All B/R update speculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tammit67

Chalice does well against inbred blue. However when people start respecting chalice decks again, the chalice decks cannot withstand the attention of the format recognizing them as something to expect. Does that makes sense?

It's like dredge: great in certain metas where people aren't respecting it, but can't stand being a top deck. Blue decks like miracles though can still be top contenders despite most people actively showing up with sideboard plans against them.

---

I played both Dredge and certain Chalice decks (mostly Faerie Stompy, also Angel Stax; never tried Dragon Stompy nor the Troll Ascetic deck).

Dredge is really suspectible to its own inconsistency and the fact that its combo is unpredictable and random due to the very nature of dredge mechanic. That's even pre-board...
The main annoyance with Chalice-based decks (and Stompy in general) is that Wasteland is omnipresent and I found myself pretty often without necessary lands once the opponent got rid of the one threat I had. (Granted, once I had two of them, or Drake/Efreet with SoFI, things were less grim and I simply did not care of being Wasted out). This was in times when Pernicious Deed was a widely played card, so the prospect of trying to win the attrition battles against Wasteland that further destabilizes my clunky base and Deed that washes away the threats, was pretty unwelcome. I sold the Chalice/Stompy cards a week after Abrupt Decay became legal.

I don't think that Faerie Stompy is especially bad deck, and I was a moron that I haven't played set of Jaces alongside the usual set of threats+answers, as it perfectly fits the deck. Nvm.

At the end I decided that there's no point in bothering with suboptimal choices and played only Brainstorm decks.

Btw, it's amazing how Pernicious Deed became a nonexistant card except for fringe decks like NicFit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Because it's basically the same red flag as Maindeck Pyroblasts for some people following the logic of "people metagame against cantrip.dec -> format is unhealthy/unfun/degenerate/etc".

---

I'd love to know what should happen to make you consider that Legacy isn't healthy. So far you affirmed us of your hatred of DTT, but otherwise you seem fine with a 48cards format.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tammit67

Chalice does well against inbred blue. However when people start respecting chalice decks again, the chalice decks cannot withstand the attention of the format recognizing them as something to expect. Does that makes sense?

It's like dredge: great in certain metas where people aren't respecting it, but can't stand being a top deck. Blue decks like miracles though can still be top contenders despite most people actively showing up with sideboard plans against them.

---

Your comment makes sense, however the situation is still stated that- a singular artifact, with narrow focus, is a good metric to contain a perceived problem, but will fold when it becomes showcased. It's flawed in the manner Finn alluded to, and Lemnar by comparison to Pyroblast. It nerfs an engine, but is not an engine. The hate isn't as strong as the engine, and decks based upon it will still be weaker than their targets.

A lot of banning brainstorm comes from weakening one engine, so that others seem like a more viable choice. There is no other engine as consistent and appealing, except maybe storm, elves and d&t (with a lil luck and a lot of energon). Flirting in and out with a cycle of inbred blue < chalice < X < inbred blue, isn't a solution. It's a delayed response of the status quo, which some folks want changed.

I love Dredge (Manaless), play it way too much to be considered healthy. With DTT in the fold, RiP has become a forgotten sb card. Sooo many decks play :u:, they obviously want their graveyards to fuel DTT's. I thought the path way was clear for unprepared decks to get got. Well, Manaless Dredge is still the pits, because the engine (seriously, why no love WotC?) is slow, and the deck is so variable. It'll have it's moments, but fringe deck is still fringe, by a wide margin. Specific examples seem like cherry picking to fit a narrative. Tammit67, not accusing you of baiting, but that example doesn't hold a lot of water. Meta shifts sure, but Chalice & Cantrip-cartel is more than just meta gaming. Otherwise, from 8 months to a year+ back, when Stompy Painter was making the rounds beating on blue, that would've stuck and remained the case. That deck, full of red blasts is prime to prey, and yet it still does not see wide usage or top performances. Specific corner case is loaded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer

I'd love to know what should happen to make you consider that Legacy isn't healthy. So far you affirmed us of your hatred of DTT, but otherwise you seem fine with a 48cards format.

