LMF changes and reactions

[URABAHN]

I don't like all the alphabet soup acronyms. Why can't ATW just be ARCHETYPE?

[calosso]

I think it is just a waste of space.

[Nihil Credo]

Overall, I am happy with the changes. Maybe taking into account a slighly longer time span would have been better, considering the slow evolution of Legacy, but that's not very important.

However, as someone already noted, this leaves the Open forum in a sort of limbo. Here's a suggestion: a deck can move from N&D to Open after either 1) it places Top 8 in a 50+ tournament; or 2) it wins at least three separate 16- to 49- people tournaments.

[Kadaj]

I really don't like these changes. If you look back at those tournaments, Aluren and Enchantress have been played by one person in each tournament. No matter how well they did, that's hardly a representation of the metagame. Solidarity may not have placed well in recent tournament, but at least you know you're going to see it at major tournaments here in the US, and it's an extremely proven deck.

As much as the previous setup was very exclusive, it was at least indicative of what the three major decks you can expect to see at each and every tournament are. Decks like Aluren and Enchantress, while certainly very good decks, are not major metagame presenses at all, and if the LMF forum really stands for Legacy Metagame Forum, they shouldn't be included in it.

Archtype to Watch is a good idea, as at least it gives us a place to talk about the decks that fall under the lables of Survival and Life from the Loam, which is about as specific as calling Magic the Gathering a card game. It seems like there were some really good ideas and some equally bad ones put into this decision, which I guess is to be expected. If the LMF isn't really indicative of the metagame at the moment, then Aluren and Enchantress make sense as decks that have performed well recently. If it does, then they shouldn't be there.

[Phantom]

As much as the previous setup was very exclusive, it was at least indicative of what the three major decks you can expect to see at each and every tournament are. Decks like Aluren and Enchantress, while certainly very good decks, are not major metagame presenses at all, and if the LMF forum really stands for Legacy Metagame Forum, they shouldn't be included in it.

See, I think this is where the confusion comes in. No one is really clear on what the LMF is for (not easy to end two sentences in a row with a preposition, but I'm just talented like that). Is it supposed to include the decks you are going to see (and thus, should test against)? Or is supposed to include simply the best decks with proven performance?

I've always thought it should be the second, which is probably why I like the changes so much. If I want to know what's going to show up, I just pop into the T8 thread and peruse the complete lists, or I take a damn guess, which is what the LMF will turn back into if it tries to predict the Legacy meta at tournaments, a guessing game.

I like to think of the LMF as a primer for newcomers. God knows I used the crap out of it when I first started into Legacy, and now the ignorant will be able to access the decks that have been placing at big events recently.

I really like the fluid, uncaring nature of the new system. I just hope the mods are open to keeping the system itself flexible as time goes by and possible loopholes are spotted.

[Rastadon]

Is it possible to get some divisors between the DTB's, the DTW's, and the ATW's? A little visual hierarchy would be good.

[Pinder]

First, I'd like to thank everyone on my team for not whining about how MH isn't in the LMF, as according to the new system (and even the old one), it clearly doesn't belong there.

Second, props to the mods for the change. Although I think that the [ATW] is a little too vague, and it seems like general archetypes are something that should be discussed in the Open.

Either way though, I think this is a definite improvement over what it used to be. Although Solidarity could still be considered a DTW, I think.

[xsockmonkeyx]

First, I'd like to thank everyone on my team for not whining about how MH isn't in the LMF, as according to the new system (and even the old one), it clearly doesn't belong there.

Meh, couldnt care where the deck sits just as long as it's not N+D.

I like the arbitrary nature of the selection process. Anything that tries to eliminate or downplay personal opinions is good.

[IndyTerminator]

The moderators already discussed that the decks that are really only being played by one person will slowly move out of the LMF because they are only counting the six most recent 50+ people tournaments. Its ludicrous to say that these decks do not belong just because one person is playing them. They placed in the Top 8 at least twice and that should count for something . . especially if only one person is playing it.

You also have to remember that a lot of decks start with one person piloting those decks and then they pick up a following as they do well. I'm glad that there is now concrete criteria for decks to be in the LMF. However, I do agree that archetypes should be discussed in the Open (possibly stickied topics for ATWs) and specific lists that place can be put into the LMF.

[BeeblesofLife]

Look out Source!
You had better be prepared to put Meat Hooks in the LMF after this summer.
Mav. and Pinder ALL THE WAY.

Onto the point, I like the new set up. I'm not really upset about Solidarity getting the demo. It simply means people will think of it as less of a threat I think.

I am not totally sold on ATW or DTW, but I am willing to give it a shot.
GOOD JOB SOURCE MODS!

[AngryTroll]

And Volt too. You know, Portland's MH player.

I like the new concept, but it would be much easier to read if the three categories were physically separated. Keep DTB on top, then DTW, then ATW, maybe each one with one of those heavier blue bars with "Decks to Beat", "Decks to Watch", etc spelled out on it to help with the alphabet soup.

[umbowta]

I am totally happy with the new setup. It offers a totally objective view of the current Legacy metagame with respect to the last several large events. What else could one ask for when the goal is evaluating the current metagame. Well done.

[frogboy]

Why do people constantly flip shit and get pissy about "their" decks percieved status? If I thought I had broken the metagame, I sure as hell wouldn't scream it from the rooftops.

[Kazadoom]

As i said i really like the change but it doesnt fit the name LMF

In my opinion (although its much more work) yu should look at the whole field of decks and if a deck has a certain showing (10-15%) it should be incuded too.
And maybe be not so strict with the rules, there are so many decks played and i think LMF should also represent the randomness of Legacy (what about adding a category: Metagame contender or something similar?)

Kazadoom

[Belgareth]

Only 1 suggestion I have is that maybe there should be a clause that the finishes need to be by different people ?
Not to hate on enchantress, but I think it's more a case of Zach being a player to beat, as opposed to enchantress being a deck to beat.
People constantly moaned for months that Dave Gearheardt was the only reason solidarity ever t8'd.
Should 1 person be considered a threat ?

[Peter_Rotten]

People constantly moaned for months that Dave Gearheardt was the only reason solidarity ever t8'd.
Should 1 person be considered a threat ?

And then people learned how to play the deck and more people T8ed. Maybe the same will happen with Enchantress - maybe not. Only time will tell.

Also, I'm quite excited to see how April changes the LMF. We should have a new Euro tourney soon and Kaddy's DLD will most likely have 50+ people in attendance.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

And then people learned how to play the deck and more people T8ed. Maybe the same will happen with Enchantress - maybe not. Only time will tell.

I doubt it. Zach struck the ground with lightning and out sprung barely-clad, nympho Enchantresses, riding pegasuses and listening to heavy metal; thus did a new age dawn.

Seriously though, at least 5 people have had success with the deck in the not too ancient past; Zach, myself, both Hatfields, and that guy from VA Beach. What's his face. He t8ed one of the D4Ds.

[Bongo]

Although still early, I like the changes to the LMF. Good work.

One question: Wouldn't it be better to use the last 8-10 tournaments for data? 6 tournaments feels like a small sample size, and slight variations or anomalies would lead to incorrect conclusions about the metagame. A slightly bigger sample size would minimize this.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

One question: Wouldn't it be better to use the last 8-10 tournaments for data? 6 tournaments feels like a small sample size, and slight variations or anomalies would lead to incorrect conclusions about the metagame. A slightly bigger sample size would minimize this.

This I agree with; I think the last 5 American and 3-4 European tournaments would give us a better handle on the format without such a short-term memory.

[Lego]

In my opinion (although its much more work) yu should look at the whole field of decks and if a deck has a certain showing (10-15%) it should be incuded too.
And maybe be not so strict with the rules, there are so many decks played and i think LMF should also represent the randomness of Legacy (what about adding a category: Metagame contender or something similar?)

While we're at it, let's change the entire site to the LMF. Because Legacy is so random, and anything can do well under the right circumstances, right? We've got to draw the line somewhere, and I think the Mods have done it pretty well.

@Bongo/Spatula: It seems to me that increasing the number of tournaments wouldn't alleviate the randomness factor, it would increase it. Assume that Zack stops playing Enchantress right now and no one else picks it up. In the current system, it'd be gone in a couple of months. If we tack two to four more tournaments on, it could be in the forum, completely unplayed, for as long as six months.