Something else to keep in mind is that local-meta is not always going to be the meta that the Source shows us.Originally Posted by Pinder
For example, I have seen so mmany random decks that consist mostly of mono-colored lands it actually weakened my UG Thresh-decks strategy for land-destruction. Too bad most of the decks were really bad with the exception of a mono-red goblin deck.
So American players should only care about American decks? Where did these terrible nationalistic ideas come from? There is no "American" Legacy, and nothing good comes out of this attitude. There are only good decks and local decks. Is it just because the people who manage this forum don't play much serious Legacy?
The policies and interpretation of the DTB forum need to change. Becoming useful to competitive players would be the best thing the forum ever did.
Seriously. I need you to answer this question: Are you deliberately misinterpreting my post? I listed a few options that we could consider. I'm trying to approach this is an open and serious manner, but the tone of your posts seems cantankerous and trolling. I recognize that the system is not perfect and we should seek to improve it, but your tone, once again, makes me want to stab you in the eye rather than concede a single point.
If you are going to insult me, don't pussy-foot around it. Go ahead and say what you mean. Flat out have the guts to say what you want to complain about because it doesn't seem like your complaints are only based on the failings of the DTBF.Is it just because the people who manage this forum don't play much serious Legacy?
In fact, that was in the beginning of the format the shole reason why the source became so populair, especially for foreign readers (for who T1.5 didn't even excist). Until recently, the source was the biggest source for people all over the world who were interested in Legacy.
I understand why only american data was included then, since it was the only country to have regular legacy tournaments. After the GP's however, more and more people have started to play it, becomming really big in europe (germany mostly).
I think it is really naive not to include the european data. How to include it (seperate forums/different tags) doesn't really matter, as long as it's included.
Failing to do so can hurt the site, making european (and other not american) players go to a different place where their data is included. This could hurt legacy design overal.
The source has always been the place to be for Legacy. Not including the foreign data will change it into the place to be for US Legacy.
EDIT:
The forum 'jump' made me miss some posts.
@P_R:
I think including data from tournaments over 33 people is a very good idea. No matter if 34 or 50 people enter a tournament, they still have to battle through 6 rounds of swiss. Not getting included due to shitty tiebrakes sucks almost as much as not placing for the Top 8 due to Tiebrakes.
Of the 3 options you've included, I think alternate tags could be a good sollution. You should only make 3 kind of tags.
- DTBw for worldwide good preforming decks
- DTBa for american decks
- DTBe for european decks.
It doesn't look that elegant but when sepperating forums, what would you do with a worldwide good preforming deck?
4th: 293/363
5th: 82/434
Vi: 159/167
Wl: 100/167
Te: 318/335
St: 132/143
Ex: 136/143
US: 235/335
3/8 Sealed boosters
1/8 Sealed boosterboxes
Only 632 cards left for a full Korean set, over 69% done (last update 05/27)
Always looking for sealed product!
I have a very interesting scenario that I want to present to help me and others understand exactly what the LMF should represent. Let's assume for the purpose of this example that the whole metagame is based on this one tournament. There are no other tournaments until next month or whatever. We have to base our decision on the results of this tournament and this is what we know -
Top 8:
1. Cephalid Breakfast
2. Vial Goblins with green splash
3. Cephalid Breakfast
4. TES
5. UWB Landstill
6. Cephalid Breakfast
7. Cephalid Breakfast
8. UWG Landstill
The entire metagame by archetype -
8 CRET Belcher
6 Landstill
1 UWB
1 UWG
2 UWGB
2 BHWC
6 Cephalid Breakfast
5 Threshold/Gro
1 UGR Gro (Quirion Dryad + Wee Dragonauts)
2 UGR Threshold
2 UGRB Threshold
4 Ichorid
3 Vial Goblins
1 with green splash
2 with white splash
2 TES
1 UBW Fish
1 Permanent Waves
1 B/U Control
1 Fluctuator
1 5/3 with red splash
1 Truffle Shuffle
1 Enchantress
1 Loam ("Operation Ground and Pound")
1 GW beats
1 ATS
1 Iggy Pop
1 RGBSA
1 Mono-Brack Aggro (5/3 with black splash)
1 GAGOMEEEE!!!!
1 Affinity
1 Gagroll
1 B/W Sui
These are the results from the most recent Northern Virginia Legacy Draft, but that isn't important. What is important is how we would determine the LMF if this was the only source of data.
