Cool! I get to quote myself, too!
Ignoring regional metagame differences undermines the LMF's utility as a gauntlet-creation tool. Do you disagree?
EDIT:
There has been some discussion on this topic, but it has been the policy of those collecting the data to only include tournaments for which the Top 8 decklists are available. Again, there is no East Coast bias involved.
I'm not part of the staff, and I wasn't involved in the decisions about the forum, despite my efforts to explain and motivate these major changes. None of the Adepts are involved. My ideas were not acknowledged, which is why I think it's fair to ask who is taking credit for it now.
None of this would matter if the format analysis was properly handled.
Ultimately, I see the DTBF as a place to highlight the decks with the best current performances. Logically, those decks are the ones that you should consider the most when preparing for a large "multi-meta" tourney. The extant of that preparation is up to you.
Of course, when preparing for those types of tournies each individual should look at the decks in the DTB and then decide on the relevance and possible attendance of those decks. If Baseruption became a DTW (which - good news - it probably won't), and you've never seen it in a North East American tourney, than obviously don't prepare for it. I'd still, at least, be aware of how the deck operates knowing that some people may have taken up an interest in the deck based on it's (pretended for this debate) DTW status.
The DTBF can only reflect the decks T8ing often and currently.
Doesn't the sentence "Based on Adept and Member suggestions, we - the Mod staff - are planning a change to the site's DTB philosophy" say that the Mod staff looked at complaints and suggestions about the old system and changed it to reflect what Adepts and Members seemed to want?
Once again, doesn't "Based on Adept and Member suggestions..." say that we have based the changes on other's ideas? If you were expecting royalty checks, then good luck. If you expecting a cookie, I'm fresh out. If you are claiming originality in the idea of lifting the "American Clause," then I expect you to credit Sammiel and Barook first.
What specific ideas do you feel are being taken from you? Which ones are being used without your permission?
Glad to see the Staff/adepts took the debate seriously :)
I am very pleased to see the changes, I am glad the thing myself and others said did not fall on deaf ears.
Many thanks and keep up the good work.
P.S : Really , there's no need to credit this to anyone. The desired result was acheived and the staff could have been really stubborn but weren't, so let's just be thankful.
It has nothing to do with permission, or reward. It's an unsustainable system.
Requesting that Legacy experts tell you what you are doing wrong, and hoping that they explain what to do right, is not an intelligent strategy for managing the forum. They already get more out of capitalizing on their own developments and understanding of the format. Treating them the way the Adepts are treated makes that proposition much worse.
There are several problems with the way things are done, and they could be addressed with an easy solution. But it would be primarily in the interest of the forum and the site, and not in the interest of the egos of the staff. I know this is a big obstacle, but I still think it's possible to avoid becoming irrelevant and stagnant.
No, because you should be taking into account your regional metagame. You shouldn't expect the DTB forum to do it for you.
Fine, you're not going to prepare to face baseruption and whatnot, but those decks are putting up the numbers somewhere, thus somebody is preparing for them.
If the DTB forum isn't meeting it's intended purpose, but is a better tool now (which, I and I would guess a good amount of others), then maybe we should change the purpose of the DTB forum instead of trying to make the forum fit the (in my opinion, completely abstract) description.
This:
should be the new forum description.Ultimately, I see the DTBF as a place to highlight the decks with the best current performances. Logically, those decks are the ones that you should consider the most when preparing for a large "multi-meta" tourney. The extant of that preparation is up to you.
Of course, when preparing for those types of tournies each individual should look at the decks in the DTB and then decide on the relevance and possible attendance of those decks. If Baseruption became a DTW (which - good news - it probably won't), and you've never seen it in a North East American tourney, than obviously don't prepare for it. I'd still, at least, be aware of how the deck operates knowing that some people may have taken up an interest in the deck based on it's (pretended for this debate) DTW status.
The DTBF can only reflect the decks T8ing often and currently.
I have to say that I'm kind of excited by the changes to the new system. I think the old system was a good first attempt at dealing with the DTB Forum. It obviously came to have its problems as non-American data was greater than American data yet the American data was an overriding factor in whether that deck could make it into the DTB Forum. This system couldn't continue as it was without becoming completely incoherent.
The newer system adopts the idea that it should simply list the decks that make multiple Top8s. These decks by definition are the best performing decks of the format.
Those who feel that they don't have to prepare for Baseruption, Belcher, or other decks are not required to, but in all honesty there is very little metagame information especially about the American metagame. I don't know how you know what to prepare for, outside of the decks that are doing well. If you want to worry about American decks then you should go ahead and do that for yourself. But what do you base such information on?
American tournaments have very little published metagame information. GenCon championship did not know even have full metagame information. The only thing we know about American tournaments is the decks that make Top 8 in America. That isn't to say that you don't need to worry about Burn because it might be rampant, but T8 data won't reflect that because Burn can't make T8 to save its life. In short, we can only judge what we can observe. We can observe success (T8 appearances) and not what people are playing (metagame information). The DTB Forum when based on a T8 listing measures only success not what people are playing .
For Machinus, I think it is incumbent on those are interested in improving the current system to offer constructive proposals. Complaints rarely go anywhere unless they are paired with solutions. If you have an idea or proposal to improve this new system or would like to offer a different direction please let us know. Maybe we can this system even better.
Isn't that the point I've been making? There's big tourneys in VA, there's big tourneys in NY, there's big tourneys in CA. There are big tourneys in Germany and Italy. If you don't think you should prepare for BatcaveDTB.dec, then don't. But if it meets the criteria for DTB, then it should be listed.
First, donating time and information to promote discussion is what this site - and probably most forums discussing just about anything - are all about. No one is getting paid. No one is getting famous. No one is getting royalities. Every person here, from member to admin, is donating time and ideas to not only discuss and improve the Legacy format, but to also, indirectly, improve this site.
WHEREAS, I first threw out the idea of cutting tournament size based on rounds, not arbitrary numbers divisible by ten.
THEREFORE, I demand that my name be credited whenever that idea is mentioned, referenced, or recognized indirectly, ie. whenever someone posts information about a 36 person tournament.
Early one morning while making the round,
I took a shot of cocaine and I shot my woman down;
I went right home and I went to bed,
I stuck that lovin' .44 beneath my head.
I have a suggestion, please consider updating the Deck to Beat Forum from -
For "competitive" decks: Decks which are optimized, thoroughly tested, played in a variety of metagames, and have proven themselves in a competitive tournament environment. A deck is not required to be Tier 1 to be included in this forum. Includes Decks to Beat, Decks to Watch, and Archetypes to Watch.
to
For "successful decks": Decks which have made multiple Top 8s in the past 10 tournaments world-wide with at least 33 players. These decks represent the current group that is most successful. Includes Decks to Beat, Decks to Watch, and Archetypes to Watch.
What do you guys think about this? I think this last change will make it more inline with the current changes.
"Winning decks"? "Placing decks"? "Performing decks"?
YOU'RE GIVING ME A TIME MACHINE IN ORDER TO TREAT MY SLEEP DISORDER.
Never thought I'd be saying this to someone, but seriously grow up. If the new idea of how to make the DTBF was yours and theyre not accreditting you, BIG F-ING DEAL, it wasnt even that good of an idea anyways, I could have pulled 5 placings = DTB, 3 placings = DTW out of my ass as well. If theres no incentive to contribute, dont.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)