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It's somewhat outdated now, but here is my summary from fall 2005: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