Based on Top 8 information we would have to put these decks in the LMF -
Cephalid Breakfast
Landstill
Based on the metagame however we would get a different picture
CRET Belcher
Landstill
Cephalid Breakfast
Threshold
Is this analysis incorrect? Decks that were being played that day had to be able to beat CRET Belcher and probably Threshold, but neither of those decks themselves made Top 8.
What is the overriding principle of the LMF when the presence of a deck is conflict with its Top 8 performance? Does Top 8 performance matter more or less than its presence in the field? What if these two don't matchup? What do you do in this case? Is CRET Belcher in the LMF in this case? What about Threshold?
All Legacy players, regardless of nationality, should care about innovation and experimental technology. That should go without question. However, that is not the case at hand and we already have a thread for this.
To answer your question, I would need to rephrase it to lead to this answer "American players should care about the decks they're reasonably likely to face in an American Legacy tournament."
Hmm, seems like a poll may be able to give us some guidance here.
No. American players should thoroughly prepare for decks played in Australia.
You test for what is important. I honestly don't see why I need to prepare for European decks here in America. If European decks become something to prepare for here, than I will. Not beforehand.
No one should be using the LMF forum to decide on a testing gauntlet. Short of actually scouting out your local metagame, use the historical Top8 thread.
If a deck is seeing serious play and posting consistent results in the North American, European and Japanese metagames, then such a would should be considered a DTB in the entire format. If a deck succeeds in one metagame, but not the others, it should be considered a DTW for future success.
This, I think, is another reasonable compromise.
Although faulty, it seems to be one of the more fair suggestions. The biggest problem is that the only decks that are DTB under those guidelines are Lands! and possibly Landstill.
Then again, if we do DTW it might be good just to note where the meta is that is really giving it the this DTW status. If everyone in Europe in playing Bigger Fish, but no one else in the world, a nice DTW - E would be good. If Japan creates a new type of control deck, DTW - J would be fair. EC for East Coast, WC, for West Coast, E for Europe (If the metas in Europe begin to seriously fracture you can use a different codes), J for Japan, and so forth.
Team Multi-Grain - We're wholesome.
Why not just change the names of each deck status?
Ex:
Instead of-
DTB
DTW
ATW
Change it to:
Tier 1: [T-1]
Decks that are the best of the best and are seen a great deal everywhere throughout the world. This IS the deck you must be prepared to beat as you will almost always see it.
International Deck: [InD]
This deck is also seen a great deal throughout the world but isn't as strong as a Tier-1 deck. However it is a deck you will see and may need to prepare for.
National Deck: [NDxx]
xx= A letter for the area this deck is seen in. [A for America, E for Europe, etc].
A National Deck is one that sees a great deal of play in it's area-meta. It's not that this deck isn't competitive but it simply is not a deck that is seen world-wide. Metas that have this deck should prepare for it however.
Arch-Type Deck: [ATxx]
xx= A letter for the area this deck is seen in. [A for America, E for Europe, etc]. If the deck is seen world-wide leave xx blank.
This is a growing deck type that has been seeing great success but hasn't quite developed fully to be considered a Tier-1 deck. It may be only in certain meta-areas you will see this deck or it may also be seen world wide.
Perhaps we should not get bogged down by acronyms, and instead focus simply improving the LMF? Perhaps?
Your not from around America, are you kid? Americans are to acronyms what Europeans are to culture, language, philosophy, and everything else good in the world.
Asia just exists to pimp out Zach's Enchantress.
Team Multi-Grain - We're wholesome.
@ Anwar
I think with the level of information from your "sample" tournament a combination of analysis of the Top 8 and the overall metagame would give the best understanding of the format. However, getting the breakout of decks at every qualifying tournament is nearly impossible.
@ Machinus
You make it sound like if a deck isn't listed as a DTB it doesn't exist.
European decks are discussed in numerous forums on this site.
But if I am going to a tournament, I only need a cursory understanding of decks that are only performing well in Europe since I won't be playing against them.
But you might be playing against them , this is the point anwar was making.
You may play against Cret Belcher in the 1st 2 rounds and 0-2 drop against them, yet they never make the T8 either so are not seen in the DTB forum as a threat , yet they wiped you out of the swiss.
We both know how hard it is to get a full breakout for every given tournament. My only point was to show that the information from both sources could be different and thus lead to different conclusions about the format. Since we don't have full archetype breakdown for each tournament we really can't consider that information. That is why I believe that the LMF when based on Top 8 results really reflects the "best performing decks" and not really anything to do with the particular metagame other than to say that these decks succeed best in the current metagame which probably makes them the most important decks.
hence cursory understanding (i.e. what to name with Therapy, how to identify the deck, possible sideboard card or wish target).
Additionally, you could say that about any random deck you could face in the first round or so. I would rather plan for the latter rounds since you can leverage your limited testing time a lot better.
Further if a deck isn't making top 8 then generally its popularity isn't going to be that high (I am not going to go into a specific CRET belcher discussion since Anwar choose a tournament that had an unusually high amount of Belcher decks in it. Not his fault as there are few decks for which the entire breakout of decks is available, but true no the less). I am sure if you could get the breakout of Eli's last tournament and the DLD you would see a sharp decrease in the number of Belcher decks there. So all my belcher planning would have gone to waste.
Theoretically, success in top 8 would lead to a larger metagame presence. That is generally true for most decks except for some reason Aluren and Enchantress. Success --> larger metagame is easiest to see with combo decks as combo players shift from one combo deck to another fairly easily. That is generally followed by said combo deck getting crushed by the metagame as another combo deck takes its place.We both know how hard it is to get a full breakout for every given tournament. My only point was to show that the information from both sources could be different and thus lead to different conclusions about the format. Since we don't have full archetype breakdown for each tournament we really can't consider that information. That is why I believe that the LMF when based on Top 8 results really reflects the "best performing decks" and not really anything to do with the particular metagame other than to say that these decks succeed best in the current metagame which probably makes them the most important decks.
My main point was that metagame information is different than Top 8 information, but metagame information is not available for many tournaments so its hard to figure out this information. The best we can do is figure out what is doing best right now.
You will be playing against the best decks, regardless of their origin. So you will be playing against some decks that do really well in Europe.
Actual competitive Magic does not have these silly restrictions on deck choice. If you want to win, you choose from the decks with the best record and best design. There is never any consideration of where the deck came from.
Such as Threshold, and Landstill, that do well in the US.
You say "best decks" as though "best" were a constant. The only consistent best deck is Threshold. Everything else is highly dependent on meta-game. So a deck doing really well in Germany has no bearing on it being competitive here. Consider Elves, for example. Maybe in a meta-game where the majority of the meta-game is Thresh, Landstill and Fish, and Goblins is less of a concern, Elves could be a competitive choice. That doesn't mean that I'm going to consider it when testing a deck to run at a tournament in Conneticut.Actual competitive Magic does not have these silly restrictions on deck choice. If you want to win, you choose from the decks with the best record and best design. There is never any consideration of where the deck came from.
"Winning decks" do not equal "the best decks". This is especially true when comparing two very different meta-games.
The LMF can't be designed with the expectation that success in Germany is going to translate into future success in the US. American success is essential if we actually want to reflect what the decks to beat are going to be.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote