[Re: DTBs] WTF?

I've been considering the current system and its seems to me that it would be better to just use American data for the LMF rather than the hybrid system we have today. Why even reference German or Japanese data if those decks can't actually make it into the LMF based strictly on their results?

The current system only considers those decks when that deck is making Top 8 in America. This only seeks to bolster the American results with non-American data. If I don't care that Baseruption is doing well in Europe, why do I care that Threshold is? If Threshold is doing well in America theoretically that is all I care about.

Lastly, it seems to make little sense to restrict LMF status based on an at least one American Top 8, but only have 2 American tournaments count towards the LMF out of the last 6. That means only 1/3 of the tournaments that are being counted for the current LMF update actually have the ability to change the LMF. This seems bizarre and makes little sense.

The other option is simply to include all the data and not to distinguish it based on location.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnwarA101

The other option is simply to include all the data and not to distinguish it based on location.

---

Holy shit! That's the best idea I've heard all thread!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnwarA101

Lastly, it seems to make little sense to restrict LMF status based on an at least one American Top 8, but only have 2 American tournaments count towards the LMF out of the last 6. That means only 1/3 of the tournaments that are being counted for the current LMF update actually have the ability to change the LMF. This seems bizarre and makes little sense.

---

This is a recurring issue that we've been looking at for some time.

Options for improving the LMF (if one were to agree it needs improvement), could include:

• Remove the American requirement and count all T8s equally. (I wonder how well this serves our reader base which is primarily American).
• Have separate tags for American and Non-American T8s. (One concern I have with this is the slippery slope - do we have separate tags fro German T8s and Japanese T8s?)
• Exlcude Non-American T8s. (Much too xenophobic my personal tastes).

Specifically speaking about the number of American results vs. Non-American, I wonder if the new 33+ person requirement will change the numbers. Mass generally has one - sometiems two - six round tournaments a month.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter_Rotten

This is a recurring issue that we've been looking at for some time.

Options for improving the LMF (if one were to agree it needs improvement), could include:

• Remove the American requirement and count all T8s equally. (I wonder how well this serves our reader base which is primarily American).
• Have separate tags for American and Non-American T8s. (One concern I have with this is the slippery slope - do we have separate tags fro German T8s and Japanese T8s?)
• Exlcude Non-American T8s. (Much too xenophobic my personal tastes).

Specifically speaking about the number of American results vs. Non-American, I wonder if the new 33+ person requirement will change the numbers. Mass generally has one - sometiems two - six round tournaments a month.

---

The options you laid out seem to be the 3 main options that you guys have. The tag option doesn't seem very appealing to me. It seems like trying to split the difference between counting non-American data and not counting it. It will also become a bit difficult to manage with 3 sets of data. Its doubtful that such a system will add much value. Its essentially the compromise position, which evades the central question. Does non-American data matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnwarA101

Does non-American data matter?

---

Yes, but to an American it matter much less than American data does, because the odds of seeing decks more common in Europe (Spring Tide, Baseruption) is very low. The current system works fine for the most part as it serves the majority of the user base.

Although unfortunate, it is impossible for this to serve the totality of the website and thus the Administrative and Moderation staff are forced to make these decisions based on majority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter_Rotten

Specifically speaking about the number of American results vs. Non-American, I wonder if the new 33+ person requirement will change the numbers. Mass generally has one - sometiems two - six round tournaments a month.

---

It will bolster the influence of European tournaments at least as much. While only the Germans have regular 50+ person tournaments, 33+ ones should be found in other countries as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter_Rotten

Remove the American requirement and count all T8s equally. (I wonder how well this serves our reader base which is primarily American).

---

I fail to see how this would harm the American community. In fact, I think it would be a great boon for them. It would expose a great many strong, competative decks for them to experiment with and against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GodzillA

Ideally, the LMF should provide a reasonably accurate model for creation of a testing gauntlet when preparing for an unknown metagame at a large, competitive tournament.

---

Anwar is right that the current system has problems, but it at least attempts to stay true to the stated goal of the LMF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnwarA101

The other option is simply to include all the data and not to distinguish it based on location.

---

Doing this would basically render the LMF useless for creating a testing gauntlet. This would be true not just for Americans, but for people in other parts of the world, as well.

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 TeenieBopper

I fail to see how this would harm the American community. In fact, I think it would be a great boon for them. It would expose a great many strong, competative decks for them to experiment with and against.

---

You know, it isn't as if European decks aren't discussed here. For anyone who is serious about playing competitive Legacy, the LMF offers no more exposure to a deck than the other forums on this site.

Go read the descriptions of the DTB and the ED forums. Hell, even the names themselves imply superiority/inferiority. If somebody comes to this forum knowing little or nothing about Legacy, they're going to spend most of the time going through the DTB forum. It's basically implied that TES, Belcher, Goblins, etc aren't strong decks, which couldn't be further from the truth.

On a slightly related note, I have a question that hasn't been aswered yet. How in the world are you justifying using European data to support the inclusiong of one deck while excluding another based on the exact same data? Basically, it comes down to this, if you're not going to use European data in good faith, then don't use European data at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeenieBopper

Basically, it comes down to this, if you're not going to use European data in good faith, then don't use European data at all.

---

And, currently, this is a topic of discussion in the Mod Lounge. Does there need to be an "either/or" approach or can (should) we find a middle ground and weigh Non-American data less? (Which the current DTBF does now).

Maybe there should be separate forums for DsTB and DsTW, with different requirements for each. DTB status could be based soley on American results, and DTW status could be determined with more loose guidelines, and include Asian and European data. This makes sense since European decks *might* make a presence in American t8s later down the road, thus making them "decks to watch", but "decks to beat" would be the ones you'd realistically expect to face in an American t8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter_Rotten

Options for improving the LMF (if one were to agree it needs improvement), could include:

• Remove the American requirement and count all T8s equally. (I wonder how well this serves our reader base which is primarily American).
• Have separate tags for American and Non-American T8s. (One concern I have with this is the slippery slope - do we have separate tags fro German T8s and Japanese T8s?)
• Exlcude Non-American T8s. (Much too xenophobic my personal tastes).

Specifically speaking about the number of American results vs. Non-American, I wonder if the new 33+ person requirement will change the numbers. Mass generally has one - sometimes two - six round tournaments a month.

---

As an outsider who has no input on how this site is run, I'll touch on a couple of points here.
1) Look at the header at the top of the page. It reads "The Source: Your Source For Legacy." It doesn't say "Your Source for AMERICAN Legacy." While the majority of the readers on this site may be American, that doesn't mean you should discount the results of large tournaments elsewhere. From what I can tell, Europe as a whole runs more Legacy tournaments with larger turnouts than their American counterparts. To say that their results shouldn't matter to you is fine if you're playing in some small ass tournaments weekly in Virginia with a specific local metagame, and don't want to test against Belcher and other competitive decks. But to essentially discount those results to the rest of the world is insulting, and to echo Chris Coppola's point, ignores opportunities to harvest and develop potentially great deck technology. Do you want this site to be about what's succesfully played regionally, or what's successfully played period? I'd rather have it be the latter, because I'm not going to discount decks that continuously put up results, even if it's not in my local neck of the woods. Not only are there other potentially good decks to play against, there are potentially good decks that you might need to play with if it's a great deck.
2) The 33+ man restriction is as arbitrary as the 50 man restriction, but it makes sense for the reason that there are at least 6 rounds of swiss, which will make for each deck performing on a bigger stage in qualifying tournaments. I like it and think it's the right number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obfuscate Freely

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnwarA101

The other option is simply to include all the data and not to distinguish it based on location.

---

Doing this would basically render the LMF useless for creating a testing gauntlet. This would be true not just for Americans, but for people in other parts of the world, as well.

---

3) As it stands, the LMF is already useless for me as a testing gauntlet, as I'm sure it is for a number of other people. If you think I'm not going to prepare and test against powerful decks like Goblins and Belcher, which do show up with regularity in the tournaments I play in, you're sorely mistaken.

If you've managed to make it this far through my long post, or if you're just skimming, I'll bold this final point for emphasis.
There is no global metagame. There are only regional metagames, and just tailoring this website to fit a local east coast or 'American' metagame is pointless. Focus on the best results worldwide, and you'll have the best site you can offer, which will serve everybody worldwide. Word.

If it isn't obvious, I'm of the opinion that if it meets the requirements, regardless of where it puts up the numbers, it should be in the forum. We shouldn't have multiple forums with multiple sets of rules. A strong deck in Europe is still a strong deck.

Of course, the likelihood of that actually happening are slim to none, so I'm willing to make concessions. I'm not a big fan additional tags ([DTB/E] or [DTB/J]) but if that's what it takes to get all the information consolidated in one place, so be it.

Maybe the statement of what the LMF forum is supposed to be is flawed. It shouldn't be the place where one goes to find a testing gauntlet. It's simply unrealistic to create a testing gauntlet without knowing your local metagame. Instead, the LMF should be the forum that has all the strong decks consolidated in one place.

So many of the problems and arguments in this thread come from personal interpretations of the purpose of the LMF. It seems like each Member, Adept, and Mod has his own definition of what the LMF should be.

It's intended purpose seems rather reasonable to me:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GodzillA

What is the purpose of the LMF forum?

The LMF exists for a few reasons. Primarily, its purpose is to give new and veteran Legacy players an idea of the current state of the metagame. It is not only for highlighting tier one decks, but is also reflective of current trends in a constantly changing metagame. Ideally, the LMF should provide a reasonably accurate model for creation of a testing gauntlet when preparing for an unknown metagame at a large, competitive tournament.

---

Is the LMF a perfect model of your local meta? Of course not.

Unfortunately, nothing from that quote helps with the American/Non-American situation. :frown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeenieBopper

Maybe the statement of what the LMF forum is supposed to be is flawed. It shouldn't be the place where one goes to find a testing gauntlet. It's simply unrealistic to create a testing gauntlet without knowing your local metagame. Instead, the LMF should be the forum that has all the strong decks consolidated in one place.

---

I believe this is what ObfuscateFreely suggested as a possible solution. That we could simply change the LMF from being about a testing gauntlet to a simple listing of the best performing decks. We have no metagame information beyond the Top8. We do not know about the particular metagames of Germany, Japan, or even America. There is very little data that is published about these metagames. We can't say that X% is of this deck and Y% of that deck is seeing play. We simply don't know. What we do know is what decks are doing well in all 3 locations. It would seem to make sense that LMF could change to represent the decks that are currently performing best in tournament play.

EDIT -

There is some metagame data available for Japan and I believe some for Germany, but I'm not sure its enough to figure which decks are seeing play in which metagames or even if that's what we are trying to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter_Rotten

So many of the problems and arguments in this thread come from personal interpretations of the purpose of the LMF. It seems like each Member, Adept, and Mod has his own definition of what the LMF should be.

It's intended purpose seems rather reasonable to me:



Is the LMF a perfect model of your local meta? Of course not.

Unfortunately, nothing from that quote helps with the American/Non-American situation. :frown:

---

It sounds reasonable in theory, but it ends up not being in practice. If I'm making a testing Gauntlet, Aluren isn't going to be part of it, nor is Life from the Loam. Goblins and Belcher, however, will be. I'm sure it's different for Virginia, maybe they ignore Goblins but test against Wombat or something. It's going to be the same way for each regional metagame. You're right, it's not going to be a model of your local meta, so it shouldn't try to be. Trying to do that (which it is) only does a disservice to everyone who reads the forums, especially those who aren't as knowlegable about the format as others. If I want to know what the metagame is going to be like, I'm going to go to a tournament. I repeat: The LMF should simply be the place where all the strong decks are consolidated in one place, regardless of the metagame they are achieving success in.

EDIT: I pretty much agree with Anwar. Basically, there's nothing to lose and everything to gain by putting all the best performing decks in one place and labeling it as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeenieBopper

You're right, it's not going to be a model of your local meta, so it shouldn't try to be. Trying to do that (which it is)...

---

But I don't see it as trying to do that. It should...

Quote:

---

provide a reasonably accurate model for creation of a testing gauntlet when preparing for an unknown metagame at a large, competitive tournament.

---

I really think that it does do this - especially with qualifiers suchs as "reasonable" and "unknown metagame."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter_Rotten

But I don't see it as trying to do that. It should... I really think that it does do this - especially with qualifiers suchs as "reasonable" and "unknown metagame."

---

Then why isn't Belcher part of this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter_Rotten

But I don't see it as trying to do that. It should... I really think that it does do this - especially with qualifiers suchs as "reasonable" and "unknown metagame."

---

Then why aren't we trying harder to find out metagame information and not Top 8 information? I mean we could do this, but it doesn't seem like we are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnwarA101

Then why aren't we trying harder to find out metagame information and not Top 8 information? I mean we could do this, but it doesn't seem like we are.

---

I think it has to do with the fact that 'metagame information' can be entirely subjective. As far as I can tell, it used to be this way with the voting system they had in place for the adepts, but that lead to arguments and the like, so they settled on a system that was much more arbitrary. Currently all the system tells us is which decks are doing well on a consistent basis. Isn't that what it's supposed to do? It's there to tell us what's in the metagame, not to predict what might be. It's not a perfect system, to be sure, but it seems like when there was voting people were comlpaining the it wasn't objective enough, but now people are claiming that it's too objective. Is there no middle ground here?