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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter_Rotten

@ 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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obfuscate Freely

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obfuscate Freely

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter_Rotten

What do you mean by "all of a sudden." Not well received? I thought we had an interesting debate about it

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter_Rotten

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Machinus

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Machinus

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?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obfuscate Freely

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeenieBopper

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lonelybaritone

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by URABAHN

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnwarA101

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Machinus

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by URABAHN

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnwarA101

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Machinus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Machinus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter_Rotten

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Machinus

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Machinus

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.

---