You really havn't given a good reason for goblins to be a deck to beat when it's not putting up any numbers and is a victim of it's own sucess and will die out accordingly.Originally Posted by Bovinious
Bardo I think the current system is a sensible one , it's not the method that's at debate it's the results.
You wouldn't do a poll for favourite colour then ignore red because some people are colour blind. (Yes the analogy is in no way similar but my point stands).
I think the OP and many others are simply saying ignoring a deck that has shown it's done well in european data while at the same time basing 4/6th's of the results on that same data is wrong.
I liked the idea of dual tagging but it seriously takes up more time to sort it that way.
Having any deck that doesn't show a Stateside T8 as capped at DTW , makes more sense as you never know if the following tourny it may show up so it's best to be prepared.
First, your statement ignores the developing Japan enviroment.
Second, "ignores" is likely too extreme of a word. Including global T8s hardly seems like "ignoring" Europe.
What decks would be included in the DTBF if we removed any sort of American T8 requirement? Well, Belcher would be a DTB and Baseruption would be a DTW. But, as it's been said before, we our primarily an American site with a primarily American readership.
This seems rather sensible. Under your suggestion, Belcher would be considered a DTW.
That's all I ask :)
I totally understand the American bias , but when a deck is prevalent enough in a very competitive European environment, It deserves to be a DTW .
To what extent does the European metagame really influence what people play in the States? And by "European" don't we mean "German?" Am I wrong on this, but is there really any other consistent reporting outside of Deutschland? To what extent is the "metagame" global?
Ultimately, what is the point of the LMF forum? To report on global results (we already have a thread for that)? Or to inform the primary readership of this site what they can expect at their next tournament?
The issue(s) seem to boil down to this, for me.
Your thoughts, anyone?
Well dont the mods define DTBs by their own status when building the DTB Forum?
I'm not sure what number you could bind "ripping apart top8s" to, if there is even a correct number. There probably isnt an end all be all number, it should probably be based on the general feel of the environment as well as placement, in other words "do people worry about deck X"? All Im saying is people worry about beating Goblins, but dont worry about beating Aluren, because you will probably have to face goblins pretty often and it is strong against many decks, and Aluren is rarely seen, and imo not very strong. I think that DTW should be eliminated, as it allows something to be in the DTB Forum but somehow not be considered a DTB, which seems like a contradiction. ATW/B seems like it COULD go, as 43Land seems to be the only really viable LFTL deck atm, of course these are all just my suggestions.
Of course I cant prove it, most people on the source probably dont care enough to laugh or not even if they do think its ridiculous. But I bet if you polled people asking if they think Aluren should be DTB youd get a lot of "HELL NO"s. The entirety of the source COULD be wrong, but thats placing awfully little faith in the community if you really think they are wrong.
I didnt know Aluren was ever a DTB before, and I probably didnt make a big deal also because there wasnt a thread about it and the other problems with the DTBs.
No, the process is purely objective, using data to determine "DTBs", etc., and not subjective bias:
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...ead.php?t=5460
...and? Europe is way more important than Japan. They have way more players and more regularly. The inclusion of European data is a test of the system's intelligence and it fails. If you can't handle accepting European data you certainly don't have room for Japanese data.
Refusing to give DTB status to decks that are very successful in Europe is deliberately excluding Legacy data from that region. Also known as ignoring.
That is an irrelevant and irrational question to ask. We don't select the guidelines based on what the result will be, that's idiotic. The fact that this attitude is so prevalent in the DTB management casts doubt on the integrity of the forum.
We should not restrict ourselves to American results. This only serves to hide the developments of the rest of the world and prevent our players from adapting properly to the format. Do you remember GP Lille? That happened in 2005 and we just now caught up to France on the whole Threshold thing. And you want to keep ignoring Legacy in other countries?
Purely objective in a subjective way, the amount of top8s needed to constitute what is subjective.
How do you attempt to 'prove' something by following it up with more conjecture?
Well I said I couldnt prove 75%, then said I'd bet a lot of people would agree with me, want me to make a poll?
