LMF changes and reactions

[Peter_Rotten]

You may have noticed some changes to the LMF and its policies today. Feel free to check them out and leave us some feedback. The Staff, with some suggestions from the Adepts, have worked hard trying to decide what changes would be best to reflect the rather diverse Legacy metagame.

Hopefully you find the changes useful.

Here is the Philosophy:

What is the purpose of the LMF forum?

The LMF exists for a few reasons. Primarily, its purpose is to give new and veteran Legacy players an idea of the current state of the metagame. It is not only for highlighting tier one decks, but is also reflective of current trends in a constantly changing metagame. Ideally, the LMF should provide a reasonably accurate model for creation of a testing gauntlet when preparing for an unknown metagame at a large, competitive tournament.


How is the LMF structured to meet these goals?

The LMF is broken down into three categories: [DTB] Decks to Beat, [DTW] Decks to Watch, and [ATW] Archetypes to Watch.

A DTB is typically (but not always) considered to be Tier 1. These decks are the most popular, prevalent decks in the format, and in many ways they help to define the rest of the metagame. These decks should absolutely be taken into consideration when preparing a gauntlet for a tournament.

A DTW is a deck which has proven itself recently at large, competitive tournaments, and is somewhat prevalent. These decks are often reactions to niches created by the meta-defining DTB's. They are not necessarily as important to consider when creating a testing gauntlet, but it is usually wise to be aware of how they operate and how your deck will deal with them.

An ATW is not a single deck, but a set of decks which have performing well at recent tournaments. These decks share a common strategy or set of cards which make them function similarly to one another, but are different enough that they cannot accurately be considered a single deck. These threads are not for the discussion of any single deck, but instead exist to discuss the archetype as a whole, including which builds are best for different metagames and refinement of the archetype in general.


So how are decks selected for the LMF?

Rather than relying on arbitrary selection or decision-making based on conjecture which can be tainted by personal bias, decks are selected for the LMF based on their performance at recent, large, competitive Legacy tournaments. Decks which make up a very large portion of the metagame are considered DTB's. Decks which are less prevalent but appear multiple times are considered DTW's. Archetypes which appear multiple times are considered ATW's.

The data used for selection is based upon Top 8's from the six most recent Legacy tournaments with 50 or more players. European tournament data is included in this process, because there is a thriving, well-developed Legacy community there, and their results are relevant. However, for a deck to be considered for the LMF on this site, it is required to have placed in American tournaments. If a deck is only doing well in Europe, it will not be included in the LMF here.

For the sake of currency and relevance, the LMF contents will be revised each time a 50+ person tournament occurs. The data from the most recent tournament will replace the data from the oldest of the six.


What makes a DTB?

A Deck to Beat is a deck which has at least four placements in Top 8's at 50+ person tournaments in the most recent six tournaments. At least two of these placements must be in American tournaments.


What makes a DTW?

A Deck to Watch is a deck which has at least two placements in Top 8's at 50+ person tournaments in the most recent six tournaments. At least one of these placements must be in American tournaments.


What makes an ATW?

An Archetype to Watch is an archetype or set of decks (e.g., Survival) which have at least three placements in Top 8's at 50+ person tournaments in the most recent six tournaments. At least one of these placements must be in American tournaments.


Final Notes:

We recognize that this system is neither perfect nor infallible. By analyzing only Top 8 data, we do not necessarily create an accurate or full representation of the decks that make up the metagame. However, we feel this system will produce reasonably accurate results using a relatively simple, bias-free method.

Consider this system to be in beta. It may be revised or tweaked in the coming weeks, based on its overall functionality and usefulness.

[Peter_Rotten]

Posted by Phantom:
(in the philosophies thread that we forgot to lock).

I really, really like the new changes. While you are never going to have a perfect system, at least these mistakes will be made by numbers and not opinions. Glad to see Red Death and FS finally getting their props. Good work.

My only question is really about the ATW category. It seems a slippery slope. I'm assuming the threads for the individual decks will remain open in other places? And I notice there is no ATW for Threshold. Does that mean if a particular build of Survival or Loam were to move into the LMF, the ATW thread would be closed?

Once again, nice job with all the hard work

[Caboose]

I'm no fan of it. But I appreciate the effort.

[C.P.]

I like it. But whole 'arctype to watch' thing is a little chunky.

Nice effort, though.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

@ Phantom - I think it's pretty reasonable to say that if 1 or 2 Survival variants performed consistently better than their peers, it would be more accurate to put those up as DTBs, and take out the ATW.

[URABAHN]

I think the new changes are a lot like Campbell's Soup.

http://www.hnabooks.com/images/products/9/1506-23.jpg

Can someone Photoshop this picture to say

"The Source" or something witty?

[Peter_Rotten]

I think the new changes are a lot like Campbell's Soup.

Tasty? And good when you're sick?

[Ewokslayer]

The changes seem fairly stupid.
Most of the DTW will only remain there if certain people play the decks at America tournaments.
Red Death - Anwar
Aluren - Alix
Enchantress - lonelybaritone

The use of European tournaments also seems odd. They make up an equal amount of the 6 tournaments under consideration, but their top 8s aren't weighted equally. Not that I think they should. According to the European metagame Spring Tide is a DTW but in America no one, that is not an exaggeration, plays the deck at these big events. So why should I care about Spring Tide unless I plan on going to Germany.
Perhaps it should look at the last 6 American Tournaments and the last 6 European tournaments separately and any deck that qualifies only from Europe gets a European (or I guess more accurately German) tag.

I won't even get into the fact that Legacy Metagame Forum is no longer judged on the actual metagame.

[Slay]

I thought the whole point of the Open forum was that they were all Decks to Watch and Archetypes to Watch.

[Tacosnape]

Good lord. Poor Solidarity got demoted hardcore. Not only did it get trumped by Epic Storm, but now Aluren's over the top of it.

I don't think it's fair to count Aluren's deck performance just because Alix Hatfield T8'd with it. Alix Hatfield T8's with Coldsnap Precons.

[Silverdragon]

I'm really happy about the changes. The only thing that makes me sad is the move of Solidarity but I can totally understand that as it hasn't put up the results recently to stay in the LMF.

[Nightmare]

The changes seem fairly stupid.You were given ample time to voice your opinion. This isn't particularly helpful.


I won't even get into the fact that Legacy Metagame Forum is no longer judged on the actual metagame.At what point did it do better than it does now? When Landstill was there for 6 months after it died? Or when there were only three decks in it? Incredibly accurate description of the metagame, if you ask me.


I thought the whole point of the Open forum was that they were all Decks to Watch and Archetypes to Watch.We considered stickying them in Open, but decided to differentiate between decks like Faerie Stompy and decks like Crazed Army.

[IndyTerminator]

I like the changes. They are different, but its nice to be able to go into the LMF and see a nice array of decks. Its good for people to be able to see a distinction between the established decks and decks that are on the rise.

I know that the Open forum is supposed to be for these decks that are something to be watched but lets be realistic. A lot of the decks in the Open forum are good but they are not all something to watch for. I take Deadguy Ale for an example. It is a deck on the decline and has consistently been losing popularity.

I like the changes and I hope the decks in the LMF stay updated whenever big tournaments come around.

[frogboy]

Most of the DTW will only remain there if certain people play the decks at America tournaments.

I'm not sure where the idea that only one person in the history of ever can win with a deck came from, but it's wrong unless that person is of Finkel/Maher/etc quality.

[Belgareth]

I like the changes a lot (with the exception of all the arrogant american people bashing on the Euro metagame :().
Just because a deck is not played in States doesn't mean it's any less important.
Since Legacy does not have a huge number of GP's yet, people are willing in some cases to travel.
For instance the London (real 1 in uk not canada) Grand prix trial had both 1st and 2nd spots taken by UWBfish, yet this deck apparently never sees play in states (God only knows why).
It's also not only Germany , but they are the ones holding weekly tournaments most :)

[AnwarA101]

I'm not sure where the idea that only one person in the history of ever can win with a deck came from, but it's wrong unless that person is of Finkel/Maher/etc quality.

I think he means the presence of those decks in the LMF is linked to the recent success of very specific people. I don't think he meant to imply that they can only be played by those people.

Also the loss of Solidarity in the LMF is unfortunate as it is usually the 3rd most played at any tournament behind Goblins and Threshold. It hasn't put up too many results lately, but that doesn't mean its not a metagame concern. If there was a third deck to be prepared for it would be Solidarity. I'm not sure any other deck even comes close in terms of people playing it.

[Slay]

We considered stickying them in Open, but decided to differentiate between decks like Faerie Stompy and decks like Crazed Army.

Hence the N&D forum.

And, if your problem is that the N&D forum is full of way too many terrible decks, just make a forum that's below it.
-Slay

[aisman132000]

Personally i think that the changes to the LMF are an improvement over the old one. I think we've all known for a long time that goblins, threshold and solidarity weren't the only top tier decks in the format. however i think that the current changes don't go far enough. How are terrageddon, enchantress, the EPIC storm or fairy stompy not decks to beat? They have all put up good numbers (be it in the united states or europe) and i think must be considered in the top tier.

I guess what it all comes down to is how do we define what a top tier deck is in this format? Is it simply the deck that is played the most? I don't think the popularity of the deck should dictate whether or not it is tier 1 or not. Let's face it the only reason why goblins gets played so damn much is because the cards are easy to get. Nearly all the decks in the open forum and the vast majority of the decks in the developmental forum at least claim a positive goblins match up. I mean if all these decks beat it how is goblins still in the top tier?

[Peter_Rotten]

Just because a deck is not played in States doesn't mean it's any less important.

Well, considering that we are an American site that focuses on American tournaments, a deck that is only T8ing in Europe is not as great a concern as one that is T8ing here. Does it mean that said deck is objectively worse? No. But if it is not being played in the states, then there is no reason for Americans to really prepare for it.

[Belgareth]

People travel, when there is only 1 legacy GP and it's in America, your certainly going to get Europeans there too.
Not being prepared because the deck doesn't show at a local tournament , doesn't really make sense to me.
When Lile was coming up , we all prepared for Solidarity even though it never shows up in UK and hardly in europe.

Anyway , I spoke to Zilla and I understand your reasons so not to worry :)

[CynicalSquirrel]

I'll need some time to get to know and adjust to the changes before I can tell if I like them or not. However, I do at least appreciate that the admins are trying to change up the site a bit, as the LMF in particular was really getting stale, and didn't make a whole lot of sense.

[Kazadoom]

but you may ask yourself why it does put up good results and check it out!

Myabe its wrong in the metagame section. but DTW implies that this deck may develope into something big.

I really like the changes as it's not so one sided and reflects the diversity better than before.

But i highly suggest that u seperate the DTB from the rest maybe make a subcategory or something.

Maybe split it into something like that

DTB's + ATB
often played decks in USA
decks from good old europe

That said its much better than before.

regards Kazadoom

[Zach Tartell]

Enchantress - lonelybaritone

Does this mean I'm no longer the man with no name?

[Shriekmaw]

I got a chance to look at the new Legacy Metagame forum. This is a joke, having TES as a DTW, but no Iggy Pop when it has put up more impressive finishes. I think both decks should be at least listed if you can't decide on what deck should belong. The Mana Drain has put Iggy Pop as a tier 1 deck to beat.

I can make the same case for Enchantress which almost sees no play in the current Legacy Metagame. I would think it would be best to lists decks that players would see at magic tournaments in large numbers.

Goblins, Threshold, Solidarity, Red Death, Survival, Landstill, and Aluren I don't have a problem with.

If Enchantress, Life of the Loam, and Faerie Stompy can be listed there is a lot of decks in the Open Legacy discussion forum that many players can also make the case for including.

[Zach Tartell]

I got a chance to look at the new Legacy Metagame forum. This is a joke, having TES as a DTW, but no Iggy Pop when it has put up more impressive finishes. I think both decks should be at least listed if you can't decide on what deck should belong. The Mana Drain has put Iggy Pop as a tier 1 deck to beat.

I can make the same case for Enchantress which almost sees no play in the current Legacy Metagame. I would think it would be best to lists decks that players would see at magic tournaments in large numbers.

Goblins, Threshold, Solidarity, Red Death, Survival, Landstill, and Aluren I don't have a problem with.

If Enchantress, Life of the Loam, and Faerie Stompy can be listed there is a lot of decks in the Open Legacy discussion forum that many players can also make the case for including.

E-Penis time. Are you saying that IGGY Pop should be in over enchantress? How many top 8's has it had in 60+ man tournaments in the last two months? Six months? When's the last time it made top 8 in a tournament bigger than like 15 people? Oh, I'm so angry that I'm almost ready to start my first "my deck is the greatest adn you suck" fight over this.

I like it. The new forum reflects the decks that people are playing, and the finishes that they're getting. Don't hate on change.

[Eldariel]

Definitely a change for the better as without clear criteria, keeping the forum up-to-date and reflective seems to be nigh' impossible. Of course I'm incredibly happy that Faerie Stompy finally made it there by these new criteria, but just the fact that now there's a clear reason for a deck being, or not being, in the LMF is definitely a point in favour of the present system.

[Whit3 Ghost]

E-Penis time. Are you saying that IGGY Pop should be in over enchantress? How many top 8's has it had in 60+ man tournaments in the last two months? Six months? When's the last time it made top 8 in a tournament bigger than like 15 people? Oh, I'm so angry that I'm almost ready to start my first "my deck is the greatest adn you suck" fight over this.

I like it. The new forum reflects the decks that people are playing, and the finishes that they're getting. Don't hate on change.

Word.

However, I think that IGGY should get in due to double top8ing the Legacy champs, however that opens an entirely new can of worms with decks like Truffle Shuffle and Madness.

Although it's not perfect, it's definately a good systaem because it isn't static and allows for changes with the metagame.

[Nightmare]

Look at the criteria, people. If a deck puts up results, it gets moved to the LMF. Period. There's no shred of personal preferance involved, it's based on pure statistical data. If you want IGGy Pop moved to the LMF, WIN WITH IT.

[noobslayer]

All points raised so far have been valid. I think more than just tournament showings, it should be how often the deck is being played. It's true that some decks that got listed have really only got one pilot here in the states. As such, while the decks themselves are impressive when piloted right, they shouldn't be in the LMF. I'm not saying the decks aren't good, but I'm quite sure that if someone were to take Sligh and get two top 8's in 50+ tournaments in the next few events, it would hardly qualify to be in the LMF. Again, if Goblins was only played by a handful of people, I don't think we'd consider it a deck to beat. It that fact that a deck catches on and sees wide spread play is what makes it a contender in our format.

One such exception was Solidarity, and I can see Aluren being more and more like it as time goes on, in the sense that few players will actually play the deck, but we will still consider it a force in the format. Some decks will see only limited, but devoted play. Even so, we still considered Solidarity a DTB for the longest time, and I don't see why we shouldn't continue too at this point in time. Not considering splashes, I'd say it has the most agreed upon main deck out of any deck in the format. To me that rings out optimized. Just because it isn't play in goblin like quantities, does not mean we should discard the deck. Also, even though it hasn't placed exceptionally high as of late, I think you would be hard pressed to get people to agree that the deck is awful.

EDIT: Yes, I know my points about Solidarity was a complete contradiction to my first statement. But I do stand by that deck like it and Aluren deserve DTB/DTW status.

[Shriekmaw]

Look at the criteria, people. If a deck puts up results, it gets moved to the LMF. Period. There's no shred of personal preferance involved, it's based on pure statistical data. If you want IGGy Pop moved to the LMF, WIN WITH IT.


Why isn't Affinity in there then? Can you please explain that?

[Nightmare]

Why isn't Affinity in there then? Can you please explain that?It has not placed two or more times in the last 6 50+ player events, including one event in the United States.

I think you guys are over-reacting to the decks which have been entered into the LMF. As it's now based on a sliding event scale (only the last 6 events are considered) any of the decks that are played by one person (Aluren, Enchantress) will naturally work their way out of the LMF if they don't continue to see top8s.

[Shriekmaw]

It has not placed two or more times in the last 6 50+ player events, including one event in the United States.


So, the criteria is based on the last 6 50+ player events? This is completely absurd.

[Nightmare]

So, the criteria is based on the last 6 50+ player events? This is completely absurd.How so?

[Peter_Rotten]

So, the criteria is based on the last 6 50+ player events? This is completely absurd.

Did you read ANYTHING in the forum? Seriously. Ppl are bitching because they have their own interpretations of what the LMF should be.

For your reading enjoyment so that you may speak about this issue in a fully informed manner. (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5460) The results are reasonably objective.

Iggy isn't in because it has not put up recent results. Affinity? No recent results to qualify it's inclusion. Please read about what qualifies a deck for DTB or DTW status. Then feel free to disagree with our method, what decks are included in the LMF, or whatever. But right now, some of you are arguing about the price of tea in China.

[Ta Jugs]

But right now, some of you are arguing about the price of tea in China.Yeah I know, I'm paying a testicle and a half for my freakin tea.

[Tacosnape]

The only thing I disagree with at all about the decks in there is that it's not taking hate into account.

Decks pack Solidarity hate. Especially in Europe, where a large portion of the decks have Gaea's Blessing in freaking Goblins. In forums, decks talk about Solidarity matchups. Decks prepare for it.

Decks haven't yet adjusted to preparing for Aluren, Landstill, Enchantress, and Survival the way they've been preparing for Solidarity.

This has in fact long been the history of Legacy. Something disappears when it gets hated out, only to re-emerge when people forget about it. This is very true with Enchantress and Landstill especially.

Goblins and Threshold have been the exceptions, and they've both done it to lesser degrees.

[Peter_Rotten]

Decks pack Solidarity hate. Especially in Europe, where a large portion of the decks have Gaea's Blessing in freaking Goblins. In forums, decks talk about Solidarity matchups. Decks prepare for it.

Maybe that hate is so effective that it prevents Solidarity from T8ing. Unfortunately, the LMF can't realistically explain why a deck is no longer performing well; it can only reflect what decks top 8. And for whatever reason, Solidarity is not making the grade. Maybe this hate will die back down and then Solidarity will grab some top 8 slots, but until then, it's hanging out in the Open Forum.

[Brushwagg]

Well it's new. I think I can get to like it.

But here's a question, in the threads that have links to more then 1 deck, are these threads going to be locked? The reason I ask is you are going to have several people all discussing different decks in that thread. That can get kind of messy.

[Peter_Rotten]

From the Philosophy post:

An ATW is not a single deck, but a set of decks which have performing well at recent tournaments. These decks share a common strategy or set of cards which make them function similarly to one another, but are different enough that they cannot accurately be considered a single deck. These threads are not for the discussion of any single deck, but instead exist to discuss the archetype as a whole, including which builds are best for different metagames and refinement of the archetype in general.

What makes an ATW?

An Archetype to Watch is an archetype or set of decks (e.g., Survival) which have at least three placements in Top 8's at 50+ person tournaments in the most recent six tournaments. At least one of these placements must be in American tournaments.

Hopefully, that clears up some confusion about Archetype To Watch. Also, I edited in the philosophy to my opening post.

[b4r0n]

I really appreciate the change. It's nice to see the LMF representing more than just three decks. In particular, it's good to see Red Death and TES getting some love.

I do, however, think that having "archetypes to watch" is unnecessary. I think it would make much more sense to discuss such archetypes in Open, then make a thread in the LMF when an agreed upon list is made, and proves itself to be successful. It seems slightly strange to have threads for specific colors of Threshold, but a single thread for decks that run Life from the Loam, or even Survival of the Fittest.

Was there any reason for focusing specifically on the last 6 tournaments of 50+ people? I guess what I'm asking is why you decided to limit it to 6 (or have it be that many) and why 50 is the cut-off required for attendance at that event. Is there a rationale behind those numbers?

[URABAHN]

I don't like all the alphabet soup acronyms. Why can't ATW just be ARCHETYPE?

[calosso]

I think it is just a waste of space.

[Nihil Credo]

Overall, I am happy with the changes. Maybe taking into account a slighly longer time span would have been better, considering the slow evolution of Legacy, but that's not very important.

However, as someone already noted, this leaves the Open forum in a sort of limbo. Here's a suggestion: a deck can move from N&D to Open after either 1) it places Top 8 in a 50+ tournament; or 2) it wins at least three separate 16- to 49- people tournaments.

[Kadaj]

I really don't like these changes. If you look back at those tournaments, Aluren and Enchantress have been played by one person in each tournament. No matter how well they did, that's hardly a representation of the metagame. Solidarity may not have placed well in recent tournament, but at least you know you're going to see it at major tournaments here in the US, and it's an extremely proven deck.

As much as the previous setup was very exclusive, it was at least indicative of what the three major decks you can expect to see at each and every tournament are. Decks like Aluren and Enchantress, while certainly very good decks, are not major metagame presenses at all, and if the LMF forum really stands for Legacy Metagame Forum, they shouldn't be included in it.

Archtype to Watch is a good idea, as at least it gives us a place to talk about the decks that fall under the lables of Survival and Life from the Loam, which is about as specific as calling Magic the Gathering a card game. It seems like there were some really good ideas and some equally bad ones put into this decision, which I guess is to be expected. If the LMF isn't really indicative of the metagame at the moment, then Aluren and Enchantress make sense as decks that have performed well recently. If it does, then they shouldn't be there.

[Phantom]

As much as the previous setup was very exclusive, it was at least indicative of what the three major decks you can expect to see at each and every tournament are. Decks like Aluren and Enchantress, while certainly very good decks, are not major metagame presenses at all, and if the LMF forum really stands for Legacy Metagame Forum, they shouldn't be included in it.



See, I think this is where the confusion comes in. No one is really clear on what the LMF is for (not easy to end two sentences in a row with a preposition, but I'm just talented like that). Is it supposed to include the decks you are going to see (and thus, should test against)? Or is supposed to include simply the best decks with proven performance?

I've always thought it should be the second, which is probably why I like the changes so much. If I want to know what's going to show up, I just pop into the T8 thread and peruse the complete lists, or I take a damn guess, which is what the LMF will turn back into if it tries to predict the Legacy meta at tournaments, a guessing game.

I like to think of the LMF as a primer for newcomers. God knows I used the crap out of it when I first started into Legacy, and now the ignorant will be able to access the decks that have been placing at big events recently.

I really like the fluid, uncaring nature of the new system. I just hope the mods are open to keeping the system itself flexible as time goes by and possible loopholes are spotted.

[Rastadon]

Is it possible to get some divisors between the DTB's, the DTW's, and the ATW's? A little visual hierarchy would be good.

[Pinder]

First, I'd like to thank everyone on my team for not whining about how MH isn't in the LMF, as according to the new system (and even the old one), it clearly doesn't belong there.

Second, props to the mods for the change. Although I think that the [ATW] is a little too vague, and it seems like general archetypes are something that should be discussed in the Open.

Either way though, I think this is a definite improvement over what it used to be. Although Solidarity could still be considered a DTW, I think.

[xsockmonkeyx]

First, I'd like to thank everyone on my team for not whining about how MH isn't in the LMF, as according to the new system (and even the old one), it clearly doesn't belong there.

Meh, couldnt care where the deck sits just as long as it's not N+D.

I like the arbitrary nature of the selection process. Anything that tries to eliminate or downplay personal opinions is good.

[IndyTerminator]

The moderators already discussed that the decks that are really only being played by one person will slowly move out of the LMF because they are only counting the six most recent 50+ people tournaments. Its ludicrous to say that these decks do not belong just because one person is playing them. They placed in the Top 8 at least twice and that should count for something . . especially if only one person is playing it.

You also have to remember that a lot of decks start with one person piloting those decks and then they pick up a following as they do well. I'm glad that there is now concrete criteria for decks to be in the LMF. However, I do agree that archetypes should be discussed in the Open (possibly stickied topics for ATWs) and specific lists that place can be put into the LMF.

[BeeblesofLife]

Look out Source!
You had better be prepared to put Meat Hooks in the LMF after this summer.
Mav. and Pinder ALL THE WAY.

Onto the point, I like the new set up. I'm not really upset about Solidarity getting the demo. It simply means people will think of it as less of a threat I think.

I am not totally sold on ATW or DTW, but I am willing to give it a shot.
GOOD JOB SOURCE MODS!

[AngryTroll]

And Volt too. You know, Portland's MH player.

I like the new concept, but it would be much easier to read if the three categories were physically separated. Keep DTB on top, then DTW, then ATW, maybe each one with one of those heavier blue bars with "Decks to Beat", "Decks to Watch", etc spelled out on it to help with the alphabet soup.

[umbowta]

I am totally happy with the new setup. It offers a totally objective view of the current Legacy metagame with respect to the last several large events. What else could one ask for when the goal is evaluating the current metagame. Well done.

[frogboy]

Why do people constantly flip shit and get pissy about "their" decks percieved status? If I thought I had broken the metagame, I sure as hell wouldn't scream it from the rooftops.

[Kazadoom]

As i said i really like the change but it doesnt fit the name LMF

In my opinion (although its much more work) yu should look at the whole field of decks and if a deck has a certain showing (10-15%) it should be incuded too.
And maybe be not so strict with the rules, there are so many decks played and i think LMF should also represent the randomness of Legacy (what about adding a category: Metagame contender or something similar?)

Kazadoom

[Belgareth]

Only 1 suggestion I have is that maybe there should be a clause that the finishes need to be by different people ?
Not to hate on enchantress, but I think it's more a case of Zach being a player to beat, as opposed to enchantress being a deck to beat.
People constantly moaned for months that Dave Gearheardt was the only reason solidarity ever t8'd.
Should 1 person be considered a threat ?

[Peter_Rotten]

People constantly moaned for months that Dave Gearheardt was the only reason solidarity ever t8'd.
Should 1 person be considered a threat ?

And then people learned how to play the deck and more people T8ed. Maybe the same will happen with Enchantress - maybe not. Only time will tell.

Also, I'm quite excited to see how April changes the LMF. We should have a new Euro tourney soon and Kaddy's DLD will most likely have 50+ people in attendance.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

And then people learned how to play the deck and more people T8ed. Maybe the same will happen with Enchantress - maybe not. Only time will tell.

I doubt it. Zach struck the ground with lightning and out sprung barely-clad, nympho Enchantresses, riding pegasuses and listening to heavy metal; thus did a new age dawn.

Seriously though, at least 5 people have had success with the deck in the not too ancient past; Zach, myself, both Hatfields, and that guy from VA Beach. What's his face. He t8ed one of the D4Ds.

[Bongo]

Although still early, I like the changes to the LMF. Good work.

One question: Wouldn't it be better to use the last 8-10 tournaments for data? 6 tournaments feels like a small sample size, and slight variations or anomalies would lead to incorrect conclusions about the metagame. A slightly bigger sample size would minimize this.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

One question: Wouldn't it be better to use the last 8-10 tournaments for data? 6 tournaments feels like a small sample size, and slight variations or anomalies would lead to incorrect conclusions about the metagame. A slightly bigger sample size would minimize this.


This I agree with; I think the last 5 American and 3-4 European tournaments would give us a better handle on the format without such a short-term memory.

[Lego]

In my opinion (although its much more work) yu should look at the whole field of decks and if a deck has a certain showing (10-15%) it should be incuded too.
And maybe be not so strict with the rules, there are so many decks played and i think LMF should also represent the randomness of Legacy (what about adding a category: Metagame contender or something similar?)

While we're at it, let's change the entire site to the LMF. Because Legacy is so random, and anything can do well under the right circumstances, right? We've got to draw the line somewhere, and I think the Mods have done it pretty well.

@Bongo/Spatula: It seems to me that increasing the number of tournaments wouldn't alleviate the randomness factor, it would increase it. Assume that Zack stops playing Enchantress right now and no one else picks it up. In the current system, it'd be gone in a couple of months. If we tack two to four more tournaments on, it could be in the forum, completely unplayed, for as long as six months.

[Drathro]

I see that this thread is quite the venting outlet as well as useful for feedback. Props on preemptively keeping the other threads as clean as possible.

The new system is fine with me, as long as the the Historical thread continues to be maintained and updated with the relevant top-eights. The metagame tends to be somewhat cyclical, so it's nice to be able to look back and see what has the potential to make a comeback.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

@Bongo/Spatula: It seems to me that increasing the number of tournaments wouldn't alleviate the randomness factor, it would increase it. Assume that Zack stops playing Enchantress right now and no one else picks it up. In the current system, it'd be gone in a couple of months. If we tack two to four more tournaments on, it could be in the forum, completely unplayed, for as long as six months.

No, it would increase the number of decks in that forum slightly, but decrease the swinginess of its membership. The way it currently stands, if there's a burst of tournaments in one area, it can distort the forum too quickly.

[Obfuscate Freely]

In my opinion (although its much more work) yu should look at the whole field of decks and if a deck has a certain showing (10-15%) it should be incuded too.

I figured someone should point out that we have run the numbers (that are available; field breakdowns aren't available for every tournament), and Goblins and ******** are the only decks that average more than 10% of the field.

Solidarity comes close at about 9%, but everything else hovers around 5% or less, which is why it's been so difficult to come up with a decent system for labelling DTBs. I mean, telling people to test against Goblins, ********, and even Solidarity is fine, but what beyond that? Statistically, you aren't actually likely to play against any other specific deck more than once every three tournaments!

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

I figured someone should point out that we have run the numbers (that are available; field breakdowns aren't available for every tournament), and Goblins and ******** are the only decks that average more than 10% of the field.

Solidarity comes close at about 9%, but everything else hovers around 5% or less, which is why it's been so difficult to come up with a decent system for labelling DTBs. I mean, telling people to test against Goblins, ********, and even Solidarity is fine, but what beyond that? Statistically, you aren't actually likely to play against any other specific deck more than once every three tournaments!

But the LMF can be useful for more than that; noting rising decks and testing against arche-types with similiar strategies and solutions. I think the DTB/DTW/ATW system is fine, I just think the sample pool may need revision and there should be some kind of clause to prevent things like Solidarity dropping off so suddenly because of a dry spell.

[mogote]

[...] and there should be some kind of clause to prevent things like Solidarity dropping off so suddenly because of a dry spell.
I think so too. Wouldn't it make sense to demote a DTB to DTW-status first for a limited amount of time before it's totally removed from the LMF? Just an idea.

[Zilla]

So, given the input we've received so far, here are some ideas the mod staff will be discussing as possibile revisions to the current system:

1. Should a requirement be added that a DTB/DTW must have been played by more than one player to at least 2 Top 8 finishes?

2. Should a larger sampling period be implemented? 8 Tournaments rather than 6? 10 rather than 6?

3. Should a deck be included if it makes up a certain percentage of the metagame, regardless of its Top 8 performances? For example, because Solidarity makes up nearly 10% of the field at a lot of tournaments, should it make the cut despite its lack of T8's?

4. Should an added requirement be implemented for decks to be considered DTB/DTW's in addition to their tournament placings? For example, should a deck be required to make up at least 4-5% of the field at a given tournament in addition to its having placed at 2 or more tournaments?

5. We will sticky DTB's to seperate them from DTW/ATW threads for the sake of clarity.

6. To save ourselves some work, and to keep the LMF from changing too rapidly, new tournament results will be tallied on the first of every month as opposed to the advent of every large tournament. So, for example, if the month of April were to have 3 50+ person tournaments, their results would not be added to the LMF until May 1.

7. Is the current inclusion and implementation of European results correct? The mods feel that the European metagame is an important factor in establishing a more unified global metagame. We would like to include their results, but it's important to us that European results don't overwhelm American ones. Are the current safeguards enough? (Right now we require at least one American T8 placing for DTW's and at least two for DTB's.)

8. Should the 3 most popular Thresh variants (UGR, UGW, UGRW) have three seperate threads int he LMF, or have each individual thread moved to Open and have an ATW thread in the LMF instead? Because Thresh is one of the two most popular decks in the format, it could be argued that it warrants seperate threads in the LMF. However, it would be the exception to the general rules, and could theoretically be considered counterintuitive.


People can feel free to weigh in on these points here. Your input will be taken into consideration. As stated previously, this is a pretty big change, and we realize that the system may need some tweaking to produce useful results. We will continue to discuss these and other points and to implement changes which seem logical and constructive.

[Nihil Credo]

1. Should a requirement be added that a DTB/DTW must have been played by more than one player to at least 2 Top 8 finishes?
I don't think so. Even if it's only a single player leading the deck to victory, that will inspire others to try it out, which means it will soon see play.


2. Should a larger sampling period be implemented? 8 Tournaments rather than 6? 10 rather than 6?
Yes, I believe so.


3. Should a deck be included if it makes up a certain percentage of the metagame, regardless of its Top 8 performances? For example, because Solidarity makes up nearly 10% of the field at a lot of tournaments, should it make the cut despite its lack of T8's?
Shouldn't a larger sample size eliminate this problem? If not, then yes, it would be good to put those decks as DTW/ATW.


4. Should an added requirement be implemented for decks to be considered DTB/DTW's in addition to their tournament placings? For example, should a deck be required to make up at least 4-5% of the field at a given tournament in addition to its having placed at 2 or more tournaments?
No, for reasons similar to those of point 1. When preparing for a tournament, you're not preparing for last month's metagame, you're using last month's metagame and results to determine what next month's metagame will be like.


5. We will sticky DTB's to seperate them from DTW/ATW threads for the sake of clarity.
Good idea.


6. To save ourselves some work, and to keep the LMF from changing too rapidly, new tournament results will be tallied on the first of every month as opposed to the advent of every large tournament. So, for example, if the month of April were to have 3 50+ person tournaments, their results would not be added to the LMF until May 1.
I already assumed it would work like that :)


7. Is the current inclusion and implementation of European results correct? The mods feel that the European metagame is an important factor in establishing a more unified global metagame. We would like to include their results, but it's important to us that European results don't overwhelm American ones. Are the current safeguards enough? (Right now we require at least one American T8 placing for DTW's and at least two for DTB's.)
I believe the current system is almost OK. European tournaments are bigger and happen more often than American ones, so they will naturally make up a larger part of the results. However, if I understand it correctly, what the mods don't want is that a deck shows up in the DTB section even though it's completely absent from the American meta - which would be an issue both because the Source is an American site, and because Europe contains a lot of different metas, while the USA's is more homogeneous.
So, if anything, I'd say the filter should be overseas* metagame presence rather than overseas results.

