LMF and the community input

[Bane of the Living]

I noticed today that Deadguy Ale and Rifter are no longer in the Legacy Metagame Forums. This is more than expected but I was wondering why no decks replaced their spots. Rifter and Ale were quickly added for their MINOR success. By now IGGy Pop and Angel Stompy have more than proved their worth in the legacy metagame. You can certainly argue the same for some other decks as well. I know it seems to be the Legacy Adepts place to work these things out. But this is our community here on the source. This is our community metagame. I think the non legacy adepts need a place to push these decks into the golden forum.

[Atwa]

I also feel the need for a more open discussion about which decks belong in the LMF. Although the adepts have (been) proven to know what they are talking about when it comes to the Legacy metagame, creating a elite group of players who deceide which decks are good will only lead to stagnation.

Look at Vintage, where a small group of players have to deceide which decks and cardchoises are good, who flame people for making controverial decks/cardchoises, and after that use the deck/cardchoises themself and take all the credit for it.

I am not saying this happends in Legacy, in fact I believe we have the most transparent format when it comes to sharing tech and idea's. However, letting a small group of people deceide what is good, can never be healty for our format. People who play the format longer and have been putting up good results at the same time, will think more conservative when it comes to seeing a deck as good (enough for the LMF).

I still wonder why Golden Grahams never has been in the LMF, it placed top 8 in both GP's, and it did very well in other big tournaments. Deadguy's Ale was added to the list the moment it placed second at the GP, while everyone agreed the deck is just bad (event the adepts).

I would really see decks like Angel Stompy, Iggy Pop and Golden Grahams in the LMF, the decks are good, they have a pretty much overall agreed decklist, and the decks have been proven to be able to win a medium/large tournament.

As for the community intut, I think other source members should have a voice in promoting a deck to LMF. The votes of adepts should still count a lot (like 3x a normal vote), I still believe a adept should have more power of these decisions over a regular member.

Either this, or some new adepts should be installed. Which decision is not important, just make sure there is some fresh blood among the decisionmakers.

PS. sorry for the enlish, but when I got a lot to say (doesn't happen that often), my spelling and grammar suffers from it.

[Getsickanddie]

Although the adepts have (been) proven to know what they are talking about when it comes to the Legacy metagame, creating a elite group of players who deceide which decks are good will only lead to stagnation.


Especially since many of the adepts no longer play, or are not regularly active.

[Afro]

Especially since many of the adepts no longer play, or are not regularly active.

This is a blatant lie. =D

[Bane of the Living]

This is a blatant lie. =D

Oh the lies..

http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3765

[CavernNinja]

Especially since many of the adepts no longer play, or are not regularly active.

A blatant blatant lie. There are a few adepts that don't play big tournaments any more because of changes in our social lives (we still play at times though) but for the most part the adepts, especially those that voice a large opinion about LMF decks are those who play in nearly every major tournament.

[Watcher487]

A blatant blatant lie. There are a few adepts that don't play big tournaments any more because of changes in our social lives (we still play at times though) but for the most part the adepts, especially those that voice a large opinion about LMF decks are those who play in nearly every major tournament.

And then there are those of us that actually go to the bigger tourneys as regular members but don't get shit for credit from anyone on these boards.

My personal bias behind, we don't need a LMF since the meta is so wide open.

Just take a look at Gencon,
39 Goblin players = 1 top 8 spot

It's just not worth it to have a forum where people are just going to have to net deck.

[My Name Is Scott]

Although the adepts have (been) proven to know what they are talking about when it comes to the Legacy metagame, creating a elite group of players who deceide which decks are good will only lead to stagnation.
It's not like that at all, there's a whole lot of number crunching going on in the adept forums. The whole point of the adept forum is to have discussions beyond the level you can have in the normal forum. It's not like anyone is running around saying "well we can't put burn in because burn sucks."


My personal bias behind, we don't need a LMF since the meta is so wide open.
There are decks that you should expect to see and perform well in large tournaments. The LMF is there to better prepare people for these decks, as well as aid in their development.

[scrumdogg]

You guys should definitely express yourselves, but realize that it is ultimately to little point. Direct quote from Godzilla "You are not living in a democracy" which means that Legacy Adepts have about as much say as everyone else concerning the LMF - some slight advisory role, the ability to point out things, etc. But the decision-making power lies solely with the mods & admins, an elite group indeed.

[MasterBlaster]

There are decks that you should expect to see and perform well in large tournaments. The LMF is there to better prepare people for these decks, as well as aid in their development.

But aren't the decks in the LMF widely played partly because they are in the LMF?

[Bardo]

You guys should definitely express yourselves, but realize that it is ultimately to little point. Direct quote from Godzilla "You are not living in a democracy" which means that Legacy Adepts have about as much say as everyone else concerning the LMF - some slight advisory role, the ability to point out things, etc. But the decision-making power lies solely with the mods & admins, an elite group indeed.

