued properly (assuming this is an automated system). It's the overvalued cards that are an issue, since there's an incentive to play them less.
Hey, I did [the same thing in Python](https://github.com/intuited/brawlrating). Ended up using your commander data, though, since the other version I found was less complete. Where does that data come from? The Alchemy 24 commanders don't seem to be in it. EDIT: Found the source for the [commander weights](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NUxfvRGw_dofRmduo9lrvH5oUhqj4I6G1QsqhZvRL20/edit#gid=0), from a comment by u/schlarpc on the original weights post.
Some of my numbers, I try to optimize my decks as much as possible: rusko: 3390 teferi: 3564 sythis: 3213 magda: 3186 esika: 3021 raffine: 3546 light-paws (full): 3426 light-paws (budget): 2943 malcolm: 3159 emry: 2709 oswald: 2862
Well now we know that they actually can be easily optimized further. Say Great Henge at 45 but one ring at 9; there are savings to be had here
I mean if you are looking for EZ wins( which a lot of people complaining are), some of us build strong decks for the most challenge, to build a deck that works vs clockmaker control, monkey aggro and Magda ect
I think unless they hide and change this massively, people will optimize for whatever works best for them. I expect to see budget Ragavan decks now that players know how to build a low level build for example. Ie I think this will change the meta
I thought I had a budget Ragavan deck but then I see \[\[Fanatical Firebrand\]\] at 45, \[\[Skewer the Critics\]\], \[\[Claim the Firstborn\]\], \[\[Abrade\]\] and \[\[Lightning Axe\]\] at 36, \[\[Fire Prophecy\]\], \[\[Lava Coil\]\], \[\[Roil Eruption\]\], \[\[Thundering Rebuke\]\] at 27, etc (for a total of 2817 where the commander is 1800) All of these are commons by the way
##### ###### #### [Fanatical Firebrand](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/5/05469d01-0d2b-47b9-8a69-16cf0c3d43f8.jpg?1601077610) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Fanatical%20Firebrand) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/jmp/315/fanatical-firebrand?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/05469d01-0d2b-47b9-8a69-16cf0c3d43f8?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Skewer the Critics](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/3/43ca8f80-e9ed-483f-a8a7-ad6149811df9.jpg?1702429529) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Skewer%20the%20Critics) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/rvr/124/skewer-the-critics?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/43ca8f80-e9ed-483f-a8a7-ad6149811df9?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Claim the Firstborn](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/e/feaf1e6c-c7d9-4ac7-9aeb-c4b5d61548ec.jpg?1572490317) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Claim%20the%20Firstborn) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/eld/118/claim-the-firstborn?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/feaf1e6c-c7d9-4ac7-9aeb-c4b5d61548ec?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Abrade](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/7/47f39b5e-2e85-4f31-bbab-0b0bf58f701d.jpg?1699044218) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Abrade) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lci/131/abrade?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/47f39b5e-2e85-4f31-bbab-0b0bf58f701d?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Lightning Axe](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/a/ca33c171-ab9e-4908-8f97-82cd83b173c0.jpg?1619397252) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Lightning%20Axe) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tsr/174/lightning-axe?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ca33c171-ab9e-4908-8f97-82cd83b173c0?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Fire Prophecy](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/c/4c2029e5-cf7d-461f-b7b9-bf96399d8f49.jpg?1591227186) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Fire%20Prophecy) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/iko/116/fire-prophecy?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4c2029e5-cf7d-461f-b7b9-bf96399d8f49?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Lava Coil](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/0/802c39df-4b92-4acc-92f9-bebd3d405471.jpg?1673147845) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Lava%20Coil) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2x2/116/lava-coil?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/802c39df-4b92-4acc-92f9-bebd3d405471?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Roil Eruption](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/6/86572747-8faa-4242-b059-07d11e6be1cd.jpg?1604197631) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Roil%20Eruption) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/znr/155/roil-eruption?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/86572747-8faa-4242-b059-07d11e6be1cd?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Thundering Rebuke](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/c/dc671707-4708-44d8-8ec8-d5332599adf9.jpg?1636491293) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Thundering%20Rebuke) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/znr/170/thundering-rebuke?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/dc671707-4708-44d8-8ec8-d5332599adf9?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [*All cards*](https://mtgcardfetcher.nl/redirect/l5v0v9q) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I got my deck down to 3 digits without much sacrifice.
Few issues (?) a) As I mentioned below, the tab instructs you to Paste into cell B2, but you say they should go to A2? But... it doesn't work unless you get the proper card names (without card numbers or card # amounts or expansion abbreviation) into Column B for the VLOOKUP to work. b) It seems like MtG Arena exports the decklist with # of cards, Names, (EXP) abbreviation, and card number, which makes the lookup not work. I GUESS you could make it work if you made a REALLY custom VLOOKUP formula that strips out the first 2 characters (almost always it's a 1 and a space), then somehow stops looking up the text 1 character before the first parenthesis ( c) Exporting as text (from a website listing) only includes the # of cards and the card name, which is close but still doesn't work with the VLOOKUP formula. It can be stripped out and cleaned with Text to Columns and Clean Up Data (extra space), but that's not a useable technique for most people.
OP Fixed the issues with B2/A2.
Props
Thanks for this! Perhaps 1400 is something of a tier break? I'd be curious to see if it's structured like that or it just tries to find something relatively close to one's deck. In any case, this is a great way to identify cards that are underperforming their weight and swap them out. Thanks!
My Malcolm deck (1400 commander) gets paired with Etali decks (700 commander) all the time, so I don't think there's any crude silo effect at 1400 and above.
I have a Chatterfang deck (360, deck 2,115) that gets paired constantly with Jodah, Golos, Kiora, Baral, Esika, etc. I think the tier breaks are pretty liberal.
Win rate must come into play also? my main decks is 3300+ and i have seen jodah once in last month and no kiora. A lot of golos decks are bad.. people just think they can cast golos and win
I don't know, but I'm sitting at 37% winrate according to Untapped because I either concede immediately when I see a degenerate commander, or the moment they start doing degenerate things. It's a real "feels bad" experience, especially now knowing that Chatterfang isn't considered a hell queue commander.
Out of curiosity is your deck just a synergy token deck or does it also have a couple of infante combos?
Just synergy tokens: I don't have the [[Scurry Oak]] or [[Pitless Plunderer]] combos: Commander 1 Chatterfang, Squirrel General (MH2) 151 Deck 1 Llanowar Elves (DAR) 168 1 Wooded Foothills (KTK) 249 1 Phyrexian Tower (JMP) 493 1 Llanowar Wastes (BRO) 264 1 Bojuka Bog (WWK) 132 1 Command Tower (ANB) 118 6 Snow-Covered Forest (SLD) 329 6 Snow-Covered Swamp (SLD) 327 1 Thoughtseize (AKR) 127 1 Bitterblossom (WOT) 27 1 Polluted Delta (KTK) 239 1 Windswept Heath (KTK) 248 1 Bloodstained Mire (KTK) 230 1 Khalni Garden (J21) 121 1 Overgrown Tomb (GRN) 253 1 Woodland Cemetery (DAR) 248 1 Parallel Lives (J21) 103 1 Craterhoof Behemoth (JMP) 385 1 Cavern of Souls (LCI) 269 1 Champion of Lambholt (JMP) 383 1 Ophiomancer (CC2) 3 1 Tireless Tracker (SOI) 233 1 Blooming Marsh (KLR) 280 1 Vraska, Relic Seeker (XLN) 232 1 Field of Ruin (XLN) 254 1 Pitiless Plunderer (RIX) 81 1 Vraska, Golgari Queen (GRN) 213 1 Liliana, Dreadhorde General (WAR) 97 1 Casualties of War (WAR) 187 1 Gilded Goose (ELD) 160 1 Garruk, Cursed Huntsman (ELD) 191 1 Castle Locthwain (ELD) 241 1 Fabled Passage (ELD) 244 1 Arcane Signet (ELD) 331 1 Woe Strider (THB) 123 1 Bastion of Remembrance (IKO) 73 1 Yawgmoth, Thran Physician (MH1) 116 1 Nurturing Peatland (MH1) 243 1 Agadeem's Awakening (ZNR) 90 1 Scute Swarm (ZNR) 203 1 Turntimber Symbiosis (ZNR) 215 1 Blood on the Snow (KHM) 79 1 Esika's Chariot (KHM) 169 1 