Further, Emrakul and TNN cost the same, just that TNN does it all by itself, and the opponent doesn't also get to put something out.Quote:
Originally Posted by aluisiocsantos
Printable View
Further, Emrakul and TNN cost the same, just that TNN does it all by itself, and the opponent doesn't also get to put something out.Quote:
Originally Posted by aluisiocsantos
Hello,
and what should this example prove that blue is a strong colour ok your are right with that. That Brainstorm is a card who should be banned? I donīt think so
because you are only one player and this is only showing how your playstlye developed and adjusted to the meta Game. If Brainstorm would be a banworhty card
there would be no chance for decks whcih are not relying on him to win against brainstorm decks and that is not true.
for your reasons abadoning the decks I asume you just wanted the easy way and changed the deck instead of trying to ajust your deck to the new meta and try to
win even with hate around you. Dregde and Storm are good examples because despite a meta with plenty of hate they keep doing welll and still can win
tournements.
Last but not least there are other non Brainstorm Options for example, Elves, DnT, Goblins, Dregde, Jund etc.
Yes they are not autowins even if you play flawless and each of them have their drawbacks but they are alternatives and not brainstorm related.
Ofcourse antother option is to develope a deck your self if you are sick of Brainstorm and try to solve the TNN problem in another way then joining the train
of either flamers or bandwagoners.
Yes is is more difficult without brainstorm but I think it could be managed.
Best Regards Teveshszat
If Goblins/Dredge'd do so well against BS.deck you'd see a bit more of 'em in T8's, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teveshszat
Also, your post was rather hard to read and understand.
Anywho, I don't care whether BS gets banned or not. If Wizard's fine with having 24 copies of a given card in every other top 8, it's fine with me. Same goes for FoW, lol. For now, I keep running with the little green men, using Glimpse of Nature as my poison of choice. Brainstorm is for pussies, lol.
Brainstorm?
Just Chalice @1 that bitch!
Why the colors even matter? If the idea is to play competitively, you just play with the best cards and call it the day. There are always the best cards, no matter how much you ban and cry. Flavor is for kitchen table, so to say.
There are a few cards that care about the pigment in your cards but otherwise I always wonder what difference does it make which color a card is. With this card pool you can play any combinatin of colours very easily so it shouldn't really matter.
This piqued my interest, so I've started to compile all data from thecouncil (33+ player tourneys only) beginning January 2013 through today; 18 out of the 55 tourneys in January 2013 had 33+ players, this is roughly 1/3 (not sure if that's too small a sample size). Obviously, this is going to take some time, but I think it will prove helpful when talking about meta considerations.Quote:
Originally Posted by HSCK
So far for January 2013, there's no change between the first SIX slots from both my data and thecouncil's data. After adjusting for deck name differences (for example, thecouncil lumped the Shardless BUG decks with the non-Shardless BUG Control decks and called everything "BUG Control". I seperated the two in my data, but if you use the thecouncil's method, I get the same result as them in terms of ranking), here's what I have for January 2013:
1.) Blade Control
2.) Jund
3.) RUG Delver
4.) Team America
5.) Shardless BUG + BUG Control
6.) Reanimator
Again, this is identical to thecouncil's first six slots. After that, the results start to diverge, although only slightly. For example, I have Maverick, Dredge, Miracles and Sneak & Show all tied for 7th place whereas thecouncil has Maverick, Dredge, Miracles and Sneak & Show all immediately after 6th place Reanimator, just at different rankings for 7-11 (AnT is in their top 10, not in mine).
So basically, there is no change for the first 10-11 slots between thecouncil's data (ALL tourneys) and my data (33+ player tourneys only). There's no trends to observe, no conclusions to draw from for January 2013 for the top 10 decks in Legacy. After the top 10, things get ultra random though, with many, many decks showing up for thecouncil and most-none of them making my cutoff.
I'll continue this collection and once everything had been compiled and organized, I'll release my findings and comparisons to see how "off" thecouncil's monthly tiers are from my 33+ player monthly tiers. If January 2013 is any indication, there shouldn't be too much difference in the top tier, but I've only done 1 month, so that's far too small of a sample size to be sure.
______________________________________________
catmint -
Also, one of the reasons I use data now to support my position is because I tried to use anecdotal "evidence" in the now-locked "Would you like to see TNN go away" thread as to why TNN was bad for the format. I was basically told by EVERYONE in there that unless I had data to support my claim, my anecdotes didn't mean squat. Since then, I haven't said much about the "unfun" aspect of TNN as that's subjective, the "this is what my playgroup thinks" opinions, etc. I've just been sticking to data as that was what I was told I needed to do to prove my point. But now it's okay not to use data and just go off of my personal feelings? I thought you guys didn't take that subjective stuff into consideration, particlarly when talking about banning something.
Speaking of overpowered CMC 3 blue spells, how much fun is SnT (deck)?
Are you saying that, given the choice between Show and Tell into Emrakul vs True-Name Nemesis on turn two or three, you think TNN is the less interactive, more problematic case?Quote:
Originally Posted by PirateKing
I'd ban TNN first. SnDerp decks can trip on themselves, at least. TNN is just a one-card combo slotted into a super solid fair shell, which is far more disastrous for the metagame. Not that I wouldn't like seeing both gone, but I think TNN is the more urgent one of the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryTroll
Just did December using 6+ rounds on TC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
Their tier decks are listed as follows:
TA
Miracles
Deathblade
RUG
UWR
Sneak and Show
Shardless
Blade Control
Elves
D&T
Fish
Nic Fit
Jund
I crunched 26 tournaments including the 7-1s from the SCG Invitational which provided 6 decks for a total of 206 decks.
TA: 20 top 8s
Miracles: 19 top 8s
Deathblade: 13 top 8s
RUG: 13 top 8s
UWR: 10 top 8s
Sneak and Show: 11 top 8s
Shardless: 10 top 8s
Blade Control: 13 top 8s (including one w/o) TNN
Elves: 11 top 8s
D&T: 9 top 8s
Fish: 5 top 8s
Nic Fit: 7 top 8s
Jund: 11 top 8s
That means outside of the top 4 things at the 6+ round level are not what they are on the tier list with Jund actually performing comparably or better than everything listed above it. ANT also had 7 top 8s, while Maverick outdid TES with 5 top 8s compared to TES' 4 top 8s. Landstill and OmniTell also picked up 5 top 8s. These were all the decks that did better than 5 top 8s in the data sampling.
Although only a couple months, I think your data and my data shows that the top decks on thecouncil will be top decks on our datasheets. Once you get past the top five or six slots, that's when things start getting a bit dicey. Is a cutoff of five Top8/Top16 fair? Should we be including the decks that have four Top8/Top16 finishes (that averages out to 1 per week in a month)?
Like mine, your data doesn't show incredibly drastic shifts in placement. It's the difference between being 7th instead of 9th place or being 5th instead of 7th, no? Would you be able to list TCDecks' top 10 versus your organized top 10 (and put the # of appearances in parathenses)? Example, January 2013:
Thecouncil:
1.) Blade Control
2.) Jund
3.) RUG Delver
4.) Team America
5.) BUG Control (they lumped Shardless BUG + non-Shardless BUG together)
6.) Reanimator
7.) Elves
8.) Sneak & Show
9.) Ad Nauseam Tendils
10.) Maverick
My data (33+ player tourneys only, # of Top8/Top16 included):
1.) Blade Control (20)
2.) Jund (18)
3.) RUG Delver (16)
4.) Team America (11)
5.) Shardless BUG + BUG Control (4+4 = 8)
6.) Reanimator (7)
7.) Sneak & Show (6)
7a.) Maverick (6)
7b.) Miracles (6)
7c.) Dredge (6)
If you saw the full data, you'd see that after you get outside of the top 6, everything is jumbled, but only slightly. Miracles is 11th on thecouncil, but is "7th-10th" on my list, etc. There isn't a huge dramatic shift for a deck where thecouncil lists it at 5th when my data lists it at 15th, etc.
I like 5 top 8s as it's just easier for me to read as I make tally marks, but 4 seems reasonable. I don't do top 16s as only SCG provides it, and one other tournament provided 32 decklists which can really skew certain decks. I just point that out as another user cited TC data for Jund dropping down a lot in December by just looking at its chart placement. This 6+ round data shows it's comparable to Elves, Sneak and Show, and UWR and just a little behind Deathblade, Blade Control, and RUG. Fish is much higher than it should be as well as ANT outperformed it. I went back and added my sample size of decks in addition to tournaments.
Thecouncil has Jund at 11th for December 2013. What place does you data have it at? 8th? Sorry, your (and my) formatting is confusing.
Tied for 6th with Elves and Sneak and Show and just two placings behind RUG, Blade Control, and Deathblade.
Did you use just the first 8 in SCG's Top 16, and the first 8 in that East Coast tourney that gave the top 32? I'm trying to understand the methodology.
Yes. And the 6 7-1 lists from the SCG Invitational.
Combined Data of 6+ rounders for December and January for a sample of 364 decks placing in Top 8s only with two tournaments only reporting 6 decks instead of 8. I also did not include any tournaments with an unknown number of participants.
Team America: 36 top 8s
Miracles: 24 top 8s
UWR: 24 top 8s
Deathblade: 22 top 8s
Blade Control: 22 top 8s
Elves: 21 top 8s
Sneak and Show: 18 top 8s
Jund: 18 top 8s
RUG: 17 top 8s
D&T: 16 top 8s
ANT: 15 top 8s
I hope this clears up questions of methodology, anyone is welcome to sit and count too.
Okay, I'll run all of 2013 and whatever is current for January 2014 like that and compare the thecouncil's standings versus my standings. I suspect that we will not see any difference in the top 5 (+/-1), very minor differences from 6-10, then bizarro world standings for the legion of tier 2 decks like Affinity randomly getting into a Top 8 for places 11th and beyond, etc. Although instead of cutting off at five Top 8 appearances, I'm going to just list the top 10 like thecouncil does.Quote:
Originally Posted by HSCK
I don't think the top 5 will be off by too much, but with little margins 6-15 could vary a lot and there's going to be a lot more clustering. I edited my above post to aggregate the last two months so that they all have 1 top 8 per week or close to it in the case of ANT. I don't know who made the assertion about Jund, but I do think it's more viable than it was given credit for, at least going forward and in accordance with Source criteria on 6+ rounds.
I guess after this data is crunched the next step would be to see what regional biases might be and why some decks don't perform well at major tournaments of 8+ rounds compared to what they show at the 6 and 7 level.
Do people prefer if I just look at the thecouncil's top 10 for each month, then give my adjusted standing for those top 10 decks only, or would everyone prefer if I try to see if a non-top 10 deck all of a sudden supplants a top 10 deck due to the adjustments? There's no guarantee that will happen, but it could. Although if it did, I suspect it would only affect the 8-9-10 bottom decks, not the super top tier decks (as in, you won't see #2 Blade Control tumble to 22nd place and be replaced by previously #28 Dragon Stompy).
This is what you guys yelled back and forth for 2-3 weeks about? Shifts from slot 6 through 15?Quote:
Originally Posted by HSCK