All B/R update speculation.

[Lemnear]

I don't know what the word "asistance" is doing in that sentence. So I tried replacing it with "inches while erect" and found that it made considerably more sense.

On another note, I used this TCDeck's points and simply tallied how many of the points in testing32's top 10/ I discovered that 94.2% of those points were earned by decks whose primary color is blue.

I just quoted the page. I asume it was intendend to be written as "attendence"

[testing32]

"This system gives each archetype one point for each round of the tournament based on it's asistance and one point for each round won in the top 8."

Now pair this with the counting tournaments: Link here

You see that you have plenty of local events with down to 8 players counting if you browse the performances of NicFit for example through the month. There are 4 NicFit placings (4th of 21, 16 of 44, 5 of 102, 2 of 9) which was enough to make 24th on the ranking.

It's hilarious to define top decks based on absolute numbers played and 9 Player event top 8s

Edit: another nice one: http://tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=15591

Those tiny tournaments with large amounts of variance is the only way that nic fit/non-blue decks even make it on that list.

[AznSeal]

http://tcdecks.net/tierdecks.php

Top 10 tier decks in December -
1 Non-blue deck (burn)
9/10 decks running BS and Ponder
8/10 decks running BS, Ponder and FoW
7/10 decks running Volcanic Island

This is not a healthy format.

Are you seriously saying that UR Delver, Miracles, Sneak Attack, Omnitell, ANT, Deathblade, Reanimator, and BUG Delver are the same deck because they all run brainstorm? Because I see different decks that happen to have a common card. Might as well say Island is broken. Just because they run BS and Ponder doesn't make them the same deck. That's like saying Maverick, Elves, Jund, and monogreen stompy are the same deck because they share a core of DRS, Green Sun's Zenith, and Dryad Arbor.

Different colors tend to have different cores, the blue core is just larger than others because blue is the best color in eternal formats. A red core is basically x4 bolt. A blue core just happens to be x4 Ponder, x4 Brainstorm, x4 FoW.

People say it's boring to have to face "Fetchland, brainstorm, go" but that's one fucking turn. I think it's interesting to have to deal with someone storming out vs someone grinding out for a miracle vs someone trying to protect a threat. It makes me play differently. It's like saying all rice dishes are the same because it all starts with "turn on stove, rice, go" when jambalaya is different from fried rice which is different from a risotto which is different from red beans N rice.

[testing32]

Are you seriously saying that UR Delver, Miracles, Sneak Attack, Omnitell, ANT, Deathblade, Reanimator, and BUG Delver are the same deck because they all run brainstorm? Because I see different decks that happen to have a common card. Might as well say Island is broken. Just because they run BS and Ponder doesn't make them the same deck. That's like saying Maverick, Elves, Jund, and monogreen stompy are the same deck because they share a core of DRS, Green Sun's Zenith, and Dryad Arbor.

Different colors tend to have different cores, the blue core is just larger than others because blue is the best color in eternal formats. A red core is basically x4 bolt. A blue core just happens to be x4 Ponder, x4 Brainstorm, x4 FoW.

I'm saying that this is a 48 card format which is stale as hell. UR delver, Patriot, UWr blade and TA are basically the same crap w/slightly different threats. If I wanted to play in a 48 card format I would play Vintage.

7/10 decks are: blue garbage + lands + threats

It's the deck building equivalent of paint by numbers. And it didn't always used to be this way. Acting like blue has always been overwhelmingly dominate is disingenuous.

[Julian23]

My hypothesis I put forward in this thread has always been that the "success" of blue-based decks looks inflated to me. I agree that Blue is the overal strongest colour in Legacy — but that powerlevel contributes much less to the continous strong performance of blue decks than people think.

All that people in this thread so is post results, metagame%s etc. Don't those people see that that's not the statistics that matter when discussing powerlevel? All they do is measure popularity. If you wanted to actually measure powerlevel, analyze Top8-conversion%s for decks; the way the Hatfields used to do it. I don't know whether results of such an analysis would be different — but at least I don't claim I did know without ever posting the numbers that really matter.

tl;dr: My hypothesis is that some non-blue decks outperform a sizeable amount of the blue decks in the current metagame. Yet by sheer numbers of people playing Blue (because they are always told/believe it to be "the best") blue puts up an absolute higher number of results.

stl;dr: Stop measuring popularity when you want to complain about power level. Measure power level.

/Edit: All of this kind of feels like the inner conflicts of human and elf kingdoms in Lord of the Rings. All the while the real enemy, Miracles, keeps wrecking havoc in the eastern lands and will soon also take over the US meta. It pretty much destroys all of those decks we are talking about here with the exception of what people call "Gold Digger" these days.

[Ingo]

A blue core just happens to be x4 Ponder, x4 Brainstorm, x4 FoW.

You might add up +4 gytaxianprobe (or other cantrip) +2-4TC / DTT for most builds.
Giving about 20 cards or half a decks spells as a core blue shell.
And mostly accompanied by temposhell cards as 4delver, 4daze, Xspellpierce, (4pyromancer - not blue ofcourse but an honorable mentioning)

I think a deck running just x4 Ponder, x4 Brainstorm, x4 FoW is a minority as compared to the presence of the total blue shell package.

[Ingo]

Stop measuring popularity when you want to complain about power level. Measure power level.

Definitely true, but it's not about just power level. Players will buy these play these cards because they are powerfull and easily added in multiple decks and therefore being a good investment, cause you'll play another decktype by switching just a few cards. They will also be easy to sell again.

The overabundance of blue at the cost of a varianced environment is the biggest factor for me, not the powerlevel.

[testing32]

My hypothesis I put forward in this thread has always been that the "success" of blue-based decks looks inflated to me. I agree that Blue is the overal strongest colour in Legacy — but that powerlevel contributes much less to the continous strong performance of blue decks than people think.

All that people in this thread so is post results, metagame%s etc. Don't those people see that that's not the statistics that matter when discussing powerlevel? All they do is measure popularity. If you wanted to actually measure powerlevel, analyze Top8-conversion%s for decks; the way the Hatfields used to do it. I don't know whether results of such an analysis would be different — but at least I don't claim I did know without ever posting the numbers that really matter.

tl;dr: My hypothesis is that some non-blue decks outperform a sizeable amount of the blue decks in the current metagame. Yet by sheer numbers of people playing Blue (because they are always told/believe it to be "the best") blue puts up an absolute higher number of results.

stl;dr: Stop measuring popularity when you want to complain about power level. Measure power level.

If this were true you would see what ever this magic deck is crushing these top 8s but you don't. You see some random non-blue deck show up in about every top 8. It's not consistent on which one it is. Some weeks it's D&T others it's evles another one it's MUD or Maverick. That is variance. You have to look at the big picture.

You had that color break down at the last GP. Blue did better the longer the tournament went on. I think that players (such as yourself) outperform that that skews your perception.

[AznSeal]

Definitely true, but it's not about just power level. Players will buy these play these cards because they are powerfull and easily added in multiple decks and therefore being a good investment, cause you'll play another decktype by switching just a few cards. They will also be easy to sell again.

The overabundance of blue at the cost of a varianced environment is the biggest factor for me, not the powerlevel.

You shouldn't ban something for being popular. Like Julian, I, and many others have said many times: other decks can compete with blue decks. Legacy is just expensive so people 1) want decks they can turn into something else and 2) want decks that will be mildly better than others.

I don't think the blue shell is THAT much better than Elves, or DnT, or Maverick. The reason people play the blue shell is because it's a little better and easier to switch decks with.

If this were true you would see what ever this magic deck is crushing these top 8s but you don't. You see some random non-blue deck show up in about every top 8. It's not consistent on which one it is. Some weeks it's D&T others it's evles another one it's MUD or Maverick. That is variance. You have to look at the big picture.

You had that color break down at the last GP. Blue did better the longer the tournament went on. I think that players (such as yourself) outperform that that skews your perception.

The fact that really good players can use nonblue decks to win shows that the blue deck in itself is not overpowered, it's the time people take to learn their own decks.

[Julian23]

The overabundance of blue at the cost of a varianced environment is the biggest factor for me, not the powerlevel.

Then the solution should be clear: be the change that you want to see in the meta. Play the decks that beat those decks. Discourage players from playing what you don't like playing against by putting things on your decklist they will not like.

[testing32]

The fact that really good players can use nonblue decks to win shows that the blue deck in itself is not overpowered, it's the time people take to learn their own decks.

It shows that good players can still beat bad players, not that they are maximizing their chance to win. Problem comes when you play against a player as good as you running a better (blue) deck or variance gets you because you aren't running BS.

[sjmcc13]

If you wanted to actually measure powerlevel, analyze Top8-conversion%s for decks; the way the Hatfields used to do it. I don't know whether results of such an analysis would be different — but at least I don't claim I did know without ever posting the numbers that really matter.

tl;dr: My hypothesis is that some non-blue decks outperform a sizeable amount of the blue decks in the current metagame. Yet by sheer numbers of people playing Blue (because they are always told/believe it to be "the best") blue puts up an absolute higher number of results.

stl;dr: Stop measuring popularity when you want to complain about power level. Measure power level.

Unfortunately that takes allot more work, than just going "OMG look at all the brainstorms, ban it...".
If you want to figure out the best decks you really need to do gauntlet testing where you play every matchup the same # of times and not a small #, either with equal skill level players or switching decks half way through. Top X's mean little, though Top X with the metagame %'s would be a somewhat reasonable comparison, but I would want their matchups for the day as well.

The problem is that most of the community has echo chambered itself into one opinion or another, and has long since past the point where they will listen to any actual arguments. This ends up making the Top X #'s worse because they just play more Blue decks as they want to win, which leads to more blue decks in the top X.

[AznSeal]

It shows that good players can still beat bad players, not that they are maximizing their chance to win. Problem comes when you play against a player as good as you running a better (blue) deck or variance gets you because you aren't running BS.

I don't see a problem. They run BS because it's the best card. Every format needs a "best card". If you ban BS, people will cry for ponder. If you ban ponder, people will cry for preordain, etc etc etc. Hell, if they ban everything and the best deck becomes goblins, people will cry about banning lackey. Right now, there are many different viable decks that just happen to run Brainstorm. Why do you think all the decks are the same? Brainstorm does not define a deck.

Back when I played competitive pokemon, people complained that Garchomp was on like 1/3 of all teams played. They cried that it over centralized the metagame so it got banned. Guess what? people just replaced it with Salamence and Salamence became super popular. People were saying "dragons are OP" and "ban the 3 drag shells!" so Salamence got banned. Guess what? They got rid of the 2 best dragons in the 3 dragon shell and then other, strong non dragon pokemon started showing up in like every team. Moral of the story? Competitive players will always play what's currently the "best", regardless of how little better it actually is. The format will ALWAYS be dominated by a top few archtypes. Deal with it.

Some people say "but I don't want to have to play an anti meta deck to do good!" well, then don't do good. Your pet deck does not deserve to be #1. Not everything can be number 1. It's like having Light Ball Pikachu as my favorite pokemon, and then complaining I can't do well with it, so people should ban everything until light ball pikachu is tier 1. Then what if the people who like some crappier pokemon as their "pet deck" now complain light ball pikachu is too dominant? The cycle will keep continuing.

[Megadeus]

To the people saying that if they ban BS that ponder willsimply take its place, I feel like you misunderstand why brainstorm is a good card.

[Ingo]

You shouldn't ban something for being popular. Like Julian, I, and many others have said many times: other decks can compete with blue decks. Legacy is just expensive so people 1) want decks they can turn into something else and 2) want decks that will be mildly better than others.
I don't think the blue shell is THAT much better than Elves, or DnT, or Maverick. The reason people play the blue shell is because it's a little better and easier to switch decks with.
The fact that really good players can use nonblue decks to win shows that the blue deck in itself is not overpowered, it's the time people take to learn their own decks.

Or lands, which puts down remarkable results in comparison to the limited amount of people playing the deck.

Sure there are nonblue strategies that do very well, but it's not only about what you play but also what you play against. Wouldn't you enjoy a more varied, colorfull meta? I am sure most people would.

[AznSeal]

Or lands, which puts down remarkable results in comparison to the limited amount of people playing the deck.

Sure there are nonblue strategies that do very well, but it's not only about what you play but also what you play against. Wouldn't you enjoy a more varied, colorfull meta? I am sure most people would.

I would, but the game inherently can not be 100% equal, and the people who played blue only because it was marginally better will just play the next marginally better deck. Would you want to play a metagame where you play elves after elves after elves? Or lands after lands after lands?

[death]

AznSeal you posted too much bullshit already. If Ponder gets banned, why would people cry for Preordain to be banned as well? Because if nobody agrees with me that Ponder is ban-worthy why would they even consider Preordain. If Brainstorm gets banned, you kill off dozens of innocent blue-based decks, whether you like them or not, they are part of a healthy meta as well as non-blue decks.

A Ponder ban is a compromise to both parties: the blue cantrip cartel is dealt with, nerf Brainstorm/ Preordain/ Gitaxian Probe and delve ability in the process, give less incentive to play blue and gravitate towards SDT and Sylvan library.

In Magic the Gathering, you don't ban cards simply for being the best. This game is more intricate than say Pokemon, I would guess. I honestly never played any card game besides Magic. I suggest you go back to playing Pokemon, if that game is still around (I honestly don't know).

[Lemnear]

You had that color break down at the last GP. Blue did better the longer the tournament went on. I think that players (such as yourself) outperform that that skews your perception.

The same perception that lets you ignore the numbers of Brainstorm + Ponder decks which registered compared with the numbers of non-blue decks? Once more: if 70% of all players Register "Brainstorm decks" and 6 of those make it into a top 8, there is no anomaly nor did they overperform.

[FoolofaTook]

/Edit: All of this kind of feels like the inner conflicts of human and elf kingdoms in Lord of the Rings. All the while the real enemy, Miracles, keeps wrecking havoc in the eastern lands and will soon also take over the US meta. It pretty much destroys all of those decks we are talking about here with the exception of what people call "Gold Digger" these days.

However a Brainstorm ban would halt that pillaging army in it's tracks as it tried to figure out how exactly to replace the one card manipulation instant in it's arsenal. A daunting task to be sure, since Terminus in the opening hand would be not good and 2x would be a disaster.

[AznSeal]

AznSeal you posted too much bullshit already. If Ponder gets banned, people with not cry for Preordain to be banned. Why? Because if nobody agrees with me that Ponder is ban-worthy why would they even call for banning it. If you ban Brainstorm, you kill off dozens of innocent blue-based decks, whether you like them or not, they are a part of a healthy meta as well as non-blue decks.

A Ponder ban is a compromise to both parties. You deal with the blue cantrip cartel, nerf Brainstorm/ Preordain/ Gitaxian Probe and delve ability in the process and give less incentive to play blue, gravitate towards SDT and Sylvan library.

In Magic the Gathering, you don't ban cards simply for being the best. The game is more intrisic that say Pokemon although I honestly never played any card game besides Magic. I suggest you go back to playing Pokemon, if that game is still around (I honestly don't know).

I was giving preordain as an example. You can replace preordain with "card people want to scapegoat in the current DTB"

Why do we need to compromise? There is nothing wrong with the format. There are plenty of viable decks. People are just bitching about the blue shell because their pet decks can't top 8.

it's like trying to ban Fox/Falco/Sheik/Marth/insert top tier in super smash brothers melee because you main Yoshi. Well guess what, Yoshi is a shit character.