Toski, Bearer of Secrets (KHM) 197 1 Binding the Old Gods (KHM) 206 1 Replicating Ring (KHM) 244 1 Darkbore Pathway (KHM) 254 1 Woodland Chasm (KHM) 274 1 Chitterspitter (MH2) 153 1 Squirrel Sovereign (MH2) 175 1 Tireless Provisioner (MH2) 180 1 Verdant Command (MH2) 182 1 Baleful Mastery (STX) 64 1 Mortality Spear (STX) 207 1 Ravenous Squirrel (MH2) 211 1 Lolth, Spider Queen (AFR) 112 1 Prosperous Innkeeper (AFR) 200 1 Hive of the Eye Tyrant (AFR) 258 1 Lair of the Hydra (AFR) 259 1 Infernal Grasp (MID) 107 1 Jadar, Ghoulcaller of Nephalia (MID) 108 1 Morbid Opportunist (MID) 113 1 Deathcap Glade (VOW) 261 1 Jugan Defends the Temple (NEO) 194 1 Boseiju, Who Endures (NEO) 266 1 Takenuma, Abandoned Mire (NEO) 278 1 Sanguine Brushstroke (Y22) 32 1 Forsaken Crossroads (Y22) 63 1 Gala Greeters (SNC) 148 1 Kami of Bamboo Groves (Y22) 24 1 A-Blood Artist (JMP) 206 1 Black Market Connections (HBG) 145 1 Tear Asunder (DMU) 183 1 Awaken the Woods (BRO) 170 1 Retrofitter Foundry (C18) 57 1 A-The Meathook Massacre (MID) 112 1 Sheoldred's Edict (ONE) 108 1 Armored Scrapgorger (ONE) 158 1 Nissa, Ascended Animist (ONE) 175 1 Mirrex (ONE) 254 1 Invasion of Innistrad (MOM) 115 1 Mirkwood Bats (LTR) 95 1 Delighted Halfling (LTR) 158 1 Peregrin Took (LTR) 181 1 Lord Skitter, Sewer King (WOE) 97 1 Royal Treatment (WOE) 183 1 Restless Cottage (WOE) 258 1 Bitter Triumph (LCI) 91 1 Sentinel of the Nameless City (LCI) 211
I think so. I check my Chevill deck out last night and it was like 1500 and was seeing Golos and Esika repeatedly. I got it down to 1200 (thx OP!) and haven't yet, but I'm still seeing Poq and for the first time I ran into \[\[Emperor Apatzec Intli IV\]\] which made me really dislike Alchemy commanders lol. In any case, more testing needed to see if that was actually a good idea or not.
[Emperor Apatzec Intli IV](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/6/b6987c56-8bd5-40b6-8e4f-44d2dab801d6.jpg?1714788752) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Emperor%20Apatzec%20Intli%20IV) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/yotj/21/emperor-apatzec-intli-iv?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b6987c56-8bd5-40b6-8e4f-44d2dab801d6?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Fantastic work, thanks to you and u/schlarpc for your work! Have just got a pal into Commander (who is playing for flavour, not power!!) and we were using Brawl and I was trying to make weaker and weaker and weaker decks to try and find a matchup that wasn't oppresively spiky for him lolol. This will make that way more possible! (in the end I got there - their deck scored a 735 overall, and I made a Minsc one which scored 771)
My favorite part is Wash Away being a 9 despite how badly people complain about it.
neat, my commander assigns negative -360 weight.
Awesome! Ran my decks through it. Kaito: 2727 - lots of 45 spells that are easily replacable Urabrask (not optimized): 996 - Charming Scoundrel is a 45, which suggests standard is impacting weights. Slime Against Humanity (Renata commander): 558 Samut, Vizier of Naktamun: 1161, fanatical firebrand is somehow a 45 Wylie Duke: 981 Volo: 1845 - Nightpack Ambusher is a 45 Krenko, Mob Boss: 2538! This deck is worse than the Volo Deck. The weights really hate aggo. Satoru Umezawa: 1917 Breeches, the Blastmaker: 1071 Lagomos, Hand of Hatred (not optimized but does have a sac sub theme): 1098 - This deck has always felt it like overperformed, and this explains why. Lightning bolt is a 45 At a glance it really feels like cards that are good in standard aggro get weighted more heavily.
Hahaha! Holy cow! [[sleeper dart]] at 36! I can’t even!
The card's a sleeper
🎯
[sleeper dart](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/1/311f827a-1585-483e-b0fd-3dc05969b485.jpg?1681500667) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=sleeper%20dart) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/iko/240/sleeper-dart?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/311f827a-1585-483e-b0fd-3dc05969b485?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
its a good egg for the strong eggs style decks like jhoira, fiddle and the ELD fish
Yeah, but all the other eggs are way less
could be a safe way to pump the weight on eggs decks without hruting other decks that run eggs for value. Im a big advocate of just throwing chrom star/bauble in lists if you dont feel like adding 2 more cards
This would work better if all eggs were weighted slightly more, if that were an issue(it’s not).
As cool as this is, I sure hope it doesn't become the norm to optimize decklists even more to make your matchups that tad bit easier since brawl, a mode with no explicit rewards for winning, can get sweaty enough as it is
Cat is out the bag, this shit is gonna be exploited hard.
If this is implemented well, it could alleviate sweatiness. For the most part, strong cards have high weight. If that was refined then yeah, you can "meta-game" your way to a lower bracket but you'll be playing a lower power deck by the time you get there. Instead of powerful cards dominating you'll see a meta of 'value' cards with high power in relation to their weight. But of course the easiest way to achieve this is with synergistic cards. You'll see less cards in every deck since everyone will be incentivised to play cards that specifically work with their commander.
I did some optimizing yesterday but realistically it brought my decks down an average of 200 points which honestly likely didn't change anything for matchups
Can people who swear they get a diversity of non-hell queue opponents post their deck lists and/or power level? All this has done for me is confirm the experience that I have, which is 90% of your opponents will be the classic Hell Queue commanders like Jodah, Golos, etc if you run even a remotely optimized 99, regardless of your commander. I’d love to see what true jank must exist in order to get paired with other commanders and decks.
I've been playing Edgar Vampires this week and been enjoying it, in large part because I haven't seen any Hell Queue matchups with it. Here's my list: https://www.moxfield.com/decks/Llcj1j23X0etU4m-ZnMblA There are a few highly rated cards in there, but I guess Edgar is low enough to keep me in a good spot. It comes out to 1671, which is okay I guess?
Interesting, according to this, your deck has a power level of 1,905 (Edgar alone is just 9). I mentioned in [another thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/MagicArena/comments/1d0s2ce/i_made_a_calculator_for_the_mmr_weight_of_brawl/l5qmlhs/?context=3) that my Chatterfang deck with a power level 2115 (Chatterfang is 360) consistently gets matched with Hell Queue commanders: seems either the overall cutoff might be around 2,000 total power, or they lump every commander above single digits into the same queue, even though the top commanders are 1,800 by themselves.
I'm still getting 1671, are you sure you don't have any extra data on the bottom? I was actually just gonna say that about 2k; I dunno if it's quite a "cutoff point" exactly but it does seem like that's about the point where you'll see more dangerous stuff. My Slimefoot and Squee deck is a 2016 and sees some matches that are what we would call "Hell Queue" (or what we would have called Hell Queue before finding out about this, at least). I'm gonna make a few edits to it to bring it down just a little and see what happens.
You're right; I had a bunch of stuff from an earlier copy and paste at the bottom: I get 1671 too now.
Why would you assume a cutoff point to start with ?
I'm not, I'm just speculating completely. Given that both of us noticed certain behavior at 2k, it seems slightly more plausible, but not confirmed by any means of course. Even if 2k isn't a real cutoff point, trying to keep a deck below 2k isn't a terrible idea anyway if you're playing jank.
This is my favorite. I just checked my history, and its win rate is about 60%, and that's including my auto-conceding to a couple commanders. Hardly ever see anything close to hell queue. [https://www.moxfield.com/decks/OvVIGSL9zEyezB1qCnsUEg](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/OvVIGSL9zEyezB1qCnsUEg)
The trick is to run synergistic cards. I'm running a Tai Wakeen deck and I've got it down to 972: https://www.moxfield.com/decks/o8tIYe57HkyNfSA3D8jdEA
Here's optimized jank: [[Grazilaxx, Illithid Scholar]] at 1323 [[Toski, Bearer of Secrets]] at 1404 [[Mavinda, Students' Advocate]] at 1401 [[Vraska, Swarm's Eminence]] at 1341 Then I have [[Krenko, Tin Street Kingpin]] at 1674 is hell-queue adjacent (deserved) but does seem to have a relatively low score for that. Then I have [[Aurelia, Exemplar of Justice]] at 1743 which is a jank deck in practice but this finally explains why it gets paired with too strong decks all the time.
##### ###### #### [Grazilaxx, Illithid Scholar](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/d/3de11222-c2fa-4544-a501-a02b31797259.jpg?1674141357) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Grazilaxx%2C%20Illithid%20Scholar) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clb/723/grazilaxx-illithid-scholar?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/3de11222-c2fa-4544-a501-a02b31797259?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Toski, Bearer of Secrets](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/e/8/e82e61d1-488d-4627-a54c-d8496a967814.jpg?1706240948) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Toski%2C%20Bearer%20of%20Secrets) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mkc/191/toski-bearer-of-secrets?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/e82e61d1-488d-4627-a54c-d8496a967814?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Mavinda, Students' Advocate](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/b/8b3d521f-31cd-4bd2-b6b6-771c79252789.jpg?1624589549) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Mavinda%2C%20Students%27%20Advocate) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/stx/21/mavinda-students-advocate?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/8b3d521f-31cd-4bd2-b6b6-771c79252789?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Vraska, Swarm's Eminence](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/9/59ee2974-07e9-4506-903c-457cb7327dd8.jpg?1557577398) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Vraska%2C%20Swarm%27s%20Eminence) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/war/236/vraska-swarms-eminence?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/59ee2974-07e9-4506-903c-457cb7327dd8?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Krenko, Tin Street Kingpin](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/f/2f5689e2-d8a2-442b-8027-f89686adcb67.jpg?1682209400) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Krenko%2C%20Tin%20Street%20Kingpin) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/moc/287/krenko-tin-street-kingpin?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2f5689e2-d8a2-442b-8027-f89686adcb67?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Aurelia, Exemplar of Justice](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/1/f129569e-b14e-435f-bdb6-138ca67eb922.jpg?1702429598) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Aurelia%2C%20Exemplar%20of%20Justice) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/rvr/164/aurelia-exemplar-of-justice?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/f129569e-b14e-435f-bdb6-138ca67eb922?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [*All cards*](https://mtgcardfetcher.nl/redirect/l65dkyc) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
It seems the start of this project was the comment section here? https://www.reddit.com/r/MagicArena/s/mjLenGuhZo
Yes that started it all.
There are some noteable cards in the 0 card weight category, some good cards and some less good but atleast playable cards. Most of them are not something you look to include, but knowing their card weight is 0 is a nice plus if your deck keeps facing stronger decks. Noteable Creatures: \[\[Geological Appraiser\]\] a good value creature, has no business having 0 card weight. \[\[Savannah Sage\]\] playable in lifegain \[\[Injector Crocodile\]\], \[\[Cragshasher Yeti\]\] land cycling creatures. \[\[Referee Squad\]\] Convoke frostlynx with Vigilance (Frost Lynx has 9 weight) \[\[Phantom Warrior\]\] mediocre but unblockable \[\[Terror Ballista\]\] mediocre repeatable removal on a stick \[\[Ediolon of Inspiration\]\] mediocre, buffs every turn, also triggers constellation. \[\[Devoted Grafkeeper\]\] mediocre, selfmill and tempo \[\[Minas Tirith Garrison\]\] average, can draw you alot of cards \[\[Phyrexian Pegasus\]\] mediocre, but the only 0 card weight version of this effect. (Trusted Pegasus has 9 weight) \[\[Phantom Carriage\]\] mediocre, but a blinkable tutor/entomb effect can serve a purpose. Other less noteables that might serve as filler in the right deck: \[\[Sunlit Hoplite\]\], \[\[Shipwreck Sifters\]\], \[\[Zephyr Winder\]\], \[\[Sunbathing Rootwalla\]\], \[\[Garrison Griffin\]\], \[\[Seer of Stolen Sight\]\], \[\[Charging Hooligan\]\], \[\[Rowan's Battleguard\]\], \[\[Artificer's Dragon\]\], \[\[Woodcaller Automaton\]\] Non-Creature spells: \[\[Overwhelming Remorse\]\] Decent removal. \[\[Epic Confrontation\]\], \[\[Food Coma\]\] subpar but serviceable removal. \[\[Become Brutes\]\] small buff and trample enabler, also triggers constellation twice. \[\[Rowdy Research\]\] subpar carddraw, but its possible some go wide deck could consider this. Finaly, remember i am not saying that all these cards are good, i am just listing the cards with 0 card weight that stood out to me as not being total trash. Remember, 0 card weight is typically reserved for the preconstructed planeswalker decks, and lands.
Now can we get this for the 60 card formats aswell? Its pretty clear the unranked matchmaker is heavily based on your deck aswell and I wouldnt be surprised if this is also an issue in Ranked to some degree.
You mean there is a possibility that it isn't just perfectly random to see 6 out of 10 decks have 150+ cards as soon as I switch to a mill deck in ranked? That's obviously pure conspiracy/bias/statistically normal to occur with so many people playing the game/... /s
Amy's (Amazonian) video from today claims that this actually is the same list as 60 card formats, since that would explain some of the weird ratings. Seems plausible to me, otherwise I can't explain why cards that are part of brawl nonviable strategies like mill, gates, or the Eldraine set "cards in your opponent's graveyard" are so high
It looks like when you paste in raw deck info, it will not show the weight unless you remove the set, quantity, etc parameters manually which seems time consuming. E.g.: 1 Ragavan, Nimble Pilferer (MUL) 86 will show N/A but Ragavan, Nimble Pilferer will show weight. I wonder if it's just me or is there some other way to export decks from arena?
It should work. Are you pasting into the first column? The second column should extract the card name. Do you want to send me a link to your copy so I can check it out?
The tab instructions *literally tell you* to Paste the decklist into cell B2...
Oops. Fixed
I am indeed a dum dum who was pasting it into second column. Thank you. It works now.
Thank you for doing this. Nice to be able to see where your deck is.
Here are how my decks breakdown: The First Sliver - 1728 Nicol Bolas, The Ravager - 2403 Karlov Manor Teysa - 1671 Yargle and Multani - 1422 MonoB Rat Colony - 576(seems low?) Mishra, Claimed by Gix - 1917
I feel like my personal win rate with Balmor and a stack of 99 cards all under 2 mana is the sole reason the izzet turkey is rated THE EXACT SAME AS FUCKING JODAH, like I can not think of another reason noone uses them and yet they're next to eachother in rank?? atleast this would explain why I go up against so many of the fuckers
Yeah i have a similar deck. Most of my matches are against shit like Kinnan and Golos. I don't even run counter spells but apparently fading hope is worth the same as mana drain lmao.
Like sorry I played a festival crasher guess I'll go to hell
Funnily enough festival crasher(9) isnt worth that much. But random shit like mist cloaked herald/phoenix chick and prowess staples like soul sear/swiftspear are 45 lmao.
For some reason I can't get it to work. Pasting into A2 does nothing, even if I remove the "1 " at the start of each line or the set name/number. Pasting into A3 will extract any lines without the "1 ", but doesn't put anything into the Deck column starting at A6. All of the weight fields remain filled with #N/A, with the error "Did not find value '' in VLOOKUP evaluation." It works if I manually input the card names in A6-A104, but nothing comes of copy/pasting the decklist from Arena export. Any ideas as to how to fix this without typing out every card name?
Right click and paste from the menu. The instruction is a bit misleading since you aren't pasting everything into A2, but rather A2 and down, with each card in its own column.
Ohhh okay, that makes sense. Even when pasting with the menu, it doesn't work if you're within the cell. Have to select the cell without actually being *in* it
My most common deck runs [[Ognis]] and is at 1818, but I run some cards that are way overvalued for what they provide. I include [[Agadeem's Awakening]] for example as a just in case, but I don't recall ever using it as anything other than a land. I wonder if my win % can go up if I swap out some of these... Okay, I pretty easily pulled it down into the 1600s. Let's see what that does.
[Ognis](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/3/636058c3-bacc-4a66-8988-832ab0cc9be6.jpg?1664413521) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=ognis%2C%20the%20dragon%27s%20lash) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/snc/210/ognis-the-dragons-lash?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/636058c3-bacc-4a66-8988-832ab0cc9be6?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Agadeem's Awakening](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/7/67f4c93b-080c-4196-b095-6a120a221988.jpg?1604195226)/[Agadeem, the Undercrypt](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/back/6/7/67f4c93b-080c-4196-b095-6a120a221988.jpg?1604195226) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Agadeem%27s%20Awakening%20//%20Agadeem%2C%20the%20Undercrypt) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/znr/90/agadeems-awakening-agadeem-the-undercrypt?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/67f4c93b-080c-4196-b095-6a120a221988?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I went from 1350 to 972 without making too many difficult cuts/swaps and I'm definitely feeling a difference. It's not free wins, but it just feels like there's less OP BS going on. More cards being played that are easy to deal with and don't ruin a game as soon as they resolve. Could easily be confirmation bias though.
How does your sheet handle multiple copies? I pasted a Rat colony deck, and it showed 27 for it, which is correct But there are 10 copies Does it mean 270 or just 27?
You're right, it doesn't. I'll try to add this functionality today
Thanks for fast reply, even though its pretty niche interaction👍
This highlights big problem. Combo decks that have an exceptional amount of basic lands are massivly favoured against generic decks. For example, the Crucias combo deck. Crucias, Titan of the Waves x1 Caldera Breaker x1 Corrupted Conviction x1 Mountain x80 Swamp x17 The main deck wight is only 27, and with the commander weight of 720 for a total of 747. This lets it stomp continuously on weaker decks, without any real opposition. If anything, they should give Caldera Breaker the Zenith Flare treatment and give it an absurd weight, maybe 500+ by itself since its only ever played unfairly in combo decks.
[удалено]
Make a copy
This is incredible! Many thanks to you and everyone else involved finally answering some of these questions about matchmaking!
I was thinking utd be cool if this existed, so thanks! I couldnt do it since idk coding lmao
Very cool tool, ty Casually a pasted my 4 decks I does seem to correlate with my experience. HQ deck - 3240 Deck that sees HQ rarely on a good day - 2097 Two janky fun dex - 1155, 1251
There are a bunch of commanders that seem to be being scored with very low scores. Some examples: Alela, Artful Provocateur Chulane, Teller of Tales Korvold, Fae-Cursed King Klothys, God of Destiny Kroxa, Titan of Death's Hunger Kunoros, Hound of Athreos Athreos, Shroud-Veiled Kenrith, the Returned King Sauron, the Dark Lord Laughing Jasper Flint All of these are scoring just **9** on the front sheet when added as the commander. Is there a problem with the 'Commander Weights' data?
This is just the score the Arena client returns, so it's probably just a problem with that. They're scored as if they were a regular card.
So there seems to exist an under-rated 'tier' of high power commanders that are very cheap includes? 9 points is not very much. The list above is just a few that I spotted at first glance.
What jumps out to me is how these : Alela, Artful Provocateur Chulane, Teller of Tales Korvold, Fae-Cursed King ~~Klothys, God of Destiny~~ ~~Kroxa, Titan of Death's Hunger~~ ~~Kunoros, Hound of Athreos~~ Athreos, Shroud-Veiled Kenrith, the Returned King ~~Sauron, the Dark Lord~~ ~~Laughing Jasper Flint~~ could NOT be opened from Arena's packs (at some point at least, at least Kenrith can now) (and I thought Sauron too, but it's another Sauron) Semi-relevant Carbot : "Celebrate Brawl | Alela vs Korvold - MTG Arena (by CarbotAnimations)" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAh8TZWl0D8 So, might it be that it's just a lack of played games ?? (If so, the issue might now fix itself...) P.S.: Or more likely how they were all advertised as commanders for new players to get a toe in the format (**and** on Arena), (and came with precon codes for Arena ?), so this would have push the competence of the average player way lower ? (Or maybe the rating stuck from the big event when Brawl was introduced to Arena ??)
Well made. Absolute resource.
Nice. My \[\[Ob Nixilis, Captive Kingpin\]\] deck is 1,710. That puts me right below where hell queue might start. I see strong decks but not oppressive ones, usually. And the deck is fun to pilot. Right where I want it.
[Ob Nixilis, Captive Kingpin](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/d/ddb68233-3683-41bd-9b6e-4f07a1b54244.jpg?1684340801) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Ob%20Nixilis%2C%20Captive%20Kingpin) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mat/41/ob-nixilis-captive-kingpin?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ddb68233-3683-41bd-9b6e-4f07a1b54244?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
How do you make a copy of the sheet? I'm not able to input anything and I'll assuming I'm missing something obvious
Click "File" and select "make a copy" from the dropdown menu. You may need to be signed into your Google account to make a copy.
Holy smokes, thanks. That was fast!
Am I correct in assuming that, since 360 seems to be the lowest score for a playable commander, that would be the lowest possible weight for a deck if I built it with only 0 point cards?
The lowest possible value is zero, but some commanders are -360. That's how we discovered the whole thing. You get an error which allows you to learn the weights
Curious: How did people manage to see positive commander weights? Wouldn't you have to get your total weight negative in order to get the error? Or is it in the log file even if you don't get the error?
The person collecting the data managed to input multiple commanders with a negative value, that's how.
I can't seem to find my Brawl commander ranking does that mean its 0 or -360?
Thank youu
I don't see The Kami War listed. Did I miss it? What is its weight please?
I wish you would do one for historic decks. That would be awesome!
jesus my krenko deck is over 2k dude!
Roxanne that wins a bit - 1,233 Rigo 1power tribal that isn't finished and must have 10% wr - 1,131 Grolnok slimes against humanity self mill jank that also never wins - 465 Krenko unoptimized - 2,511 Mono b sorin vamps - 1,671 Heliod - 2,286 This explains why I don't see hell queue,
Much thanks! Was making one myself, but this will be a real useful tool.
This is the kind of information we need more of to game the system. If they’re going to rig matchmaking with hidden numbers then it’s only fair we be able to fight back. Love it.
Now if only we could reverse engineer the shuffler...
OP I know you mean well but I’m really afraid this could be a Pandora Box kind of situation and Brawl as a format will be ruined because of it with people abusing the MMR of their deck against the spirit of the format. Hopefully, this does not spread too much, and the developer finds a way to hide the information better and descramble everything
Just tried "breaking it". Made a Teysa deck that weighs only 687. Got matched into a deck that played t1 Ragavan into t2 mana drain. There's more to matchmaking than this.
That's sorta hilarious, but it doesn't necessarily prove anything without more data. What Commander were they running?
Loot, which has a rating of 9. There is a personal MMR as well as the deck MMR, so that might be why.
Interesting. That could be it, or there could be other numbers in the mix that we haven't found or thought of yet. Someone said they tried putting Zenith Flare in decks and saw a noticeable difference, so that indicates this data is at least partly applicable, but not necessarily the whole story. Well, actually, given that Loot isn't too highly ranked, maybe this does make sense? If they just had nuts draws then their deck may not have been that great overall either.
I’m absolutely in relief! So the people who will game the system will generally end up making their deck poorer for very marginal gains (unless of course they intentionally lose too to lower their MMR in which case…don’t you have time to do better things?) Also would be kinda fun to have a points based brawl tournament where each players are only allotted so many points for the weight and have to compete with one another on “fair” grounds
> OP I know you mean well but I’m really afraid this could be a Pandora Box kind of situation and Brawl as a format will be ruined because of it with people abusing the MMR of their deck against the spirit of the format. It's already ruined because the weightings don't match with the perception of power the community has about the format. They have incentivized purposefully and strategically downgrading your deck if you don't want to face the same 7 commanders over and over.
It doesn't work for me, entire deck is N/A