* overseas for us Europeans, obv ;)


8. Should the 3 most popular Thresh variants (UGR, UGW, UGRW) have three seperate threads int he LMF, or have each individual thread moved to Open and have an ATW thread in the LMF instead? Because Thresh is one of the two most popular decks in the format, it could be argued that it warrants seperate threads in the LMF. However, it would be the exception to the general rules, and could theoretically be considered counterintuitive.
I'm not very familiar with UGrw, but UGR and UGW are definitely different enough to warrant separate threads. I mean, it'd be awkward if half the posters were discussing the benefit of maindeck Meddling Mages while the other half were considering how many burn spells to play.


I'll add up another one:

9) In the interest of rationalizing the entire The Source message boards, are there any projects for setting up a similar set of rules for the Open forum?

[Bane of the Living]

1. No we should just take Enchantress out and put lonelybaritone in the DTW category..

2. If you guys are keeping track well enough I would go with 10. This will help the problem with Solidarity falling off the page and such.. If we only had 3 archetypes in the LMF forever before I think we can deal with the same 8-10 archetypes for a while.

3. Yes, I think this is where the ATW thing comes up the most. I play against some form of Sinkhole/Hymn.dec and Affinity alot, they usually dont top 8 but are played frequently enough that I need to be prepared for them. The point of LMF?

4. Probably, this will help with the Enchantress problem.

5. Thats not a question but thanks.

6. I think updating immediately keeps the source the mother fuckin source for legacy The Source is ultimate for a reason, you keep track of shit very very well. Id imagine it'll be easy to immediately do updates when we're going by every 8-10 large events.

7. I think Europe's meta is important enough to colaberate the way you are but at the same time Id like to see the LMF accepting their results on a more balanced level as their metas start to mesh with ours. I think its each regions responsiblity to take results with a grain of salt.

8. Have each individual thread moved to Open and have an DTB thread with links in the LMF instead.

[iOWN]

7. Is the current inclusion and implementation of European results correct? The mods feel that the European metagame is an important factor in establishing a more unified global metagame. We would like to include their results, but it's important to us that European results don't overwhelm American ones. Are the current safeguards enough? (Right now we require at least one American T8 placing for DTW's and at least two for DTB's.)

Is it possible to instead have two LMFs, one for the American metagame and one for the European? Even if you wanted to create a global metagame for Legacy, it will be impossible until a much larger percentage of the Euro-Legacy players came to the Source: As of now, the LMF forum really doesn't describe the meta there anyways. Most of the commonly played decks are what Europeans see being successful there and what they discuss on their own forums. And, as of now, the American meta doesn't apply to Europe and the European meta doesn't apply to America. As we take non-American results into account, it just means that many decks that haven't had a showing for a couple weeks will just disappear.

Okay, I'm not getting anywhere :P. Say we were instead tallying the recent 30+ man tournaments - then there would be major conflict between what typically appears on the West coast, Texas, the midwest, and the East coast. Taking continental results into the 'same' meta analysis is as if we were taking random towns' local tournaments that had a decent turnout and calling it the US metagame. It doesn't work. Instead if only large tournaments that brought players from other states in to play are accounted for, we start to form what would be the top decks if there were a Grand Prix.

Sure, if there is a huge GP like Lille in Europe, the results should definitely be counted, but only because that can actually prove what decks are strong enough to be considered "Decks to Beat". Although the Iserlohn tournaments have high showings and can be used to determine Germany's meta, mashing it together with the Mana Leak Open just doesn't produce... well, anything. I think if we instead took the most recent American tournaments in one forum and Euro tournaments in another, then, although it isn't a 'worldwide meta', the Source would accurately depict the Legacy format (which is what it should be doing).

[3eowulf]

1)
I don't think so. Even if it's only a single player leading the deck to victory, that will inspire others to try it out, which means it will soon see play.

2)Maybe we could use a time period instead of a "number of tournaments period", something like 3 months?

3)A deck could be labeled as a Deck To Beat if it's a likely to occur match in a tournament: if it's present in a large part during the swiss rounds (10% of the field?) or if it constantly places in the top8 (like it's present in at last 50% of the top8).

A Deck To Watch could instead be a deck with a smaller presence in the metagame that still has good results (presence in at least 25% of the top8?).

4)As stated above.

5)Good.

6)Pretty obvious.

7)The discrimination of the europeans results is logical, and all decks from Europe that classify for the DTB label could be listed as DTW instead.

8)Maybe make an ATB topic with general discussion about the decks and their common features and link the discussion in the Open Forum.
We could just leave some sort of primers or introduction of DTB/DTW/ATW in the LMF and leave the actual discussion in the Open Forum.

[Zilla]

2)Maybe we could use a time period instead of a "number of tournaments period", something like 3 months?
The original system was actually set up that way. However, it was determined that it could be come a problem if there were a month or series of months without any large tournaments to draw from. This system just seems more intuitive.

[Bryant Cook]

I trust the Mods/Admins and Adepts to do the best for the site, you all should too.