Out of curiousity, what alternative do you suggest?



But aren't the decks in the LMF widely played partly because they are in the LMF?

Heh--that's one of those "what came first: the chicken or the egg?" kinds of questions. This may be right some of the time; but this is also wrong a lot of the time too.

[TheDarkshineKnight]

How about we basically change the Legacy Metagame Forum from decks that are uber to those that have had SOME tourny success, which means Iggy Pop, Angel Stompy, Landstill, etc. Since most netdeckers are going to check that forum, we might as well add some more decks so as to bring the poor netdeckers some variety.

[Lukas Preuss]

Either this, or some new adepts should be installed. Which decision is not important, just make sure there is some fresh blood among the decisionmakers.

Actually, this is not a bad idea. What do you have to do to become an Adept? Create a viable deck? Place well at major tournaments? Write articles about Legacy?

If this is anything close to the real conditions, then some 'basic users' could definitely be 'promoted' to Adept status.

[TheDarkshineKnight]

Actually, this is not a bad idea. What do you have to do to become an Adept? Create a viable deck? Place well at major tournaments? Write articles about Legacy?

If this is anything close to the real conditions, then some 'basic users' could definitely be 'promoted' to Adept status.

*Cough* IBA and Eldariel *Cough*

[CavernNinja]

Actually, this is not a bad idea. What do you have to do to become an Adept? Create a viable deck? Place well at major tournaments? Write articles about Legacy?

If this is anything close to the real conditions, then some 'basic users' could definitely be 'promoted' to Adept status.

It requires basically all of that. In order to become an adept you have to show the ability to create or redefine a deck to become a strong contender (Me, Overlord, Mad Zur and ObFreely - Continue efforts most recently stemming into thresh in it's current forms and numerous top 8 finishes at large events, Quicksilver - RGSA in it's current form again numerous top 8's and wins, Machinus - his continued work on many decks featuring Stax primarily and his strong contributions to legacy on this forum and TMD, IBA - Well he's made more decks than any of us.) The idea is that an adept is someone who can compete and also has shown interest in supporting the advancement of the format and this forum.

[scrumdogg]

Out of curiousity, what alternative do you suggest?

Since I have no say, I don't feel the need to present ideas - unless I have something that I feel is a brilliant solution (I don't) or an idea I feel so strongly that I will rail against wind to promote it (in this case again, I don't).


Heh--that's one of those "what came first: the chicken or the egg?" kinds of questions. This may be right some of the time; but this is also wrong a lot of the time too.

True, but people DO look at the DTB section here & at TMD/L and that DOES have an effect on the metagame.

[TheDarkshineKnight]

Okay, here's the solution: Post everything that is decent and frequently played in the LMF, as you know, those decks are what shape the metagame. It's not called Best Decks in Legacy forum.

[Bane of the Living]

Since I have no say, I don't feel the need to present ideas - unless I have something that I feel is a brilliant solution (I don't) or an idea I feel so strongly that I will rail against wind to promote it (in this case again, I don't).



True, but people DO look at the DTB section here & at TMD/L and that DOES have an effect on the metagame.

Thats right. Now that there are only 3-4 decks in the LMF Im sure all the net decking vintage players will be in full force tomorrow. Playing in the 10 proxy mana leak with fake resets, piledrivers, pithing needles, fow's and duals.

Have fun playing against thresh all day.

[Ridiculous Hat]

The LMF is "decks you should be able to beat if you want to consistently win tournaments."

[scrumdogg]

Thats right. Now that there are only 3-4 decks in the LMF Im sure all the net decking vintage players will be in full force tomorrow. Playing in the 10 proxy mana leak with fake resets, piledrivers, pithing needles, fow's and duals.

Have fun playing against thresh all day.

As long as I beat Thresh & Solidarity, what do I care? :) You're showing up for this I hope.

[Caboose]

But aren't the decks in the LMF widely played partly because they are in the LMF?

Yes. At least one person played Minotaur Advantage at Champs as a legit deck. I saw Didgeridoo being cast with my own eyes.

[AngryTroll]

It seems that back in the day the big question was whether to make the LMF a broad category, featuring most of the big successful decks like Angel Stompy, RGSA, Gro, Goblins, Golden Grahms, etc; or to leave it a small, highly elite forum. I think that anyone seriously preparing for a major tourney needs to be at least familiar with all the decks in Open and prepared for all the decks in the LMF.

I do, however, think that Salvagers Combo should be in the LMF. There is an agreed upon decklist, and it consistantly Top 8s. True, it has some trouble with Pithing Needle and Tormod's Crypt, but it just got Second at the last big tournament.