Prior to the development of the current DtB guidelines, the Adepts chose the decks to go in the LMF by voting on them. This is a clearly subjective process, and led to all sorts of heated discussions and arguments. More importantly, under this system, the "DtB" label was basically meaningless for the purposes of tournament preparation. This is because there is a critical problem with any sort of subjective DtB selection process. That is, everybody and their mother has a different idea of how to define what a "Deck to Beat" is! Almost anyone will agree that the term implies both prevalence and viability, to varying degrees, but what nobody can agree on is how, exactly, to qualify either of those attributes. When people vote on a deck's DtB status, this inconsistency leaves the door wide open for personal bias to undermine the process.
Now, to avoid this problem, we determine the contents of the LMF in an objective way, using tournament data (and nothing else) to determine the DtBs, based on a precisely quantified definition of what a DtB is. This way, the LMF is merely assimilating and presenting information; people can take that information, apply their own ideas and methods of preparation to it, and win tournaments. This is a vast improvement over the old system.
The LMF contains the decks that have performed the best in the Swiss portions of the last six tournaments, barring those thave have performed well only in Europe. You can argue that this does not display the information in the most useful way possible, or that it omits important bits of data; the European compromise is obviously flawed, for example. However, you cannot argue about why those decks are in the forum. It's precisely defined.
If you or your team have tested Ichorid and found it to be really good, that's fine. You can combine those findings with the information that the LMF provides, and realize that people probably aren't playing Ichorid very often. Other people might not be likely to prepare for it, so it may be a strong choice at the next tournament. Or, you might expect others to figure this out, as well, and play Ichorid themselves, in which case you may want to aim to beat Ichorid, instead. This sort of deck evaluation and metagame prediction can obviously give you a huge advantage in tournament situations, but it is well beyond the scope of the LMF. It would be misleading and irresponsible to use DtB status in an attempt to predict the future, so Ichorid cannot be called a DtB until it has a break out performance.
The same goes for Goblins. The deck has either not shown up, or performed very poorly in the last six tournaments. If you, personally, think that's going to change at the next event, then you should use that insight to your advantage and prepare as such. However, the LMF does not and cannot reflect what anyone, or even everyone, thinks or expects will happen. Once Goblins makes its return, then it can be labeled a DtB again.
The downside to this is that, yes, the LMF is basically historical in nature. To some extent, it will always be behind the "actual" format. However, the only other option is to have a group of DtBs that tell us little or nothing at all.
I think Alix explained this very well here.
The LMF is a testing tool--don't make it out to be more than it is.
This made me laugh in a good way, because it's very true.
As I said before, viewing European data allows you to effectively view the future.
Due to the fact we hold a lot more tournaments with much larger turnout, the evolution of the format is significantly catalysed over here. (No bardo it's not just Germany, the other countries just don't report. Although Germany is by far the best.)
I think peter_rotten has shown the most open-mindedness of the staff, by at least seeing the potential for change.
If Euro data was ignore entirely like some people seem to suggest, the LMF would be so outdated because American tournies of the correct sampling size are so infrequent.
The DTB forum is primarily intended to show the community at large what decks have been doing well recently and provide lists so they can test against them. Someone remind me what the issue is?
When in doubt, mumble.
When in trouble, delegate.
We do care. We're simply not going to suggest that those decks are necessary for 95% of our members to prepare for when they're not. Those European decks are still listed and linked in the Historical Top 8 thread. People who are interested in seeing what's doing well in Europe can simply look there, and if they feel those decks can be adapted to the American metagame, then they can play them and win with them. If they do, they'll go in the LMF.
I understand that from your point of view that there should exist a universal Legacy metagame. I totally agree. Unfortunately, that simply isn't the case right now. There are very distinct metagames between Europe and the US. As the format continues to mature, there will come a time when time when this is no longer true. When this happens, the current policy will cease to be relevant.
There is a universal Legacy metagame. It's random everywhere, with all competitive players making design innovations. There are not "distinct" metagames [sic] between Europe and the US. There aren't even "distinct" metagames in either of those places.
Excluding European results only serves to prolong the ignorance of American players.
Excluding European results means that Americans won't test against decks that, for the most part, are only being played on another continent. Did you read my above post?
When in doubt, mumble.
When in trouble, delegate.
What evidence is there that non-US tournament data informs the US metagame?
Should I really add Baseruption to my testing gauntlet, when the odds of ever facing it are next to nil?
We don't exclude European results, except those which have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on preparation for American tournaments.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote