Printable View
This is ridiculous.
My point about S&T was not to derail the thread about S&T, but rather show that if we can somehow adapt to all the TIMMEH! crap it can cheat in, then why the hell are we even worried about a 3/1 for 1UU Pro-You? Not arguing that it's a badly designed card for a 1v1 format; just arguing it's nowhere near banworthy.
The issue is that when people start running TNN to combat TNN, you end up fighting past each other not with each other. That's not fun, it's also one of the most common criticisms leaved at Modern.
Where did you stand when Modern came to claim Legacy?
My point is tnn can be dealt with, and the decks that play those can still be beaten. What else is left to criticize? Is it the fact that tnn shows up in the top 8? Of course it will. Legacy y players can be a bunch of sheep sometimes. They net deck, they see what's the newest tech, then they play it. It's domino effect. The more people play a certain card or deck, the higher the chance that card or deck will appear at the top 8. Back then it's always been rug, esper, show and tell then some maverick. Can't remember anyone bitching about that, except for some people wantin to ban show and tell. It's not about killing the card per se, it's about adapting, dealing with the whole deck, not just one single creature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Higgs
That's why I call people here lazy. Too lazy to adapt to a changing environment. Too lazy to play around one card, too lazy to board properly against it without ruining they're game plan. But when it comes to bitching and moaning, you guys are hard at work. Beat the decks that play it, not just a single card. Words to live by. Unless you're playing against combo decks, then pray to Buddha you have enough can't rips and counterspells to make it past turn 5
Seems like you haven't read the last 10 pages or so if you are asking this. If you can't be bothered to read and understand where the criticism is coming from, also including some of the members who voted no yet still agreed to the criticism, then I can't be bothered to sum it up for you yet one more time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadpool09
I will only say this, as a player who already owns all these blade-tnn decks if I was being lazy I would just sleeve up my blade decks and run with them. I used to be a big fan of esper.
Have some perspective on "moaners".
No, it's not that I conclude the data doesn't matter - I come to different conclusions than you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
One of the supposed threats that TNN is doing is killing non-blue creature decks and killing deck diversity. According to the data, we've seen one deck that's had a bad December (Maverick, which by your own data did fine in November), and yet we've seen three decks that had not been doing as well previously moving up in the ranks (Bant, Blade Control, Deathblade). That would seem to show that diversity of top decks is increasing, not decreasing, unless you can show more decks that are getting pushed out?
A second point is that we're not even 2 months into TNN's splash into the format. We simply don't have enough data (we won't even get into the difficulty of obtaining accurate data for our purposes) to definitively show either way.
Regarding the point on people running cards like Celestial Flare and Diabolic Edict... why is it a bad thing? I'm happy to see more types of removal outside of Swords to Plowshares/Lightning Bolt/Abrupt Decay getting played. I should think you would be too.
I would say that using a metric that you can empirically determine is better than one that is subjectively determined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie
The fact that there is even debate over what type of deck UWR Delver is shows that "deck type" is one that's subjective. What happens when you start mixing deck types such as a UW/x Miracles deck that plays SFM? As you broaden the archetypes, it can get even harder to determine. Is a deck aggro? Combo? Control? What happens when you start mixing archetypes? Aggro/control? Combo/control? Aggro/combo?
Vs:
In the month of December, we see the following numbers of top cards being played (according to TCDecks):
Brainstorm 444
Force of Will 420
Wasteland 359
Ponder 261
Polluted Delta 256
Swords to Plowshares 249
Deathrite Shaman 217
Misty Rainforest 211
Spell Pierce 207
Daze 202
Stoneforge Mystic 202
Thoughtseize 199
Underground Sea 181
Abrupt Decay 179
Tarmogoyf 170
Flooded Strand 160
Scalding Tarn 158
True-Name Nemesis 156
Verdant Catacombs 156
Tundra 140
I would prefer the hard numbers as opposed to a metric that can be manipulated by the way decks are categorized.
References Modern as a reason a creature should be banned in Legacy for being OP in the combat phase.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_liwh0zSP3z1qcy5xm.png
Yeah if you don't want to ban TNN you must want legacy to be more like Modern obviously because the Modern ban policy is what Legacy needs more of.
All the same arguments against TNN are the ones used against Modern. The compassion is fair.
Read your statement again. How does having TNN Bant, TNN UWx Stoneblade and TNN Deathblade = deck diversity increase? It's all TNN decks moving up from mediocrity/unplayability into the top tier while a former top 10 player in Maverick (a non-TNN deck and is unable to run traditional TNN hate like Golgari Charm, Toxic Deluge, etc) just flatout died.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esper3k
Oh no, Maverick's died and variants of Stoneforge+TNN are tier 1, making up......not even close to Survival or Misstep numbers? That's definitely banworthy, I mean, we can't have 2 and 3 of TNN decks winning tournaments or doing well, in fact, let's just freeze Legacy to pre-TNN because changing what is good or not good = banhammer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
Then the most reasonable thing we could conclude from this data is that Brainstorm and Force of Will need to go as they are way over represented compared other cards in the format. Clearly this is not a sensible thing to do as Force of Will is the shining light that holds the darkness (i.e. Belcher decks) at bay. Both of these cards and Wasteland do very good things for the format and banning them based on how prevalent they are would probably kill the format. Its too narrow-minded to just crunch the numbers and make decisions based on card prevalence, you have to look at the bigger picture of the format and what X card does to the format.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esper3k
So ... three decks that happen to be based around the same card are becoming viable while one deck that was viable is falling out of favor?Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
I'm sorry, but +3 to -1 is still a net increase of 2 archetypes in terms of deck diversity.
Now if you're looking for card diversity, you'd be right . . . in pretty much every format other than Limited.
We had a blue-based SFM+hard-to-kill threat (Geist) deck doing fairly well pre-TNN (Patriot), we don't need 3 more similar blue-based SFM+hard-to-kill threat (TNN) decks in the top tier too. And I like how you act like Maverick dying isn't a big deal... it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by HSCK
Why? It's gone in and out before, and really it's just Esper which found a share again and UWR being consistent. Bant is not a major player outside of TNN's debut.
It's the number of unique archetypes that's important. Not which ones. Then, what is the base strategy in those decks? Is there consolidation of strategies?
These are the metrics we should watch. Not whether Maverick is playable, nor which deck is playing TNN in varying quanitites.
How broad are you thinking here? Like, "tempo" broad or "delver tempo" broad? "Control" or "D&T and Miracles separate"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Koby
Maverick most certainly hasn't "gone in and out" before. If you look at all of the data for 2012 and the data for Jan-Nov 2013, Maverick never fell out of favor. I would ask that you show me data from that 23 month timespan that would suggest that Maverick wasn't a major meta player.Quote:
Originally Posted by HSCK
This is false. It isn't just UWx Stoneblade that matters again, it's Deathblade too.Quote:
and really it's just Esper which found a share again and UWR being consistent.
Exactly. It wasn't even charting for most/all of 2013, TNN is printed, then boom, it matters again (while basically mirroring Deathblade's gameplan).Quote:
Bant is not a major player outside of TNN's debut.
Vial/mana denial decks (D&T, Merfolk, Goblins, etc)Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie
Delver Tempo (U/x cheap-free spells)
Mid-range (Stoneblade, Jund, Junk, Maverick, etc)
Control (Miracles, 12-Post, Lands, Next Level Thresh, Stax, Pox)
Storm Combo (Belcher, Tin Fins, ANT, TES, SI, etc)
Slow Combo (Elves, S&T, High Tide)
http://www.eternalcentral.com/legacy...november-2013/Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
Maverick's results post M14 and THS but pre-TNN is there. Not really a major player is it?
Deathblade doesn't count as a variation of Esper? So that makes 3 different decks doing well instead of 2, how is that bad?
And why is it okay that Blade decks totally fell off, but are now back, but not Maverick?
Because Maverick is a non-blue deck, and (I believe) he thinks that all those stoneblade decks just homogenize the format. I get what he's saying because Maverick is a great non-blue deck, and it would be great if more non-blue decks were at the top, but really it hasn't been Tier 1 in a while--even before TNN was printed.Quote:
Originally Posted by HSCK
Bro youre level of ignorannece is..... I can't even.Quote:
Originally Posted by Higgs
I understand the complaints, however weak they are. They're saying it's warping the format, that it's lessening the interaction, the format being stagnat blah blah. I get it. That's why I said in last COUPLE of posts, stop selling the format short, stop being lazy , and adapt to the changes. Sure it's hard to interact with one creature, but it doesn't mean you can't interact with the rest of the deck. Bro before you criticize, be sure you read all my post , so you can stop looking like an imbecile.