[Zilla]

You guys should definitely express yourselves, but realize that it is ultimately to little point. Direct quote from Godzilla "You are not living in a democracy" which means that Legacy Adepts have about as much say as everyone else concerning the LMF - some slight advisory role, the ability to point out things, etc. But the decision-making power lies solely with the mods & admins, an elite group indeed.
This quote is taken somewhat out of context, Scrumm. When I say this site is not a democracy, I refer very specifically to the overall structure of the site. The moderators will always have free reign to change the way things are done if we feel it's beneficial to the smooth operation and advancement of the site. This does not mean that community input is unwelcome or disregarded. What it does mean is that we reserve the right to do what we feel is best for the site without requiring permission from anyone.

The simple fact of the matter is that the way we've been choosing decks for the LMF for the last couple years is outdated and unwieldy, to say the least. With the Adept community having grown more than three times what it was when this system was created, it is now much much more difficult to come to a consensus with regards to what the LMF is even for, much less what decks should go into it.

The old guidelines for deciding Decks to Beat are so vague that people are making their decisions based more on gut feeling than anything else. As I stated in the Adept forums on this subject, the LMF should reflect what decks are doing well, not what decks people feel should be doing well.

Because of this, the mod staff is giving strong consideration to the implementation of a voteless system, where decks are decided for the LMF based upon Top 8 results from recent tournaments of over 50 players. The proposed system as it's currently being discussed would take the Top 8 results from all Legacy tournaments with 50 players or more in the last 3 months, and any deck with 2 more more appearances would be put in the LMF. At the end of each month, the results would be reviewed and decks would be added or removed as the tournament results dictate.

This creates a completely objective decisionmaking process, and is furthermore a great deal more efficient, meaning the LMF will stay current and will thus be a more relevant tool overall.

[Lukas Preuss]

Because of this, the mod staff is giving strong consideration to the implementation of a voteless system, where decks are decided for the LMF based upon Top 8 results from recent tournaments of over 50 players. The proposed system as it's currently being discussed would take the Top 8 results from all Legacy tournaments with 50 players or more in the last 3 months, and any deck with 2 more more appearances would be put in the LMF. At the end of each month, the results would be reviewed and decks would be added or removed as the tournament results dictate.

So, do only American tournaments count for this or are European tournaments relevant for this data, as well? We have tournaments with more than 50 participants at least twice a month in Germany (although one of them doesn't publish the entire T8)... We have sort of a different metagame, though (with Landstill and Spring Tide being played).

[AnwarA101]

This quote is taken somewhat out of context, Scrumm. When I say this site is not a democracy, I refer very specifically to the overall structure of the site. The moderators will always have free reign to change the way things are done if we feel it's beneficial to the smooth operation and advancement of the site. This does not mean that community input is unwelcome or disregarded. What it does mean is that we reserve the right to do what we feel is best for the site without requiring permission from anyone.


But it does mean that all suggestions are just that suggestions and have no real power other than that of persuasion. If you are able convince the moderators that your course of action is the correct one then your input will influence decisions, otherwise consider it something they'll read, but ultimately decide for themselves.

[MasterBlaster]

Blah blah blah....Voteless, scientific method for determining the Legacy Metagame Forum.....blah blah blah.

I like the sound of that.

[CavernNinja]

I like the sound of that.

Why? So that the LMF is based on information that you could easily figure out yourself?

[TheDarkshineKnight]

Why? So that the LMF is based on information that you could easily figure out yourself?

CavernNinja am cry.

Nah, I kid.

[Zilla]

So, do only American tournaments count for this or are European tournaments relevant for this data, as well?
We're still considering this. As you're aware, European metagames are extremely different than American ones. That said, this site's community has a good number of foreign members, and as such, the information presented here should cater to their needs as well as those of our American members. Further, it makes sense to work towards a unification or globablization of metagames. It is likely that tournament data from overseas will be included in this system, assuming we're able to obtain the data.


But it does mean that all suggestions are just that suggestions and have no real power other than that of persuasion.
Unless specifically stated otherwise, this is correct. You paint an overly fatalistic view of the situation, though. In many cases, we do make decisions based on the majority of Adept opinion. We simply reserve the right to alter the system if we feel it's not effectively serving the site. In this case, the mods agree that an LMF which includes only the top 3 decks in the format (which is the only thing the Adept community can agree on), is narrow to the point of uselessness. We feel that a wider range of viable decks should be represented there, and so we intend to implement a system that will make that happen, while still maintaining objectivity and relevance.


Why? So that the LMF is based on information that you could easily figure out yourself?
Complete the following sentence:

"When determining which decks belong in the LMF, my personal feelings are more important than actual facts because ___________."

If you can make this statement logically defensible, it will be given due consideration as we decide how to proceed in this matter.

[MasterBlaster]

@Godzilla: Do you know when we should expect the new LMF system to be implemented?

[Ridiculous Hat]

Complete the following sentence:

"When determining which decks belong in the LMF, my personal feelings are more important than actual facts because ___________."

If you can make this statement logically defensible, it will be given due consideration as we decide how to proceed in this matter.
"because I am Jack Elgin, patron saint of vintage, and I will fight anyone who claims otherwise."

[Kadaj]

"because I am Jack Elgin, patron saint of vintage, and I will fight anyone who claims otherwise."

Good enough for me, lets move on then. >_>

In all seriousness, setting up and maintaining the LMF is going to be nearly impossible to do in a way that will satisfy everyone. Some of us will always think that deck A is crap, while others will think that deck A is great and it's really deck B that sucks. Then of course there will be decks like Angel Stompy and Rifter, that do well in metagames suited towards their stratagies, but fall flat on their face in less forgiving environments. How do you rate those? Are they decks to beat because they have the potential to win tournaments, and are established archetypes with a widely agreed upon decklist? Or are they not because it's much more likely Solidarity will simply beat them into the ground?

I don't know the answer to that conundrum, nor do I really think anyone does beyond their own simple opinion on the matter. On an entirely different note, I don't think the fact that Netdeckers are going to want a forum to gather info off of is at all important (not that I think anyone was really thinking that, or at least, I hope not).

Simply put, I think the LMF should be set up to be a collection of the decks that the majority of people consider to be the best and most viable choices to bring to a major tournament. Is that the best possible idea? Maybe not, but I think it's as viable as any other idea.

[AnwarA101]

Because of this, the mod staff is giving strong consideration to the implementation of a voteless system, where decks are decided for the LMF based upon Top 8 results from recent tournaments of over 50 players. The proposed system as it's currently being discussed would take the Top 8 results from all Legacy tournaments with 50 players or more in the last 3 months, and any deck with 2 more more appearances would be put in the LMF. At the end of each month, the results would be reviewed and decks would be added or removed as the tournament results dictate.

This creates a completely objective decisionmaking process, and is furthermore a great deal more efficient, meaning the LMF will stay current and will thus be a more relevant tool overall.

Looks like Reanimator is going into the LMF. Do we even have a thread on it?

[Anarky87]

Looks like Reanimator is going into the LMF. Do we even have a thread on it?

http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4004

That's a link to the Mono-Black Reanimator in the NDF for starters.

[dontbiteitholmes]

Looks like Reanimator is going into the LMF. Do we even have a thread on it?
What the fuck? Reanimator? What has Reanimator been doing?

[Zilla]

@Godzilla: Do you know when we should expect the new LMF system to be implemented?
As soon as we come to a decision about the variables involved. We need to decide on the following:

1. How many players a tournament must have to qualify.
2. How far back we want to go chronologically.
3. The minimum number of times a deck must place to qualify.
4. How often we intend to update the LMF with new results.
5. Whether or not we include foreign tournaments.

Currently, the proposed variables are as follows:

1. 50
2. 3 months
3. Twice
4. Once a month
5. Probably, yes.

Note, and this is important: none of these variables are currently set in stone. There needs to be a more thorough analyzation of the data and more comprehensive discussion amongst mods and adepts to decide if these are the variables we want to use. We'll keep you posted.

[Lukas Preuss]

It is likely that tournament data from overseas will be included in this system, assuming we're able to obtain the data.
That's really nice to hear. And it makes sense, since most European players turn to the Source to get an impression of the format, as well. I could help you with said data, if you want.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Complete the following sentence:

"When determining which decks belong in the LMF, my personal feelings are more important than actual facts because ___________."

If you can make this statement logically defensible, it will be given due consideration as we decide how to proceed in this matter.

Whenever I play a deck, and I anticipate my next few draws, I try to average the probability of any given card being on the top of my deck, based on the number that I play and the amount I have already drawn. I do not base my imagined next card on what card I drew the last time I was in this position. But this is apparently very different from the game of Magic as she is played in the cold and forboding NorthWest.

[Zilla]

Whenever I play a deck, and I anticipate my next few draws, I try to average the probability of any given card being on the top of my deck, based on the number that I play and the amount I have already drawn. I do not base my imagined next card on what card I drew the last time I was in this position.
This is a poor analogy in that it assumes there is a given, unchanging set of data from which to work that allows for accurate predicition of this nature. This applies to an unchanging 60 card decklist. It does not apply to a constantly changing metagame containing hundreds of different deck types. Furthermore, your analogy encourages prediction based on knowledge of statistical data, not gut feelings, which makes it a crappy way to end that sentence.

[TheDarkshineKnight]

This is a poor analogy in that it assumes there is a given, unchanging set of data from which to work that allows for accurate predicition of this nature. This applies to an unchanging 60 card decklist. It does not apply to a contantly changing metagame containing hundreds of different deck types. Furthermore, your analogy encourages prediction based on knowledge of statistical data, not gut feelings, which makes it a crappy way to end that sentence.

YEAH! Damn IBA and his logic!

[pooispoois]

As soon as we come to a decision about the variables involved. We need to decide on the following:

1. How many players a tournament must have to qualify.
2. How far back we want to go chronologically.
3. The minimum number of times a deck must place to qualify.
4. How often we intend to update the LMF with new results.
5. Whether or not we include foreign tournaments.

Currently, the proposed variables are as follows:

1. 50
2. 3 months
3. Twice
4. Once a month
5. Probably, yes.

Note, and this is important: none of these variables are currently set in stone. There needs to be a more thorough analyzation of the data and more comprehensive discussion amongst mods and adepts to decide if these are the variables we want to use. We'll keep you posted.
I think this system is pretty good with these variables, only I will suggest a system I feel is more useful than solution #2 to keep a fairly updated LMF section that also dismisses flukes (like possibly Reanimator as a recent exmaple). Every deck in that section has its "Consistency Points". These points are awarded at the end of the month, for each 2 Top 8 showings [in accountable tournaments] it made. For example, at the end of a month where ******** Top 8'd 6 times, it would be awarded 3 consistency points. Then, at the end of each month where a deck in the LMF area didn't post at least two top 8 showings, it gets a consistency point removed, and a deck without consistency points gets entirely removed from the LMF.
An hypotetical example: Reanimator would get added to the LMF and awarded a consistency point for two Top 8 showings in the month, but then the next month only one Reanimator deck manages to Top 8, so the deck loses its only consistency point and gets removed (it is what would be considered "a fluke"). Also, one could evluate the strength of a deck in the metagame by its consistency points, as well as how long it has been performing and, naturally and given the name I gave the points, its consistency at achieving Top 8s.

[dontbiteitholmes]

As soon as we come to a decision about the variables involved. We need to decide on the following:

1. How many players a tournament must have to qualify.
2. How far back we want to go chronologically.
3. The minimum number of times a deck must place to qualify.
4. How often we intend to update the LMF with new results.
5. Whether or not we include foreign tournaments.

Currently, the proposed variables are as follows:

1. 50
2. 3 months
3. Twice
4. Once a month
5. Probably, yes.

Note, and this is important: none of these variables are currently set in stone. There needs to be a more thorough analyzation of the data and more comprehensive discussion amongst mods and adepts to decide if these are the variables we want to use. We'll keep you posted.

Sounds good but might I suggest.

1. 50
2. 6 months (due to that shortage of 50+ player tourneys but taking into account the changing meta)
3. Twice (prevents another Pikula fiasco)
4. Once a month. (unless something outragous happens on a given month)
5. Yes, but if a deck is a deck to beat in Europe but not played in America it should have (EU) next to it so people don't wonder why LoamTog isn't winning them all types of tourneys.

[Whit3 Ghost]

I agree with Holmes.

6 Months is about right, because 3 month updates are too frequent and don't allow for multiple tournament results.

[Zilla]

I agree with Holmes.

6 Months is about right, because 3 month updates are too frequent and don't allow for multiple tournament results.
A lot can happen in 6 months, particular considering how many more large tournaments we've been seeing in recent months. Nevertheless, it's not out of the question. However, if we do go with a 6 month timeline, we will likely increase the number of minimum placements to qualify to 3 because there will be a wider range of data to work from. This would also lower the "fluke factor" mentioned earlier.

Note that if we do go with the 3 month timeline, we would disregard months without any tournaments over 50 players. So for example, if there are results in January, but then no tournaments in February or March, then some in April, then none until July, then January, April and July would count as "the last 3 months" for data collection purposes. Essentially, for a month to be taken into consideration, it must have at least one tournament with over 50 players in it.

[Phantom]

Is their any thought to weighting the results based on the number of players entered (as well as cutting off all results with < 50 players)?

Basically, I'm asking if the winner of a GP that drew 200+ players will count more than a weekly they run in Portland?

[Zilla]

Is their any thought to weighting the results based on the number of players entered (as well as cutting off all results with < 50 players)?
No. We want to keep this relatively simple.


Basically, I'm asking if the winner of a GP that drew 200+ players will count more than a weekly they run in Portland?
I am not aware of any weekly tournaments which regularly draw more than 50 players, or even close to it. If there are any, then this number will likely be raised.

[AnwarA101]

Is their any thought to weighting the results based on the number of players entered (as well as cutting off all results with < 50 players)?

Basically, I'm asking if the winner of a GP that drew 200+ players will count more than a weekly they run in Portland?

A weekly run in Portland won't count unless it had at least 50 people, but then again you might want to check with Zilla.

[DeathwingZERO]

Just out of curiosity, but if the most recent list of possible credentials were to be instituted, wouldn't this mean at the very least Deadguy Ale was in fact still an LMF deck, for instance? It's had 4 placings in the last 6 months, almost as much as any incarnation of UGx Thresh, which is in contention along with Solidarity and Vial Goblins to be the top tier of the format.

Also, wouldn't it be a good idea to look into adding in maybe a little bit of a push in the instance of getting substantial tournaments (24 players +) on weekly/bi weekly basis as well as the obvious 50+ "big" tournaments we see maybe once a month or so? I would hardly shape the metagame of a format still in it's maturing level based on 12-13 tournaments a year, we're much more akin to Extended's various "seasonal changes" than Type 1's "New top deck" theories. It would seem if we can get people/places to give some results from regularly scheduled events in the top 8, that could also prove to be somewhat helpful in at least determining what metagame shifts certain areas are going through, even if it is a lesser turnout. I personally have noticed a huge difference between the West Coast, East Coast, and European decks, at least in the range of the top 8. This must mean that in playtesting groups and smaller tournaments, there's much more than just 3-4 decks these guys are going up against on a weekly basis.

[scrumdogg]

Sounds good but might I suggest.

1. 50
2. 6 months (due to that shortage of 50+ player tourneys but taking into account the changing meta)
3. Twice (prevents another Pikula fiasco)
4. Once a month. (unless something outragous happens on a given month)
5. Yes, but if a deck is a deck to beat in Europe but not played in America it should have (EU) next to it so people don't wonder why LoamTog isn't winning them all types of tourneys.

Agreed except for point number five - a good deck in a large tournament environment is a good deck in a large tournament environment. Besides, completely discounting play skill & familiarity with deck, most players are not going to be using the LMF data for major tournament purposes anyway. They are looking at A) what to expect (for part of a field) B) stuff that has been successful C) something they can play at Bob's Cards, BBQ, & Carwash with the other local 10-20 Legacy mutants & dominate. If Bavarian Cream Loam Control gets monkeyfucked down at Bob's, you obviously either shouldn't play it as it is bad for your local meta or practice a lot more.

[tivadar]

So does two appearances mean two appearances in DIFFERENT tourneys, or do two appearances in the same tourney count? It seems like it should be different ones because this will prevent decks that succeed in weird metas from automatically getting in should they double place in a tourney.

[scrumdogg]

So does two appearances mean two appearances in DIFFERENT tourneys, or do two appearances in the same tourney count? It seems like it should be different ones because this will prevent decks that succeed in weird metas from automatically getting in should they double place in a tourney.

Any weird meta with 50+ person tournaments deserves some respect anyway (or a roadtrip to sodomize them with good decks...). Besides, being a DTB doesn't mean you personally have to play it, like it, respect it or test it - you always have the option to ignore a deck....at your peril.

[Lego]

How close do decklists have to be for them to be considered the same deck? I gather that the two Reanimator decks which T8ed the Mana Leak were about as similar as Deadguy is to Red Death.

I mean, Goblins is Goblins whether it is mono-red or runs a green splash, whether it runs 4 maindeck Siege-Gang or maindeck Goblin King or Goblin Tinkerer. But what about when it runs 4 Ancient Tomb and 4 City of Traitors? Is it a different deck now, even if the rest of the creature base is exactly the same?

The same question can be asked for any number of decks. Have the Adepts and/or Mods been discussing this?

[Whit3 Ghost]

A lot can happen in 6 months, particular considering how many more large tournaments we've been seeing in recent months. Nevertheless, it's not out of the question. However, if we do go with a 6 month timeline, we will likely increase the number of minimum placements to qualify to 3 because there will be a wider range of data to work from. This would also lower the "fluke factor" mentioned earlier.

Note that if we do go with the 3 month timeline, we would disregard months without any tournaments over 50 players. So for example, if there are results in January, but then no tournaments in February or March, then some in April, then none until July, then January, April and July would count as "the last 3 months" for data collection purposes. Essentially, for a month to be taken into consideration, it must have at least one tournament with over 50 players in it.
That makes a lot more sense. I think either system is pretty good.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

This is a poor analogy in that it assumes there is a given, unchanging set of data from which to work that allows for accurate predicition of this nature. This applies to an unchanging 60 card decklist. It does not apply to a constantly changing metagame containing hundreds of different deck types. Furthermore, your analogy encourages prediction based on knowledge of statistical data, not gut feelings, which makes it a crappy way to end that sentence.


Combining some rough guidelines with subjective judgement based upon interpretation is good enough for professors, lawyers, judges, police officers, doctors, soldiers, every single driver, and pretty much any professional in any walk of life. It's an inescapable aspect of the world that we live in. Are you seriously suggesting that either the LMF is so direly important that the same standards of judgement which allow the rest of the world to get by are too imperfect for it, or that the Adepts who vote on these things are so much more inherently retarded than the average human being that their judgement is completely untrustworthy.

Can people just stop trying to use the fact that some responsibility for not being a moron is required to decide the LMF as an excuse to claim the system as flawed and revert to some blinder, also subjectively determined system?

[Finn]

Damn IBA, you certainly do have your minions. Every time you speak, some person wants to chime in to cheer.

On topic, am I understanding that you are putting limitations on what decks can be considered? It seems reasonable that the adepts can determine for themsleves far more fluidly which decks should be considered. Or are those numerical requirements which decks get the final nod? I certianly hope not for the same reasons.

There is a decision making body here. They should be allowed to make their decisions in any way they see fit. I personally would feel unnecessarily encumbered if I were among them and these sorts of quantitave shackles were placed upon my opinion.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

That's because I'm awesome, and a role model to asshole players who are primarily interested in making sure their opponents can't win instead of doing anything themselves everywhere.

Anyway, no, Godzilla has been advocating a system that would eliminate the conscious human decision-making element from the LMF entirely; so that, for instance, right now, new players to the format would be advised that Raffinity, Reanimator and Landstill are decks that they are highly likely to have to play against in a competitive Legacy tournament and will probably have trouble beating without a cohesive gameplan.

[Bardo]

I hope it doesn't read like a maintenance contract for a washing machine, but feel free to read our recently updated DtB criteria (http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=30096.0) at TMD/TML and give us your opinion.

[AnwarA101]

Anyway, no, Godzilla has been advocating a system that would eliminate the conscious human decision-making element from the LMF entirely; so that, for instance, right now, new players to the format would be advised that Raffinity, Reanimator and Landstill are decks that they are highly likely to have to play against in a competitive Legacy tournament and will probably have trouble beating without a cohesive gameplan.

Well he just wants it to be a reflection of what is actually making Top8. These decks are supposedly the decks that you should need to beat to make Top8. If we only want a reflection of what makes Top8 then no human input is required. Make some criteria and apply it to the data and get some result. Whether that result represents whatever the idea of a "deck to beat" depends on your definition. Zilla's system seems to take the route that we should prepare for the most successful decks. But I think Zilla is predisposed to create criteria that allow for a large number (greater than 5) to be in the LMF. I'm not sure we ever answered the question - what is a deck to beat?

By the way, advocating is the wrong word you mean implementing.

[Zilla]

Combining some rough guidelines with subjective judgement based upon interpretation is good enough for professors, lawyers, judges, police officers, doctors, soldiers, every single driver, and pretty much any professional in any walk of life.
Actually no, it's not. The systems upon which judges and police officers base their profession, for example, are anything but rough guidelines. They are some of the most complex, convoluted systems ever conceived, and it takes an entirely seperate profession (lawyers) just to decypher it all. If a comparison to the American legal system as an argument for the way way we currently decide the LMF decks is the best you've got, I'm not impressed.


Are you seriously suggesting that either the LMF is so direly important that the same standards of judgement which allow the rest of the world to get by are too imperfect for it, or that the Adepts who vote on these things are so much more inherently retarded than the average human being that their judgement is completely untrustworthy.
I'm suggesting that there has thus far been no compelling argument that personal opinion is a better way to decide these things than cold hard facts.


Anyway, no, Godzilla has been advocating a system that would eliminate the conscious human decision-making element from the LMF entirely; so that, for instance, right now, new players to the format would be advised that Raffinity, Reanimator and Landstill are decks that they are highly likely to have to play against in a competitive Legacy tournament and will probably have trouble beating without a cohesive gameplan.
And with your system, we get people (I won't name any names) arguing that Truffle Shuffle belongs in the LMF. At least the archetypes listed above are well-known archetypes which have proven themselves at large, competitive tournaments.

That you're arguing against certain archetypes based on personal bias against them despite their performance only bolsters my assertion that a sytem which eliminates personal bias is preferable.

Also, as previously stated, we're still tweaking the variables involved in the way the new system will work. Once we've fleshed out the details, we'll present it to the community for review before final implementation.



I'm not sure we ever answered the question - what is a deck to beat?
The purpose of the LMF, in rough terms:

1. To give new players a foundation for understanding the format by introducing them to at least some of the relatively viable, prevalent archetypes which make up the metagame at any given time.

2. To give people who have taken a break from the format a rough idea of what is currently being played as a foundation for re-entering the format.

3. To provide people with the tools they need to create a testing gauntlet for their decks when preparing for an upcoming tournament, by providing them with a decent range of some of the more competitive, relatively prevalent archetypes to test against.

4. To provide decklists of some of the more popular archetypes for netdeckers.

5. To be used as a means of spotting changes in metagame trends for more advanced players.


By the way, advocating is the wrong word you mean implementing.
QFT.

[scrumdogg]

I just had a horrible thought, both the way we're currently running the LMF & the proposed system has no real way to address a deck that would be predominant but not really representing. Let me use a real example (fortunately covered because it IS a DTB) and one hypothetical situation. Goblins apparently was rampant at GenCon but put 1 in Top 8. If you were not able to run with Goblins, you were in for a rough tournament apparently. It gets worse if Goblins gets played everywhere but isn't cracking Top 8 (not happening, but bear with my reasoning). It IS however, in the Top 16 & constituting a significant percentage of decks at the tournaments. It gets worse if something like Fluctuator were rampant but the decks in Top 8 would be anything with blue - Thresh of all varieties, Landstill, Fish, BBS. The aggro builds you would cunningly plan against the Top 8, however, get EATEN by the 'unseen monster' in the Legacy pool. This is an extreme example, but how do we accurately show trends in Legacy that aren't well represented in Top 8 or can we even do it, beyond telling people 'you need to test against these certain decks & be able to beat randomness as well?'

[AnwarA101]

I just had a horrible thought, both the way we're currently running the LMF & the proposed system has no real way to address a deck that would be predominant but not really representing. Let me use a real example (fortunately covered because it IS a DTB) and one hypothetical situation. Goblins apparently was rampant at GenCon but put 1 in Top 8. If you were not able to run with Goblins, you were in for a rough tournament apparently. It gets worse if Goblins gets played everywhere but isn't cracking Top 8 (not happening, but bear with my reasoning). It IS however, in the Top 16 & constituting a significant percentage of decks at the tournaments. It gets worse if something like Fluctuator were rampant but the decks in Top 8 would be anything with blue - Thresh of all varieties, Landstill, Fish, BBS. The aggro builds you would cunningly plan against the Top 8, however, get EATEN by the 'unseen monster' in the Legacy pool. This is an extreme example, but how do we accurately show trends in Legacy that aren't well represented in Top 8 or can we even do it, beyond telling people 'you need to test against these certain decks & be able to beat randomness as well?'

This is already sort of happening with Burn. Burn is a very poor deck, but it still sees quite a bit of play. So the question becomes should you test against it? Probably not. The main reason is that it isn't prevalent enough mainly because it is isn't good enough. But this becomes a very fine line. If more people played Burn then would you have to test against it? Probably yes. The real question is will the metagame force the Burn player to change? Will Burn players continue to play it despite the fact that it never makes Top8? If that is so then pretty much nothing we do can force it out of the metagame. In essence the metagame has already forced it out, but people play it for whatever reason. I think this is happening to a large degree with Deadguy Ale, but at least that deck can claim some Top8 spots unlike Burn which has virtually none.

[cupajoe]

This whole discussion further reveals that the idea of "best decks" in a format with such a large cardpool is a rather fruitless exercise.....

I do think that compiling data from Top 8s from over a certain time period is beneficial, but I don't think elevating certain decks from that as DTB would be very useful, because of what scrumdogg has to say....Some decks you'll see a lot, like Goblins, High Tide, Burn and Threshold, but you already know that just from playing in a few tournaments....

Get rid of the LMF and just present the data from the Top 8s in an easy-to-read way and let people draw their own conclusions....For instance, it would also be useful to see how many different decks make top 8 in a six-month period....I think that would be the most telling stat of all....

[Zilla]

This whole discussion further reveals that the idea of "best decks" in a format with such a large cardpool is a rather fruitless exercise.....
The LMF and DTB's have never been about "the best decks". This is a common misconception and it is an incorrect one. Ideally, the LMF should be a quick reference for people to see what's realtively prevalent and competitive in the current metagame. That does not mean Tier 1 - it means any deck that gets played enough and is viable enough that you're probably going to want to know how to beat it it with whatever deck you're playing. DTB status is not a dick-wagging contest for deckbuilders. It's meant to be a fairly accurate rendition of the decks that are popular and viable at the moment.


I do think that compiling data from Top 8s from over a certain time period is beneficial, but I don't think elevating certain decks from that as DTB would be very useful, because of what scrumdogg has to say....Some decks you'll see a lot, like Goblins, High Tide, Burn and Threshold, but you already know that just from playing in a few tournaments....
We want to provide a resource to people who haven't been to a Legacy tournament yet, and want to prepare for one beforehand.


Get rid of the LMF and just present the data from the Top 8s in an easy-to-read way and let people draw their own conclusions....
The problem is that it's not particularly easy-to-read. You can get a very vague idea at a quick glance, but to really notice trands in the metagame, you need to look at all the decks played at a given tournament to see why the decks that won did so. You have to examine decklists to see what advantage one build might have over another in a particular metagame, etc.

The bottom line is that we want an easy reference for people to have in terms of what's doing well, what's fairly prevalent, what the decklists look like, and what people think about these decks as they relate to one another. The LMF is a logical place to do that.


For instance, it would also be useful to see how many different decks make top 8 in a six-month period....I think that would be the most telling stat of all....
I'll be starting a thread for that in the LMF, but under the new system, you'll know these results most easily just by looking at what decks are in there.

[cupajoe]

Whatever the official criteria is for the LMF, the end result is that it looks like a "These are the best decks" page, especially since there's so few of them in there, and the fact that it's so difficult to get a deck into the LMF

But I guess for the most part you already realize that there's a problem, since you're changing the way it's done, so I shouldn't complain :)....

All I'm saying is that the best thing you could do is just compile the Top 8 data without coming up with criteria to be a DTB.....That way, you won't get those endless, pointless arguments that you end up locking the threads for anyway.....(why isn't salvagers-gamekeeper DTB and so on)

Really, there are about 15-20 DTB, maybe more, so I think you should just admit that and move on