[Re: DTBs] WTF?

[APriestOfGix]

with the new system, i have actually told people to STOP going to Source for Deck To Beat gauntlet. The Section is totally wrong.

I tell my friend to prep for:
(in ()'s is the order to test)

Thresh(UGr/UGw)
Landstill
Storm Combo (Belcher/TES/SI)
Landy Decks (Enchantress/LANDS!/Garden)
Ichorid

Nothing else, nothing less.

Also even though it is on the decline, i still suggest Goblins as a MUST. It hasn't been putting up results but so what, that means people are prepared to beat it, and it gets play in the swiss, but can't make top 8, dosn't mean ignoring it, and not testing, will get you to the top 8.

So basically your list isn't Decks To Beat, but Decks that Do well in Top 8's

[Artowis]

Thresh(UGr/UGw)
Landstill
Storm Combo (Belcher/TES/SI)
Landy Decks (Enchantress/LANDS!/Garden)
Ichorid

Nothing else, nothing less.

Also even though it is on the decline, i still suggest Goblins as a MUST. It hasn't been putting up results but so what, that means people are prepared to beat it, and it gets play in the swiss, but can't make top 8, dosn't mean ignoring it, and not testing, will get you to the top 8.

So you're suggesting to your friends that they should test for that list, which features no Goblins, but suggest Goblins is still a DTB.

Kind of contradictory.

So basically your list isn't Decks To Beat, but Decks that Do well in Top 8's

Usually one implies the other. If decks make T8's and subsequently do well in them, wouldn't that make them DTB?

[Zork]

In a literal sense, decks that consistently top 8 are DTBs, but it is misleading to call a section of the website the metagame forum and only look at top 8s. Goblins is still a huge presence because many, many people still play the deck. Because of this, the LMF is a little misleading.

Now all of this assumes you don't read the rules, which tell you exactly what the LMF entails, and go simply off the title of the forum.

[APriestOfGix]

So you're suggesting to your friends that they should test for that list, which features no Goblins, but suggest Goblins is still a DTB.

Kind of contradictory.



Usually one implies the other. If decks make T8's and subsequently do well in them, wouldn't that make them DTB?

your an idiot if you think that.
If you're going to insult members, you're going to receive warnings. Cut out the nonsense. Consider this a verbal warning.

-PR

it's like the difference between UGw and UGr Thresh.

UGw is better in the top 8, but never makes it since it can't handle the randomness of rounds 1-3. UGr thresh isn't as strong in the Top 8 but it owns randomness thus putting it there.

You are really overlooking a HUGE ammount of testing if you think there is not such thing as the "top 8" deck.

Some decks kill the swiss and lose the top 8, other kill top 8 but can't get there because they lose the swiss.

[Belgareth]

Wow , way to get off track !
Theres only 1 thing to discuss, that's use european data or not (together with the execution if it is).

For those whining about Aluren, get over yourselves.
In Europe , especially France , Aluren is certainly a deck you expect to see and it also performs very well when used in the correct meta.
Machinus had the correct attitude, some people need to pull their heads out of the sand and realise the format has evolved past the small 8-10 people tournaments they muster at local comic store.
I understand it's an American site, but the european following grows each week, maybe a compromise would be to only allow a deck that has only european data backing it to reach the maximum level of DTW.

This would show people that it can do well, showing that if some person randomly decides to use it in USA meta they will probably do well.
I understand not making it a DTB without American data backing it up as this misleads your larger fanbase into preparing for a deck that may or may not show.

[diffy]

Use european data or not?

If you want to be objective, data should be evaluated on the number of atendances. Seeing how most German Legacy tournaments are quite large (mostly with higher attendances than American tournaments) they should be certainly taken into account (as they already are, I think).
I don't know about attendances in the UK or France (or in any other part of Europe for the like) but if the tournaments are large enough (read 30-40+) they should be taken into account too. You just need a reliable way to actually get the informations.

The prior DTB system was flawed in that it was almost entirely subjective. What I"m saying is the current system is flawed in that it's entirely objective. A better system, like most things, lies somewhere in the middle.

I completely agree with this. Objectivity is nice, but there needs to be room for the legacy comunity to have their opinion of what are the deck to beats taken into account.
For instance the potence of a deck shouldn't soley be based on top8 appreances because then you basically have a list of the decks that are widely played. Yes, this is important, but you shouldn't discriminate a good deck because it isn't played at the moment (for example, in our local metagame, no one plays Threshold or Landstill, yet the should be considered as DTBs, shouldn't they?).
One way of fixing this would be to create a new point based system to calculate if a deck should be in the Legacy Metagame forum or not.
For example you could accredit each deck a certain number of points for a top 8 apprearance (lets say as 25 an example, but this would still have to be determined) and then you could also have a poll before each Legacy Metagame Forum update (I don't know how often these are held) where each member of the source could vote once for a deck. Each voice could then be attribuated 1 or 2 points which would then be summed up with the top8 points. Now each deck that has more than say 80 points (again, this number is completely random and would have to be determined) would be allowed into the LMF.
This system would be objective (strongly) rewarding top8 appreances but would also let decks that maybe have fallen out of play but still are regarded as DTBs by the Legacy community at large into the LMF.
The downside of this is that it would require quite some large amount of work to function (you need a threat that is actualized after each top8 performance to reflect the points each archetype has gathered yet, you need to organize the polls etc).

I hope that was understandable.

[Ewokslayer]

When was the last time you heard ANYONE worry about or discuss their decks 'Aluren' matchup? It almost never happens, I gaurantee.

But Perhaps they should be worried about that matchup if they want to make top 8. That is kinda the point of the forum.

So basically your list isn't Decks To Beat, but Decks that Do well in Top 8's

The DTB forum doesn't say how those decks that do well in the top 8 at all. The forum is indictative of those decks that are MAKING the Top 8 and thus rocking the swiss.

Goblins is still a huge presence because many, many people still play the deck. Because of this, the LMF is a little misleading.

Do you have any evidence that Goblins is still widely played? Goblins has never had the presence in Europe that it had in the US and in the last two large US tournaments Goblins was only about 6% of the metagame.

So, why should I be more worried about the 3 or so players with Goblins over the 2 players with Aluren? I plan at being at the top tables and from the last few tournament results the chances of me facing Aluren is alot better than me facing Goblins.

I do believe that there could be a better method of choosing DTB's and DTW's. Looking at what everyone is playing would be best. Knowing what percentage of the field is playing what deck. That way if goblins doesn't make top 8, but 20% of the field was playing it, people will know they have to prepare to do well. Now the problem is getting deck lists for every tourney entry...

I agree that using the percentage of the field somewhere in the DTB determination would be very helpful. Getting deck breakouts for every tournament though, especially with the change from 50+ tournaments to 6 round tournaments being included in the LMF.

[Bovinious]

I agree with APriestOfGix 100%, I'll just keep the actual DTB list true with myself and tell people whats actually a DTB if they ask or need to know. What is arbitrarily put in the Source's DTB thread doesnt define whats actually a DTB, and being excluded from there doesnt mean something is not a DTB. Im done with this thread, keep defending the inherently flawed system if yall want.

[Belgareth]

Wow Way to show the single-mindedness of the American masses (No offense to the sensible ones that take all things into consideration).
Maybe you should look at why those decks don't top 8 in states (Read:Pilot skill), rather than assuming they don't show up because the decks not a threat.

[Sims]

Bovinious is just straight up being contradictory. Period.

Constructively, I'd like to thank the people whom are actually suggesting possibilities for fixing the problem instead of just complaining about what they don't like. In my opinion, the system IS flawed, as something purely objective or subjective will never reach a true read of what the metagame is globally. We could probably develop some breakdown that would allow for a pointscale system based on Top 8s and percentage of the field and switch the labels around to reflect decks that are a small portion of the field but killing the swiss, decks that make up a large portion of the field that you need to be able to beat to succeed, and decks that are making top 8s with moderate numbers or something... The rub of it all is that the data is not readily available. Tournament organizers rarely bother with tallying or giving out a list of the decks that participated for anyone to fully break it down and show us what is being played. Hell, I'd love to have decklists for every top 8 so that we can archive a thread and show people what is actually being played since some decks can be relatively obscure in title... But getting decklists out of TOs is harder than getting a breakout list of what was played. I think that this would be a good system that would be objective and accurate, however it would be nearly impossible to do.

A subjective system, by the by, has been tried before. When this format was 1.5 and not Legacy the DTB section was a purely subjective section that was voted on by the Adepts to reflect the metagame. Granted it was primariliy reflective of the VA/Cuse/Albany metagame and nothing else, and there were decks that probably should have been counted there that weren't for the sake of the system being too subjective. A compromise has been suggested by using a points system, and while not a bad idea, that would be immensely difficult to keep ontop of. While people regulating the Top8 thread could assign point values for the decks present, setting up polls for every deck that are timed fairly rigidly and getting votes would be a immense pressure on the mod staff that I know already has a lot on their plates for the most part. And if these polls were to count with some type of points value, do you open them to the masses of the source or do you leave it to the mod staff and adepts? If you leave it to the masses polls are likely to be swayed by a lot of personal opinion and fail to be more objective than subjective, but if you leave it to the adepts than people will cry foul and elitism because a heavily present deck in their particular local meta got the shaft.

It's a complicated thing to try and fix, and while I said and stand by my opinion that this system is flawed as it is, it is an objective way of determining what list of things is making top 8s across the world and that's a pretty good start for what people should be preparing for. Everything else should be subjective based upon your local metagame. If the Albany meta still existed I know I would have to prepare for Thresh and Landstill out of that list for sure... But I know I'd also have to prepare for Burning Tog, goblins, GAS.dec, and a plethora of red.dec or jank.aggro.dec on the flavor of 70 color zoo and Irish Coffee (thanks tacosnape). This is just a starting point, not the end all be all of the only decks you need to prepare for. You take the list, test a gauntlet, and then take into account decks you know will be present in your local metagame.

Finally, the European metagame. I understand both sides of the issue as I am an American player and know that it's primarily and American site, so 1 American top 8 makes sense. However, I don't think discounting decks that are making the grade in Europe because they don't have the players backing them in the states is a good idea. I believe it was suggested already, but perhaps putting decks that make the cut in Europe but not the States up as DTW instead of a full fledged DTB (subject to change at the first sighting of an american top 8) would be an acceptible compromise for the time being? At least until the Mod/Admin staff and Adepts have an opportunity to really dig into the system and find a good balance between a subjective and objective system to accurately represent the global metagame.

Opinions? Ones that aren't "OMFG THAT DECK IS A DTB BECAUSE IT'S PUTTING UP MORE TOP 8'S THAN GOBLINS WTF R U RETARDZ KEKEKEK?!" would be highly appreciated.

[ParkerLewis]

Dunno if this has been suggested before, but why not just putting an additional letter in the initial brackets of the title ?

Like, if a deck would match the results criteria based solely upon american results, it could be labeled ADTB instead of DTB (American Deck To Beat). In the same way, a deck whose results would be only european could be labeled EDTB (European Deck to Beat). Only a deck putting up numbers in BOTH regions could be labeled DTB ; or maybe another initial letter, like WDTB for World Deck To Beat.

Example (don't attach any importance about the numbers themselves in this pure formal example, only their RELATIVE value is what matters)

-x top 8 in America (over the last t weeks) => ADTB
-x top 8 in Europe (over the last t weeks) => EDTB
-y top 8 across the World (over the last t weeks), at least z of them being in Europe, and at least z of them being in America => WDTB

With z being close to but inferior x, and y being close to but inferior to 2x (z<x<y<2x). t is whatever would be the most suitable (probably between 4 and 12)
Like, x=10, y=16, z=6.

Of course, the "WTDB" status would take precedence in case a deck qualifies for multiple status.

THAT would allow the available data to be correctly used without misleading people.
Same system would be used for DTWs (ADTW, EDTW, WDTW), with obviously different (lower) requirements though.
Just make sure the requirements are set so that any deck eligible for DTW in a region, and DTB in the other, also meets the requirements for WDTW.

In case of different eligible qualification status, like "ADTB" and "WDTW" (but no "WDTB" status), just put the two of them (like "ADTB/WDTW")

[Peter_Rotten]

I agree with APriestOfGix 100%, I'll just keep the actual DTB list true with myself and tell people whats actually a DTB if they ask or need to know.

If you wish to make an arbitrary list based on anecdotal evidence, personal opinion, and gut feelings, then go with your bad-self. We have no way to prevent you from doing this. Persoanlly, I would find your point more agreeable if you were saying something to the effect of this: "Even though Aluren has been classified DTW, I don't personally have to worry about it in my local meta." That seems more reasonable. The fact of the matter is that Aluren - like it or not - has a small presence in the past six T8s. Making two T8s is worth noting. The DTW tag reflects this and that maybe the community should pay more attention to the deck.

The LMF reflects decks that are making T8. It has no easy and viable way to reflect the presence of decks in the swiss rounds.

What is arbitrarily put in the Source's DTB thread doesnt define whats actually a DTB, and being excluded from there doesnt mean something is not a DTB. Im done with this thread, keep defending the inherently flawed system if yall want.

I fail to see how looking at the T8 lists and tallying what decks are in those lists is an arbitrary method. If you have a better method, than please suggest one, or you could fire a parting shot and shut the door so that you won't see your ideas challenged or possibly proven faulty.

[Silverdragon]

Dunno if this has been suggested before, but why not just putting an additional letter in the initial brackets of the title ?

Like, if a deck would match the results criteria based solely upon american results, it could be labeled ADTB instead of DTB (American Deck To Beat). In the same way, a deck whose results would be only european could be labeled EDTB (European Deck to Beat). Only a deck putting up numbers in BOTH regions could be labeled DTB ; or maybe another initial letter, like WDTB for World Deck To Beat.

Example (don't attach any importance about the numbers themselves in this pure formal example, only their RELATIVE value is what matters)

-x top 8 in America (over the last t weeks) => ADTB
-x top 8 in Europe (over the last t weeks) => EDTB
-y top 8 across the World (over the last t weeks), at least z of them being in Europe, and at least z of them being in America => WDTB

With z being close to but inferior x, and y being close to but inferior to 2x (z<x<y<2x). t is whatever would be the most suitable (probably between 4 and 12)
Like, x=10, y=16, z=6.

Of course, the "WTDB" status would take precedence in case a deck qualifies for multiple status.

THAT would allow the available data to be correctly used without misleading people.
Same system would be used for DTWs (ADTW, EDTW, WDTW), with obviously different (lower) requirements though.
Just make sure the requirements are set so that any deck eligible for DTW in a region, and DTB in the other, also meets the requirements for WDTW.

In case of different eligible qualification status, like "ADTB" and "WDTW" (but no "WDTB" status), just put the two of them (like "ADTB/WDTW")

Or change titles.

DTB could be decks that perform well in both metagames, ADTB could be American DTB's and EDTB could be European. This lets any new meta come in, and keeps the old system pretty well intact.

Right here page 2

So far this seems to be the best solution to me. However if you don't want to further complicate the abreviations in front of the decknames you could use the second best solution so far to just promote decks without american showings to DtW status.
Concerning the Goblins debate I'd say you can still find the thread in the Established Decks Forum so I don't see a big problem there especially as the LMF explicitely states that it only lists decks found in top8's. If you think just a little bit you have to come to the conclusion that Legacy is not just 4 or 5 decks so you better prepare for more stuff anyway.
Maybe a little tag should be added to some decks stating that they are "former DtB" like in the past.
just my opinion

[Anarky87]

Established Decks Forum:

For "finished" decks: Decks (Goblins/Ichorid) which are optimized and thoroughly tested. A deck (Goblins/Ichorid) is not required to have proven itself in a competitive tournament environment (Which neither have really done recently) to be included in the Open Forum, but it is recommended.

Goblins has lost its strangle hold on the format for some time now. This is not to say that Goblins/Ichorid is non-existant and bad, just that they haven't demonstrated themselves enough recently (Except by losing a lot).

Btw, it's also inherently flawed to tell your friends to only expect 4-5 decks at any given tournament. Have you no understanding how completely random Legacy is? That's just a stupid thing to do. The idea is to prepare for the decks in the LMF and also take a look at the EDF as well, because you will see some decks from there too. Just ignoring all decks except what you deem worthy is ignorant.

[Finn]

How about a ranking system? Since this topic is clearly about raw numerical data and perception, why not have a monthly vote? Who says there has to be a single method for deciding which decks are top notch?

Take baseball for example. Even though baseball has statistics about every conceivable aspect of the game, not one can accurately dictate which pitcher is the best. Any person can read the raw data and come to their own conclusions. But then the "experts" can be counted on to analyze them for the masses.

Give each member with atleast, say 50 posts and membership for atleast 3 months a vote on a monthly poll. Then you supplement that with the raw data from tournament top 8 appearances. There, now you have covered all your bases except geography.

Geographic representation would probably require a map with spacial references to where decks are present and where they are performing. This would take some work, but it would be the ultimate tool for pinpointing the metagame in an area. And it would almost certainly open the door for even more accurate and interesting analyses.

Data for the map could be gathered anecdotally if necessary (perhaps as a post in the voting thread) for less populated areas of Legacy, and with tournament results for major areas. It would also be a perfect tool for finding tournaments if done properly.

[Bovinious]

If you wish to make an arbitrary list based on anecdotal evidence, personal opinion, and gut feelings, then go with your bad-self. We have no way to prevent you from doing this. Persoanlly, I would find your point more agreeable if you were saying something to the effect of this: "Even though Aluren has been classified DTW, I don't personally have to worry about it in my local meta." That seems more reasonable. The fact of the matter is that Aluren - like it or not - has a small presence in the past six T8s. Making two T8s is worth noting. The DTW tag reflects this and that maybe the community should pay more attention to the deck.

The LMF reflects decks that are making T8. It has no easy and viable way to reflect the presence of decks in the swiss rounds.



I fail to see how looking at the T8 lists and tallying what decks are in those lists is an arbitrary method. If you have a better method, than please suggest one, or you could fire a parting shot and shut the door so that you won't see your ideas challenged or possibly proven faulty.

Bad self, I guess mods are allowed to flame now...Anyways, it is arbitrary in that 2 top8s was seemingly pulled out of thin air. Theres no reason 2 top8s is where a deck becomes significant as opposed to any other number.

Again, it doesnt matter if its been classified a DTW, it is in the section called Decks to Beat Forum, which implies anything inside is a Deck to Beat. Most non-mods dont conform to this arbitrary DTB/DTW/ATW naming system, most people speak of decks as DTBs or even tier 1/2/etc.

Again, Ill suggest a better method. Use some common sense when making the DTB thread, obviously if Thresh and Landstill are ripping apart top8s, put those in there, but use logic to keep things like Aluren out and Goblins in, I may sound like im being an elitist or something but it guarantee its laughable to at least 75% of the Source community that Aluren is (wrongfully) in the DTB Forum, and rightfully so.

[Peter_Rotten]

Bad self, I guess mods are allowed to flame now...

If you consider that a flame, then I formally apologize.

[Bardo]

The prior DTB system was flawed in that it was almost entirely subjective. What I"m saying is the current system is flawed in that it's entirely objective. A better system, like most things, lies somewhere in the middle.

We're open to suggestions, but trying to come to consensus with something like 40 Adepts/Mods/Admins is pretty much impossible.

The DTB designation process at TMD was a hybrid system, where decks were first filtered out if they failed to perform; once they passed through that strainer it was a matter of voting if a particular deck was one you recommend testing against. That is the point of "Decks to Beat," right? They're not what you play, they're what you test against. Anyway, that was a manageable system with like eight Adepts; with 3-4x times that, it's a bit too much to manage.

From my point of view, the "DtB," "ATW," etc. tags shouldn't be viewed with that much weight. That's really the quantifiable part of the process, but really shouldn't factor that heavily in what you're testing against. The way to look at the forum, and this is just my personal opinion again, is to see what has been performing well and then make your own choice about how much time you're willing or not willing to test against the decks that have been putting up results.

And as Eldariel mentions, arguing with results isn't going to get you anywhere. At some point you need to make a decision about what the results mean to you and what you are going to do about it (i.e. testing).

[Peter_Rotten]

Again, it doesnt matter if its been classified a DTW, it is in the section called Decks to Beat Forum, which implies anything inside is a Deck to Beat. Most non-mods dont conform to this arbitrary DTB/DTW/ATW naming system, most people speak of decks as DTBs or even tier 1/2/etc.

You are defining the DTB Forum with your own standards.

Again, Ill suggest a better method. Use some common sense when making the DTB thread,

If only common sense was common. Common sense is simply too subjective as demonstrated by the fact that when it comes to the DTB Forum, my version of common sense is starkly different from your version. (Not a flame, just an example as to why we cannot use something as subjective as common sense.)

obviously if Thresh and Landstill are ripping apart top8s, put those in there, but use logic to keep things like Aluren out and Goblins in,

How is this logical? Why should we keep Goblins in the DTBF when it is not performing well? What does "ripping apart top8s" mean? 4 placements? 8 placements? Do you believe that maybe we should completely remove a number requirement for DTB/W status?

I may sound like im being an elitist or something but it guarantee its laughable to at least 75% of the Source community that Aluren is (wrongfully) in the DTB Forum, and rightfully so.

First, can you prove that it's "laughable" to 75% of the Source community? Second, if so, would you allow for the possibility that 75% of the Source could be wrong about an issue?

And lastly, why didn't you put up such a big stink last time Aluren was in the DTBF?

[Machinus]

The DTB forum is fundamentally incomplete as it ignores the prosperous European environment.