Someone really wants to be posted in the Great Source Quotes topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral_Arzar
Duh, that's MUD in Vintage, not TNN in Legacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barook
Printable View
Someone really wants to be posted in the Great Source Quotes topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral_Arzar
Duh, that's MUD in Vintage, not TNN in Legacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barook
Meh, MUD is not nearly as much of a pain in Vintage as Dredge is. You want mass examination and loads of mindless soldiers that march in lockstep to your ultimate demise look no further than a deck running Serum Powder and Bazaar.
TNN is a dead horse. You can beat it all you like, but not a dam thing will change. With my Modern deck now unplayable and Legacy starting to feel stale, I am thinking about taking a 6 month break and seeing what it's like when I come back. Honestly, I am enjoying Vintage (the most stale format of all) most at the moment and that's because people just proxy decks.
I picked 129 players for the first analysis because that number means 8 rounds. This time I picked 100 because I felt like 100 person tournaments should be considered large events. Basically, a whim. The over analysis is amusing.
It isn't overanalysis, it's just basic rules of statistics that you seem to be unaware of. If you're going to publish research, at least do it the right way. In order for your claims to mean anything, the two sets of data (7-19-13/10-31-13 and 11-1-13/2-6-14) need to be calculated using the same set of variables. You used an 8 round floor for your 7-19-13/10-31-13 data, but used a 7 round floor for your 11-1-13/2-6-14 data and tried to compare the two; what about all of the 7 round tournaments from 7-19-13/10-31-13 that you didn't take into account?Quote:
Originally Posted by akatsuki
As I, and others, have pointed out, certain claims from your most recent article aren't statistically sound because you're not keeping the variables constant between the two sets of data. Do you understand now?
Beard..? You sir should be ashamed. Bigtime. Seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barook
Lol. Whatever. I'm getting those alters and I'm getting a flavor text that reads "mein format."Quote:
Originally Posted by Echelon
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
@GP Paris: Yet another lovely tournament with 7/8 and 14/16 Brainstorm decks, with the two token non-blue decks being combo.
One of them being very anti blue :p
I think tbh, as much as everyone hates to hear it, Brainstorm is the one card that people bitch about that actually seems to live up to the hype every time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
Mercy me, this old chestnut?Quote:
Originally Posted by Barook
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
I enjoy legacy more with brainstorm, but as mentioned a few posts back: 28/32 brainstorms in top 8 along with 8 maindeck pyroblasts/rebs. It is a tough balance moving forward.
I don't care either way. The only time I play brain storm is if I'm playing TES, and I would not mind if it were banned. People enjoy playing with it, I get it. But if any other card put up those sorts of numbers, it would probably be banned, or at least have a good chance if it.
Banning TNN would be start since it contributes alot to the "Blue Problem".Quote:
Originally Posted by conboy31
Looking at the Top 8, there are 2 combo decks that don't care much about TNN, 3 Miracle decks that can easily manhandle, two TNN decks and the winning BUG Delver list which also has various ways to deal with TNN, including 4 sideboard cards devoted to that.
Based on this list, I don't see a problem. If everyone and their mom is mindlessly copying UWR Delver lists from the web and hope the deck autopilots them to the top 32, it's a valid way to take advantage of those guys/girls and slice through such a metagame with strategies that sidestep TNN.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barook
Not really, it didnt' post nearly the numbers that were feared, and most of the time, when it was on the feature table, it was being raced by better things, or wasn't really relevant. Only 5 copies made the Top 8. A cloud of Brainstorms, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barook
TNN warps the metagame around it, though. Going by that, Flash "only" put up 3 decks in the Top 8 back then, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkenslight
Here's the offical reason for banning Mental Missstep:Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
It would be interesting if somebody could dig up the number of decks using Mental Misstep at that time because looking at the DtB section of that time, the metagame was "diverse" as well. We're at an all-time high for blue decks and Brainstorm is becoming more and more of an auto-include if you want to be competitive. Brainstorm enabling all decks equally? Sure, Mental Misstep did that one, too...Quote:
Mental Misstep is banned.
Force of Will has long been thought of as a card that helps keep combination decks in check in Legacy and Vintage. However, it doesn't directly help decks that aren't playing blue. One idea that was floated was creating a similar card that could be played in nonblue decks. When Phyrexian mana was designed, it was an opportunity to create such a card. R&D wanted a card that could help fight combination decks, and could also fight blue decks by countering cards such as Brainstorm. Clearly printing a card like this has a lot of risk, but there is also the potential for helping the format a lot. The risk is mitigated, because if it turns out poorly, the DCI can ban the card.
Unfortunately, it turned out poorly. Looking at high-level tournaments, instead of results having blue and nonblue decks playing Mental Misstep, there are more blue decks than ever. The DCI is banning Mental Misstep, with the hopes of restoring the more diverse metagame that existed prior to the printing of Mental Misstep.
I'm pretty sure TNN is the real culprit behind all the brainstorms in the Top 16. Before TNN Death and Taxes was the best non-blue deck in the format and we saw Maverick and Jund putting up results periodically. What TNN solved for fair blue decks is the problem of how fair non-blue decks were on average better on the front of board presence pre-TNN. Now you can just play TNN and often stabilize the board with it because most non-blue decks have little to know answers to it. If anything needs to get banned it's True-Name Nemesis, not brainstorm. Banning the later would be the perfect way to destroy legacy. Sometimes I even wonder if the printing of TNN was Wizards way of exacerbating blue's prevalance in attempt to make legacy less popular. I don't want to think that they'd be that malicious but I wouldn't have a hard time believing it either.
I agree that TNN is the culprit for the recent surge in blue decks and should get the axe first. Just look at the top 16 - it's either combo decks that ignore TNN, Anti-TNN decks running blue or TNN decks themselves. That's not a healthy format.
People always make this "the sky is falling" comments. To this very day, I have yet to hear sound arguments how a lack of Brainstorm is going to kill to format. Sure, a few Brainstorm lovers would certainly quit the format, but the rest would adept and run other, sorcery speed high quality cantrips.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonslayer_90
Banning Brainstorm would punish bad keeps which are otherwise clear mulligans which would be interresting to see. However, most control decks would simply switch to other cantrips and/or increase their actual MB counters/removal as a result. The biggest low-blow would be dealt to combo-decks, hands down. Blade.dec would barely a fuck about a banning of Brainstorm, but decks like storm would lose their ability to shift gears/gameplans for a single blue mana ... Those decks would all degenerate into Belcher with the known downsides of your starting 7 dictating your game.
I guess banning Brainstorm would turn Legacy into a topdeck-format like modern with less critical decisions to make in each game, which is imo the Main attraction of the format.
I'm convinced that the diversity would suffer even more in Legacy if you ban a card which is much more essential for combo than for control
Delver is the true culprit, stop picking on the new kid.
I agree. Delver is a bigger culprit than TNN.
who the fuck came up with the idea of having a U for a 3/2 flying