Yes. At least one person played Minotaur Advantage at Champs as a legit deck. I saw Didgeridoo being cast with my own eyes.Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
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.
InfoNinjas
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The simple fact of the matter is that the way we've been choosing decks for the LMF for the last couple years is outdated and unwieldy, to say the least.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.
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).
Sometimes you have to read between the minds.
++ T8ing all over Europe since 2005 ++
++ Team aYb - all your base (are belong to us) ++
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.
I like the sound of that.
Belcher, RUG Delver, Death & Taxes, Colorless Eldrazi, Goblins
Fuck you
Why? So that the LMF is based on information that you could easily figure out yourself?
CavernNinja am cry.
Nah, I kid.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Zilla; 09-03-2006 at 07:20 PM.
@Godzilla: Do you know when we should expect the new LMF system to be implemented?
Belcher, RUG Delver, Death & Taxes, Colorless Eldrazi, Goblins
"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. >_>"because I am Jack Elgin, patron saint of vintage, and I will fight anyone who claims otherwise."
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.
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.
What the fuck? Reanimator? What has Reanimator been doing?
big links in sigs are obnoxious -PR
Don't disrespect my dojo dude...
Sweep the leg!
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.
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.
Sometimes you have to read between the minds.
++ T8ing all over Europe since 2005 ++
++ Team aYb - all your base (are belong to us) ++
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.
For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
And found I was for endurance made
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.
Last edited by Zilla; 09-04-2006 at 07:22 PM.
YEAH! Damn IBA and his logic!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote