Nov. 1st DTBF update and changes to the current system

[Peter_Rotten]

Based on Adept and Member suggestions, we - the Mod staff - are planning a change to the site's DTB philosophy. Barring any massive upheaval or vehement disagreements, this change will be implemented for the November 1st update.

Found below are the changes briefly summarized. I will be updating the relevant posts in the DTBF about the qualifications for DTBs, DTWs, and ATWs.

1. 33+ players and 6 rounds for a tourney to qualify for inclusion (already implemented for the Oct. update)
2. Remove the "American Clause." All Non-American tournies and T8s will count as much as American ones.
3. DTB = 5 placements out of last 10 tournaments.
4. DTW = 3 placements out of last 10 tournaments.
5. ATW = 3 placements out of last 10 tournaments.

This method is a bit of a trial. We'd like to bill this as an experiment to make the DTBF as relevant as possible for all Legacy players. These changes allow a larger sample size (10 tournies instead or 6) and allow American and non-American tournies to influence the DTBF equally.

So... any last comments or concerns?

[TeenieBopper]

I heartily endorse this product and/or service.

[matelml]

Nice.:smile:

[Zach Tartell]

I'm pretty sure that we can take LFTL-based decks out of the LMF, and that, should we do the math, Thresh won't be a deck to beat. Maybe I'm wrong - I know that there wasn't one in the EPIC DLD (read: I'm pretty sure...), and Europe seems more prone to weird UWb agro-control.

[Machinus]

Who among the mods and adepts wants credit for this?

[Ewokslayer]

Who among the mods and adepts wants credit for this?

I'll take credit for it, if and only if, it turns out to be a good idea.

Otherwise, I had nothing to do with it.
Not that I actually had anything to with it in the first place.

[Nightmare]

Who among the mods and adepts wants credit for this?

You're a genius. There, are you happy now? Congratulations, you egotist, you've gotten the credit you think is so goddamn important.

Satisfying your narcissism is obviously more important than accurate representation of the metagame.

Edit - Warning for Flames. ~ Nightmare.

[Machinus]

Actually, I was really wondering who has taken on the idea of global Legacy all of a sudden, since the idea was not well-received.

I am concerned about getting credit for my ideas. If I were actually involved in the "representation of the metagame" at this site, I would care about it. Otherwise what incentive do I have?

[Bovinious]

Wait did Nightmare just give HIMSELF a warning? Im confused...

This whole change sounds like the same as the old system but w/o the American bias, well see how it turns out Im guessing itll be even less accurate than the current/old system, love to be shown wrong though.

[TeenieBopper]

This whole change sounds like the same as the old system but w/o the American bias, well see how it turns out Im guessing itll be even less accurate than the current/old system, love to be shown wrong though.

The American bias was where the problem was last time. Now it's fixed.

I'm curious what you mean by "less accurate." The new system is generating it's results using more information. More info=more accuracy.

My only concern is that the numbers for DTB/DTW/ATW status might need some revising down the line if we end up with a barren DTB forum.

[Bryant Cook]

I very much like this.

[Bovinious]

Well if its like LonelyBaritone said and Thresh doesnt make it in, that would make the DTBF far less accurate of what is actually good, and if marginal stuff like Aluren/Fish/Survival/LFTL etc are all in that would be even more inaccurate, in my opinion. Maybe it would be backed by numbers, but wouldnt be meaningful to anyone b/c no one plays in the global metagame, which doesnt even really exist anywhere.

[TeenieBopper]

If thresh doesn't make it in, it doesn't mean the system is inaccurate, it just means the threshold (no pun intended) for being a DTB is too high.

As for "marginal" stuff like Aluren, Fish, SotF, etc are making it in; they've been putting up the numbers. As such, they should be put in. I remember having this conversation last month. "I don't think it's good enough" wasn't a valid argument then, and it isn't a valid argument now. Hence why I pretty much dropped the "Goblins should be there" argument.

I think people are taking the word "metagame" much too seriously in this context. In fact, I think metagame shouldn't be used at all. I've been saying this for a long time- the DTB forum should be the place where all the decks, worldwide, putting up solid numbers are consolidated into one place.

[Bovinious]

Well yeah those decks would be putting up numbers, but the collective information wouldnt really be useful to people who live in areas where some of those decks dont place. I guess it will still be useful as a pooling of the data, and no one really uses the DTBF as a crutch to determine what decks they need to worry about/consider playing, so Im more than willing to see how it turns out, should be interesting...

[The Rack]

This whole change sounds like the same as the old system but w/o the American bias

Don't you mean East Coast bias? I mean San Diego has tourneys large enough to be DLDs, and we have them weekly... Yet I still don't see 4 COlor Landstill have its own DTB thread neither Dreadnought Burn, Reanimator, or Scepter Chant. I don't want to get into a East vs. West battle, but just because few here post on the Source, due to reasons that shall not be named, doesn't make their decks still not DTB. If you take your Global DTB philosophy and apply it to different regions around the world it would be different. So, I hear that Ichorid and Death&Taxes are tearing up metagames like no other but I've never seen either deck played in real life here. Therefore, are they ALL decks to beat? In my opinion, YES they are. I think it should be organized as a mindset so I have to beat deck a, deck b, and deck c, if I want to be the best. No matter where a is, wherever b is, etc. What I'm asking is this: Is the DTB forum going to be a list of the top decks throughout the regions of the world? or rather, Any deck that follows the 5 points you established? Thanks, I'm not provoking flames, just thought.

[URABAHN]

Why 33+ players? Why not 40+? Or 50+?

[Obfuscate Freely]

I've been saying this for a long time- the DTB forum should be the place where all the decks, worldwide, putting up solid numbers are consolidated into one place.
Well, that is what we have, now, and I'm glad you're happy with it. However, the stated goal of the LMF is something considerably different:


Ideally, the DTBF should provide a reasonably accurate model for creation of a testing gauntlet when preparing for an unknown metagame at a large, competitive tournament.
The LMF is now less useful for this purpose than it was before. I suppose it has been decided that this is for the best, but the LMF Philosophy needs to be re-written to reflect that.


Don't you mean East Coast bias? I mean San Diego has tourneys large enough to be DLDs, and we have them weekly...
This is pretty absurd. There has never been any East Coast bias, whatsoever. I can assure you that whenever the data has been available, it has been included in the analysis.

[Nihil Credo]

Why 33+ players? Why not 40+? Or 50+?

IIRC, 33 players is the minimum for a six-round Swiss tournament, under DCI rules.

[Peter_Rotten]

Who among the mods and adepts wants credit for this?

YES! Yet another chance to quote myself!


Based on Adept and Member suggestions, we - the Mod staff - are planning a change to the site's DTB philosophy.


Actually, I was really wondering who has taken on the idea of global Legacy all of a sudden, since the idea was not well-received.

Here, again, is a problem with how you say things. What do you mean by "all of a sudden." Not well received? I thought we had an interesting debate about it (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7216).


I am concerned about getting credit for my ideas. If I were actually involved in the "representation of the metagame" at this site, I would care about it. Otherwise what incentive do I have?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you implying that the changes to the DTBF were your ideas and you are not being properly credited? If so, I'd like to direct you to this post (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=167279&postcount=3), this post (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=167345&postcount=15), and this post (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=167378&postcount=18) which specifically mention issues with the old method of devaluing non-American tournies.

If not, then I apologize for wasting your time asking you to click those links.

@ ObFree: Could you eloborate as to how the DTBF will be less usefull for its stated purpose now?

@ lack of West Coast data: Put simply, we would be happy to include the SD tournies if they provided deck lists of the T8s. Lists are required for a T8's inclusion in the DTBF.

[The Rack]

THe problem PR is that the tourney we play in being FNM basically doesn't require Deck lists. So I don't really feel up to the task of asking everyone their deck lists unless of course they were one of my teammates lists. Ten we'd share. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

[Obfuscate Freely]

@ ObFree: Could you eloborate as to how the DTBF will be less usefull for its stated purpose now?
Cool! I get to quote myself, too!

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.
Ignoring regional metagame differences undermines the LMF's utility as a gauntlet-creation tool. Do you disagree?

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:

THe problem PR is that the tourney we play in being FNM basically doesn't require Deck lists. So I don't really feel up to the task of asking everyone their deck lists unless of course they were one of my teammates lists. Ten we'd share. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
There has been some discussion on this topic, but it has been the policy of those collecting the data to only include tournaments for which the Top 8 decklists are available. Again, there is no East Coast bias involved.

[Machinus]

What do you mean by "all of a sudden." Not well received? I thought we had an interesting debate about it (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7216)


Based on Adept and Member suggestions, we - the Mod staff - are planning a change to the site's DTB philosophy.

I'm not part of the staff, and I wasn't involved in the decisions about the forum, despite my efforts to explain and motivate these major changes. None of the Adepts are involved. My ideas were not acknowledged, which is why I think it's fair to ask who is taking credit for it now.

None of this would matter if the format analysis was properly handled.

[Peter_Rotten]

Ultimately, I see the DTBF as a place to highlight the decks with the best current performances. Logically, those decks are the ones that you should consider the most when preparing for a large "multi-meta" tourney. The extant of that preparation is up to you.

Of course, when preparing for those types of tournies each individual should look at the decks in the DTB and then decide on the relevance and possible attendance of those decks. If Baseruption became a DTW (which - good news - it probably won't), and you've never seen it in a North East American tourney, than obviously don't prepare for it. I'd still, at least, be aware of how the deck operates knowing that some people may have taken up an interest in the deck based on it's (pretended for this debate) DTW status.

The DTBF can only reflect the decks T8ing often and currently.


I'm not part of the staff, and I wasn't involved in the decisions about the forum, despite my efforts to explain and motivate these major changes. None of the Adepts are involved.

Doesn't the sentence "Based on Adept and Member suggestions, we - the Mod staff - are planning a change to the site's DTB philosophy" say that the Mod staff looked at complaints and suggestions about the old system and changed it to reflect what Adepts and Members seemed to want?


My ideas were not acknowledged, which is why I think it's fair to ask who is taking credit for it now.

Once again, doesn't "Based on Adept and Member suggestions..." say that we have based the changes on other's ideas? If you were expecting royalty checks, then good luck. If you expecting a cookie, I'm fresh out. If you are claiming originality in the idea of lifting the "American Clause," then I expect you to credit Sammiel and Barook first.

What specific ideas do you feel are being taken from you? Which ones are being used without your permission?

[Belgareth]

Glad to see the Staff/adepts took the debate seriously :)
I am very pleased to see the changes, I am glad the thing myself and others said did not fall on deaf ears.
Many thanks and keep up the good work.:smile:
P.S : Really , there's no need to credit this to anyone. The desired result was acheived and the staff could have been really stubborn but weren't, so let's just be thankful.

[Machinus]

It has nothing to do with permission, or reward. It's an unsustainable system.

Requesting that Legacy experts tell you what you are doing wrong, and hoping that they explain what to do right, is not an intelligent strategy for managing the forum. They already get more out of capitalizing on their own developments and understanding of the format. Treating them the way the Adepts are treated makes that proposition much worse.

There are several problems with the way things are done, and they could be addressed with an easy solution. But it would be primarily in the interest of the forum and the site, and not in the interest of the egos of the staff. I know this is a big obstacle, but I still think it's possible to avoid becoming irrelevant and stagnant.

[TeenieBopper]

Ignoring regional metagame differences undermines the LMF's utility as a gauntlet-creation tool. Do you disagree?


No, because you should be taking into account your regional metagame. You shouldn't expect the DTB forum to do it for you.

Fine, you're not going to prepare to face baseruption and whatnot, but those decks are putting up the numbers somewhere, thus somebody is preparing for them.

If the DTB forum isn't meeting it's intended purpose, but is a better tool now (which, I and I would guess a good amount of others), then maybe we should change the purpose of the DTB forum instead of trying to make the forum fit the (in my opinion, completely abstract) description.


This:


Ultimately, I see the DTBF as a place to highlight the decks with the best current performances. Logically, those decks are the ones that you should consider the most when preparing for a large "multi-meta" tourney. The extant of that preparation is up to you.

Of course, when preparing for those types of tournies each individual should look at the decks in the DTB and then decide on the relevance and possible attendance of those decks. If Baseruption became a DTW (which - good news - it probably won't), and you've never seen it in a North East American tourney, than obviously don't prepare for it. I'd still, at least, be aware of how the deck operates knowing that some people may have taken up an interest in the deck based on it's (pretended for this debate) DTW status.

The DTBF can only reflect the decks T8ing often and currently.

should be the new forum description.

[URABAHN]

No, because you should be taking into account your regional metagame. You shouldn't expect the DTB forum to do it for you.

Fine, you're not going to prepare to face baseruption and whatnot, but those decks are putting up the numbers somewhere, thus somebody is preparing for them.

If I'm going to a Legacy GP in Wyoming, should I take into account what people are playing at The Batcave in Oregon? I think I'd rather sneak a peek at "Your source for Legacy" and find out what's performing well in big tournaments.

[AnwarA101]

I have to say that I'm kind of excited by the changes to the new system. I think the old system was a good first attempt at dealing with the DTB Forum. It obviously came to have its problems as non-American data was greater than American data yet the American data was an overriding factor in whether that deck could make it into the DTB Forum. This system couldn't continue as it was without becoming completely incoherent.

The newer system adopts the idea that it should simply list the decks that make multiple Top8s. These decks by definition are the best performing decks of the format.

Those who feel that they don't have to prepare for Baseruption, Belcher, or other decks are not required to, but in all honesty there is very little metagame information especially about the American metagame. I don't know how you know what to prepare for, outside of the decks that are doing well. If you want to worry about American decks then you should go ahead and do that for yourself. But what do you base such information on?

American tournaments have very little published metagame information. GenCon championship did not know even have full metagame information. The only thing we know about American tournaments is the decks that make Top 8 in America. That isn't to say that you don't need to worry about Burn because it might be rampant, but T8 data won't reflect that because Burn can't make T8 to save its life. In short, we can only judge what we can observe. We can observe success (T8 appearances) and not what people are playing (metagame information). The DTB Forum when based on a T8 listing measures only success not what people are playing .

For Machinus, I think it is incumbent on those are interested in improving the current system to offer constructive proposals. Complaints rarely go anywhere unless they are paired with solutions. If you have an idea or proposal to improve this new system or would like to offer a different direction please let us know. Maybe we can this system even better.

[Xero]

I'm pretty sure that we can take LFTL-based decks out of the LMF, and that, should we do the math, Thresh won't be a deck to beat. Maybe I'm wrong - I know that there wasn't one in the EPIC DLD (read: I'm pretty sure...), and Europe seems more prone to weird UWb agro-control.

Nope, your math is off. There were 4x Thresh. deck at an Italian tournament, 2 more at a Japanese one as well as a bunch more in several other tournies.

[TeenieBopper]

If I'm going to a Legacy GP in Wyoming, should I take into account what people are playing at The Batcave in Oregon? I think I'd rather sneak a peek at "Your source for Legacy" and find out what's performing well in big tournaments.

Isn't that the point I've been making? There's big tourneys in VA, there's big tourneys in NY, there's big tourneys in CA. There are big tourneys in Germany and Italy. If you don't think you should prepare for BatcaveDTB.dec, then don't. But if it meets the criteria for DTB, then it should be listed.

[Machinus]

For Machinus, I think it is incumbent on those are interested in improving the current system to offer constructive proposals. Complaints rarely go anywhere unless they are paired with solutions. If you have an idea or proposal to improve this new system or would like to offer a different direction please let us know. Maybe we can this system even better.

But I don't benefit if I work hard to come up with good ideas and donate them to the site. I don't even get credit for them because they are implemented by someone else. There is no incentive for anyone who knows what they are talking about to actually contribute.

[Peter_Rotten]

But I don't benefit if I work hard to come up with good ideas and donate them to the site. I don't even get credit for them because they are implemented by someone else. There is no incentive for anyone who knows what they are talking about to actually contribute.

First, donating time and information to promote discussion is what this site - and probably most forums discussing just about anything - are all about. No one is getting paid. No one is getting famous. No one is getting royalities. Every person here, from member to admin, is donating time and ideas to not only discuss and improve the Legacy format, but to also, indirectly, improve this site.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

WHEREAS, I first threw out the idea of cutting tournament size based on rounds, not arbitrary numbers divisible by ten.

THEREFORE, I demand that my name be credited whenever that idea is mentioned, referenced, or recognized indirectly, ie. whenever someone posts information about a 36 person tournament.

[Volt]

If I'm going to a Legacy GP in Wyoming, should I take into account what people are playing at The Batcave in Oregon?

Absolutely. The Batcave is a mecca of Legacy innovation.

Seriously, though, tournaments at the Batcave will never factor into this system because of the 33-player cutoff.

[AnwarA101]

I have a suggestion, please consider updating the Deck to Beat Forum from -


For "competitive" decks: Decks which are optimized, thoroughly tested, played in a variety of metagames, and have proven themselves in a competitive tournament environment. A deck is not required to be Tier 1 to be included in this forum. Includes Decks to Beat, Decks to Watch, and Archetypes to Watch.


to

For "successful decks": Decks which have made multiple Top 8s in the past 10 tournaments world-wide with at least 33 players. These decks represent the current group that is most successful. Includes Decks to Beat, Decks to Watch, and Archetypes to Watch.

What do you guys think about this? I think this last change will make it more inline with the current changes.

[Peter_Rotten]

For "successful decks": Decks which have made multiple Top 8s in the past 10 tournaments world-wide with at least 33 players. These decks represent the current group that is most successful. Includes Decks to Beat, Decks to Watch, and Archetypes to Watch.


I'd be worried about "successful." The are decks in the Established forum that are successful. Maybe change it to "For the currently most successful decks." Awkward, but it's also tomorrow's problem.

[Nihil Credo]

"Winning decks"? "Placing decks"? "Performing decks"?

[Bovinious]

But I don't benefit if I work hard to come up with good ideas and donate them to the site. I don't even get credit for them because they are implemented by someone else. There is no incentive for anyone who knows what they are talking about to actually contribute.

Never thought I'd be saying this to someone, but seriously grow up. If the new idea of how to make the DTBF was yours and theyre not accreditting you, BIG F-ING DEAL, it wasnt even that good of an idea anyways, I could have pulled 5 placings = DTB, 3 placings = DTW out of my ass as well. If theres no incentive to contribute, dont.

[MattH]

But I don't benefit if I work hard to come up with good ideas and donate them to the site. I don't even get credit for them because they are implemented by someone else. There is no incentive for anyone who knows what they are talking about to actually contribute.
There's also no incentive to bitching and moaning about problems without offering solutions, but that's never stopped you.


What specific ideas do you feel are being taken from you? Which ones are being used without your permission?
Don't you know that specifics are deadly poison to H. Machinus? They lack the enzymes to digest them.

[Nightmare]

But I don't benefit if I work hard to come up with good ideas and donate them to the site. I don't even get credit for them because they are implemented by someone else. There is no incentive for anyone who knows what they are talking about to actually contribute.

Remember all those times you went on a massive rant about all the things you hated about Anusien?


As far as I can tell, your conspiracy theories and screeching complaints don't have any basis in reality. I hadn't discounted it entirely as delusion but that's about the best characterization I can give of the world you just described.

Let me suggest to everyone else that we stop taking this brand of whining seriously and just move on with discussion about the format.

[AnwarA101]

I'd be worried about "successful." The are decks in the Established forum that are successful. Maybe change it to "For the currently most successful decks." Awkward, but it's also tomorrow's problem.

Sounds okay, a quick thesaurus search reveals "triumphant". I'm liking it.

[Nihil Credo]

Use a better thesaurus. Mine also offered "lourishing, going, palmy, prosperous, thriving", which you'll admit are much more sexy.

[TeenieBopper]

lourishing

I vote for this one. it makes Legacy seem like the 12 year old you want to ravage.

[Zach Tartell]

I vote for this one. it makes Legacy seem like the 12 year old you want to ravage.

Second.

[Bovinious]

you guyz are such pedobears.

[Nihil Credo]

you guyz are such pedobears.
http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/6238/06pedobeargt7.jpg

[Bovinious]

ALL CP ARE BELONG TO PEDOBEAR, LOLI SPECIFICALLY :)

LULZ, I'm such a /b/tard.

[JACO]

WHEREAS, I first threw out the idea of cutting tournament size based on rounds, not arbitrary numbers divisible by ten.

THEREFORE, I demand that my name be credited whenever that idea is mentioned, referenced, or recognized indirectly, ie. whenever someone posts information about a 36 person tournament.I thought this was funny, and then I read Matt's post (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=174505&postcount=39) and Adam's post (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=174506&postcount=40) and about pissed myself. If you don't think there's any incentive to contribute, then don't and just shut up about it. It's simple. People post in these forums to either help others out, to attempt to improve the game, for some ego boost, or because they simply think they have nothing else better to do. Which one are you?

In regards to updating the DTB Forum, I still think the idea I proposed (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=168505&postcount=166) was best, in regards to accurately setting parameters, and creating a gauntlet that would shift with the metagame. For reference:
...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.And don't worry, no credit is necessary. ; )

[Getsickanddie]

Meh. The whole "DTB" forum concept, no matter what set of qualifications is used, will always be more anecdotal than scientific. This system at least shows the international legacy community some measure of respect.

[Zilla]

In regards to updating the DTB Forum, I still think the idea I proposed (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=168505&postcount=166) was best...
Well, we're using the first 3/4 of your suggestion already, as far as the numbers are concerned. With regards to the MDR concept, I'm against it, for a couple reasons: first, it leaves the DTBF contents open to personal bias, which is something the mod staff has worked hard to remove from the system entirely.

Second, it presupposes that the moderators are the most highly informed about the state of the format, which I don't think is particularly accurate. I think it's safe to say that there are many Adepts on this site with a more intimate knowledge of the current metagame than the mod staff as a whole.

If this system were to be implemented at all, it would make more sense to include all of the Adepts, but then you're talking about a group of more than 20 people, who... um... on occasion have some minor difficulty coming to a complete concensus on certain matters.[/tactful understatement]

I think a system which removes personal bias to as great an extent as possible is the most desirable option, and an MRD/ARD inclusion in the DTBF would be a step way from that.

[Tacosnape]

I still think lack of an "Archetype to Beat" is retarded. What happens if different Survival decks suddenly place 24 times in 8 Tournaments? Wouldn't Survival have eclipsed the "To watch" status by this point?

[mikekelley]

What a shitshow this has caused, over something so petty.

I'm all for going back to having Solidarity, Goblins and Thresh as the only decks to beat. Nah, not that, but you know what I mean. I don't even know why we have to have a seperate forum for this kind of thing. Let it sort itself out I say.

That way, if people can't figure shit out and only test against those three decks, the smart people would win.

Let people figure their own ideas out. Less hand holding, more fuck-offing.

[DeathwingZERO]

I'm all for the new setup. Giving more decks the opportunity to be noticed for their power, rather than their location, is going to help the format as a whole out. Even if some of the European decks show up in small numbers for a while, at least people will start to develop and play with them, and vise versa for the rest of the world.

At this rate, decks will start merging and evolving, and then we'll be seeing the DTBF hitting a closer example of what the metagame actually looks like, regardless of area.

[Lego]

This idea probably makes no sense, in which case you can just feel free to ignore it, but I've been wondering about it for a while. I feel like we should somehow differentiate between different tournaments. Let's take an incredibly hyperbolic hypothetical to illustrate me point:

Deck X beats every Combo deck in the format, but loses to absolutely everything else. In one 50 person tournament, 5 people playing Deck X are the only non-combo decks in the room. They all Top 8, and Deck X is now a deck to beat. A dozen people play it at the next 4 or 5 big tournaments, and they all fail to place, because they face things other than Combo more than once. That particular tournament was a really good tournament for Deck X, but most tournaments are poorer environments for it.

If we somehow weighted the number of DIFFERENT tournaments that a deck placed in, Deck X may never have made it all the way to DTB status. Does that make any sense?

[Nihil Credo]

It makes some sense: multiple placements in different tournaments are less likely to be the result of a twisted metagame than the same number of placements in a single tournament. However, with so few Legacy tournaments to draw our estimations from, I think trying to adjust for such minor chances would do more harm than good.

[APriestOfGix]

You're a genius. There, are you happy now? Congratulations, you egotist, you've gotten the credit you think is so goddamn important.

Satisfying your narcissism is obviously more important than accurate representation of the metagame.

Edit - Warning for Flames. ~ Nightmare.

warning himself = siged...

[AnwarA101]

Lego Army Man, I think that the result of any one tournament isn't likely to skew the results for very long. Since we have a monthly update, under the current system a deck would have to put 5 decks into the T8 of one tournament to be a DTB without any support from other tournaments. I think anything that severe probably deserves to be labeled as a DTB for at least a month to see if those results hold up. If they don't, its a blimp on the radar, but if they hold up then its good thing we started tracking its results early.

[Nightmare]

Lego Army Man, I think that the result of any one tournament isn't likely to skew the results for very long. Since we have a monthly update, under the current system a deck would have to put 5 decks into the T8 of one tournament to be a DTB without any support from other tournaments. I think anything that severe probably deserves to be labeled as a DTB for at least a month to see if those results hold up. If they don't, its a blimp on the radar, but if they hold up then its good thing we started tracking its results early.
This is exactly correct. If a deck puts up 5 out of 8 at one event, it's worth looking at (see - Breakfast). If it turns out to be a fluke, the problem solves itself.

[Zilla]

This is exactly correct. If a deck puts up 5 out of 8 at one event, it's worth looking at (see - Breakfast). If it turns out to be a fluke, the problem solves itself.
Agreed. Under the old system, where less placements were required, this was more of an issue and the mod staff had indeed discussed adding a multiple tournaments clause to deal with this phenomenon. But when 5 placements are required? That would have to be one hell of a fluke, and it would be worth noting if it did happen.

Anwar, we'll look at rewording the DTB requirements to denote successfulness as you've suggested, using as sultry a synonym as we can find in order to appease the masses.

[AnwarA101]

Anwar, we'll look at rewording the DTB requirements to denote successfulness as you've suggested, using as sultry a synonym as we can find in order to appease the masses.

Sounds great. I'll be working the thesaurus to find that elusive yet sultry term that will make the DTB a haven for inquisitive minds.

[Finn]

No, because you should be taking into account your regional metagame. You shouldn't expect the DTB forum to do it for you.This does not have to be true. You make a freaking map. Gosh I feel like I have said this before. If you want complete information, you simply plot it on a map. It ends the question of regional biases and incomplete data. Each node (city, state, store, whatever) has data attached to it. The data doesn't have to ever affect any other local metagames. And yet you can get a complete picture of the local scene - as well as all the other local metas.

I don't give a rat's ass about credit. I only want the best data I can possibly get. If it comes from this website in a way that is easy to understand and comes about with as little effort on my part as possible - all the better. But it is so annoying when the people who make the decisions are involved in open debate with the members and the idea I bring up is simply disreguarded.

Is it a superior plan? I think so. Am I right? We have no way of knowing without input from others.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

That sounds pretty complicated. Who decides what's a region? What about when stores move/close/open? How are members going to track all this? Isn't the Metagame forum supposed to be a quick reference to get a feel for strong decks in the format?

[The Rack]

I think Finn has got it. If I want to know whats up in Syracuse I look at the map click on the link to Syracuse decklists and check it out there. However, we still need a global spectrum of "DTB" in and of its entirety.

[DeathwingZERO]

In all honesty, you can't possibly rely on a select number of people to do all that work for you. If you want to look up information on your specific area, it should really be your responsibility to look over the more recent showings in the tournament threads. Otherwise, you should prepare for a more open ended environment, because in due time with this system, it'll get much closer to that than ever.

As far as a map, it'd be very, very difficult to keep going, and would require either a "broad" sense of area (East/West coast, or even USA as a single grid), or else nobody is going to want to continuously update it, just because of the constant need to sort. This type of generalization just to implement it is already looking worse than what was already listed, in my opinion.

I think the idea is fun, but more for something that we should all work on updating as a hobby, not leaving it just to the mods/adepts, as they have enough work on their hands just keeping the DTB and such going.

[Peter_Rotten]

This does not have to be true. You make a freaking map. Gosh I feel like I have said this before. If you want complete information, you simply plot it on a map. It ends the question of regional biases and incomplete data. Each node (city, state, store, whatever) has data attached to it. The data doesn't have to ever affect any other local metagames. And yet you can get a complete picture of the local scene - as well as all the other local metas.

But doesn't the Top 4 & Top 8 thread do that type of thing already? (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2587)

[b4r0n]

The only problem that I have with this system is with the ATWs. According to the DTBF:

An ATW is not a single deck, but a set of decks which have performing well at recent tournaments. These decks share a common strategy or set of cards which make them function similarly to one another, but are different enough that they cannot accurately be considered a single deck. These threads are not for the discussion of any single deck, but instead exist to discuss the archetype as a whole, including which builds are best for different metagames and refinement of the archetype in general.

How can remarkably different Landstill builds (such as U/W vs. U/W/B/G) be condensed into a single thread, while Threshold is being split into threads for every single splash (and even lack of splash!)? The same holds true for Survival and Life from the Loam. It seems to me that if you're going to split one archetype by color, you should do the same for other archetypes. Or, if you don't want to split archetypes by splash, then Threshold should be re-condensed into a single thread.

[Jak]

The only problem that I have with this system is with the ATWs. According to the DTBF:


How can remarkably different Landstill builds (such as U/W vs. U/W/B/G) be condensed into a single thread, while Threshold is being split into threads for every single splash (and even lack of splash!)? The same holds true for Survival and Life from the Loam. It seems to me that if you're going to split one archetype by color, you should do the same for other archetypes. Or, if you don't want to split archetypes by splash, then Threshold should be re-condensed into a single thread.

Agreed. A different of like 4 cards MD compared to the MD being completely different.

[Nihil Credo]

Agreed. A different of like 4 cards MD compared to the MD being completely different.
Oddly enough, I think that is exactly the main reason why Thresh gets four threads and Landstill only gets one. The splashes in Threshold are now firmly estabilished and clearly distinct from one another; hybrid versions like UGwr haven't been seen in a long time.
By contrast, Landstill builds are in perpetual flux between all combinations of two and four colours... and within each colour choice, there are different approaches (some UWb lists only run black for Extirpate as a Wish target; others use a bigger splash for extra removal and SB options).
Survival used to be like Threshold, i.e. you had ATS, Welder, and RGSA. The current builds, however, are even less clearly defined than Landstill.

[Lego]

How can remarkably different Landstill builds (such as U/W vs. U/W/B/G) be condensed into a single thread, while Threshold is being split into threads for every single splash (and even lack of splash!)?


Oddly enough, I think that is exactly the main reason why Thresh gets four threads and Landstill only gets one. The splashes in Threshold are now firmly estabilished and clearly distinct from one another; hybrid versions like UGwr haven't been seen in a long time.

Someone will have to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe two different Threshold decks appear in the Decks to Beat Forum because both have individually posted enough finishes to be DTBs. If UW Landstill posted five finishes and UWBG Landstill posted another five, they'd both be listed.

[TeenieBopper]

Oddly enough, I think that is exactly the main reason why Thresh gets four threads and Landstill only gets one. The splashes in Threshold are now firmly estabilished and clearly distinct from one another; hybrid versions like UGwr haven't been seen in a long time.

Right, because replacing StP with Lightning Bolt totally changes the way the deck plays. Same way with replacing Wrath with Deed in landstill.

Survival decks and maybe Loam decks are the only ones that should have ATW status, and to be perfectly honest, probably the only ones with different threads for different variations.

'course, that's something that can be addressed later after more pressing things are taken care of.

[Finn]

But doesn't the Top 4 & Top 8 thread do that type of thing already?Yes. In the same way that a junkyard gives me parts for my old air conditioner. If I sift through it long enough, I can get what I am after - maybe.

A map is a fast reference. If I live in San Diego and my top8 results have been hitherto unreported since I can't get complete info, that's a problem under any list/category-structured system we might come up with. But with a map, I should be able to bring up a list of whatever data has come out of the area for as far back as I want. All I have to do is find San Diego on the map. Even Radley could do it.


That sounds pretty complicated. Who decides what's a region? What about when stores move/close/open? How are members going to track all this? Isn't the Metagame forum supposed to be a quick reference to get a feel for strong decks in the format?Nobody needs to categorize anything. This is a reference tool for people to find out what decks they can expect in a given area. Isn't that why the DTB forum exists?

It doesn't have to be a powerful program. Just scan in a huge map of each continent, and use hyper text for a city that has any tournament results. The link points to a forum that discusses the tournaments from that city with a historical reference for the opening post. Once set up, it should be less work than PR does now updating the DTB, ATW, DTW, DCF, ATV, and CCCP morasse that is thoroughly unclear to people who wander in.

[TeenieBopper]

Sounds like we have a volunteer.

[AnwarA101]

Anwar, we'll look at rewording the DTB requirements to denote successfulness as you've suggested, using as sultry a synonym as we can find in order to appease the masses.

I think I found the word, victorious. The forum is all about the decks that rack up the victories!!!


For "victorious decks": Decks which have made multiple Top 8s in the past 10 tournaments world-wide with at least 33 players. These decks represent the current group that have a significant number of victories. Includes Decks to Beat, Decks to Watch, and Archetypes to Watch.

[Zilla]

I think I found the word, victorious. The forum is all about the decks that rack up the victories!!!
I dunno, it isn't really sexy enough. Try to think more along the lines of a word you'd use for a stripper that won the lottery. Perhaps... salaciously exultant?

[MattH]

I dunno, it isn't really sexy enough. Try to think more along the lines of a word you'd use for a stripper that won the lottery. Perhaps... salaciously exultant?

Is there a word that means "you don't know where that money's been"?

[Zilla]

Is there a word that means "you don't know where that money's been"?
I believe the closest synonym for that would be "wad". I suppose we could say that DTB's are decks which have blown their... nevermind.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

"Matured decks"; decks that have relatively solidified decklists and consistent performance.

Or stellified.

Finn - Updating a seperate list for the most recent tournaments in cities constantly is less work? Who would weed out which decks are consistently successful for easy reference for each individual city? And what good does this do people who may be preparing for a cross-meta-game tournament, say a GP?

[Lego]

EDIT: My listing was skewed because I didn't realize the Historical Top 8 thread was split into American and Foreign. Still some weird stuff though.

[AnwarA101]

The Nov.1st update is up. It looks to be an interesting result. I think pulling data from these different regions should smooth out any quirk in any of the individual metagames. Threshold is apparently ridiculously good everywhere.

I'm sure people will be enraged by something like BBS or RG Beats, but these decks are putting up numbers for now. I'm not sure they will last, but its interesting to discuss their minor success for the time being.



Don't you mean East Coast bias? I mean San Diego has tourneys large enough to be DLDs, and we have them weekly... Yet I still don't see 4 COlor Landstill have its own DTB thread neither Dreadnought Burn, Reanimator, or Scepter Chant. I don't want to get into a East vs. West battle, but just because few here post on the Source, due to reasons that shall not be named, doesn't make their decks still not DTB. If you take your Global DTB philosophy and apply it to different regions around the world it would be different. So, I hear that Ichorid and Death&Taxes are tearing up metagames like no other but I've never seen either deck played in real life here. Therefore, are they ALL decks to beat? In my opinion, YES they are. I think it should be organized as a mindset so I have to beat deck a, deck b, and deck c, if I want to be the best. No matter where a is, wherever b is, etc. What I'm asking is this: Is the DTB forum going to be a list of the top decks throughout the regions of the world? or rather, Any deck that follows the 5 points you established? Thanks, I'm not provoking flames, just thought.

I was somewhat concerned by this post and I must have not gotten a chance to respond to it. As the person who updates the T8 thread, I can tell you that I have no interest in creating any sort of bias. I simply want to list all the tournaments that qualify the very basic requirements. Decklists are a necessary part of those requirements. The T8 thread would become much less useful without them. People want to know what's doing well and that can't often be boiled down to a name. The current method allows anyone interested in a specific deck that is doing well to simply click and reuse a victorious decklist. I think this aspect is one of the most important parts of the thread and one of the main reasons for creating the thread in the first place.

If you are able to get any T8 information from San Diego, I would be more than happy to include it in the thread. Members such as Lukas Preuss and Nihil have been instrumental in finding information from Germany and Italy respectively.

[Nightmare]

I think RG Beats got an obvious boost from Goyf, and it's pretty good at racing Thresh. With the ability to play the beating that is Price of Progress, it can deal a shit-ton of damage in a hurry. People just aren't prepared.

MUC beats a lot of things not named Goblins. If we are still working under the assumption that the deck is on the decline (this month seems to refute this hypothesis), then MUC's matchups significantly improve.

[Tao]

I like the new system, but how about a "point" system that takes into consideration the size of the event and the final place? With the current system an 8th place in a 33 people tourney counts as much as a 2nd place in a tourney with 87 players. And that sounds quite unfair.

I could imagine something like this (rough numbers):

Tournament size multiplicator:

33+: 1 (small, probably local events)
50+: 2 (medium, overregional evenmts)
75+: 3 (outstanding events)

points for ranking

1st to 3rd place: 2 points
4th to 8th place: 1 point


Then you could define (for example, only rough numbers) that a deck needs at least 9 points to be considered DTB and 6 points to be in the metagame forum as an ATW or DTW.

[Lego]

One question about the update: Landstill is listed as both a DTB and an ATW, but the thread in the forum is an ATW thread. With 9 finishes, doesn't it deserve more than an ATW thread?

[Zach Tartell]

I kind of feel like we should have an ATW for thresh, since I'm pretty sure not all of them hit the necessary amount of finishes. Isn't that why we don't have a BHWC, UW, UWb, UR, UWr, UWg, UG landstill?

[Peter_Rotten]

One question about the update: Landstill is listed as both a DTB and an ATW, but the thread in the forum is an ATW thread. With 9 finishes, doesn't it deserve more than an ATW thread?

We actually don't have a relevant Landstill thread :frown:. Seriously, do a search - for some reason, we don't have a current thread for Landstill.

[Nightmare]

We actually don't have a relevant Landstill thread :frown:. Seriously, do a search - for some reason, we don't have a current thread for Landstill.
Make Tacosnape write one up. That dude loves the cock. I mean... loves to help?

[Nihil Credo]

I support Tao's idea.

[Nightmare]

I support Tao's idea.

The problem with Tao's idea is that it complicates the whole process, and that means more work for really no improvement in results. If nothing else, it will allow less decks into the DtBF, which isn't necessarily a good thing. In other words,

More work + little gain = not doing.

[Tao]

It is not that much work. The most complicated calcualation is 3*2 or things like 3 + 6 +1 + 2. And some of you invented Soidarity and TES, one combo turn in these decks is much more complicated than this.

It also would not decrease the number of decks in the Metagame Forum because you can adjust the number of points needed for the Forum.

You could also adjust the Tourney size multiplicator, so maybe that regular events like Iserlohn, Duel land drafts and Duels for Duals always get the factor 2 independent from the number of participants. Potential factor 3 tourneys would be national Legacy championships, the Worlds with Legacy this year, the German Mercadiade (1/2 year with usually 100+ participants) or similar events in the USA like the GenCon.

[Nightmare]

lots of stuffNow, I don't speak for everyone involved here, but that seems like much more work than counting to five.

[AnwarA101]

One question about the update: Landstill is listed as both a DTB and an ATW, but the thread in the forum is an ATW thread. With 9 finishes, doesn't it deserve more than an ATW thread?

This is probably an issue that should be dealt with in coming updates. I believe ATW was to represent something more general like Survival or Loam as those decklists vary to a great degree and often don't have much in common. Most of the Landstill lists only really differ in their removal cards which vary due to the splash colors. Thresh would be very similar to Landstill in that the removal cards and other color specific choices are often made, but most of the cards are the same.

[Nightmare]

This is probably an issue that should be dealt with in coming updates. I believe ATW was to represent something more general like Survival or Loam as those decklists vary to a great degree and often don't have much in common. Most of the Landstill lists only really differ in their removal cards which vary due to the splash colors. Thresh would be very similar to Landstill in that the removal cards and other color specific choices are often made, but most of the cards are the same.I agree. Basically, when Landstill went back into the LMF, it wasn't played nearly as much as it is now. There were four different splashed that made top8s, so it wasn't easy for us to discern which should be included. We compromised by making the Archetype an ATW, as opposed to a DTW. Now, most of the lists have become some combination of UW, UWb, UWg, or UWbg; all of these are relatively similar aside from a few choices such as sweepers and spot removal. The core is fundamentally the same, so I think a singular thread (focusing on development, not on which combination is better overall) could be created.

[Finn]

Finn - Updating a seperate list for the most recent tournaments in cities constantly is less work? Who would weed out which decks are consistently successful for easy reference for each individual city? And what good does this do people who may be preparing for a cross-meta-game tournament, say a GP?I don't have an easy answer for that, frankly.

If I begin from the biased position of "I am right" I can say that discussion about the best decks based on the local data from around the world will happen with or without a bonafide system. But I don't have anything better than that. It is beginning to sound like a lot of work - either in creating a really good interface, or someone always on the spot for updates.

[Bovinious]

YAY I just got home and saw the new DTBF, and Id like to say GREAT JOB, idk what you guys did but its a lot better now imo, kinda puzzled at Goyf Sligh (this exists?) and BBS but still good job with it!

[Lego]

Two things: I've always hated the name BBS. It makes me think we're talking about a black deck.

Why does UGw Thresh still have a thread in the DTB Forum?!? Am I missing something? Didn't it post one Top 8 finish in the last 10 tournaments? UG and UGb Threshold had exactly as many finishes, and UGrw had one MORE finish than UGw.

[zulander]

Here's my $0.02, lock all the thresh threads and make Jesse Hatfield re-write all the primers. Don't let Alix do it because he's a bad writer. And if Jesse refuses just shave off all his hair at TML. I'm 100% fo cereal.

[etrigan]

Two things: I've always hated the name BBS. It makes me think we're talking about a black deck.


How about BSB?

[Lego]

How about BSB?

I'm not sure what you're going for here... basically, it needs "Blue" or "U" in its name... in the Magic universe, "B" means Black.

[DeathwingZERO]

In the terms of acronyms, B usually meant blue, and black usually was Bl/Blk. BBS was actually a name before U became a primary way to determine blue in decks, so it wasn't catching on because the name was catchy enough. I may be mistaken, but it's a good possibility that B became standard for black when Mono-black control came around, using MBC before mono-blue-control used the name MUC.

[TeenieBopper]

I've been playing this game for like 13 years, and B has always mean black, and U, blue.

[Bryant Cook]

Looks like we have a winner.

[DeathwingZERO]

I've been playing this game for like 13 years, and B has always mean black, and U, blue.

I am uncertain when there was a change, but early lists (at least Wizards spoilers), had blue listed as Blu, and black as Blk, until people decided it was annoying with the two colors being only different by one letter of three.

I'm not saying I prefer the old method, I just remember it being there at one point.

[Hoojo]

I really like the new LMF. Very nice.