---

I'd really love to know how you'd view a healthy legacy.
Apperently it's not healthy when chalice decks are excellent (because chalice is a symptom of something being broken, I assume?) and it's not healthy when there's a dominant colour, that promotes several different archetypes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quasim0ff

I'd really love to know how you'd view a healthy legacy.
Apperently it's not healthy when chalice decks are excellent (because chalice is a symptom of something being broken, I assume?) and it's not healthy when there's a dominant colour, that promotes several different archetypes.

---

Huh?
I never wrote anything else on Chalice decks than my above post which deals with the fact that Chalice decks are tier2 at the very best and that they suck in Waste/Decay environment, because these two cards have great effect against the deck, as Wasteland further destabilizes the clunky 8Tombs manabase and Decay easily removes the main lock piece and there's very little to be done about that, except for Misdirection, a card that stinks.
Stop with "there's a dominant colour, that promotes several different archetypes", please, as it's far too obvious what you're trying to do and I'm not gonna feed you. But if you honestly meant what you wrote, than ok, fine, enjoy your format of 4-6 archetypes that share 16+ cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by btm10

This is where the argument has to end because we have diametrically opposed views of what's good for the format.

---

This is where most of the arguing in this thread should have ended a long time ago

Some people think that the variety among the 70-80% of decks which are cantrips heavy plus the variety brought by the other 20-30% of the meta makes for a sufficiently diverse format. Other people do not. This is highly subjective - obviously there is some diversity amongst the top decks. Whether or not there is enough for the format to be enjoyable or "healthy" is a matter of personal tastes.

It's okay for people to like different things and have different desires for their gaming experiences.

What gets me is when people who do not like Legacy very much (in it's current state) resort to innacurate statements in attempt to paint a picture of an unhealthy meta. Assertions to the effect that there is zero variety between decks running cantrips, and that blue-less decks (which make up 20-30% of the top8s) do not contribute to format diversity at all for one hoky reason or another (eg, that they are "anti-blue" decks and thefore dont count).

This sort of hyperbole makes intelligent conversation about the state of the meta impossible. I really think a lot of people don't want intelligent conversation here - they want to make a lot of noise in hopes WotC is listening. Good luck with that.

I suppose i shouldn't even need to answer crimhead comment, but since this thread is all about obvious things returning over and over, i will say the obvious: personal taste doesn't matter, but data matters and the fact that some blue cards are played by 70% or more decks makes evident that something should be done to weaken the blue shell if legacy is considered a format with a future (hint:it isn't). Since obviously the most powerful of the ubiquitous cards is brainstorm (by a mile), it should be banned and then see what happens : if blue dominance doesn't change at all then proceed to ban ponder,dig ....... and so on.

Legacy has no future do to cards not being available, not BS or a blue shell. We can discuss all day long on how improve the format, but saying that legacy will have a future if we ban certain cards is nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer

I'd love to know what should happen to make you consider that Legacy isn't healthy. So far you affirmed us of your hatred of DTT, but otherwise you seem fine with a 48cards format.

---

I have no clue where the "48cards" come from which I like explained if you make an argument out of it. I'm an old Vintage player so I don't have a childish illusion of 20 Decks to beat per format and the current Legacy is a lot more balanced and open than during the time Goblins/Thresh/Solidarity were the only reasonable choices to take to a tournament. I don't need more than half a dozen top decks to think the format is fine overall and tournament attendence supports this imo. What I personally dislike, and I'm not in a 24/7 rampage because of that, is if a certain core reduces deckbuilding basically to choosing the killoption like we had it in Vintage at a certain point and I felt that DTT is creating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer

... format of 4-6 archetypes that share 16+ cards.

---

are your arguments boil down to hyperboles again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

I have no clue where the "48cards" come from which I like explained if you make an argument out of it. I'm an old Vintage player so I don't have a childish illusion of 20 Decks to beat per format and the current Legacy is a lot more balanced and open than during the time Goblins/Thresh/Solidarity were the only reasonable choices to take to a tournament. I don't need more than half a dozen top decks to think the format is fine overall and tournament attendence supports this imo. What I personally dislike, and I'm not in a 24/7 rampage because of that, is if a certain core reduces deckbuilding basically to choosing the killoption like we had it in Vintage at a certain point and I felt that DTT is creating.

---

To have a different view or opinion is childish illusion now? Bringing back ten years old metagame from the dawn of format qualifies as an argument now? DTT turned the very really much healthy format into the one where you only choose the kill conditions? are your arguments boil down to hyperboles again?

Quote:

---

What gets me is when people who do not like Legacy very much (in it's current state) resort to innacurate statements in attempt to paint a picture of an unhealthy meta. Assertions to the effect that there is zero variety between decks running cantrips, and that blue-less decks (which make up 20-30% of the top8s) do not contribute to format diversity at all for one hoky reason or another (eg, that they are "anti-blue" decks and thefore dont count).

---

Running a different set of removal doesn't turn all those Delver decks into a different ones, they just use Bolts instead/alongside of Decays.
Also, I'm not sure if playing against 4 Delvers, 2 Miracles is to be considered diverse experience, but it seems that it's enough for the competitive bots, so w/e.
I plan to wirte a bit more on what I think about current Legacy, but I'm like totally lazy now, so you must wait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeoCop 90

I suppose i shouldn't even need to answer crimhead comment, but since this thread is all about obvious things returning over and over, i will say the obvious: personal taste doesn't matter, but data matters and the fact that some blue cards are played by 70% or more decks makes evident that something should be done to weaken the blue shell if legacy is considered a format with a future (hint:it isn't). Since obviously the most powerful of the ubiquitous cards is brainstorm (by a mile), it should be banned and then see what happens : if blue dominance doesn't change at all then proceed to ban ponder,dig ....... and so on.

---

Basically this. Apply previous reasons that WotC used to ban a card, and those situations currently apply to Brainstorm. That Brainstorm isn't banned is confusing to some folks, as to why WotC is inconsistent with their application of "reasons". A case can be made to ban brainstorm, saturation point, and yet nothing is done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahg113

Basically this. Apply previous reasons that WotC used to ban a card, and those situations currently apply to Brainstorm. That Brainstorm isn't banned is confusing to some folks, as to why WotC is inconsistent with their application of "reasons". A case can be made to ban brainstorm, saturation point, and yet nothing is done.

---

WOTC pretty much just wings it and bans/unbans whatever the hell they feel like, then comes up with a justification afterwards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeoCop 90

I suppose i shouldn't even need to answer crimhead comment, but since this thread is all about obvious things returning over and over, i will say the obvious: personal taste doesn't matter, but data matters and the fact that some blue cards are played by 70% or more decks makes evident that something should be done to weaken the blue shell if legacy is considered a format with a future (hint:it isn't). Since obviously the most powerful of the ubiquitous cards is brainstorm (by a mile), it should be banned and then see what happens : if blue dominance doesn't change at all then proceed to ban ponder,dig ....... and so on.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Admiral_Arzar

WOTC pretty much just wings it and bans/unbans whatever the hell they feel like, then comes up with a justification afterwards.

---

MaRo's arm just can't hit that top right corner.

http://www.magicvoordeel.nl/kaarten/...im-the-dci.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeoCop 90

i will say the obvious: personal taste doesn't matter, but data matters ...

---

and the required data is simply NOT available.
Top x data is next to useless, because there are more factors contributing to that then just the strength of each deck/card.
Popularity and Propaganda have more of an effect on top x data then most are willing to admit.
The data used needs to correct for player preference, it needs to correct for player skill differences, it needs to correct for metagame familiarity, and a bunch of other factors.
Remember in Legacy deck strength matters, player skill matters, matchup familiarity matters (If I know how my deck and my opponents work, but he only knows how his deck works, that is a huge factor in my favour), luck matters, and a bunch of other things.

The only way to get the proper data is by running a large scale gauntlet (not just the current top decks, but as many different decks as possible) where for each matchup tested both testers are as close in skill as possible, swap decks every so many games to minimize any skill/style quirks, play a large enough # of game to minimize the effects of variance on the results, and the first so many games are not counted but treated as both testers getting familiar with how the deck interact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sjmcc13

The only way to get the proper data is by running a large scale gauntlet (not just the current top decks, but as many different decks as possible) where for each matchup tested both testers are as close in skill as possible, swap decks every so many games to minimize any skill/style quirks, play a large enough # of game to minimize the effects of variance on the results, and the first so many games are not counted but treated as both testers getting familiar with how the deck interact.

---

Or we can do this thing where players from around the world enter events for stakes. Then we see what is consistently winning from all the events. Novel idea. I wonder where we could see this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sjmcc13

and the required data is simply NOT available.
Top x data is next to useless, because there are more factors contributing to that then just the strength of each deck/card.
Popularity and Propaganda have more of an effect on top x data then most are willing to admit.
The data used needs to correct for player preference, it needs to correct for player skill differences, it needs to correct for metagame familiarity, and a bunch of other factors.
Remember in Legacy deck strength matters, player skill matters, matchup familiarity matters (If I know how my deck and my opponents work, but he only knows how his deck works, that is a huge factor in my favour), luck matters, and a bunch of other things.

The only way to get the proper data is by running a large scale gauntlet (not just the current top decks, but as many different decks as possible) where for each matchup tested both testers are as close in skill as possible, swap decks every so many games to minimize any skill/style quirks, play a large enough # of game to minimize the effects of variance on the results, and the first so many games are not counted but treated as both testers getting familiar with how the deck interact.

---

Without flaming, where was this elusive data collected from to make similar decisions for Flash, SotFittest, or MMisstep?

Point being, collecting data from the Top 8, and comparing that with the collected decklist info from the beginning of the same large scale event should be efficient, without finding that perfect data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by menace13

Or we can do this thing where players from around the world enter events for stakes.

---

Which does not work, because the data that comes out of those events re-enforces the biases that are already present.
Why, because most players do not innovate or create decks, and discard any deck that is not currently tier 1 or 1.5, so they just pay the decks that are winning, which F-ing leads to those decks placing more because they are played in such high #s.

you also need to account for how many players are making choices based on fears/assumptions that might or might not be true, how many of those cantrip+FoW+Daz players are running Fow+Daze because they are afraid of fast combo like Belcher... These meta choices affect the decks played, which affects the final tournament results.

The only thing that is useful from event results is deviations from the norm, what decks under and over perform relative to the number of copies of that deck being played. and then we still need to factor in the skill of the pilots of those decks...

Simply put to much of the player base are simply chasing bandwagons, and thus the results of events are not good enough to properly discuss what is stronger then it should be. and as a result results do not contain the information needed to judge if a card needs to be banned, as they include strength, skill AND popularity, and banning should only be based on 1 of those 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahg113

Without flaming, where was this elusive data collected from to make similar decisions for Flash, SotFittest, or MMisstep?

---

Proper data did not exist for Flash, they banned it after 1 event that is not enough time to see if the metagame can adapt. SotF and Mistep I am not certain if they did their research or not, or just reacted to player outrage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahg113

Point being, collecting data from the Top 8, and comparing that with the collected decklist info from the beginning of the same large scale event should be efficient, without finding that perfect data.

---

It tells you some things, but not everything, and requies multiple events to provide usable data, in some cases it does say enough for high levels of confidence, but in other cases the other factors involved in deck selection out way its usefulness. Right now Legacy is at a point where the data is at minimal usefulness, while back in Mistep the data was likely much more informative when comparing pre and post mistep deck lists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sjmcc13

Proper data did not exist for Flash, they banned it after 1 event that is not enough time to see if the metagame can adapt. SotF and Mistep I am not certain if they did their research or not, or just reacted to player outrage.

It tells you some things, but not everything, and requies multiple events to provide usable data, in some cases it does say enough for high levels of confidence, but in other cases the other factors involved in deck selection out way its usefulness. Right now Legacy is at a point where the data is at minimal usefulness, while back in Mistep the data was likely much more informative when comparing pre and post mistep deck lists.

---

This is frustrating, you make assumptions when it benefits you, and state imperfect data can't be used to currently make sweeping changes [my paraphrasing].

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sjmcc13

Which does not work, because the data that comes out of those events re-enforces the biases that are already present.

Simply put to much of the player base are simply chasing bandwagons, and thus the results of events are not good enough to properly discuss what is stronger then it should be. and as a result results do not contain the information needed to judge if a card needs to be banned, as they include strength, skill AND popularity, and banning should only be based on 1 of those 3.

---

So, basically, every player in the world didn't test before an event, ever. And they all play decks because bandwaggoning. They're also all unskilled and lucky. So we should use SCG's Versus series as the benchmark. Got it. I'm just going to say no. Nope. Nah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeoCop 90

I suppose i shouldn't even need to answer crimhead comment, but since this thread is all about obvious things returning over and over, i will say the obvious: personal taste doesn't matter, but data matters and the fact that some blue cards are played by 70% or more decks makes evident that something should be done to weaken the blue shell if legacy is considered a format with a future (hint:it isn't). Since obviously the most powerful of the ubiquitous cards is brainstorm (by a mile), it should be banned and then see what happens : if blue dominance doesn't change at all then proceed to ban ponder,dig ....... and so on.

---

What you are saying is that the density of cantrip decks is going to kill the game? This is pure conjecture based on assumptions about the personal tastes of the player base. My assumption is that if the dozen or so whiners on the internet were all to quit (and each convinced a friend to quit too), Legacy would go just as strong.

Assumptions aside - the fact that 70%+ of the meta are blue heavy decks does not prove that the format is unhealthy or unfun! That is a matter of personal tastes, and if you bother to read these forums it should be apparent that there is no consensus within the community. For some the format is sufficiently diverse, for others it is not. There is no objective metric for this; just opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

What you are saying is that the density of cantrip decks is going to kill the game? This is pure conjecture based on assumptions about the personal tastes of the player base. My assumption is that if the dozen or so whiners on the internet were all to quit (and each convinced a friend to quit too), Legacy would go just as strong.

---

I'm sure you're wrong on this matter, man, as if 1+1 ppl did quit only thanks to me, then the average turnout in our lgs would go down by 20%. Kekeke. :laugh:

So basically:

every other card that was banned in the history of the format , had a lower penetration or representation than any of the cantrip cartel. This means that logically following one of those cards should go but:

1 wotc don't care anymore and want to promote modern and kill legacy
2 wotc don't think banning BS or Ponder/Preordain would help the format nor they think that cards being overrepresented is a bad thing anymore

If point 1, ok, we can't do much. WotC will kill the format amen

If point 2, can we have some of the cards that were banned back? At least this would create alternative pillars for the format that aren't the cantrip cartel. Inaction seems just lazy at this point. The format has been 75%+ cantrip carteled for what, an year and an half now? For a format with 4k+ cards in it, this look pretty sad. Having alternative pillars (mostly SotF because it can't go in a cantrip shell, possibly more combo enablers like Jar, Bargain, F.Search) would at least mean that while the format would still be vastly predictable and dominated by said pillars, at least they wouldn't all play largely the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gheizen64

If wotc don't care why even have the format? Do you realize how stupid that argument is right?

Why do anything you die anyway

---

And please, don't ever PM me again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gheizen64

So basically:
1 wotc don't care anymore and want to promote modern and kill legacy

---

We've seen it in Vintage.

At some point, Brainstorm will be banned, alongside Ponder and all the other cantrips and people will stop playing legacy all together. History repeats

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gheizen64

So basically:

every other card that was banned in the history of the format , had a lower penetration or representation than any of the cantrip cartel. This means that logically following one of those cards should go but:

1 wotc don't care anymore and want to promote modern and kill legacy
2 wotc don't think banning BS or Ponder/Preordain would help the format nor they think that cards being overrepresented is a bad thing anymore

---

3 card representation is not the only factor which determines that a card gets banned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer

To have a different view or opinion is childish illusion now? Bringing back ten years old metagame from the dawn of format qualifies as an argument now? DTT turned the very really much healthy format into the one where you only choose the kill conditions? are your arguments boil down to hyperboles again?

---

its a childish illusion that Legacy was ever color-balanced and rooting arguments about the format being unhealthy on color balance.

Its funny that you claim the format was fine before DTT, despite you whinning about how unfun and unhealthy the format is since 2013.

Crimhead: I am just saying that when a card is played by almost every deck it should be banned, and i think that's elementary. You say that penetration is not the only reason to ban a card, but i think it should be the most important reason. i don't think there will ever be a format that wizards care about (say modern), where 70% decks play a card.

Lemnear: legacy was never color balanced, but now is worse than ever and it is just natural because the more good cards get printed, the more cantrips become good to find stuff. I think it should be in the interests of every legacy player to see what happens when you can't play brainstorm anymore.


In the end we will never agree because we have diametrically different perspectives. I consider the format in a vacuum, see that everyone plays brainstorm and i'm astonished by the fact that it is still legal. You consider the format through the lenses of legacy's history as a "blue format" and you are totally fine with almost all decks being blue and playing brainstorm because you consider their strategies different, i suppose you wouldn't be worried even if 100% decks played blue and elves , death and taxes and other fringe decks wouldn't exist.

Do you really think that people simply say "I'm going to play brainstorm, ponder, probes, and digs because I'm worried I'll have to play against belcher!" No. They play those cards because at this point it isfairly evident that playing those cards are the way to Give yourself the best shot at winning by reducing variance. Nobody at this point in time is playing these decks because they are worried about a fringe budget combo deck, and if they were things like mindbreak trap would be much more popular

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

its a childish illusion that Legacy was ever color-balanced and rooting arguments about the format being unhealthy on color balance.

Its funny that you claim the format was fine before DTT, despite you whinning about how unfun and unhealthy the format is since 2013.

---

Do you even read what the other people write? I don't give a fuck about color of Brainstorm decks, calling those decks blue is just an easy and short way how to distinguish them, do you get it or do you need to read it thousand times? For what is worth, the metagame might be as white as NSDAP congress, as long as it won't be the ever the same bunch of cantrips-into-cantrips piles that all play the same, suck the same.
Wasn't that you who was fine with the inbred boring predictable metagame gameplay until you miraculously changed your mind due to DTT? Like if the card changed anything about an overall shape of the format...

Why don't you simply accept that Legacy was never about color diversity and be fine with a metagame of "six of 24-of-the-same-cards decks"?

Btw, your posts are completely unconstructive, and I'm going to ignore them. Trying to answer them is a mere waste of time, which I could have spent by writing about thos aspects of today's Legacy that are interesting and important to me, esp. considering the few words I got to say about the great minds of format like Finn or Michael Keller, who seem to be the very last people who're trying to dive for something new and thrilling in the Legacy pool.

Legacy of is starting to look like Vintage in its "Play the power or play an answer" style format. The fact that in Vintage that can not be helped and in Legacy it can is the issue at heart, not the colour of the cards in question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeoCop 90

Lemnear: legacy was never color balanced, but now is worse than ever and it is just natural because the more good cards get printed, the more cantrips become good to find stuff. I think it should be in the interests of every legacy player to see what happens when you can't play brainstorm anymore.

---

Except this isn't true at all. The Penetration of blue decks or to me more precise, decks which run Brainstorm, dropped to 71% from the all-time high of 82% during the DTT outbreak and the TC era thanks to the strong performances of lands, loam and the like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer

Do you even read what the other people write? I don't give a fuck about color of Brainstorm decks, calling those decks blue is just an easy and short way how to distinguish them, do you get it or do you need to read it thousand times?

---

I read you rants for years now and I don't care about you name-of-the-day for your matter of complaint. You used the term "blue decks" as well as your synonym for cantrip.dec so don't even try to deny that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer

For what is worth, the metagame might be as white as NSDAP congress, as long as it won't be the ever the same bunch of cantrips-into-cantrips piles that all play the same, suck the same.

---

That's why you quitted and kept ranting about the metagame in a hypothetical base...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer

Wasn't that you who was fine with the inbred boring predictable metagame gameplay until you miraculously changed your mind due to DTT? Like if the card changed anything about an overall shape of the format...

---

Do YOU read what I wrote? Obviously not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer

Why don't you simply accept that Legacy was never about color diversity and be fine with a metagame of "six of 24-of-the-same-cards decks"?

---

Show me these different decks/strategies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer

Btw, your posts are completely unconstructive, and I'm going to ignore them. Trying to answer them is a mere waste of time, which I could have spent by writing about thos aspects of today's Legacy that are interesting and important to me, esp. considering the few words I got to say about the great minds of format like Finn or Michael Keller, who seem to be the very last people who're trying to dive for something new and thrilling in the Legacy pool.

---

Yeah, go write about the people who actually innovate and try to fight the metagame and don't follow your example of swimming with the stream for a while and ragequitting the format because you don't like it despite keeping to complain. Props to people holding up against the blue mainstream #NoSarcasm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megadeus

Do you really think that people simply say "I'm going to play brainstorm, ponder, probes, and digs because I'm worried I'll have to play against belcher!" No.

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeoCop 90

Crimhead: I am just saying that when a card is played by almost every deck it should be banned, and i think that's elementary. You say that penetration is not the only reason to ban a card, but i think it should be the most important reason.

---

Not everyone thinks that. Some people care more about strategic diversity than card penetration. Some people think Legacy is sufficiently diverse - others do not. This is all about opinions and tastes, to think otherwise is deceiving yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeoCop 90

i don't think there will ever be a format that wizards care about (say modern), where 70% decks play a card.

---

Or... they do care about Legacy (obviously less so than Modern) but they think the Brainstrom density is not symptomatic of an unhealthy format (not a novel concept - many players feel the same).

Make your assumptions, but don't expect me to accept them as fact. What's factual is that WotC are not managing the format they way you (and others) think they should be. This is not evidence that they do not care.

Just leaving these numbers here for you. Data is parsed out of the Tierdecks-data of TCDecks: http://tcdecks.net/tierdecks.php
Once I find some time, I will also parse the meta-game-data ( http://tcdecks.net/metagame.php?format=Legacy ) to see if it matches up.

date	Blue	Rest + Merfolk
1/01/2013	62,39967897	37,60032103
1/02/2013	60	40
1/03/2013	63,7431694	36,2568306
1/04/2013	59,63855422	40,36144578
1/05/2013	63,83191596	36,16808404
1/06/2013	64,50160772	35,49839228
1/07/2013	70,37928958	29,62071042
1/08/2013	57,88561525	42,11438475
1/09/2013	61,32872504	38,67127496
1/10/2013	59,88599929	40,11400071
1/11/2013	64,73202614	35,26797386
1/12/2013	67,52110034	32,47889966
1/01/2014	64,23886779	35,76113221
1/02/2014	68,55432781	31,44567219
1/03/2014	63,98899587	36,01100413
1/04/2014	64,83116883	35,16883117
1/05/2014	61,7167382	38,2832618
1/06/2014	68,97727273	31,02272727
1/07/2014	65,64516129	34,35483871
1/08/2014	64,40382942	35,59617058
1/09/2014	62,73653566	37,26346434
1/10/2014	71,93958665	28,06041335
1/11/2014	67,63636364	32,36363636
1/12/2014	72,20606564	27,79393436
1/01/2015	70,05649718	29,94350282
1/02/2015	65,80624602	34,19375398
1/03/2015	70,33979041	29,66020959
1/04/2015	72,50384025	27,49615975
1/05/2015	76,37474542	23,62525458
1/06/2015	73,35375191	26,64624809

Someone should email this to Wizards and demand something to be done. This trend looks disgusting.

:mad:

Agreed, 26% nonblue is frankly too high for my tastes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nielsie

Data Table

---

It's interesting how the rantings of the pro-blue crowd are so easily disprovable with a simple data table. This argument has basically turned into politics at some point - it's ideology without any real basis in facts, and thus is capable of ignoring facts when they are presented. I wonder what it would take for blue to crack 80% - perhaps a stupid new printing, which (knowing WOTC) isn't more than one or two sets away.

I wouldn't call myself pro-blue, but I am pro-Brainstorm. I'd rather see Ponder, Preordain, Dig Through Time, heck even Gitaxian Probe receive the hammer before Brainstorm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Admiral_Arzar

It's interesting how the rantings of the pro-blue crowd are so easily disprovable with a simple data table.

---

Yo, science bitch!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoojo

I wouldn't call myself pro-blue, but I am pro-Brainstorm. I'd rather see Ponder, Preordain, Dig Through Time, heck even Gitaxian Probe receive the hammer before Brainstorm.

---

Agreed. Also Delver. Because it's just too easy to play all the best cards in the other 4 colors plus have the blue shell with the most efficient threat (which also happens to be in-color).

Edit: Didn't want to double post so some additional thoughts.
To be honest those statistics are fucked up. I haven't played Legacy in over 12 months because frankly I think it sucks. But my personal opinion is, Legacy is the format of old, powerful and elegant cards. So if the format is fucked up, the banlist should protect the legacy of the game (pun intended) as much as the balance of the format and get rid of all of the newly printed, power creeped bullshit. I'd rather play a format where things like Survival and Necro are unbanned but bullshit from the new era like Omniscience, Delver, TNN etc. are banned. And also the sorcery speed cantrips. I find instant speed stack interaction fun and the game mechanics of the old cards amazing. So I'd rather see a controversial rehaul of the B&R list than to see simple Brainstorm gone. That is all imo, because that's my opinion of the game.