Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 64 of 64

Thread: LMF and the community input

  1. #61
    Permanent Waves
    AnwarA101's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jul 2004
    Posts

    1,858

    Re: LMF and the community input

    Quote Originally Posted by scrumdogg View Post
    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.

  2. #62

    Re: LMF and the community input

    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....

  3. #63
    Administrator
    Zilla's Avatar
    Join Date

    Nov 2003
    Location

    Portland, OR
    Posts

    5,532

    Re: LMF and the community input

    Quote Originally Posted by cupajoe View Post
    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.

  4. #64

    Re: LMF and the community input

    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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)