PDA

View Full Version : The Rebirth of TLE: The Legacy Index



Machinus
10-08-2007, 05:54 PM
I.

I appreciate the discussion and argument presented in the threads regarding tournament size and localization requirements. I ask for your indulgence in these matters of debate.

I am happy that the discussion on tournament size managed to succeed in beneficial change just from that thread, but I think the localization issue is complicated enough that it requires something more.

I think this is extremely important both for this website and the format in general. Considering this, allow me to offer a constructive proposal for the LMF/DTB at this site.

I am speaking both as a competitive player and someone who has watched and analyzed this format (and it's community) since the new 1.5 was created.


II.

Some of you may have read my TLE on TMD from 2005-2007. I have always been very interested in large-scale format analysis, and in reponse to the lacking analysis done by all websites back then it was my idea to create an empirical index for categorizing Legacy's decks. It's not a completely original idea, but at the time it was different from the standard approaches being taken.

It's somewhat outdated now, but here is my summary from fall 2005:


October 27, 2005
Trying to define the state of Legacy with a tier structure is both misleading and unrealistic. The format is still too new for such an analysis to be possible. Additionally, that kind of deck classification isn't particularly useful for trying to understand the format in general. Grading decks on criterion such as objective strength, fundamental turn, and strategic superiority only works when a format is popular enough, and tournaments are large enough, that the decks at the top tables can be predicted regularly, and true "metagaming" becomes important. While some aspects of large tournaments can be predicted, Legacy is nowhere near this point.

The turnout and composition of Legacy tournaments is as much driven by card accessibility and deck favoritism as it is by competitive metagaming. The metagame at any given tournament is not likely to be related to whatever comprehensive understanding of Legacy we have. To put it another way, even though there may seem to be a group of "best" decks, players are not using this understanding to guide their deck choices. It is therefore unwise for a competitive player to appeal to such a model. Instead, it is more useful to look at what is actually being played in tournaments, and make strategy choices based on that information. The best method would be to examine which decks are likely to be present in a tournament, and then consider how generally important each matchup is. To do this requires enough data to find statistically significant patterns. There is now enough tournament information to perform this analysis.

Therefore, instead of trying to predict the success of decks in future tournaments, it is a more valuable exercise at this point to explain the performance of decks at previous tournaments. So far, the only significant data that we have come from two sources. The first is large tournaments such as GenCon, SCG, and BA, where a lot of players show up and some of the more significant deck interactions occur. The second source is medium sized tournaments such as GPT Baltimore, other GPTs, and local tournaments. Both of these sources offer valuable information about archetype popularity and performance.

In examining this data, I have created four new categories for classifying decks. These categories are not a ranking, or a judgment of a deck's strength. Rather, they comprise a scale which reflects the importance of preparing for a particular matchup. These classifications are based on deck popularity, performance, and consistency. All of that information comes from the tournament data.

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=25217.0

I eventually dropped the final two categories as they are unnecessarily complicated. When I first started posting at this site there was much discussion on this issue, and I was surprised that there was little reference to my solution. I posted it here in a thread on a very similar issue. It strongly influenced the policies of the forum at this site, and thereafter the DTB forum here shadowed the TLE updates I made. I am happy that this is the case as it is superior to the previous methods of format analysis. Here is an excerpt from one of the threads where I linked it to this site:


This morning I took the time to actually read through Machinus's posts about "The Legacy Environment."
He's spot on.
I'm beginning to be swayed to the idea that a second classification needs to be developed, since by the limited definition of the DTBs, there really are only 3-4. This is not an accurate picture of the metagame. [Deck to Beat] is a Tier 1 deck, it will be at every tournament, and it will do well. [Deck to Expect] is a widely played (or up and coming) deck that you will see at the majority of tournaments, but it may or may not do well, depending on the meta of the particular tournament. It doesn't really hurt for us to make this second category (and it should be included in our LMF) and most of the voting could be done on these, since the DTBs are fairly self-evident.

I believe it is again time for a reorganization of this forum and its purposes.


III.

The format has grown, and with it the community of competitive players. The Source is undeniably the de facto central source for input, reference, and commentary on the development of the format (at least in the English language). As such, the format analysis here is inadequate both in execution and in concept.

Further expansion of the reliance on data in the DTB/LMF structures would change the current system significantly, but I believe it is an improvement, as it was the previous time.

The data structures should include and detail worldwide information about the performance of the top eight decks in tournaments that meet the current standards (six rounds of swiss, sanctioned under normal circumstances).

The deck rankings should be empirically based as well. The decks with the most performances according to an undetermined threshold of consistency and success should be considered to perform at a higher level than other decks, and as such given special status as format defining decks.

The interpretation of these objects will be as follows:

All decks that succeed according to the requirements of the database are to a first approximation potential matchups in a competitive tournament. Therefore, all players should be aware of the design and character of successful decks to better prepare for future tournaments, and even make innovative design choices on their own. An inclusive system such as this one would continually deepen the technology and design reference of the site and give players a much better understanding of the dynamics of Legacy. Finally, it would give equal treatment to all environments, thereby cancelling local distortions of the representation of the format and encouraging an open perspective on the format. I have no doubts this will unversally improve design and skill.

One key difference here is that this new model is more forward-looking than the previous scheme. I think this is absolutely necessary as the pace of development and quality of new ideas has increased dramatically. The old method is insufficient to meet the needs of competitve players in this time and I see no other group with more important needs.

The best players will seek to exploit differences in power level, and these are included in the above classificiation scheme. They will also attempt to exploit differences in skill and localization, but these are impossible to incorporate into any generalized model of the format.


IV.

Instead of going into more detail about potentially boring topics, let me request your input, questions, and concerns. Please consider the success of my previous ideas and the potential consequences of a system focused on global innovations.

Cait_Sith
10-08-2007, 08:16 PM
I.

Now I haven't, as it was outdated then and now.

Incredibly, you are confusing your opinion with fact. I would rather the tournament size be kept up higher, but there are more important things to be bothered with.

No.

So do other people, but that doesn't stop thinly veiled insults. Allow me to use a more open one: You are NOT as good as you think you are. Being around does not make you any superior, it is ACTION that defines success. Bardo successfully pushed a powerful new deck, Thresh, upon Legacy that has successfully outlasted GOBLINS. Di has contributed greatly to the Survival Archetype and has created his own Land based Combo deck, Eternal Garden. wastedlife created the second most successful Legacy Combo deck to date, TES, and even managed to push out the powerhouse that is Solidarity through his mix of speed and consistency. lonelybaritone brought back an archetype that VERY few people thought was remotely viable, and has piloted it to several Top 8 wins.

I must say, I respect results more than presence (unless it be that of an Enchantress, for she carries both.)

II.

I am sorry, but these "categories" of yours seem to to be no more than a statement of the obvious. You are complaining about the "Tier Structure" but that, in itself, is no more than relativistic analysis of a deck in its ability to handle the current metagame and immediate metagame shifts.

Protip:

Thinly veiled insults when trying to make a point do not work:


with some comments from the people who actually took the time to read it

Also, broken links or links to PROHIBITED sections of the site are a bad idea.

III.


The suggestion of even further empiricism of the DTB/LMF structures may be unpleasant to some people, but I believe it is the best thing for everyone, as it was the previous time.

And you are but a man with an opinion, especially one that it was the for the best LAST TIME. What we have now is a system that is constantly changing with random shifts from one place to another.

You speak of the change almost as a medicine, but there IS no panacea. What your options are either: rigid system that tends not entirely reflect the world meta, but typically do well globally (old system); create a system that biases one place over another to ensure more accurate data present, but lowers the approximate value of some data (current system); carefully categorize each bit of information by location and relevance, explain why this particular information is relevant and whence came it (ridiculously complex on both ends); or your system, which is to arbitrarily redefine the entire system based on what your thoughts the system is and what you want it to be (highly subjective).

VI.

Potential Consequences:

The information now takes longer to process and can easily come out too late for it to be fully relevant.

The processed information will be highly accurate.

The new system will require arbitrary guidelines to function; this often taints data as such guidelines are virtually impossible to balance out.

The information will be more regionally specific. Ex: If going to Syracuse, Enchantress is meta consideration. If going to Berlin, it is not.

Finally, in regards to your "give me more" line at the end: No. You have, just recently, decided to act in an extremely rude manner totally unbecoming of what an Adept is supposed to be. You refused to engage people in any sort of conversation, instead constantly demanding we simply explain something to you. You then come here with a large "look how brilliant my work is" post and ask us to debate with and support you. This is, simply put, beyond rude and NOT indicative of someone who will be able to deal with the complexities of running what could easily be a delicate and intricate system.

Peter_Rotten
10-08-2007, 08:20 PM
Once again, I don't have a problem with your ideas but with your presentation. A few snide comments taint a worthwhile post and tend to drown out noteworthy points. Consider changing the wording and tone in the following sentences so that far fewer people are put off by them:



My work at TMD ended some time ago due to personal differences with the amateurs on staff there, but they have kept my thread and the ideas.

Here is one of the threads where I linked it to this site, with some comments from the people who actually took the time to read it:

As such, the information offered here under the guise of "analysis" is inadequate both in execution and in concept.

The suggestion of even further empiricism of the DTB/LMF structures may be unpleasant to some people,

I'm unsure as to what you mean by this:


If this is agreeable and successful I would like more involvement in the management of this system.

What would this involvement entail?

Machinus
10-08-2007, 08:42 PM
edits

Done.

Cait_Sith
10-08-2007, 08:48 PM
You mention that "it is time for a reorganization..." but the site underwent a fairly major reorg not too long ago and the ramifications of that are still moving around. We have a deck that was minorly popular in Europe left in the N&D forum for a long time, despite it filling Open requirements and then suddenly got punted up into LMF because of a recent explosion in popularity.

Another example is the Survival Archetype thread. It is impossible to have a single discussion of a Survival deck because of the way the conversation flows. If it does settle on one, it does so to the exclusion of all else. This forces otherwise perfectly good Survival decks to be put somewhere, removing the purpose of an archetype thread.

Wouldn't it better to wait to try to get these errant problems under control before requiring what could be a massive shift in forum policy and thread location, or even possibly needing more forums to be created.

Happy Gilmore
10-08-2007, 08:51 PM
I agree very much with your proposal, and I also concur with PR's assessment regarding the form of your response. I know you didn't mean to present yourself in this manner. Besides the instances he mentioned, your post provides an excellent foundation on where we can go from here as a community. I’m curious to see how this translates into format analysis in the future.