FYI.Originally Posted by Machinus
Looking at the entirety of the US results in Anwar's T8 thread, there have been exactly zero (0) tournaments reported west of the Mississippi River. As far as the LMF goes, California might as well be somewhere on the dark side of the moon. But this is besides the point.
Personally, I'm not opposed to co-mingling US and German results--but the LMF loses whatever value it might have as a testing gauntlet when I need to add Baseruption and R/G Beatz to my gauntlet; nor can I really recommend that anyone else test against those deck either. On account of that, I'm opposed to the idea.
This isn't to say that Germany and Japan should be ignored, hardly--which is what you seem to imply, Chris. It should go without saying that Legacy players, world-wide, should seek out new technology wherever it presents itself. There is already a thread for this, and any Legacy player looking for something new and proven would do well to look there and play around with those ideas. But that isn't the issue at hand.
European decks are affecting tournaments. We do lose to them. Their success in Europe is just as significant to US players as the success of any deck that is outside a player's local region. The geography of the earth is completely irrelevant to this format and it's stupid to divide the DTB forum based on it.
Players are not receiving an honest assessment of the format when arbitrarily defined geographic regions determine what decks people are told about. It puts players that read the DTB forum at a disadvantage. Ignoring Europe basically says to aspiring players that this site is more interested in maintaining the competitive advantage of well-informed players than actually presenting the developments of the format.
I got sick of reading through stupid arguments like halfway through page four. I don't have time for this bullshit.
Look, Europe has a robust and healthy legacy metagame, perhaps more so than some/all US metagames. It's also plenty obvious that we do have an active and contributing European contingent on this site. We're doing everyone a disservice by excluding decks that have actually met the requirements laid out in the forum. Belcher (and anything else excluded) should be there. A deck with a fundementally strong strategy in Europe is still going to be a deck with a fundamentally strong strategy in the United States, and thus, we're really harming our American players by not saying "hey, these decks are doing good elsewhere. You should check them out, they might help you."
Anybody remember extended a few years ago? When Japan absolutely rocked every single event and had some savage new tech like every other day? It's pretty much the same idea.
Plus it's absolutely hypocritical to say "well, the results support our ideas for this deck/archtype, so we're goign to include it, but not our ideas of that deck/archtype, so we're going to purposely exclude that deck."
All,
which part of "the DTB is a tool to look at the current American metagame" is not getting through here? If players take European decks and do well with them, great, people should test against them. Until that happens, it's basically a waste of time. TB, to use 2005 Extended as an example, testing against Aluren on March 1 would've been stupid because only very tiny fraction of the people at GP Boston played a list resembling Oiso's.
Sure, people should look at tuning European lists and using them in the American metagame, but that's not what the forum is designed for.
I had a much better rant lined up but this is going to have to do.
When in doubt, mumble.
When in trouble, delegate.
This is a pointless restricton and should be removed in favor of actual competitive format analysis.
Therefore the forum is flawed and needs to be fixed.
I'm glad that we spent over a hundred posts realizing that the fundamental difference was a disagreement over policy, especially after the point of the DTB forum being a testing tool made numerous times in the first forty posts. It was productive.
The DTB forum is designed to be a guideline on what the top decks to prepare for in a tournament are. Most format development of new decks happens in Open, because generally decks are basically "done" barring tuning and new tech by the time they've established a metagame presence such that they're moved to the DTB forum.
If the complaints are about how American-centric the DTB is, well, it's an American site, most of our members are American, etc, etc. If there's enough outcry maintaining a European DTB forum wouldn't be super hard but as far as I'm aware there's currently no demand.
When in doubt, mumble.
When in trouble, delegate.
The problem isnt "american-centrism," it's the failure of the forum to be realistic and comprehensive.
I'm aware that there is a disagreement over policy. In fact, I have been aware of the terms of this debate from the beginning. I have explained why the policy isn't good enough. Perhaps you should read the thread again with this enlightened perspective.
Emphasis moved.
It's not getting through because such a distinction is non existent. From the DTB forum:
I see no distinction at all there between European and American metagames. Remember one of the biggest complaints against the old system for choosing DTB? That is was incredibly East Coast centric and the West Coast was justifiably miffed that they were essentially being ignored.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.
Now, what part of we have healthy European community as a part of this site, and they're bringing a lot to the table aren't you guys getting? We have European members contributing on this site, and people outright admitting to saying that they're taking something away from those contributions.
I know better than some random schmuck looking for decklists, so I"m going to test and try and be prepared for Belcher/TES/Enchantress whatever. The LMF is failing in it's fundamental goal of gathering information and disseminating it. It's also failing in its secondary goal of fostering a healthy metagame by excluding strong decks.
You can justify excluding those decks before simply because this conversation hadn't taken place. Stop trying to justify continuing to do it, because you can't. Someone should just step up and be like "You know what? there's something of value here. We're going to give it the recognition it deserves."
When this happens, the decks get moved into the LMF on the back of their performances. What's the problem with that?
Personally, I'm not going to prepare to face Baseruption, Terrageddon, or Belcher at the next major American tournament. I don't see a reason to expect those decks to be relevant to my own success. That doesn't mean that those decks shouldn't be highlighted in some way, for the benefit of our European members, but it would be misleading to give them the same label as the decks that most of us should expect to see at the tournaments that we go to.
Also, I don't understand the claim that the collective European metagame is somehow "more evolved" than the collective American metagame. Remember, ******** rocked GP: Philly before it rocked GP: Lille.
What he said.
General inquiry; how can you claim that both are true?
A)There's a unified Legacy meta-game, regardless of geography, and
B)One geographic region has a more advanced Legacy meta-game.
The two seem mutually exclusive.
re: Diversity of decks - How does that prove it's more competitive?
re: "Number of competitive players" - How do you know what percentage are "competitive?
Fairly obviously, if European Legacy tournaments have a greater percentage of "competitive" players, they'll be more competitive. You haven't actually answered the question.
Define "not that many"? Do you have any numbers or are you just assuming?East Coast has tournaments of 30-50 people with not many different kinds of decks, although the decks may be competative and the players good.
So a meta-game where those Thresh players are replaced by people playing Fish, Elves and Gamekeeper is more competitive, even though most agree that Thresh is the much better deck?The European and Japanese tournies include far more players (all of whom just as competative as in our USA), plus they just have a lot more decks to prepare for. I know when I prepare for tourneies I simply prepare for our main decks, thresh (in all splashes), goblins (although not a DTB, still strong... don't wanna be caught with our pants down), and combo.
And I'm not saying that that's what Europe is, but your argument just doesn't make any sense.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?Then you can look at deck design, if you look into Belgareth's landstill build you will kn0ow what I am talking about, I have simply gone undefeated with the deck... it is Fing rediculous. I wish I could attend some East Coast tournies soon so you guys would know that I am not simply blowing hot air out of my ass.
Then you haven't actually compared their top 8s, Mike. See my post one page back.
That's not a valid complaint against the current system. European results are not ignored, but American results are given controlling status, which makes sense for an American site, where we have a handful of Germans, a couple of French and maybe one delegate from a handful of other European countries. Many of the deck trends in Europe will simply never cross the Atlantic, and it's stupid to think they should be given the same weight as deck trends happening where 95% of the site's readership lives.Remember one of the biggest complaints against the old system for choosing DTB? That is was incredibly East Coast centric and the West Coast was justifiably miffed that they were essentially being ignored.
Early one morning while making the round,
I took a shot of cocaine and I shot my woman down;
I went right home and I went to bed,
I stuck that lovin' .44 beneath my head.
The only praise I have for Europe that I do not have for the US is that they hold large tournaments regularly with good players. The players may not be better but their metagames are more competitive than ours due to the tournament schedule. This continually adds new technology and more acute exploitation of the metagame and we should be paying very close attention to this.
Everyone makes their own decisions regarding what to test against and why. The DTB forum might be a starting point for some people but at best it can tell you half of the decks in a tournament and it's impossible for it to ever get any more comprehensive than this. The current policy is a big game of make-believe about the forum being important and representative when really it's one mildly helpful resource (really, Threshold is good?).
It is also insubstantial to claim that you don't have to prepare for European decks at tournaments. You do just as much as you have to prepare for decks they play in Washington or whatever other inbred isolated metagame in the US that never comes to tournaments and no one bothers testing for. Why don't we remove Washington from the DTB forum?
In reference to Bovinius's point (about Aluren not being a DTW) from a few pages ago, here is the T8 list from the latest 33 person event:
Aluren, once again T8ed. But, to be fair, a Goblins list did make 9th place at this event.
Last edited by Peter_Rotten; 10-08-2007 at 09:41 AM. Reason: I am blind.
Hey P_R, I'm seeing the #1 slot as a "Goblins R/g/w" list. Is that not the same archetype as R/g that was a former DTB, or is it something different? Not trying to flame, but it seems there's really only one viable Goblin archetype, and curious if that's something new.
EDIT: Oh and Machinus, I don't think the NW would care, lol. In the last few tournament's I've been to or heard of, we've seen Landstill, Meat Hooks, Breakfast, Thresh, or Goblins take top slots. It's literally a pretty much exact show of what this forum's top contenders have been, aside from random tech like G/R AggroLoam actually placing. Aluren, Lands (when played, few people have Tabernacle), Survival, and the like just never do good here anymore with such a heavy density of Thresh, Landstill and other aggro-control decks, and little to no motivation to evolve past it.
I edited my above post to reflect the obvious point that I originally missed. I blame lack of coffee.
The way the LMF is calculated is not based on what is seeing play but rather what is doing well. It is very possible that something like CRET Belcher or even Goblins is the most played deck and thus the deck you should prepare for most even if it isn't making Top8. The LMF only charts performance not whether a deck is heavily played. As it stands the LMF is what you should be ready to see in the Top8 or at best the last round of a tournament if you are X-1. So in a sense its what you should prepare for if you get that far. Without more metagame data its hard to actually know what to prepare for. If for example CRET Belcher is 20% of the field and you can't beat it, you won't make to the last round of the swiss where you would see the LMF decks.
With more decks in the test gauntlet for any specific tournament it is difficult to fine tune a deck that will beat everything there... therefore making it much more difficult to prepare for said event. Then, since the players have to take more time to prepare/fine tune their decks they are better for it.re: Diversity of decks - How does that prove it's more competitive?
Lets give an example shall we, lets say you are playing in a tournament with an already defined meta... you figure out that most people will be piloting thresh and breakfast (theoretical, but still likely), so you decide to pilot something with a positive MU for both those decks.
Now you look at a European Tourney's meta, they know that a few breakfast and thresh decks will attend, but there will also be like 20 other completely different decks there in which you must also prepare yourself for.
I just think (yes it is speculation as for the European Meta that is) that someone who makes a T8 in a meta that is confusing and in constant shift really must be a better player than the one that knew the one who knew what to expect.
I think that the system could use some change, but there really is no realistic way that it ever will be... besides making another Forums site for the Legacy community as a whole.
Or they just played a deck that has pretty good matchups all around and doesn't scoop to decks that are garbage or random. Diversity of decks does not neccessarily = better decks. Diversity of players does not neccessarily = better players. Just because I T8 at an event with Landstill where 5c Slivers, Burn, r/g Beats, and B/G Poison Creatures were being played doesn't mean I'm a great player or that the decks were more competitive because they were diverse.
Are you suggesting that Burn is a bad deck?
This is totally off-topic, but I'll say it:
Yes, Burn is a bad deck.
It may be cheap to build and cool on paper, but one of the things that tournament result analysis has revealed in no uncertain terms: Burn get rolled like a drunk in the streets. Over and over.
Otherwise, please continue onward.
Were any of those decks using an optimized list? [only 4 moggs for creature for example]
I did some search results and I saw a lot of them trying to use janky stuff like Ank and other stupid crap.
I don't want to hijack this thread to pee on Burn. Feel free to bring it up the appropriate thread and I'd be happy to discuss this. - Bardo.
Last edited by Bardo; 10-08-2007 at 02:05 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote