[Re: DTBs] WTF? [Archive]

thefreakaccident

10-04-2007, 07:26 PM

So.... I left the forums for like 3 days and found 2 completely different things going on.

1. Goblins is no longer a DTB... WTF? This is the deck that everyone based their decks against for years and now it just falls off the radar all of a sudden? WTF?

2. Where in the world did 43 land come from? I knew it was an ok deck and all, but a DTW? Seriously?

3. Why is UGW thresh still a DTB? Honestly I perfer the white splash personally o ver the red splash, but the red splash seems to be strictly better... at least that is what the records are saying (red been everywhere in T8s, but I haven't seen UGW nowhere).

4. Is Aluren really good enough to still be in the metagame forums? I have seen some random well placements, but no consistant data to keep it there.

5. If Tarmogoyf is soooo good, then why isn't it in every teir 1 deck?
I personally agree that he is good and all, but he is still just a creature.

I will be honest, I am a landstill player and the format has been treating me very well recently (lots of thresh and other aggro-control decks, along with breakfast).

I just don't understand how the printing of one card change the entire format sooooo drastically.

Cait_Sith

10-04-2007, 07:34 PM

1. Goblins was its own demise. People pretty much refuse to play decks with bad Goblins matchups still due to its amazingly power and consistency. It is showing up less and less now. I am working on an article about it, I just need to finish it and submit it to someone who takes those.

2. Lands! (as it is ACTUALLY called; people incorrectly called it 43 Lands and now the names has stuck).

3. Strictly better means it is better is ALL possible situations. UGw Thresh can run Gaddock Teeg and Meddling Mage, both still excellent anti-combo cards, UGr Thresh still cannot. You choose which of the best three variants, UG, UGr, or UGw, you need for your meta.

4. Aluren is doing better than Goblins right now, so I would not complain.

5. Because Tarmogoyf sucks in Control and some Combo and there are two Control decks and one Combo dck that does not benefit from Goyf in the LMF. Tarmogoyf is amazing in Aggro and, especially, Aggro-Control. And it is EXTREMELY good in those.

How does one card change the format so drastically? Imagine Vial Goblins without Goblin Lackey. Or with Goblin Recruiter. If a creature is of sufficient power, it can easily warp the format.

Tarmogoyf is normally large enough so that Swords to Plowshares is the only commonly played removal spell that can kill it, strong enough that every other creature near is cost is much smaller, and cheap enough to be dropped early on, or with leaving mana open for other activities.

sammiel

10-04-2007, 07:48 PM

from Cairo

10-04-2007, 07:52 PM

3. Why is UGW thresh still a DTB? Honestly I perfer the white splash personally o ver the red splash, but the red splash seems to be strictly better... at least that is what the records are saying (red been everywhere in T8s, but I haven't seen UGW nowhere).

What is Red offering over White? Pyroblast? In a format full of Tarmogoyf I would rather have Swords to Plowshares then Lightning Bolt, Pyroblast and Pyroclasm.

10-04-2007, 08:38 PM

All of the changes have been determined by our tournament analysis over the last six months. Whatever changes you see, whether you like them or not, are fitting with the current metagame trends. It isn't as if this shit happens by random or anything.

TeenieBopper

10-04-2007, 08:46 PM

I still think it's foolish to completely remove Goblins from the DTB/DTW list. For a long time, it was the Legacy metagame, and even now, it still defines a significant portion of it.

We recognize that this system is neither perfect nor infallible. By analyzing only Top 8 data, we do not necessarily create an accurate or full representation of the decks that make up the metagame.

So let's exercise some reasonable judgement here. If you show up to a tourney, you're going to play against Goblins. And let's be honest here, unless you're playing storm combo, you've got a 50% chance to lose to Goblins too.

The Cisco Kid

10-04-2007, 08:47 PM

What is Red offering over White? Pyroblast? In a format full of Tarmogoyf I would rather have Swords to Plowshares then Lightning Bolt, Pyroblast and Pyroclasm.

I think people play red over white the majority of the time because in the first few rounds of the tournament, UGw scrubs out to the Goblin decks that UGr considers a bye. Then when you get to the top 8, the white splash looks a lot better, but the top 8 won't have near the diversity that you see in the early rounds.

It's obviously metagame dependent, like Cait_Sith said. You gamble on whether you're better off to be prepared for aggro or the mirror.

DragoFireheart

10-04-2007, 09:38 PM

I think people play red over white the majority of the time because in the first few rounds of the tournament, UGw scrubs out to the Goblin decks that UGr considers a bye. Then when you get to the top 8, the white splash looks a lot better, but the top 8 won't have near the diversity that you see in the early rounds.

It's obviously metagame dependent, like Cait_Sith said. You gamble on whether you're better off to be prepared for aggro or the mirror.

I was under the impression that U/G with land-destruction in mind was the superior mirror match Thresh deck.

UGr for aggro-meta:

UGw for combo-meta:

UG for control-meta and/or budget version:

Or am I missing something here?

Peter_Rotten

10-04-2007, 10:02 PM

I still think it's foolish to completely remove Goblins from the DTB/DTW list. For a long time, it was the Legacy metagame, and even now, it still defines a significant portion of it.

The numbers don't lie. In the last 6 significant Legacy tournaments, Goblins has T8ed once. Goblins demise was written on the wall. It barely achieved DTB status last update.

What I like about our LMF update method is that it aims to remove as much personal bias as possible. I friggin' hate Thresh, and, to this day, I swear it's a bad deck. Imagine an opinion like that could sway the LMF.

Less opinon; more data. End of story.

Bovinious

10-04-2007, 10:02 PM

the DTB thread needs less Aluren and more Ichorid, but the rest seems alright, goblins has been losing ground and ANY form of thresh is a DTB in itself...

Zach Tartell

10-04-2007, 11:18 PM

the DTB thread needs less Aluren and more Ichorid, but the rest seems alright, goblins has been losing ground and ANY form of thresh is a DTB in itself...

One ichorid deck has done anything in a 50+ man tournament. Read the rules, folks. Shit, I'm not even whining that Enchantress isn't in there any more.

Tacosnape

10-05-2007, 12:32 AM

One ichorid deck has done anything in a 50+ man tournament. Read the rules, folks. Shit, I'm not even whining that Enchantress isn't in there any more.

It might be, if everyone playing it at a large tournament didn't have a name that started with Z and ended with Ach Tartell. (Ach, Tartell! Run! It's the Tarmogoyf!)

Wynk

10-05-2007, 05:33 AM

In addition to goblins, are storm decks on the decline as well?

I look at the Decks to Beat Forum and the combo decks listed involve graveyard strategies rather than storm cards.

I know Breakfast is good but is it, along with Thresh, that much of a storm combo killer?

Obfuscate Freely

10-05-2007, 06:35 AM

Inclusion in the LMF is based on a clearly-defined (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=120483&postcount=1) system of data analysis that is designed to be as objective as possible. This system is not perfect, but there is no personal bias or black magic involved; numbers are plugged in and the threads get moved.

So far, none of the concerns brought up in this thread even attempt to transcend the realms of subjective reasoning and/or local metagame distortion, so they offer little meaningful criticism of the LMF or its contents. I'm sorry if you still think it's important to prepare for Goblins, or that you don't think 43lands is a metagame concern, but the performances of those decks seem to indicate otherwise. What else can the LMF reflect?

That said, if anyone has some ideas about how to improve the selection system, or even criticism of the philosophy behind it (maybe you don't think the process should be objective?), by all means speak your mind.

Barook

10-05-2007, 06:45 AM

here's my question, what is the point of even including european legacy tournament results if we don't credit the T8 appearances simply because they haven't shown up in america?

The different regions of the american metagame are every bit as different as the difference between america and europe, this seems to be an unnecessary bias.

Exactly - e.g. why excluding Belcher because it isn't part of the American meta while 2/3 of the named tournaments used to make the analysis are non-American? :confused:

Sure, it may be the general guideline of the LMF forum to exclude these decks, but can't we simply add a tag (something like [NAR] (non-America-relevant)) to those decks that are relevant for non-American metas instead of kicking them out?

Edit: At least the results for the American meta and the non-American meta should be shown seperate so everybody can draw his/her own conclusions. The current mish-mash does kinda ruin the information value behind these numbers.

URABAHN

10-05-2007, 07:14 AM

Attention lonelybaritone and TeenieBopper!

Goblins is still a good deck. While it may be a good deck, it's suffering from Performance Anxiety--it just can't get it up in a 33+ tournament. By "get it up", I mean "make Top 8". If the little green men take the little blue pill and make more Top 8s, then it'll return to DTB status. Just because it was a DTB for 2 years or whatever doesn't mean it qualifies as a DTB in October, 2007. Members Only jackets were the absolute shit twenty years ago, but they have since fallen out of style.

Nightmare

10-05-2007, 07:19 AM

Members Only jackets were the absolute shit twenty years ago, but they have since fallen out of style.
He knows. His old ass was in High School back then.

I'm not certain why Belcher, which has more showings than any but 2 other decks, is dumped, but it's an issue we can discuss. You have to remember though, this site is primarily aimed at the US metagame, which is why the scales are tipped our way when it comes to large events. It may suck, but it's the way it is.

Barook

10-05-2007, 08:53 AM

You have to remember though, this site is primarily aimed at the US metagame, which is why the scales are tipped our way when it comes to large events. It may suck, but it's the way it is.

And that's reason why I don't get it. By mixing American and non-American metagames, valuable information is lost or quite deceiving. Just have a look on the combined list:

DTB
Threshold - 16
Landstill - 5

DTW
Fish - 3
Cephalid Breakfast – 2
Aluren – 2 (both lists were recorded as Innovator Aluren)
43 Land - 2

OUT
Vial Goblins – 1
CRET Belcher - 4 - (No current USA appearances)

Now let's break it down into American and non-American metagame, only naming relevant, non-rogue decks:

Non-American metas: 4 Tournaments = 32 Top 8 slots
Threshold 9
CRET Belcher 4
Landstill 3
Baseruption 2
Survival Variants 2
UW Fish 2
Innovator Aluren 1
43 Lands 1
Cephalid Breakfast 1
Solidarity 1

American meta: 2 Tournaments = 16 Top 8 slots
Threshold 7
Landstill 2
Ichorid 1
Cephalid Breakfast 1
43 Land 1
Innovator Aluren 1
Aggro Loam 1
UBW Fish 1
R/g Vial Goblins 1

As we can see, Threshold and Standstill are the DTB. But Threshold is alot more relevant (44% vs. 28%) in the American meta than the DTB forum would suggest (33%).

I'm still suggesting seperate lists for American and non-American metagames. It makes things cleaner and alot less deceiving.

AnwarA101

10-05-2007, 01:18 PM

I friggin' hate Thresh, and, to this day, I swear it's a bad deck. Imagine an opinion like that could sway the LMF.

Some of us don't need to imagine. :frown:

Cait_Sith

10-05-2007, 01:52 PM

To those complaining about the lack of European meta inclusion:

Look how many people on The Source are principally from the United States. Consider where the epicenter of Legacy tournaments for the ENTIRE WORLD currently is. Consider how the East Coast American Meta and the European Meta look nothing alike.

It makes sense to do it the way they are. It isn't nice and shiny and fair, but it is necessary to provide the most accurate information to their principle constituents.

APriestOfGix

10-05-2007, 02:02 PM

right but then ir shoudl be American ONLY not a combination of both...

Belgareth

10-05-2007, 02:10 PM

I don't think people are complaining about the lack of european inclusion (we all know we have a different meta).
Just that it does look crazy to analyse all the euro tournies (Which lets face it is most of them) and then not include something because it hasn't been piloted to success in states.
Cait if I were to be honest I think the pinnacle of Legacy resides very safely in Germany.
Unfortunately mst Major tournaments are held in USA, and with the terrible prize support it's just not worth the effort for europeans to go.
I think Barook made a very useful point, If a deck took 5 T8's in Europe but only 1 in states it would qualify at a DTB but may not be that relevant to USA .
Using the european data makes sense as we hold 50+participant tournaments on a weekly basis, where as the USA struggles to field 1 a month.
Maybe the metas differ because Europeans just play a lot more tournament level legacy, so it's evolved faster ?
Looking at our data allows you to see where things are headed.
Ofc it doesn't really matter to me as I only pay attention to the European performances with marginal interest in USA t8's unless it was a huge event.
I just found it odd from a statistical point of view.

TeenieBopper

10-05-2007, 02:28 PM

So far, none of the concerns brought up in this thread even attempt to transcend the realms of subjective reasoning and/or local metagame distortion, so they offer little meaningful criticism of the LMF or its contents.

You're right, I'm not being objective. I'm also not trying to be, at least not totally. I'm not criticizing the fact that Goblins isn't in there, I'm criticizing the system because Goblins should be there.

The prior DTB system was flawed in that it was almost entirely subjective. What I"m saying is the current system is flawed in that it's entirely objective. A better system, like most things, lies somewhere in the middle. I like the idea of objectivity, it's good to remove bias from the equation. However, when a situation arises where there is a deck that will be played more than any other at a large event, and that deck has an even at worst match up against the majority of the field, and it's not included in a forum that says "hey, these are the decks you're going to have to be able to beat at a large event," then I think it's reasonable to say, "you know what? Maybe the system is mistaken right here. Let's step in and fix this."

This isn't 10 land stompy we're talking about. This is Goblins. You can't ignore it by saying "well, my deck is fundamentally better, so I'll just win." Are you suddenly going to start playing a deck that doesn't have an answer to Mountain, Lackey, go? No (but please, please do). If your deck can't beat Goblins, you're going to scrub out of a large event. It just astounds me that a deck that has an even to favorable match up against 85% of the decks posted in the DTB forum isn't itself a DTB.

Attention lonelybaritone and TeenieBopper!

Goblins is still a good deck.

I know. That's my point.

I know it sounds like I'm just blindly defending a pet deck, but if Enchantress, or TES, or Belcher (PS- Belcher should be there. The data supports it) were all played as much as Goblins but hadn't made a T8, I'd be saying they should be in the DTB forum too. Which brings me to another point

re: Including non-US data but then excluding decks that haven't seen that success in the US. How in the fuck is that not subjective?

Maybe the metas differ because Europeans just play a lot more tournament level legacy, so it's evolved faster ?

It's a size thing. Europe has 300 million people, but only takes like 20 minutes to drive across the entire continent. I guarantee that if the Virginians could hop on a 10 minute train ride to NY (and vice versa) every month, we'd have just as many, if not more large events.

AnwarA101

10-05-2007, 02:29 PM

I have to agree that it is confusing the way that non-American data is being used for the LMF especially since we are now getting data from Japan as well. It seems weird to use the non-American data only to confirm the results made in America. Threshold is helped by the numbers it puts up Europe and Japan, but CRET Belcher is penalized because it didn't make T8 at one of the 2 American tournaments of the last 6 tournaments overall. Its possible a cycle could even happen without an American tournament which essentially would obliterate this system of relying on American data.

But good luck changing it, the powers that be are in charge of that.

Ewokslayer

10-05-2007, 02:36 PM

You're right, I'm not being objective. I'm also not trying to be, at least not totally. I'm not criticizing the fact that Goblins isn't in there, I'm criticizing the system because Goblins should be there.

The prior DTB system was flawed in that it was almost entirely subjective. What I"m saying is the current system is flawed in that it's entirely objective. A better system, like most things, lies somewhere in the middle. I like the idea of objectivity, it's good to remove bias from the equation. However, when a situation arises where there is a deck that will be played more than any other at a large event, and that deck has an even at worst match up against the majority of the field, and it's not included in a forum that says "hey, these are the decks you're going to have to be able to beat at a large event," then I think it's reasonable to say, "you know what? Maybe the system is mistaken right here. Let's step in and fix this."

This isn't 10 land stompy we're talking about. This is Goblins. You can't ignore it by saying "well, my deck is fundamentally better, so I'll just win." If your deck can't beat Goblins, you're going to scrub out of a large event. It just astounds me that a deck that has an even to favorable match up against 85% of the decks posted in the DTB forum isn't itself a DTB.

I believe you are overstating the popularity of Goblins in the current metagame by a large amount.
In the last several large tournaments the popularity of Goblins is minimal (3 out 51 decks in VA and about that percentage at Eli's last tournament)

So why should I prepare for a deck that isn't making top 8s and isn't showing up in large numbers?

Belgareth

10-05-2007, 03:34 PM

It's a size thing. Europe has 300 million people, but only takes like 20 minutes to drive across the entire continent. I guarantee that if the Virginians could hop on a 10 minute train ride to NY (and vice versa) every month, we'd have just as many, if not more large events.

That's the most ridiculous thing I have heard.
Europe is Huge, no wonder people question Americans Geography skills :s
It takes me more than 20 mins to drive across town , the UK may be small but Europe is quite sizeable.
Plus Virginians wouldn't have a language barrier to cross going to new york, Europeans do.
The German tournaments are mainly german players, there are just more players that care about Legacy.

Yes Anwar I was wondering what would happen if a cycle like that occured.

TeenieBopper

10-05-2007, 03:51 PM

Hyperbole ftl, I guess.

I was being mostly sarcastic, but there is truth in the fact that western europe has roughly 2/3 the population fit into 1/4 the area. Simply speaking, more people live closer together. Your mass/public transportation system are highly advanced, making long distance travel much easier than the united states. I've been to Europe. You can hop on a train in France and go to the tourney in Germany for like 20 euros (not really, but travel expenses are much, much cheaper than driving from Virginia to NY) and be there in like 5 hours.

I understand the language barrier, but you guys have had two millenia to work that out. I'd say you've got it down pretty solid.

EDIT: okay, German tourneys are mostly german players. that's fine. However, even then, my argument of population density and ease of travel still hold true.

Machinus

10-05-2007, 05:26 PM

We should use German tournament data. We should use Japanese data. We should use all non-US data.

We should use them all on equal grounds. Excluding Belcher from the DTB because it is only doing well in Europe is retarded. That forum is not going to have much credibility without European data.

Attn. Legacy Format: can we stop pretending Europe isn't there now? Their designers are at least as good as ours and this self-imposed ignorance of their work is very stupid. Their tournaments are bigger than ours and more regular and we're basically burying our heads in the sand by treating the results differently.

APriestOfGix

10-05-2007, 05:34 PM

TeenieBopper

10-05-2007, 05:49 PM

That's stupid. A DTB should be a DTB. Look at the top 8 thread. The American metagame isn't all that different from the European one. Ours is heavily dominated by landstill/thresh. Guess what, those decks were in the European/Japanese top 8's too. Pilots of CRET Belcher in Germany have to deal with the same shit as CRET Belcher pilots would in the US.

The reason CRET Belcher isn't in American top 8s is because Americans have an irrational fear of any deck that isn't blue based (aggro/)control. $20 says competent CRET Belcher players would do just fine over here, if they existed. The lack of appearences of the deck in America isn't a flaw of the deck, it's a flaw of the players.

Bovinious

10-05-2007, 11:07 PM

I think the DTB system is very flawed if it yields ALUREN (WTF???) as a DTB, but not Goblins. CRET Belcher and Ichorid are closer to DTBs than Aluren I mean come ON...

TeenieBopper

10-05-2007, 11:24 PM

I think the DTB system is very flawed if it yields ALUREN (WTF???) as a DTB, but not Goblins. CRET Belcher and Ichorid are closer to DTBs than Aluren I mean come ON...

This? This is bad subjective. If a deck's putting up the 'W', it should be included.

Zilla

10-05-2007, 11:28 PM

can we stop pretending Europe isn't there now?
We never had. Non-American tournies have always been factored into the LMF selections. However, the vast majority of consituent members of this site are American. The LMF exists to provide our members with useful information when preparing for a competitive tournament. If a deck is dominating the German meta and isn't played at all in America, how is it not misleading to suggest to an American player that the German deck should be prepared for? Requiring that a deck which performs well outside of the States make just one placement here in order to be considered a DtB amongst American players doesn't seem too far-fetched.

Bovinious

10-05-2007, 11:36 PM

Oh yeah 2 top8s is really putting up the 'W'... The fact of the matter is that Aluren is not DTB in that people dont consider Aluren while making their deck because it is 1) Not played, and 2) Not really a threat when played. People SB 'Clasm/EPlague for Goblins, Chalice/EE for CRET, and Crypt/Leyline for Ichorid. People build their decks with these decks in mind (along with Thresh, Breakfast, etc) because people worry about being able to beat them, AKA they are DECKS TO BEAT. Not obscure-deck-revolving-around 4CC-enchantment-that-no-one worries-about (and rightfully so). When was the last time you heard ANYONE worry about or discuss their decks 'Aluren' matchup? It almost never happens, I gaurantee.

This is partially subjective, but I dont think thats a bad thing. It is also objective in that people actually, you know, worry about Goblins, CRET and Ichorid, as hsown by deck construction and SB choices, while they either laugh at Aluren or dont even know it exists.

Machinus

10-05-2007, 11:41 PM

We never had. Non-American tournies have always been factored into the LMF selections. However, the vast majority of consituent members of this site are American. The LMF exists to provide our members with useful information when preparing for a competitive tournament. If a deck is dominating the German meta and isn't played at all in America, how is it not misleading to suggest to an American player that the German deck should be prepared for? Requiring that a deck which performs well outside of the States make just one placement here in order to be considered a DtB amongst American players doesn't seem too far-fetched.

It's dishonest if the site isn't subtitled "your source for American Legacy." Either we care about Legacy overall, or we just care about our own country.

I think we should give up that attitude and start caring about the decks Europeans are playing. It is a senseless excuse to say that some very popular deck in Germany could have no effect on tournaments before. Have you ever been to a real American Legacy tournament? They are random beyond metagaming and anyone who prepares for the general format at their local store doesn't know what they are doing. I think it's time we gave up this self-limiting practice and just accepted worldwide innovations.

10-05-2007, 11:41 PM

Oh yeah 2 top8s is really putting up the 'W'... The fact of the matter is that Aluren is not DTB in that people dont consider Aluren while making their deck because it is 1) Not played, and 2) Not really a threat when played. People SB 'Clasm/EPlague for Goblins, Chalice/EE for CRET, and Crypt/Leyline for Ichorid. People build their decks with these decks in mind (along with Thresh, Breakfast, etc) because people worry about being able to beat them, AKA they are DECKS TO BEAT. Not obscure-deck-revolving-around 4CC-enchantment-that-no-one worries-about (and rightfully so). When was the last time you heard ANYONE worry about or discuss their decks 'Aluren' matchup? It almost never happens, I gaurantee.

Aluren isn't labeled as a DTB, it is a DTW. There is a great difference between DTB and DTW. I suggest you read over the LMF guidelines once more so you can get an idea on what exactly you are talking about.

Bovinious

10-06-2007, 01:13 AM

This is true, but despite the DTW status, it is in the "Decks to Beat" section, implying it is a deck to beat. Aside from the fact the DTB forums name apparently doesnt hold true for all threads inside it (at the monent the only DTB is Thresh apparently...), not everyone (read: very few people) accept DTB/DTW/ATW as meaningful labels for decks, from what I can tell. My point isnt over meaningless labels arbitrarily created by the mods which have no meaning to most of the members, it is about Aluren, which is by no means a deck to beat, being in the "Decks to Beat" forum. At the very least, if Aluren is magically now a deck to beat, Goblins, and probably CRET Belcher/Ichorid deserve this status as well, as they are decks which people actually aim to beat, and are just better overall even despite Aluren's apparent 2 top8s.

bigbear102

10-06-2007, 01:41 AM

How is it 'magically a deck to beat'???? Aluren IS putting up the numbers. If you READ THE RULES of the LMF then you will understand.

Aluren has met the specified requirements to become a DTW. It's that simple. Goblins has not met the requirements.

If you want the system to be changed, then say how. Don't just argue that Aluren doesn't belong, because under the current rules it does belong.

I do believe that there could be a better method of choosing DTB's and DTW's. Looking at what everyone is playing would be best. Knowing what percentage of the field is playing what deck. That way if goblins doesn't make top 8, but 20% of the field was playing it, people will know they have to prepare to do well. Now the problem is getting deck lists for every tourney entry...

Bovinious

10-06-2007, 02:09 AM

Eldariel

10-06-2007, 02:19 AM

In other words, you're intent on arguing with the results. Unfortunately, and I'll say this of experience, that's one argument you aren't going to win. Basically, what better criteria is there for avoiding personal bias and for providing objective data than using a system with no human factor involved? Isn't the point to tell people what's good and what's winning on the field? That's what they should prepare for too. The system isn't perfect, of course, but the results aren't going to change by saying: "This isn't what I want DTB to look like!"

APriestOfGix

10-06-2007, 02:45 AM

with the new system, i have actually told people to STOP going to Source for Deck To Beat gauntlet. The Section is totally wrong.

I tell my friend to prep for:
(in ()'s is the order to test)

Thresh(UGr/UGw)
Landstill
Storm Combo (Belcher/TES/SI)
Landy Decks (Enchantress/LANDS!/Garden)
Ichorid

Nothing else, nothing less.

Also even though it is on the decline, i still suggest Goblins as a MUST. It hasn't been putting up results but so what, that means people are prepared to beat it, and it gets play in the swiss, but can't make top 8, dosn't mean ignoring it, and not testing, will get you to the top 8.

So basically your list isn't Decks To Beat, but Decks that Do well in Top 8's

Artowis

10-06-2007, 03:06 AM

Thresh(UGr/UGw)
Landstill
Storm Combo (Belcher/TES/SI)
Landy Decks (Enchantress/LANDS!/Garden)
Ichorid

Nothing else, nothing less.

Also even though it is on the decline, i still suggest Goblins as a MUST. It hasn't been putting up results but so what, that means people are prepared to beat it, and it gets play in the swiss, but can't make top 8, dosn't mean ignoring it, and not testing, will get you to the top 8.

So you're suggesting to your friends that they should test for that list, which features no Goblins, but suggest Goblins is still a DTB.

Kind of contradictory.

So basically your list isn't Decks To Beat, but Decks that Do well in Top 8's

Usually one implies the other. If decks make T8's and subsequently do well in them, wouldn't that make them DTB? :eek:

Zork

10-06-2007, 03:31 AM

In a literal sense, decks that consistently top 8 are DTBs, but it is misleading to call a section of the website the metagame forum and only look at top 8s. Goblins is still a huge presence because many, many people still play the deck. Because of this, the LMF is a little misleading.

Now all of this assumes you don't read the rules, which tell you exactly what the LMF entails, and go simply off the title of the forum.

APriestOfGix

10-06-2007, 04:24 AM

So you're suggesting to your friends that they should test for that list, which features no Goblins, but suggest Goblins is still a DTB.

Kind of contradictory.

Usually one implies the other. If decks make T8's and subsequently do well in them, wouldn't that make them DTB? :eek:

your an idiot if you think that.
If you're going to insult members, you're going to receive warnings. Cut out the nonsense. Consider this a verbal warning.

-PR

it's like the difference between UGw and UGr Thresh.

UGw is better in the top 8, but never makes it since it can't handle the randomness of rounds 1-3. UGr thresh isn't as strong in the Top 8 but it owns randomness thus putting it there.

You are really overlooking a HUGE ammount of testing if you think there is not such thing as the "top 8" deck.

Some decks kill the swiss and lose the top 8, other kill top 8 but can't get there because they lose the swiss.

Belgareth

10-06-2007, 04:50 AM

Wow , way to get off track !
Theres only 1 thing to discuss, that's use european data or not (together with the execution if it is).

For those whining about Aluren, get over yourselves.
In Europe , especially France , Aluren is certainly a deck you expect to see and it also performs very well when used in the correct meta.
Machinus had the correct attitude, some people need to pull their heads out of the sand and realise the format has evolved past the small 8-10 people tournaments they muster at local comic store.
I understand it's an American site, but the european following grows each week, maybe a compromise would be to only allow a deck that has only european data backing it to reach the maximum level of DTW.

This would show people that it can do well, showing that if some person randomly decides to use it in USA meta they will probably do well.
I understand not making it a DTB without American data backing it up as this misleads your larger fanbase into preparing for a deck that may or may not show.

diffy

10-06-2007, 06:49 AM

Use european data or not?

If you want to be objective, data should be evaluated on the number of atendances. Seeing how most German Legacy tournaments are quite large (mostly with higher attendances than American tournaments) they should be certainly taken into account (as they already are, I think).
I don't know about attendances in the UK or France (or in any other part of Europe for the like) but if the tournaments are large enough (read 30-40+) they should be taken into account too. You just need a reliable way to actually get the informations.

The prior DTB system was flawed in that it was almost entirely subjective. What I"m saying is the current system is flawed in that it's entirely objective. A better system, like most things, lies somewhere in the middle.

I completely agree with this. Objectivity is nice, but there needs to be room for the legacy comunity to have their opinion of what are the deck to beats taken into account.
For instance the potence of a deck shouldn't soley be based on top8 appreances because then you basically have a list of the decks that are widely played. Yes, this is important, but you shouldn't discriminate a good deck because it isn't played at the moment (for example, in our local metagame, no one plays Threshold or Landstill, yet the should be considered as DTBs, shouldn't they?).
One way of fixing this would be to create a new point based system to calculate if a deck should be in the Legacy Metagame forum or not.
For example you could accredit each deck a certain number of points for a top 8 apprearance (lets say as 25 an example, but this would still have to be determined) and then you could also have a poll before each Legacy Metagame Forum update (I don't know how often these are held) where each member of the source could vote once for a deck. Each voice could then be attribuated 1 or 2 points which would then be summed up with the top8 points. Now each deck that has more than say 80 points (again, this number is completely random and would have to be determined) would be allowed into the LMF.
This system would be objective (strongly) rewarding top8 appreances but would also let decks that maybe have fallen out of play but still are regarded as DTBs by the Legacy community at large into the LMF.
The downside of this is that it would require quite some large amount of work to function (you need a threat that is actualized after each top8 performance to reflect the points each archetype has gathered yet, you need to organize the polls etc).

I hope that was understandable.

Ewokslayer

10-06-2007, 09:48 AM

When was the last time you heard ANYONE worry about or discuss their decks 'Aluren' matchup? It almost never happens, I gaurantee.

But Perhaps they should be worried about that matchup if they want to make top 8. That is kinda the point of the forum.

So basically your list isn't Decks To Beat, but Decks that Do well in Top 8's
The DTB forum doesn't say how those decks that do well in the top 8 at all. The forum is indictative of those decks that are MAKING the Top 8 and thus rocking the swiss.

Goblins is still a huge presence because many, many people still play the deck. Because of this, the LMF is a little misleading.
Do you have any evidence that Goblins is still widely played? Goblins has never had the presence in Europe that it had in the US and in the last two large US tournaments Goblins was only about 6% of the metagame.

So, why should I be more worried about the 3 or so players with Goblins over the 2 players with Aluren? I plan at being at the top tables and from the last few tournament results the chances of me facing Aluren is alot better than me facing Goblins.

I do believe that there could be a better method of choosing DTB's and DTW's. Looking at what everyone is playing would be best. Knowing what percentage of the field is playing what deck. That way if goblins doesn't make top 8, but 20% of the field was playing it, people will know they have to prepare to do well. Now the problem is getting deck lists for every tourney entry...
I agree that using the percentage of the field somewhere in the DTB determination would be very helpful. Getting deck breakouts for every tournament though, especially with the change from 50+ tournaments to 6 round tournaments being included in the LMF.

Bovinious

10-06-2007, 09:54 AM

I agree with APriestOfGix 100%, I'll just keep the actual DTB list true with myself and tell people whats actually a DTB if they ask or need to know. What is arbitrarily put in the Source's DTB thread doesnt define whats actually a DTB, and being excluded from there doesnt mean something is not a DTB. Im done with this thread, keep defending the inherently flawed system if yall want.

Belgareth

10-06-2007, 10:10 AM

Wow Way to show the single-mindedness of the American masses (No offense to the sensible ones that take all things into consideration).
Maybe you should look at why those decks don't top 8 in states (Read:Pilot skill), rather than assuming they don't show up because the decks not a threat.

Sims

10-06-2007, 10:58 AM

Bovinious is just straight up being contradictory. Period.

Constructively, I'd like to thank the people whom are actually suggesting possibilities for fixing the problem instead of just complaining about what they don't like. In my opinion, the system IS flawed, as something purely objective or subjective will never reach a true read of what the metagame is globally. We could probably develop some breakdown that would allow for a pointscale system based on Top 8s and percentage of the field and switch the labels around to reflect decks that are a small portion of the field but killing the swiss, decks that make up a large portion of the field that you need to be able to beat to succeed, and decks that are making top 8s with moderate numbers or something... The rub of it all is that the data is not readily available. Tournament organizers rarely bother with tallying or giving out a list of the decks that participated for anyone to fully break it down and show us what is being played. Hell, I'd love to have decklists for every top 8 so that we can archive a thread and show people what is actually being played since some decks can be relatively obscure in title... But getting decklists out of TOs is harder than getting a breakout list of what was played. I think that this would be a good system that would be objective and accurate, however it would be nearly impossible to do.

A subjective system, by the by, has been tried before. When this format was 1.5 and not Legacy the DTB section was a purely subjective section that was voted on by the Adepts to reflect the metagame. Granted it was primariliy reflective of the VA/Cuse/Albany metagame and nothing else, and there were decks that probably should have been counted there that weren't for the sake of the system being too subjective. A compromise has been suggested by using a points system, and while not a bad idea, that would be immensely difficult to keep ontop of. While people regulating the Top8 thread could assign point values for the decks present, setting up polls for every deck that are timed fairly rigidly and getting votes would be a immense pressure on the mod staff that I know already has a lot on their plates for the most part. And if these polls were to count with some type of points value, do you open them to the masses of the source or do you leave it to the mod staff and adepts? If you leave it to the masses polls are likely to be swayed by a lot of personal opinion and fail to be more objective than subjective, but if you leave it to the adepts than people will cry foul and elitism because a heavily present deck in their particular local meta got the shaft.

It's a complicated thing to try and fix, and while I said and stand by my opinion that this system is flawed as it is, it is an objective way of determining what list of things is making top 8s across the world and that's a pretty good start for what people should be preparing for. Everything else should be subjective based upon your local metagame. If the Albany meta still existed I know I would have to prepare for Thresh and Landstill out of that list for sure... But I know I'd also have to prepare for Burning Tog, goblins, GAS.dec, and a plethora of red.dec or jank.aggro.dec on the flavor of 70 color zoo and Irish Coffee (thanks tacosnape). This is just a starting point, not the end all be all of the only decks you need to prepare for. You take the list, test a gauntlet, and then take into account decks you know will be present in your local metagame.

Finally, the European metagame. I understand both sides of the issue as I am an American player and know that it's primarily and American site, so 1 American top 8 makes sense. However, I don't think discounting decks that are making the grade in Europe because they don't have the players backing them in the states is a good idea. I believe it was suggested already, but perhaps putting decks that make the cut in Europe but not the States up as DTW instead of a full fledged DTB (subject to change at the first sighting of an american top 8) would be an acceptible compromise for the time being? At least until the Mod/Admin staff and Adepts have an opportunity to really dig into the system and find a good balance between a subjective and objective system to accurately represent the global metagame.

Opinions? Ones that aren't "OMFG THAT DECK IS A DTB BECAUSE IT'S PUTTING UP MORE TOP 8'S THAN GOBLINS WTF R U RETARDZ KEKEKEK?!" would be highly appreciated.

ParkerLewis

10-06-2007, 11:35 AM

Peter_Rotten

10-06-2007, 12:13 PM

I agree with APriestOfGix 100%, I'll just keep the actual DTB list true with myself and tell people whats actually a DTB if they ask or need to know.

If you wish to make an arbitrary list based on anecdotal evidence, personal opinion, and gut feelings, then go with your bad-self. We have no way to prevent you from doing this. Persoanlly, I would find your point more agreeable if you were saying something to the effect of this: "Even though Aluren has been classified DTW, I don't personally have to worry about it in my local meta." That seems more reasonable. The fact of the matter is that Aluren - like it or not - has a small presence in the past six T8s. Making two T8s is worth noting. The DTW tag reflects this and that maybe the community should pay more attention to the deck.

The LMF reflects decks that are making T8. It has no easy and viable way to reflect the presence of decks in the swiss rounds.

What is arbitrarily put in the Source's DTB thread doesnt define whats actually a DTB, and being excluded from there doesnt mean something is not a DTB. Im done with this thread, keep defending the inherently flawed system if yall want.

I fail to see how looking at the T8 lists and tallying what decks are in those lists is an arbitrary method. If you have a better method, than please suggest one, or you could fire a parting shot and shut the door so that you won't see your ideas challenged or possibly proven faulty.

Silverdragon

10-06-2007, 12:15 PM

Dunno if this has been suggested before, but why not just putting an additional letter in the initial brackets of the title ?

Like, if a deck would match the results criteria based solely upon american results, it could be labeled ADTB instead of DTB (American Deck To Beat). In the same way, a deck whose results would be only european could be labeled EDTB (European Deck to Beat). Only a deck putting up numbers in BOTH regions could be labeled DTB ; or maybe another initial letter, like WDTB for World Deck To Beat.

Example (don't attach any importance about the numbers themselves in this pure formal example, only their RELATIVE value is what matters)

-x top 8 in America (over the last t weeks) => ADTB
-x top 8 in Europe (over the last t weeks) => EDTB
-y top 8 across the World (over the last t weeks), at least z of them being in Europe, and at least z of them being in America => WDTB

With z being close to but inferior x, and y being close to but inferior to 2x (z<x<y<2x). t is whatever would be the most suitable (probably between 4 and 12)
Like, x=10, y=16, z=6.

Of course, the "WTDB" status would take precedence in case a deck qualifies for multiple status.

THAT would allow the available data to be correctly used without misleading people.
Same system would be used for DTWs (ADTW, EDTW, WDTW), with obviously different (lower) requirements though.
Just make sure the requirements are set so that any deck eligible for DTW in a region, and DTB in the other, also meets the requirements for WDTW.

In case of different eligible qualification status, like "ADTB" and "WDTW" (but no "WDTB" status), just put the two of them (like "ADTB/WDTW")

Or change titles.

DTB could be decks that perform well in both metagames, ADTB could be American DTB's and EDTB could be European. This lets any new meta come in, and keeps the old system pretty well intact.

Right here page 2 :wink:

So far this seems to be the best solution to me. However if you don't want to further complicate the abreviations in front of the decknames you could use the second best solution so far to just promote decks without american showings to DtW status.
Concerning the Goblins debate I'd say you can still find the thread in the Established Decks Forum so I don't see a big problem there especially as the LMF explicitely states that it only lists decks found in top8's. If you think just a little bit you have to come to the conclusion that Legacy is not just 4 or 5 decks so you better prepare for more stuff anyway.
Maybe a little tag should be added to some decks stating that they are "former DtB" like in the past.
just my opinion

Anarky87

10-06-2007, 12:51 PM

Established Decks Forum:

For "finished" decks: Decks (Goblins/Ichorid) which are optimized and thoroughly tested. A deck (Goblins/Ichorid) is not required to have proven itself in a competitive tournament environment (Which neither have really done recently) to be included in the Open Forum, but it is recommended.Goblins has lost its strangle hold on the format for some time now. This is not to say that Goblins/Ichorid is non-existant and bad, just that they haven't demonstrated themselves enough recently (Except by losing a lot).

Btw, it's also inherently flawed to tell your friends to only expect 4-5 decks at any given tournament. Have you no understanding how completely random Legacy is? That's just a stupid thing to do. The idea is to prepare for the decks in the LMF and also take a look at the EDF as well, because you will see some decks from there too. Just ignoring all decks except what you deem worthy is ignorant.

Finn

10-06-2007, 01:35 PM

How about a ranking system? Since this topic is clearly about raw numerical data and perception, why not have a monthly vote? Who says there has to be a single method for deciding which decks are top notch?

Take baseball for example. Even though baseball has statistics about every conceivable aspect of the game, not one can accurately dictate which pitcher is the best. Any person can read the raw data and come to their own conclusions. But then the "experts" can be counted on to analyze them for the masses.

Give each member with atleast, say 50 posts and membership for atleast 3 months a vote on a monthly poll. Then you supplement that with the raw data from tournament top 8 appearances. There, now you have covered all your bases except geography.

Geographic representation would probably require a map with spacial references to where decks are present and where they are performing. This would take some work, but it would be the ultimate tool for pinpointing the metagame in an area. And it would almost certainly open the door for even more accurate and interesting analyses.

Data for the map could be gathered anecdotally if necessary (perhaps as a post in the voting thread) for less populated areas of Legacy, and with tournament results for major areas. It would also be a perfect tool for finding tournaments if done properly.

Bovinious

10-06-2007, 01:42 PM

If you wish to make an arbitrary list based on anecdotal evidence, personal opinion, and gut feelings, then go with your bad-self. We have no way to prevent you from doing this. Persoanlly, I would find your point more agreeable if you were saying something to the effect of this: "Even though Aluren has been classified DTW, I don't personally have to worry about it in my local meta." That seems more reasonable. The fact of the matter is that Aluren - like it or not - has a small presence in the past six T8s. Making two T8s is worth noting. The DTW tag reflects this and that maybe the community should pay more attention to the deck.

The LMF reflects decks that are making T8. It has no easy and viable way to reflect the presence of decks in the swiss rounds.

I fail to see how looking at the T8 lists and tallying what decks are in those lists is an arbitrary method. If you have a better method, than please suggest one, or you could fire a parting shot and shut the door so that you won't see your ideas challenged or possibly proven faulty.

Bad self, I guess mods are allowed to flame now...Anyways, it is arbitrary in that 2 top8s was seemingly pulled out of thin air. Theres no reason 2 top8s is where a deck becomes significant as opposed to any other number.

Again, it doesnt matter if its been classified a DTW, it is in the section called Decks to Beat Forum, which implies anything inside is a Deck to Beat. Most non-mods dont conform to this arbitrary DTB/DTW/ATW naming system, most people speak of decks as DTBs or even tier 1/2/etc.

Again, Ill suggest a better method. Use some common sense when making the DTB thread, obviously if Thresh and Landstill are ripping apart top8s, put those in there, but use logic to keep things like Aluren out and Goblins in, I may sound like im being an elitist or something but it guarantee its laughable to at least 75% of the Source community that Aluren is (wrongfully) in the DTB Forum, and rightfully so.

Peter_Rotten

10-06-2007, 01:44 PM

Bad self, I guess mods are allowed to flame now...

If you consider that a flame, then I formally apologize.

Bardo

10-06-2007, 01:47 PM

The prior DTB system was flawed in that it was almost entirely subjective. What I"m saying is the current system is flawed in that it's entirely objective. A better system, like most things, lies somewhere in the middle.

We're open to suggestions, but trying to come to consensus with something like 40 Adepts/Mods/Admins is pretty much impossible.

The DTB designation process at TMD was a hybrid system (http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=30096.0), where decks were first filtered out if they failed to perform; once they passed through that strainer it was a matter of voting if a particular deck was one you recommend testing against. That is the point of "Decks to Beat," right? They're not what you play, they're what you test against. Anyway, that was a manageable system with like eight Adepts; with 3-4x times that, it's a bit too much to manage.

From my point of view, the "DtB," "ATW," etc. tags shouldn't be viewed with that much weight. That's really the quantifiable part of the process, but really shouldn't factor that heavily in what you're testing against. The way to look at the forum, and this is just my personal opinion again, is to see what has been performing well and then make your own choice about how much time you're willing or not willing to test against the decks that have been putting up results.

And as Eldariel mentions, arguing with results isn't going to get you anywhere. At some point you need to make a decision about what the results mean to you and what you are going to do about it (i.e. testing).

Peter_Rotten

10-06-2007, 01:57 PM

Again, it doesnt matter if its been classified a DTW, it is in the section called Decks to Beat Forum, which implies anything inside is a Deck to Beat. Most non-mods dont conform to this arbitrary DTB/DTW/ATW naming system, most people speak of decks as DTBs or even tier 1/2/etc.

You are defining the DTB Forum with your own standards.

Again, Ill suggest a better method. Use some common sense when making the DTB thread,

If only common sense was common. Common sense is simply too subjective as demonstrated by the fact that when it comes to the DTB Forum, my version of common sense is starkly different from your version. (Not a flame, just an example as to why we cannot use something as subjective as common sense.)

obviously if Thresh and Landstill are ripping apart top8s, put those in there, but use logic to keep things like Aluren out and Goblins in,

How is this logical? Why should we keep Goblins in the DTBF when it is not performing well? What does "ripping apart top8s" mean? 4 placements? 8 placements? Do you believe that maybe we should completely remove a number requirement for DTB/W status?

I may sound like im being an elitist or something but it guarantee its laughable to at least 75% of the Source community that Aluren is (wrongfully) in the DTB Forum, and rightfully so.

First, can you prove that it's "laughable" to 75% of the Source community? Second, if so, would you allow for the possibility that 75% of the Source could be wrong about an issue?

And lastly, why didn't you put up such a big stink last time Aluren was in the DTBF?

Machinus

10-06-2007, 01:57 PM

The DTB forum is fundamentally incomplete as it ignores the prosperous European environment.

Belgareth

10-06-2007, 02:00 PM

but use logic to keep things like Aluren out and Goblins in, I AM being an elitist

You really havn't given a good reason for goblins to be a deck to beat when it's not putting up any numbers and is a victim of it's own sucess and will die out accordingly.

Bardo I think the current system is a sensible one , it's not the method that's at debate it's the results.
You wouldn't do a poll for favourite colour then ignore red because some people are colour blind. (Yes the analogy is in no way similar but my point stands).
I think the OP and many others are simply saying ignoring a deck that has shown it's done well in european data while at the same time basing 4/6th's of the results on that same data is wrong.

I liked the idea of dual tagging but it seriously takes up more time to sort it that way.
Having any deck that doesn't show a Stateside T8 as capped at DTW , makes more sense as you never know if the following tourny it may show up so it's best to be prepared.

Peter_Rotten

10-06-2007, 02:05 PM

The DTB forum is fundamentally incomplete as it ignores the prosperous European environment.

First, your statement ignores the developing Japan enviroment.

Second, "ignores" is likely too extreme of a word. Including global T8s hardly seems like "ignoring" Europe.

What decks would be included in the DTBF if we removed any sort of American T8 requirement? Well, Belcher would be a DTB and Baseruption would be a DTW. But, as it's been said before, we our primarily an American site with a primarily American readership.

Peter_Rotten

10-06-2007, 02:07 PM

I liked the idea of dual tagging but it seriously takes up more time to sort it that way.
Having any deck that doesn't show a Stateside T8 as capped at DTW , makes more sense...

This seems rather sensible. Under your suggestion, Belcher would be considered a DTW.

Belgareth

10-06-2007, 02:09 PM

This seems rather sensible. Under your suggestion, Belcher would be considered a DTW.

That's all I ask :)
I totally understand the American bias , but when a deck is prevalent enough in a very competitive European environment, It deserves to be a DTW .

Bardo

10-06-2007, 02:23 PM

The DTB forum is fundamentally incomplete as it ignores the prosperous European environment.

To what extent does the European metagame really influence what people play in the States? And by "European" don't we mean "German?" Am I wrong on this, but is there really any other consistent reporting outside of Deutschland? To what extent is the "metagame" global?

Ultimately, what is the point of the LMF forum? To report on global results (we already have a thread for that)? Or to inform the primary readership of this site what they can expect at their next tournament?

The issue(s) seem to boil down to this, for me.

Your thoughts, anyone?

Bovinious

10-06-2007, 02:25 PM

You are defining the DTB Forum with your own standards.

If only common sense was common. Common sense is simply too subjective as demonstrated by the fact that when it comes to the DTB Forum, my version of common sense is starkly different from your version. (Not a flame, just an example as to why we cannot use something as subjective as common sense.)

How is this logical? Why should we keep Goblins in the DTBF when it is not performing well? What does "ripping apart top8s" mean? 4 placements? 8 placements? Do you believe that maybe we should completely remove a number requirement for DTB/W status?

First, can you prove that it's "laughable" to 75% of the Source community? Second, if so, would you allow for the possibility that 75% of the Source could be wrong about an issue?

And lastly, why didn't you put up such a big stink last time Aluren was in the DTBF?

Well dont the mods define DTBs by their own status when building the DTB Forum?

I'm not sure what number you could bind "ripping apart top8s" to, if there is even a correct number. There probably isnt an end all be all number, it should probably be based on the general feel of the environment as well as placement, in other words "do people worry about deck X"? All Im saying is people worry about beating Goblins, but dont worry about beating Aluren, because you will probably have to face goblins pretty often and it is strong against many decks, and Aluren is rarely seen, and imo not very strong. I think that DTW should be eliminated, as it allows something to be in the DTB Forum but somehow not be considered a DTB, which seems like a contradiction. ATW/B seems like it COULD go, as 43Land seems to be the only really viable LFTL deck atm, of course these are all just my suggestions.

Of course I cant prove it, most people on the source probably dont care enough to laugh or not even if they do think its ridiculous. But I bet if you polled people asking if they think Aluren should be DTB youd get a lot of "HELL NO"s. The entirety of the source COULD be wrong, but thats placing awfully little faith in the community if you really think they are wrong.

I didnt know Aluren was ever a DTB before, and I probably didnt make a big deal also because there wasnt a thread about it and the other problems with the DTBs.

Bardo

10-06-2007, 02:29 PM

Well dont the mods define DTBs by their own status when building the DTB Forum?

No, the process is purely objective, using data to determine "DTBs", etc., and not subjective bias:

Rather than relying on arbitrary selection or decision-making based on conjecture which can be tainted by personal bias, decks are selected for the LMF based on their performance at recent, large, competitive Legacy tournaments. Decks which make up a very large portion of the metagame are considered DTB's. Decks which are less prevalent but appear multiple times are considered DTW's. Archetypes which appear multiple times are considered ATW's.

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5460

Machinus

10-06-2007, 02:33 PM

First, your statement ignores the developing Japan enviroment.

...and? Europe is way more important than Japan. They have way more players and more regularly. The inclusion of European data is a test of the system's intelligence and it fails. If you can't handle accepting European data you certainly don't have room for Japanese data.

Second, "ignores" is likely too extreme of a word. Including global T8s hardly seems like "ignoring" Europe.

Refusing to give DTB status to decks that are very successful in Europe is deliberately excluding Legacy data from that region. Also known as ignoring.

What decks would be included in the DTBF if we removed any sort of American T8 requirement? Well, Belcher would be a DTB and Baseruption would be a DTW. But, as it's been said before, we our primarily an American site with a primarily American readership.

That is an irrelevant and irrational question to ask. We don't select the guidelines based on what the result will be, that's idiotic. The fact that this attitude is so prevalent in the DTB management casts doubt on the integrity of the forum.

We should not restrict ourselves to American results. This only serves to hide the developments of the rest of the world and prevent our players from adapting properly to the format. Do you remember GP Lille? That happened in 2005 and we just now caught up to France on the whole Threshold thing. And you want to keep ignoring Legacy in other countries?

Bovinious

10-06-2007, 02:34 PM

Purely objective in a subjective way, the amount of top8s needed to constitute what is subjective.

Anarky87

10-06-2007, 02:34 PM

Of course I cant prove it, most people on the source probably dont care enough to laugh or not even if they do think its ridiculous. But I bet if you polled people asking if they think Aluren should be DTB youd get a lot of "HELL NO"s. The entirety of the source COULD be wrong, but thats placing awfully little faith in the community if you really think they are wrong.

How do you attempt to 'prove' something by following it up with more conjecture?

Bovinious

10-06-2007, 02:41 PM

Well I said I couldnt prove 75%, then said I'd bet a lot of people would agree with me, want me to make a poll?

Obfuscate Freely

10-06-2007, 02:50 PM

Prior to the development of the current DtB guidelines, the Adepts chose the decks to go in the LMF by voting on them. This is a clearly subjective process, and led to all sorts of heated discussions and arguments. More importantly, under this system, the "DtB" label was basically meaningless for the purposes of tournament preparation. This is because there is a critical problem with any sort of subjective DtB selection process. That is, everybody and their mother has a different idea of how to define what a "Deck to Beat" is! Almost anyone will agree that the term implies both prevalence and viability, to varying degrees, but what nobody can agree on is how, exactly, to qualify either of those attributes. When people vote on a deck's DtB status, this inconsistency leaves the door wide open for personal bias to undermine the process.

Now, to avoid this problem, we determine the contents of the LMF in an objective way, using tournament data (and nothing else) to determine the DtBs, based on a precisely quantified definition of what a DtB is. This way, the LMF is merely assimilating and presenting information; people can take that information, apply their own ideas and methods of preparation to it, and win tournaments. This is a vast improvement over the old system.

The LMF contains the decks that have performed the best in the Swiss portions of the last six tournaments, barring those thave have performed well only in Europe. You can argue that this does not display the information in the most useful way possible, or that it omits important bits of data; the European compromise is obviously flawed, for example. However, you cannot argue about why those decks are in the forum. It's precisely defined.

If you or your team have tested Ichorid and found it to be really good, that's fine. You can combine those findings with the information that the LMF provides, and realize that people probably aren't playing Ichorid very often. Other people might not be likely to prepare for it, so it may be a strong choice at the next tournament. Or, you might expect others to figure this out, as well, and play Ichorid themselves, in which case you may want to aim to beat Ichorid, instead. This sort of deck evaluation and metagame prediction can obviously give you a huge advantage in tournament situations, but it is well beyond the scope of the LMF. It would be misleading and irresponsible to use DtB status in an attempt to predict the future, so Ichorid cannot be called a DtB until it has a break out performance.

The same goes for Goblins. The deck has either not shown up, or performed very poorly in the last six tournaments. If you, personally, think that's going to change at the next event, then you should use that insight to your advantage and prepare as such. However, the LMF does not and cannot reflect what anyone, or even everyone, thinks or expects will happen. Once Goblins makes its return, then it can be labeled a DtB again.

The downside to this is that, yes, the LMF is basically historical in nature. To some extent, it will always be behind the "actual" format. However, the only other option is to have a group of DtBs that tell us little or nothing at all.

Bardo

10-06-2007, 03:17 PM

I think Alix explained this very well here.

The LMF is a testing tool--don't make it out to be more than it is.

Belgareth

10-06-2007, 03:48 PM

...and? Europe is way more important than Japan.
Do you remember GP Lille? That happened in 2005 and we just now caught up to France on the whole Threshold thing. And you want to keep ignoring Legacy in other countries?

This made me laugh in a good way, because it's very true.
As I said before, viewing European data allows you to effectively view the future.
Due to the fact we hold a lot more tournaments with much larger turnout, the evolution of the format is significantly catalysed over here. (No bardo it's not just Germany, the other countries just don't report. Although Germany is by far the best.)
I think peter_rotten has shown the most open-mindedness of the staff, by at least seeing the potential for change.
If Euro data was ignore entirely like some people seem to suggest, the LMF would be so outdated because American tournies of the correct sampling size are so infrequent.

frogboy

10-06-2007, 04:13 PM

The DTB forum is primarily intended to show the community at large what decks have been doing well recently and provide lists so they can test against them. Someone remind me what the issue is?

Zilla

10-06-2007, 04:30 PM

I think we should give up that attitude and start caring about the decks Europeans are playing.
We do care. We're simply not going to suggest that those decks are necessary for 95% of our members to prepare for when they're not. Those European decks are still listed and linked in the Historical Top 8 thread. People who are interested in seeing what's doing well in Europe can simply look there, and if they feel those decks can be adapted to the American metagame, then they can play them and win with them. If they do, they'll go in the LMF.

I understand that from your point of view that there should exist a universal Legacy metagame. I totally agree. Unfortunately, that simply isn't the case right now. There are very distinct metagames between Europe and the US. As the format continues to mature, there will come a time when time when this is no longer true. When this happens, the current policy will cease to be relevant.

Machinus

10-06-2007, 05:55 PM

I understand that from your point of view that there should exist a universal Legacy metagame. I totally agree. Unfortunately, that simply isn't the case right now. There are very distinct metagames between Europe and the US. As the format continues to mature, there will come a time when time when this is no longer true. When this happens, the current policy will cease to be relevant.

There is a universal Legacy metagame. It's random everywhere, with all competitive players making design innovations. There are not "distinct" metagames [sic] between Europe and the US. There aren't even "distinct" metagames in either of those places.

Excluding European results only serves to prolong the ignorance of American players.

frogboy

10-06-2007, 06:12 PM

Excluding European results means that Americans won't test against decks that, for the most part, are only being played on another continent. Did you read my above post?

Bardo

10-06-2007, 06:48 PM

There is a universal Legacy metagame. It's random everywhere, with all competitive players making design innovations. There are not "distinct" metagames [sic] between Europe and the US. There aren't even "distinct" metagames in either of those places.

Excluding European results only serves to prolong the ignorance of American players.

What evidence is there that non-US tournament data informs the US metagame?

Should I really add Baseruption to my testing gauntlet, when the odds of ever facing it are next to nil?

Zilla

10-06-2007, 06:52 PM

Excluding European results only serves to prolong the ignorance of American players.
We don't exclude European results, except those which have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on preparation for American tournaments.

DeathwingZERO

10-06-2007, 07:07 PM

This might sound like bashing or ill-informed, but wouldn't the fact that American players aren't SEEING the decks in the DtB also be highly considered the same as saying "These decks don't belong here because our environment is better than other countries", and thus not worth playing? Just because our reader base is American doesn't mean they wouldn't want to know what makes them obviously better in Europe than they are here. In one way or another, it proves that one section of the world is more evolved than the other, and I'm seriously thinking it's in Europe's favor.

You have to remember that the average source member isn't even going to understand the decks on the level you adepts and mods can (or our more prominent regular members, for that matter), or else we'd all be on the same level as far as members go. Then the LMF wouldn't even exist, because everyone would know already what's good enough to play/test.

You've debunked on numerous occasions that the rumors of adepts being promoted just because their friends of adepts/mods, and proven that said adepts are actually putting up results showing they are good at the game. But why would you expect the same level of understanding from your casual readers who just want to check up on a good gauntlet to prepare for? Because stateside there's only X decks being played regularly, thus that makes them the only good ones? It really makes it sound like we have literally no creativity and just want to play what wins at the time, and swap from Goblins to Thresh to whatever is next in line.

If a deck is putting up a regular showing in Europe, I don't see why our metagame should be so different in any way other than 1) it's more evolved, which is simply not true, or 2) it's less evolved (which many, including myself, seem to believe), and should accept the data from areas which have a more steady flow of tournaments and what appears to be a much more diverse metagame. The fact that the DtW and DtB status of European decks is far more diverse than that of American tournaments should prove that theory to be pretty correct, they are far more akin to a true balance of power in the format than we are.

To be honest, anything less than putting Europe on equal footing is realistically doing nothing more than keeping the player base of the source in general in the dark, because all we see are the same 4-5 deck lists showing T8 because nobody is willing to try the others on anything more than a 1 or 2 showing per tournament. Statistics would prove we won't see those put up results until they catch on, because in a balanced metagame 1 deck in 50 has a pretty poor chance of continual T8 performances, it needs numbers (or being far unbalanced) to continue staying at the top.

Pale Moon FTW

10-06-2007, 07:07 PM

I really can't see why including European DTBs has to lead to American players getting a flawed picture of their meta. Why can't we just include the European DTBs with a note saying "European meta" or something to distinct them? Then both Americans and Europeans could see what to test against.

Machinus

10-06-2007, 09:01 PM

We don't exclude European results, except those which have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on preparation for American tournaments.

Successful European decks have slightly less bearing on competitive tournaments than successful American ones.

You are all deluded if you think the DTB forum is somehow a precise representation of Legacy in this country. It's not a precise representation of Legacy anywhere.

Finn

10-06-2007, 09:06 PM

Let's try this again.

How about a ranking system? Since this topic is clearly about raw numerical data and perception, why not have a monthly vote? Who says there has to be a single method for deciding which decks are top notch?

Take baseball for example. Even though baseball has statistics about every conceivable aspect of the game, not one can accurately dictate which pitcher is the best. Any person can read the raw data and come to their own conclusions. But then the "experts" can be counted on to analyze them for the masses.

Give each member with atleast, say 50 posts and membership for atleast 3 months a vote on a monthly poll. Then you supplement that with the raw data from tournament top 8 appearances. There, now you have covered all your bases except geography.

Geographic representation would probably require a map with spacial references to where decks are present and where they are performing. This would take some work, but it would be the ultimate tool for pinpointing the metagame in an area. And it would almost certainly open the door for even more accurate and interesting analyses.

Data for the map could be gathered anecdotally if necessary (perhaps as a post in the voting thread) for less populated areas of Legacy, and with tournament results for major areas. It would also be a perfect tool for finding tournaments if done properly.

Bardo

10-06-2007, 09:09 PM

You are all deluded if you think the DTB forum is somehow a precise representation of Legacy in this country. It's not a precise representation of Legacy anywhere.

Who said anything about precision? It's a tool and no tool is perfect for every job. It's supposed to be representative.

We recognize that this system is neither perfect nor infallible. By analyzing only Top 8 data, we do not necessarily create an accurate or full representation of the decks that make up the metagame. However, we feel this system will produce reasonably accurate results using a relatively simple, bias-free method.

@ Finn - 'Way too complicated there. Also, as has been mentioned a bunch of times, DtBs are not the best decks, they're just the ones that are consistently doing well and you can reasonably expect to face.

APriestOfGix

10-06-2007, 09:17 PM

Zilla

10-06-2007, 10:43 PM

You are all deluded if you think the DTB forum is somehow a precise representation of Legacy in this country. It's not a precise representation of Legacy anywhere.
That's a pretty strawman you made there. No one has asserted that the LMF is a precise representation of Legacy in this country. It's a fair approximation, given the constraints, and it's more precise a picture than it would be if it included decks that aren't being played here.

DragoFireheart

10-06-2007, 11:13 PM

Successful European decks have slightly less bearing on competitive tournaments than successful American ones.

You are all deluded if you think the DTB forum is somehow a precise representation of Legacy in this country. It's not a precise representation of Legacy anywhere.

When there are factual links showing Top-8s and other various tournaments, how in the frozen hell isn't it accurate?

Every time a new set comes out, little trinkets flake off that set and cause a minor disturbance to our meta. While it may not seem like much, those little flake are gonna add up with other little flakes from previous sets. This in turn causes savage cockroaches to swarm those flanks and transform into a super I-kick-the-crap-out-of-you cockroach. [See Onslaught, Darksteel, aka Goblins etc].

But, then more flakes come off more sets and cause more disturbances and those flakes get eaten by bigger cockroaches that devour those smaller, previous cockroaches [See Thresh, Ichorid, etc].

Our meta is filled with thousands of flakes with tons of cockroaches eating those flakes: what the source tries to do is tame those cockroaches that are the biggest so we know which ones are the biggest.

Does any of that make sense?

Bovinious

10-07-2007, 12:14 AM

Guys, I think some people, myself included, have taken this DTB issue too far. Sure the forum may not be perfect, but I suppose there has to be some kind of system to determine what goes in there and changes tot he system should be made through the proper channels, not ranting. Aluren will probably not be in the DTB Forum for long and Goblins will probably be back soon enough.

Machinus

10-07-2007, 12:48 AM

No one has asserted that the LMF is a precise representation of Legacy in this country.

It's quite accurate as a representation of your position. You claim that:

-the LMF provides useful information on how to prepare for tournaments.
-decks which are successful only in Europe have no bearing on American tourmament results.
-the title "Deck to Beat" means that American players should be prepared to beat it.

According to you, the LMF is an accurate reresentation of the necessary obstacles to tournament success, so accurate in fact that it is useful for competitive players to use as a gauntlet. Obviously this is impossible if you are ignoring what are at least as good designs from at least as good players in a better environment. These designs do come to America and do dominate our players because we don't pay attention to them.

American Legacy has serious problems with ignorance of foreign technology. Despite having flexible strategies and good matchups against many decks, it took Americans over a year to figure out that Threshold was very good, AFTER it dominated a 1000 man tournament in France. And you want to keep hiding the decks they have developed? Because competitive players won't know enough to take good designs when they see them? Or are the Europeans just worse than we are and their successes are insignificant?

It's more precise a picture than it would be if it included decks that aren't being played here.

There is no "here." You assert that there is no unified global Legacy and in the next breath want to tell me there is a unified American legacy. Everyone who has played in two or more large Legacy tournaments knows this is nonsense.

It would be more precise if we actually included competitive decks that are good enough to succeed in a larger, more consistent environment. Competitive players do copy designs from Europe and they are important. There is no reasonable justification for excluding the data.

frogboy

10-07-2007, 01:25 AM

He's not asserting there's a unified American legacy. He's asserting that it's foolish to test against decks that do not show up at American tournaments if you're going to be playing in an American tournament.

You need to stop deliberately interpreting posts to construct strawman arguments. It's tiresome.

European technology can certainly be incorporated into American decks but to automatically assume a sizable percentage of the expected field to do so has been empirically determined to be incorrect.

Machinus

10-07-2007, 01:57 AM

You need to stop deliberately interpreting posts to construct strawman arguments. It's tiresome.

Right, the overused straw-man defense pops up again. I doubt any of you have any actual training in formal logic. I'm not using a straw man.

I'm taking Godzilla's words literally and deducing their meaning. If you have a problem with critical analysis then there's no shame in excusing yourself from the severe strain of logical argument.

it's foolish to test against decks that do not show up at American tournaments

They can show up at American tournaments, and they do. In fact, the better they are, the more likely American players are to adopt them and succeed with them.

What exactly do you think competitive players do when preparing for a tournament? Not scour European tournaments for the best tech?

Then again, when was the last time the DTB management did prepare for a competitive tournament?

frogboy

10-07-2007, 02:16 AM

I'm pretty sure that straw man arguments involve creating an easily refuted argument and pawning it off on the other guy.

decks that aren't being played [in America].

This asserts a unified American Legacy metagame?

They can show up at American tournaments, and they do. In fact, the better they are, the more likely American players are to adopt them and succeed with them.

What exactly do you think competitive players do when preparing for a tournament? Not scour European tournaments for the best tech?

You also need to read my posts in their entirety as opposed to merely glossing over them.

European technology can certainly be incorporated into American decks but to automatically assume a sizable percentage of the expected field to [sic, heh] do so has been empirically determined to be incorrect

It's difficult to test against the perceived changes a very small amount of the field may or may not make to a deck that they may or may not play due to overseas success.

SpatulaOfTheAges

10-07-2007, 12:08 PM

This made me laugh in a good way, because it's very true.
As I said before, viewing European data allows you to effectively view the future.

So you predict Ghostway cropping up shortly, in the American meta-game?

I keed, I keed.

For comparison, I went through the t8s and ran them through the requirements for the DTB forum, first the last 6 European tournaments, then American.

Europe;

DTB
U/G/r Threshold
U/G/r/w Threshold
U/B/g/w/ Landstill
CRET Belcher

DTW
Elves
Vial Goblins
Solidarity
UW Fish

ATW
Life from the Loam
Landstill

America;

DTB
UGR Threshold
Cephalid Breakfast
Vial Goblins

DTW
TES
Enchantress
Aluren

ATW
Survival
Life from the Loam
Landstill

Take it how you will.

Zilla

10-07-2007, 03:53 PM

I'm taking Godzilla's words literally and deducing their meaning.
Your deduction is inaccurate. I never said there was a universal American metagame. I said that American players shouldn't be told to prepare for decks that they're not going to face at an American tournament.

thefreakaccident

10-07-2007, 07:05 PM

I understand that under the rules its a DTW, but I strongly believe that any system that puts Aluren in the DTB forum and not Goblins/CRET/Ichorid is extremely flawed. Rather than complain more, I'll say how I think the system should be changed. Actually put decks that shape the metagame (decks to beat) in the deck to beat forum, dont base what goes in there purely based on top8s of the last few tournies, especially since some of those were in Europe or other places where apparently Aluren (LOL) can make a top8...In my opinion the DTBs are Thresh, Breakfast, Landstill, Goblins, and possibly CRET/Ichorid/43Land. Basically, I'm saying the system should be part subjective and part objective, and more common sense should be used to keep Aluren and the like out of the DTB and Goblins and the like in the DTB, no matter if Aluren barely earned the right or Goblins barely lost the right under some arbitrarily set up system.

At first when I started this thread I was simply confused & seeking answers... After reading through I have realized that I have started an arguement on which decks belong in the METAGAME FORUMS and the selection system we use to include those decks there.

Personally I think that if we started taking in data from everywhere else and started taking a more objective view of things we may be able to evolve as players in general.

I heonestly beleive that the European meta is far more evolved than the American East Çoast Meta... Perhapes te West Coast (although far more diverse) is even weaker due to lack pf interest/players; but I do not know.

The Japanese are dominating, you cannot argue that... perhapes if we start looking at the T8's of these more evolved areas and start basing our analyses off of data from throughout the world we could then have one extremely healthy and diverse meta that we can all participate in.

Decks are in the metagame forums because they belong there, although I do beleive they do need to look at the other metas instead of just the East Coast, which is what you guys are doing.

SpatulaOfTheAges

10-07-2007, 07:11 PM

What makes you(or anyone) think that Europe and Japan have "more developed" Legacy metagames?

thefreakaccident

10-07-2007, 07:20 PM

look at the diversity of the decks and the number of competative players.... that will answer my question quite well.

East Coast has tournaments of 30-50 people with not many different kinds of decks, although the decks may be competative and the players good.

The European and Japanese tournies include far more players (all of whom just as competative as in our USA), plus they just have a lot more decks to prepare for. I know when I prepare for tourneies I simply prepare for our main decks, thresh (in all splashes), goblins (although not a DTB, still strong... don't wanna be caught with our pants down), and combo.

Then you can look at deck design, if you look into Belgareth's landstill build you will kn0ow what I am talking about, I have simply gone undefeated with the deck... it is Fing rediculous. I wish I could attend some East Coast tournies soon so you guys would know that I am not simply blowing hot air out of my ass.

Machinus

10-07-2007, 08:23 PM

Your deduction is inaccurate. I never said there was a universal American metagame. I said that American players shouldn't be told to prepare for decks that they're not going to face at an American tournament.

If it's inaccurate, it's because there is no way to reconcile all of your different claims. American players are just as likely to play European decks as they are other American decks in tournaments. Trust me, I've actually played in them.

European decks are more likely to influence tournament compositions than decks from, say, California. It's wrong to exclude European decks and pretend that California is more relevant.

Zilla

10-07-2007, 08:42 PM

European decks are more likely to influence tournament compositions than decks from, say, California. It's wrong to exclude European decks and pretend that California is more relevant.
We are not in the business of prediction. The LMF exists to show what is happening in American metagames, not what "should" be happening or what might happen. If European decks win American tournaments, they're added to the LMF. Until that actually happens, they're not considered decks for which preparation is required by American players.

Bardo

10-07-2007, 09:10 PM

European decks are more likely to influence tournament compositions than decks from, say, California. It's wrong to exclude European decks and pretend that California is more relevant.

FYI.

Looking at the entirety of the US results in Anwar's T8 thread, there have been exactly zero (0) tournaments reported west of the Mississippi River. As far as the LMF goes, California might as well be somewhere on the dark side of the moon. But this is besides the point.

Personally, I'm not opposed to co-mingling US and German results--but the LMF loses whatever value it might have as a testing gauntlet when I need to add Baseruption and R/G Beatz to my gauntlet; nor can I really recommend that anyone else test against those deck either. On account of that, I'm opposed to the idea.

This isn't to say that Germany and Japan should be ignored, hardly--which is what you seem to imply, Chris. It should go without saying that Legacy players, world-wide, should seek out new technology wherever it presents itself. There is already a thread (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=88562&postcount=2) for this, and any Legacy player looking for something new and proven would do well to look there and play around with those ideas. But that isn't the issue at hand.

Machinus

10-07-2007, 09:56 PM

We are not in the business of prediction. The LMF exists to show what is happening in American metagames, not what "should" be happening or what might happen. If European decks win American tournaments, they're added to the LMF. Until that actually happens, they're not considered decks for which preparation is required by American players.

European decks are affecting tournaments. We do lose to them. Their success in Europe is just as significant to US players as the success of any deck that is outside a player's local region. The geography of the earth is completely irrelevant to this format and it's stupid to divide the DTB forum based on it.

Players are not receiving an honest assessment of the format when arbitrarily defined geographic regions determine what decks people are told about. It puts players that read the DTB forum at a disadvantage. Ignoring Europe basically says to aspiring players that this site is more interested in maintaining the competitive advantage of well-informed players than actually presenting the developments of the format.

TeenieBopper

10-07-2007, 09:59 PM

I got sick of reading through stupid arguments like halfway through page four. I don't have time for this bullshit.

Look, Europe has a robust and healthy legacy metagame, perhaps more so than some/all US metagames. It's also plenty obvious that we do have an active and contributing European contingent on this site. We're doing everyone a disservice by excluding decks that have actually met the requirements laid out in the forum. Belcher (and anything else excluded) should be there. A deck with a fundementally strong strategy in Europe is still going to be a deck with a fundamentally strong strategy in the United States, and thus, we're really harming our American players by not saying "hey, these decks are doing good elsewhere. You should check them out, they might help you."

Anybody remember extended a few years ago? When Japan absolutely rocked every single event and had some savage new tech like every other day? It's pretty much the same idea.

Plus it's absolutely hypocritical to say "well, the results support our ideas for this deck/archtype, so we're goign to include it, but not our ideas of that deck/archtype, so we're going to purposely exclude that deck."

frogboy

10-07-2007, 10:10 PM

All,

which part of "the DTB is a tool to look at the current American metagame" is not getting through here? If players take European decks and do well with them, great, people should test against them. Until that happens, it's basically a waste of time. TB, to use 2005 Extended as an example, testing against Aluren on March 1 would've been stupid because only very tiny fraction of the people at GP Boston played a list resembling Oiso's.

Sure, people should look at tuning European lists and using them in the American metagame, but that's not what the forum is designed for.

I had a much better rant lined up but this is going to have to do.

Machinus

10-07-2007, 10:19 PM

"the DTB is a tool to look at the current American metagame"

This is a pointless restricton and should be removed in favor of actual competitive format analysis.

people should look at tuning European lists and using them in the American metagame, but that's not what the forum is designed for.

Therefore the forum is flawed and needs to be fixed.

frogboy

10-07-2007, 10:56 PM

I'm glad that we spent over a hundred posts realizing that the fundamental difference was a disagreement over policy, especially after the point of the DTB forum being a testing tool made numerous times in the first forty posts. It was productive.

The DTB forum is designed to be a guideline on what the top decks to prepare for in a tournament are. Most format development of new decks happens in Open, because generally decks are basically "done" barring tuning and new tech by the time they've established a metagame presence such that they're moved to the DTB forum.

If the complaints are about how American-centric the DTB is, well, it's an American site, most of our members are American, etc, etc. If there's enough outcry maintaining a European DTB forum wouldn't be super hard but as far as I'm aware there's currently no demand.

Machinus

10-07-2007, 11:17 PM

The problem isnt "american-centrism," it's the failure of the forum to be realistic and comprehensive.

I'm aware that there is a disagreement over policy. In fact, I have been aware of the terms of this debate from the beginning. I have explained why the policy isn't good enough. Perhaps you should read the thread again with this enlightened perspective.

TeenieBopper

10-07-2007, 11:18 PM

All,

which part of "the DTB is a tool to look at the current American metagame" is not getting through here?

Emphasis moved.

It's not getting through because such a distinction is non existent. From the DTB forum:

What is the purpose of the LMF forum?

The LMF exists for a few reasons. Primarily, its purpose is to give new and veteran Legacy players an idea of the current state of the metagame. It is not only for highlighting tier one decks, but is also reflective of current trends in a constantly changing metagame. Ideally, the LMF should provide a reasonably accurate model for creation of a testing gauntlet when preparing for an unknown metagame at a large, competitive tournament.

I see no distinction at all there between European and American metagames. Remember one of the biggest complaints against the old system for choosing DTB? That is was incredibly East Coast centric and the West Coast was justifiably miffed that they were essentially being ignored.

Now, what part of we have healthy European community as a part of this site, and they're bringing a lot to the table aren't you guys getting? We have European members contributing on this site, and people outright admitting to saying that they're taking something away from those contributions.

I know better than some random schmuck looking for decklists, so I"m going to test and try and be prepared for Belcher/TES/Enchantress whatever. The LMF is failing in it's fundamental goal of gathering information and disseminating it. It's also failing in its secondary goal of fostering a healthy metagame by excluding strong decks.

You can justify excluding those decks before simply because this conversation hadn't taken place. Stop trying to justify continuing to do it, because you can't. Someone should just step up and be like "You know what? there's something of value here. We're going to give it the recognition it deserves."

Obfuscate Freely

10-08-2007, 12:49 AM

European decks are affecting tournaments. We do lose to them. Their success in Europe is just as significant to US players as the success of any deck that is outside a player's local region.
When this happens, the decks get moved into the LMF on the back of their performances. What's the problem with that?

Personally, I'm not going to prepare to face Baseruption, Terrageddon, or Belcher at the next major American tournament. I don't see a reason to expect those decks to be relevant to my own success. That doesn't mean that those decks shouldn't be highlighted in some way, for the benefit of our European members, but it would be misleading to give them the same label as the decks that most of us should expect to see at the tournaments that we go to.

Also, I don't understand the claim that the collective European metagame is somehow "more evolved" than the collective American metagame. Remember, ******** rocked GP: Philly before it rocked GP: Lille.

SpatulaOfTheAges

10-08-2007, 02:07 AM

What he said.

General inquiry; how can you claim that both are true?

A)There's a unified Legacy meta-game, regardless of geography, and
B)One geographic region has a more advanced Legacy meta-game.

The two seem mutually exclusive.

look at the diversity of the decks and the number of competative players.... that will answer my question quite well.

re: Diversity of decks - How does that prove it's more competitive?

re: "Number of competitive players" - How do you know what percentage are "competitive?

Fairly obviously, if European Legacy tournaments have a greater percentage of "competitive" players, they'll be more competitive. You haven't actually answered the question.

East Coast has tournaments of 30-50 people with not many different kinds of decks, although the decks may be competative and the players good.

Define "not that many"? Do you have any numbers or are you just assuming?

The European and Japanese tournies include far more players (all of whom just as competative as in our USA), plus they just have a lot more decks to prepare for. I know when I prepare for tourneies I simply prepare for our main decks, thresh (in all splashes), goblins (although not a DTB, still strong... don't wanna be caught with our pants down), and combo.

So a meta-game where those Thresh players are replaced by people playing Fish, Elves and Gamekeeper is more competitive, even though most agree that Thresh is the much better deck?

And I'm not saying that that's what Europe is, but your argument just doesn't make any sense.

Then you can look at deck design, if you look into Belgareth's landstill build you will kn0ow what I am talking about, I have simply gone undefeated with the deck... it is Fing rediculous. I wish I could attend some East Coast tournies soon so you guys would know that I am not simply blowing hot air out of my ass.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

I see no distinction at all there between European and American metagames.

Then you haven't actually compared their top 8s, Mike. See my post one page back.

Remember one of the biggest complaints against the old system for choosing DTB? That is was incredibly East Coast centric and the West Coast was justifiably miffed that they were essentially being ignored.

That's not a valid complaint against the current system. European results are not ignored, but American results are given controlling status, which makes sense for an American site, where we have a handful of Germans, a couple of French and maybe one delegate from a handful of other European countries. Many of the deck trends in Europe will simply never cross the Atlantic, and it's stupid to think they should be given the same weight as deck trends happening where 95% of the site's readership lives.

Machinus

10-08-2007, 07:25 AM

The only praise I have for Europe that I do not have for the US is that they hold large tournaments regularly with good players. The players may not be better but their metagames are more competitive than ours due to the tournament schedule. This continually adds new technology and more acute exploitation of the metagame and we should be paying very close attention to this.

Everyone makes their own decisions regarding what to test against and why. The DTB forum might be a starting point for some people but at best it can tell you half of the decks in a tournament and it's impossible for it to ever get any more comprehensive than this. The current policy is a big game of make-believe about the forum being important and representative when really it's one mildly helpful resource (really, Threshold is good?).

It is also insubstantial to claim that you don't have to prepare for European decks at tournaments. You do just as much as you have to prepare for decks they play in Washington or whatever other inbred isolated metagame in the US that never comes to tournaments and no one bothers testing for. Why don't we remove Washington from the DTB forum?

Peter_Rotten

10-08-2007, 08:59 AM

In reference to Bovinius's point (about Aluren not being a DTW) from a few pages ago, here is the T8 list from the latest 33 person event:

There were 40 people at this event.

1 Jesse Robinson (Goblins-R/w/g)
--VS--
8 Tariq White (Landstill)

5 Jared Zimmer (Armo-still)
--VS--
4 Bryant Cook (T.E.S.)

3 Dean Bilz (Dryad Sligh)
--VS--
6 Phil Stolze (Aluren)

7 Brian Diefendorf (Survival)
--VS--
2 Trevor Brown (Ravager Affinity)

Aluren, once again T8ed. But, to be fair, a Goblins list did make 9th place at this event.

DeathwingZERO

10-08-2007, 09:23 AM

Hey P_R, I'm seeing the #1 slot as a "Goblins R/g/w" list. Is that not the same archetype as R/g that was a former DTB, or is it something different? Not trying to flame, but it seems there's really only one viable Goblin archetype, and curious if that's something new.

EDIT: Oh and Machinus, I don't think the NW would care, lol. In the last few tournament's I've been to or heard of, we've seen Landstill, Meat Hooks, Breakfast, Thresh, or Goblins take top slots. It's literally a pretty much exact show of what this forum's top contenders have been, aside from random tech like G/R AggroLoam actually placing. Aluren, Lands (when played, few people have Tabernacle), Survival, and the like just never do good here anymore with such a heavy density of Thresh, Landstill and other aggro-control decks, and little to no motivation to evolve past it.

Peter_Rotten

10-08-2007, 09:43 AM

Hey P_R, I'm seeing the #1 slot as a "Goblins R/g/w" list.

I edited my above post to reflect the obvious point that I originally missed. I blame lack of coffee.

AnwarA101

10-08-2007, 10:14 AM

The way the LMF is calculated is not based on what is seeing play but rather what is doing well. It is very possible that something like CRET Belcher or even Goblins is the most played deck and thus the deck you should prepare for most even if it isn't making Top8. The LMF only charts performance not whether a deck is heavily played. As it stands the LMF is what you should be ready to see in the Top8 or at best the last round of a tournament if you are X-1. So in a sense its what you should prepare for if you get that far. Without more metagame data its hard to actually know what to prepare for. If for example CRET Belcher is 20% of the field and you can't beat it, you won't make to the last round of the swiss where you would see the LMF decks.

thefreakaccident

10-08-2007, 11:09 AM

re: Diversity of decks - How does that prove it's more competitive?

With more decks in the test gauntlet for any specific tournament it is difficult to fine tune a deck that will beat everything there... therefore making it much more difficult to prepare for said event. Then, since the players have to take more time to prepare/fine tune their decks they are better for it.

Lets give an example shall we, lets say you are playing in a tournament with an already defined meta... you figure out that most people will be piloting thresh and breakfast (theoretical, but still likely), so you decide to pilot something with a positive MU for both those decks.

Now you look at a European Tourney's meta, they know that a few breakfast and thresh decks will attend, but there will also be like 20 other completely different decks there in which you must also prepare yourself for.

I just think (yes it is speculation as for the European Meta that is) that someone who makes a T8 in a meta that is confusing and in constant shift really must be a better player than the one that knew the one who knew what to expect.

I think that the system could use some change, but there really is no realistic way that it ever will be... besides making another Forums site for the Legacy community as a whole.

Anarky87

10-08-2007, 11:32 AM

I just think (yes it is speculation as for the European Meta that is) that someone who makes a T8 in a meta that is confusing and in constant shift really must be a better player than the one that knew the one who knew what to expect.

Or they just played a deck that has pretty good matchups all around and doesn't scoop to decks that are garbage or random. Diversity of decks does not neccessarily = better decks. Diversity of players does not neccessarily = better players. Just because I T8 at an event with Landstill where 5c Slivers, Burn, r/g Beats, and B/G Poison Creatures were being played doesn't mean I'm a great player or that the decks were more competitive because they were diverse.

DragoFireheart

10-08-2007, 11:54 AM

Or they just played a deck that has pretty good matchups all around and doesn't scoop to decks that are garbage or random. Diversity of decks does not neccessarily = better decks. Diversity of players does not neccessarily = better players. Just because I T8 at an event with Landstill where 5c Slivers, Burn, r/g Beats, and B/G Poison Creatures were being played doesn't mean I'm a great player or that the decks were more competitive because they were diverse.

Are you suggesting that Burn is a bad deck?

Bardo

10-08-2007, 12:03 PM

Are you suggesting that Burn is a bad deck?

This is totally off-topic, but I'll say it:

Yes, Burn is a bad deck.

It may be cheap to build and cool on paper, but one of the things that tournament result analysis has revealed in no uncertain terms: Burn get rolled like a drunk in the streets. Over and over.

Otherwise, please continue onward.

DragoFireheart

10-08-2007, 12:15 PM

This is totally off-topic, but I'll say it:

Yes, Burn is a bad deck.

It may be cheap to build and cool on paper, but one of the things that tournament result analysis has revealed in no uncertain terms: Burn get rolled like a drunk in the streets. Over and over.

Otherwise, please continue onward.

Were any of those decks using an optimized list? [only 4 moggs for creature for example]

I did some search results and I saw a lot of them trying to use janky stuff like Ank and other stupid crap.

I don't want to hijack this thread to pee on Burn. Feel free to bring it up the appropriate thread and I'd be happy to discuss this. - Bardo.

AnwarA101

10-08-2007, 12:59 PM

I've been considering the current system and its seems to me that it would be better to just use American data for the LMF rather than the hybrid system we have today. Why even reference German or Japanese data if those decks can't actually make it into the LMF based strictly on their results?

The current system only considers those decks when that deck is making Top 8 in America. This only seeks to bolster the American results with non-American data. If I don't care that Baseruption is doing well in Europe, why do I care that Threshold is? If Threshold is doing well in America theoretically that is all I care about.

Lastly, it seems to make little sense to restrict LMF status based on an at least one American Top 8, but only have 2 American tournaments count towards the LMF out of the last 6. That means only 1/3 of the tournaments that are being counted for the current LMF update actually have the ability to change the LMF. This seems bizarre and makes little sense.

The other option is simply to include all the data and not to distinguish it based on location.

TeenieBopper

10-08-2007, 01:09 PM

The other option is simply to include all the data and not to distinguish it based on location.

Holy shit! That's the best idea I've heard all thread!

Peter_Rotten

10-08-2007, 01:10 PM

Lastly, it seems to make little sense to restrict LMF status based on an at least one American Top 8, but only have 2 American tournaments count towards the LMF out of the last 6. That means only 1/3 of the tournaments that are being counted for the current LMF update actually have the ability to change the LMF. This seems bizarre and makes little sense.

This is a recurring issue that we've been looking at for some time.

Options for improving the LMF (if one were to agree it needs improvement), could include:

Remove the American requirement and count all T8s equally. (I wonder how well this serves our reader base which is primarily American).
Have separate tags for American and Non-American T8s. (One concern I have with this is the slippery slope - do we have separate tags fro German T8s and Japanese T8s?)
Exlcude Non-American T8s. (Much too xenophobic my personal tastes).

Specifically speaking about the number of American results vs. Non-American, I wonder if the new 33+ person requirement will change the numbers. Mass generally has one - sometiems two - six round tournaments a month.

AnwarA101

10-08-2007, 01:20 PM

This is a recurring issue that we've been looking at for some time.

Options for improving the LMF (if one were to agree it needs improvement), could include:

Remove the American requirement and count all T8s equally. (I wonder how well this serves our reader base which is primarily American).
Have separate tags for American and Non-American T8s. (One concern I have with this is the slippery slope - do we have separate tags fro German T8s and Japanese T8s?)
Exlcude Non-American T8s. (Much too xenophobic my personal tastes).

Specifically speaking about the number of American results vs. Non-American, I wonder if the new 33+ person requirement will change the numbers. Mass generally has one - sometiems two - six round tournaments a month.

The options you laid out seem to be the 3 main options that you guys have. The tag option doesn't seem very appealing to me. It seems like trying to split the difference between counting non-American data and not counting it. It will also become a bit difficult to manage with 3 sets of data. Its doubtful that such a system will add much value. Its essentially the compromise position, which evades the central question. Does non-American data matter?

Cait_Sith

10-08-2007, 01:31 PM

Does non-American data matter?

Yes, but to an American it matter much less than American data does, because the odds of seeing decks more common in Europe (Spring Tide, Baseruption) is very low. The current system works fine for the most part as it serves the majority of the user base.

Although unfortunate, it is impossible for this to serve the totality of the website and thus the Administrative and Moderation staff are forced to make these decisions based on majority.

Nihil Credo

10-08-2007, 01:32 PM

Specifically speaking about the number of American results vs. Non-American, I wonder if the new 33+ person requirement will change the numbers. Mass generally has one - sometiems two - six round tournaments a month.
It will bolster the influence of European tournaments at least as much. While only the Germans have regular 50+ person tournaments, 33+ ones should be found in other countries as well.

TeenieBopper

10-08-2007, 01:50 PM

Remove the American requirement and count all T8s equally. (I wonder how well this serves our reader base which is primarily American).

I fail to see how this would harm the American community. In fact, I think it would be a great boon for them. It would expose a great many strong, competative decks for them to experiment with and against.

Obfuscate Freely

10-08-2007, 01:51 PM

Ideally, the LMF should provide a reasonably accurate model for creation of a testing gauntlet when preparing for an unknown metagame at a large, competitive tournament.

Anwar is right that the current system has problems, but it at least attempts to stay true to the stated goal of the LMF.

The other option is simply to include all the data and not to distinguish it based on location.

Doing this would basically render the LMF useless for creating a testing gauntlet. This would be true not just for Americans, but for people in other parts of the world, as well.

However, lifting the restrictions on non-American data would allow the LMF to more comprehensively list what decks are performing well. Theoretically, the LMF could be seen as containing the best decks in the format, so it would remain a very useful tool for tournament preparation.

So, we have to decide what the purpose of the LMF should be, that's all.

EDIT:
I fail to see how this would harm the American community. In fact, I think it would be a great boon for them. It would expose a great many strong, competative decks for them to experiment with and against.
You know, it isn't as if European decks aren't discussed here. For anyone who is serious about playing competitive Legacy, the LMF offers no more exposure to a deck than the other forums on this site.

TeenieBopper

10-08-2007, 02:06 PM

Go read the descriptions of the DTB and the ED forums. Hell, even the names themselves imply superiority/inferiority. If somebody comes to this forum knowing little or nothing about Legacy, they're going to spend most of the time going through the DTB forum. It's basically implied that TES, Belcher, Goblins, etc aren't strong decks, which couldn't be further from the truth.

On a slightly related note, I have a question that hasn't been aswered yet. How in the world are you justifying using European data to support the inclusiong of one deck while excluding another based on the exact same data? Basically, it comes down to this, if you're not going to use European data in good faith, then don't use European data at all.

Peter_Rotten

10-08-2007, 02:18 PM

Basically, it comes down to this, if you're not going to use European data in good faith, then don't use European data at all.

And, currently, this is a topic of discussion in the Mod Lounge. Does there need to be an "either/or" approach or can (should) we find a middle ground and weigh Non-American data less? (Which the current DTBF does now).

SpatulaOfTheAges

10-08-2007, 02:23 PM

Maybe there should be separate forums for DsTB and DsTW, with different requirements for each. DTB status could be based soley on American results, and DTW status could be determined with more loose guidelines, and include Asian and European data. This makes sense since European decks *might* make a presence in American t8s later down the road, thus making them "decks to watch", but "decks to beat" would be the ones you'd realistically expect to face in an American t8.

JACO

10-08-2007, 02:26 PM

Options for improving the LMF (if one were to agree it needs improvement), could include:
Remove the American requirement and count all T8s equally. (I wonder how well this serves our reader base which is primarily American).
Have separate tags for American and Non-American T8s. (One concern I have with this is the slippery slope - do we have separate tags fro German T8s and Japanese T8s?)
Exlcude Non-American T8s. (Much too xenophobic my personal tastes).Specifically speaking about the number of American results vs. Non-American, I wonder if the new 33+ person requirement will change the numbers. Mass generally has one - sometimes two - six round tournaments a month.
As an outsider who has no input on how this site is run, I'll touch on a couple of points here.
1) Look at the header at the top of the page. It reads "The Source: Your Source For Legacy." It doesn't say "Your Source for AMERICAN Legacy." While the majority of the readers on this site may be American, that doesn't mean you should discount the results of large tournaments elsewhere. From what I can tell, Europe as a whole runs more Legacy tournaments with larger turnouts than their American counterparts. To say that their results shouldn't matter to you is fine if you're playing in some small ass tournaments weekly in Virginia with a specific local metagame, and don't want to test against Belcher and other competitive decks. But to essentially discount those results to the rest of the world is insulting, and to echo Chris Coppola's point, ignores opportunities to harvest and develop potentially great deck technology. Do you want this site to be about what's succesfully played regionally, or what's successfully played period? I'd rather have it be the latter, because I'm not going to discount decks that continuously put up results, even if it's not in my local neck of the woods. Not only are there other potentially good decks to play against, there are potentially good decks that you might need to play with if it's a great deck.
2) The 33+ man restriction is as arbitrary as the 50 man restriction, but it makes sense for the reason that there are at least 6 rounds of swiss, which will make for each deck performing on a bigger stage in qualifying tournaments. I like it and think it's the right number.

The other option is simply to include all the data and not to distinguish it based on location.Doing this would basically render the LMF useless for creating a testing gauntlet. This would be true not just for Americans, but for people in other parts of the world, as well.3) As it stands, the LMF is already useless for me as a testing gauntlet, as I'm sure it is for a number of other people. If you think I'm not going to prepare and test against powerful decks like Goblins and Belcher, which do show up with regularity in the tournaments I play in, you're sorely mistaken.

If you've managed to make it this far through my long post, or if you're just skimming, I'll bold this final point for emphasis.
There is no global metagame. There are only regional metagames, and just tailoring this website to fit a local east coast or 'American' metagame is pointless. Focus on the best results worldwide, and you'll have the best site you can offer, which will serve everybody worldwide. Word.

TeenieBopper

10-08-2007, 02:37 PM

If it isn't obvious, I'm of the opinion that if it meets the requirements, regardless of where it puts up the numbers, it should be in the forum. We shouldn't have multiple forums with multiple sets of rules. A strong deck in Europe is still a strong deck.

Of course, the likelihood of that actually happening are slim to none, so I'm willing to make concessions. I'm not a big fan additional tags ([DTB/E] or [DTB/J]) but if that's what it takes to get all the information consolidated in one place, so be it.

Maybe the statement of what the LMF forum is supposed to be is flawed. It shouldn't be the place where one goes to find a testing gauntlet. It's simply unrealistic to create a testing gauntlet without knowing your local metagame. Instead, the LMF should be the forum that has all the strong decks consolidated in one place.

Peter_Rotten

10-08-2007, 03:05 PM

AnwarA101

10-08-2007, 03:11 PM

Maybe the statement of what the LMF forum is supposed to be is flawed. It shouldn't be the place where one goes to find a testing gauntlet. It's simply unrealistic to create a testing gauntlet without knowing your local metagame. Instead, the LMF should be the forum that has all the strong decks consolidated in one place.

I believe this is what ObfuscateFreely suggested as a possible solution. That we could simply change the LMF from being about a testing gauntlet to a simple listing of the best performing decks. We have no metagame information beyond the Top8. We do not know about the particular metagames of Germany, Japan, or even America. There is very little data that is published about these metagames. We can't say that X% is of this deck and Y% of that deck is seeing play. We simply don't know. What we do know is what decks are doing well in all 3 locations. It would seem to make sense that LMF could change to represent the decks that are currently performing best in tournament play.

EDIT -

There is some metagame data available for Japan and I believe some for Germany, but I'm not sure its enough to figure which decks are seeing play in which metagames or even if that's what we are trying to do.

TeenieBopper

10-08-2007, 03:14 PM

So many of the problems and arguments in this thread come from personal interpretations of the purpose of the LMF. It seems like each Member, Adept, and Mod has his own definition of what the LMF should be.

It's intended purpose seems rather reasonable to me:

Is the LMF a perfect model of your local meta? Of course not.

Unfortunately, nothing from that quote helps with the American/Non-American situation. :frown:

It sounds reasonable in theory, but it ends up not being in practice. If I'm making a testing Gauntlet, Aluren isn't going to be part of it, nor is Life from the Loam. Goblins and Belcher, however, will be. I'm sure it's different for Virginia, maybe they ignore Goblins but test against Wombat or something. It's going to be the same way for each regional metagame. You're right, it's not going to be a model of your local meta, so it shouldn't try to be. Trying to do that (which it is) only does a disservice to everyone who reads the forums, especially those who aren't as knowlegable about the format as others. If I want to know what the metagame is going to be like, I'm going to go to a tournament. I repeat: The LMF should simply be the place where all the strong decks are consolidated in one place, regardless of the metagame they are achieving success in.

EDIT: I pretty much agree with Anwar. Basically, there's nothing to lose and everything to gain by putting all the best performing decks in one place and labeling it as such.

Peter_Rotten

10-08-2007, 03:25 PM

You're right, it's not going to be a model of your local meta, so it shouldn't try to be. Trying to do that (which it is)...

But I don't see it as trying to do that. It should...
provide a reasonably accurate model for creation of a testing gauntlet when preparing for an unknown metagame at a large, competitive tournament. I really think that it does do this - especially with qualifiers suchs as "reasonable" and "unknown metagame."

TeenieBopper

10-08-2007, 03:29 PM

But I don't see it as trying to do that. It should... I really think that it does do this - especially with qualifiers suchs as "reasonable" and "unknown metagame."

Then why isn't Belcher part of this?

AnwarA101

10-08-2007, 03:35 PM

But I don't see it as trying to do that. It should... I really think that it does do this - especially with qualifiers suchs as "reasonable" and "unknown metagame."

Then why aren't we trying harder to find out metagame information and not Top 8 information? I mean we could do this, but it doesn't seem like we are.

Pinder

10-08-2007, 04:01 PM

Then why aren't we trying harder to find out metagame information and not Top 8 information? I mean we could do this, but it doesn't seem like we are.

I think it has to do with the fact that 'metagame information' can be entirely subjective. As far as I can tell, it used to be this way with the voting system they had in place for the adepts, but that lead to arguments and the like, so they settled on a system that was much more arbitrary. Currently all the system tells us is which decks are doing well on a consistent basis. Isn't that what it's supposed to do? It's there to tell us what's in the metagame, not to predict what might be. It's not a perfect system, to be sure, but it seems like when there was voting people were comlpaining the it wasn't objective enough, but now people are claiming that it's too objective. Is there no middle ground here?

DragoFireheart

10-08-2007, 04:28 PM

I think it has to do with the fact that 'metagame information' can be entirely subjective. As far as I can tell, it used to be this way with the voting system they had in place for the adepts, but that lead to arguments and the like, so they settled on a system that was much more arbitrary. Currently all the system tells us is which decks are doing well on a consistent basis. Isn't that what it's supposed to do? It's there to tell us what's in the metagame, not to predict what might be. It's not a perfect system, to be sure, but it seems like when there was voting people were comlpaining the it wasn't objective enough, but now people are claiming that it's too objective. Is there no middle ground here?

Something else to keep in mind is that local-meta is not always going to be the meta that the Source shows us.

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.

Machinus

10-08-2007, 04:54 PM

[list] Remove the American requirement and count all T8s equally. (I wonder how well this serves our reader base which is primarily American).

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.

Peter_Rotten

10-08-2007, 05:23 PM

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.

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.

Is it just because the people who manage this forum don't play much serious Legacy?

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.

Atwa

10-08-2007, 05:26 PM

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.

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?

AnwarA101

10-08-2007, 05:53 PM

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?

Bardo

10-08-2007, 06:02 PM

So American players should only care about American decks?

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.

Cabal-kun

10-08-2007, 06:40 PM

So American players should only care about American decks?

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.

etrigan

10-08-2007, 07:32 PM

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.

TeenieBopper

10-08-2007, 07:34 PM

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.

Cait_Sith

10-08-2007, 07:37 PM

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.

DragoFireheart

10-08-2007, 08:20 PM

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.

etrigan

10-08-2007, 08:27 PM

Perhaps we should not get bogged down by acronyms, and instead focus simply improving the LMF? Perhaps?

Cait_Sith

10-08-2007, 08:31 PM

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.

Ewokslayer

10-09-2007, 08:59 AM

Belgareth

10-09-2007, 09:02 AM

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.

AnwarA101

10-09-2007, 09:18 AM

@ 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.

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.

Ewokslayer

10-09-2007, 09:22 AM

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.

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.

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.
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.

AnwarA101

10-09-2007, 09:26 AM

Machinus

10-09-2007, 11:29 AM

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.

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.

SpatulaOfTheAges

10-09-2007, 12:38 PM

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.

Such as Threshold, and Landstill, that do well in the US.

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.

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.

"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.

Finn

10-09-2007, 12:39 PM

Could you just use a bleedin' map to display the information so we can all move on? Is it somehow unclear to you people that a map conveys all this info in an easily understood manner?

You put ALL the info on the map from every tournament reported. That way you need not ever decide which info is useful to whom. Let people decide for themsleves if they think doofus.dec repeatedly top4-ing in Guam is something to consider in his sideboard.

sheesh

AnwarA101

10-09-2007, 12:55 PM

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.

The thing is we can't base metagame information on Top 8 information. There is no way to know if the Top 8 accurately represents the field in which those decks did well in. If you base LMF on Top 8 then you have a listing of the decks that are making Top8. You have very little information about the overall metagame.

Our current method only tells us the most successful decks and that is all the LMF can really represent.

SpatulaOfTheAges

10-09-2007, 01:32 PM

What's the solution then? We could simply remove the DTB idea entirely, and label all decks that perform well as DTW.

AnwarA101

10-09-2007, 01:41 PM

What's the solution then? We could simply remove the DTB idea entirely, and label all decks that perform well as DTW.

DTB could change to mean decks that are making Top 8? Or is that what a DTW is ?

Machinus

10-09-2007, 01:42 PM

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.

"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.

You're being thoroughly American about this whole question.

If the decks in the local German metagame have no bearing on your tournament, then neither do the decks from the massachusets metagame, or new york metagame, or ohio metagame. You are just choosing to pay attention to American decks because there exists a border associating those areas, which is meaningless to the game of Magic and which should not be used to make competitive decisons.

Either all Magic is local and the concept of a DTB forum is absurd, or we have to judge decks only on their strengths.

JACO

10-09-2007, 03:38 PM

What's the solution then? We could simply remove the DTB idea entirely, and label all decks that perform well as DTW.I'm not sure it's necessary to abandon the DTB/DTW/ATW format entirely. It seems to have some merit.

If you want to keep things similar to how they're set up now, but improve them slightly, this is was I would recommend.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deck to Beat (DTB) - A Deck to Beat is a deck which has at least five placements in Top 8's at 33+ person tournaments in the most recent ten tournaments.

Deck to Watch (DTW) - A Deck to Watch is a deck which has at least three placements in Top 8's at 33+ person tournaments in the most recent ten tournaments.

Archetype to Watch (ATW) - An Archetype to Watch is an archetype or set of decks (e.g., Survival) that has at least three placements in Top 8's at 33+ person tournaments in the most recent ten tournaments.

Moderator's Deck Recommendation (MDR) - The moderator's deck recommendations are one to two decks each month that the moderators on The Source have recommended, as a group, to test against. These may include decks that have performed at a high level in one or two breakout tournaments during the past 6 months, or have been historically strong and the moderating staff feel are still relevant to the current Legacy landscape.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) The numbers in each of these descriptions has been bumped up, which would allow for more tournament data, which would theoretically increase if global tournament data is all included, and this could of course be revisited if there seem to be far too many or too few decks indentified by these calculations.
2) The concept of Moderator's Deck Recommendation (MDR) can help to fill the gap in identifying the best one or two decks that are not consistently Top 8'ing for whatever reason, but that most adepts/moderators still feel would have a significant impact on current Legacy tournaments. For example, if Goblins or CRET Belcher did not consistently top 8, but was still considered as a strong choice by tournament players, this would provide an opportunity to still identify it in the forum as one of the most potent strategies in the current Legacy landscape, and something to keep in mind when designing decks. There could be a subforum in the 'Adept Lounge' or 'Moderator's Lounge' with a thread for each month (for example, 'November 2007 MDR Discussion'), where the adepts could debate and ultimately choose the 1 or 2 decks that would be included this way, if they felt it was necessary to include any at all that given month.

Finally, this thread uses the terminology LMF (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5460) frequently, even though the terminology seems to have been abandoned elsewhere. I would ditch the 'LMF' thing altogether (as it doesn't even say what it stands for anymore, at least that I can find), and instead just use another term (Decks to Beat, or Format Defining Decks, or something else).

Zilla

10-09-2007, 10:47 PM

1) The numbers in each of these descriptions has been bumped up, which would allow for more tournament data, which would theoretically increase if global tournament data is all included, and this could of course be revisited if there seem to be far too many or too few decks indentified by these calculations.
The 6 tournaments number was decided upon when 50 person tournaments were far less frequent, and before we lowered the number of players to 33. At the time, 6 tournaments often encompassed anywhere from 3 to 5 months' worth of data, thus a larger sampling would mean a serious problem as far as currency is concerned. Given that the factors have changed, I agree that a larger sampling makes more sense. The mod staff will discuss this and come to a decision on what changes should be made in this regard.

Finally, this thread uses the terminology LMF (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5460) frequently, even though the terminology seems to have been abandoned elsewhere.Good point. We'll take care of that as well.