This might sound like bashing or ill-informed, but wouldn't the fact that American players aren't SEEING the decks in the DtB also be highly considered the same as saying "These decks don't belong here because our environment is better than other countries", and thus not worth playing? Just because our reader base is American doesn't mean they wouldn't want to know what makes them obviously better in Europe than they are here. In one way or another, it proves that one section of the world is more evolved than the other, and I'm seriously thinking it's in Europe's favor.
You have to remember that the average source member isn't even going to understand the decks on the level you adepts and mods can (or our more prominent regular members, for that matter), or else we'd all be on the same level as far as members go. Then the LMF wouldn't even exist, because everyone would know already what's good enough to play/test.
You've debunked on numerous occasions that the rumors of adepts being promoted just because their friends of adepts/mods, and proven that said adepts are actually putting up results showing they are good at the game. But why would you expect the same level of understanding from your casual readers who just want to check up on a good gauntlet to prepare for? Because stateside there's only X decks being played regularly, thus that makes them the only good ones? It really makes it sound like we have literally no creativity and just want to play what wins at the time, and swap from Goblins to Thresh to whatever is next in line.
If a deck is putting up a regular showing in Europe, I don't see why our metagame should be so different in any way other than 1) it's more evolved, which is simply not true, or 2) it's less evolved (which many, including myself, seem to believe), and should accept the data from areas which have a more steady flow of tournaments and what appears to be a much more diverse metagame. The fact that the DtW and DtB status of European decks is far more diverse than that of American tournaments should prove that theory to be pretty correct, they are far more akin to a true balance of power in the format than we are.
To be honest, anything less than putting Europe on equal footing is realistically doing nothing more than keeping the player base of the source in general in the dark, because all we see are the same 4-5 deck lists showing T8 because nobody is willing to try the others on anything more than a 1 or 2 showing per tournament. Statistics would prove we won't see those put up results until they catch on, because in a balanced metagame 1 deck in 50 has a pretty poor chance of continual T8 performances, it needs numbers (or being far unbalanced) to continue staying at the top.
I really can't see why including European DTBs has to lead to American players getting a flawed picture of their meta. Why can't we just include the European DTBs with a note saying "European meta" or something to distinct them? Then both Americans and Europeans could see what to test against.
Originally Posted by GodzillA
It's not rocket surgery.
Successful European decks have slightly less bearing on competitive tournaments than successful American ones.Originally Posted by GodzillA
You are all deluded if you think the DTB forum is somehow a precise representation of Legacy in this country. It's not a precise representation of Legacy anywhere.
Let's try this again.
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.
Who said anything about precision? It's a tool and no tool is perfect for every job. It's supposed to be representative.
@ Finn - 'Way too complicated there. Also, as has been mentioned a bunch of times, DtBs are not the best decks, they're just the ones that are consistently doing well and you can reasonably expect to face.
Last edited by Bardo; 10-07-2007 at 01:27 AM.
yes vote for everyone that votes, not just adepts, and if you don't vote in the window, then that sucks no waiting...
This post is incredibly ironic in light of my quote in your sig. Do you have a thing for horses? - Zilla
That's a pretty strawman you made there. No one has asserted that the LMF is a precise representation of Legacy in this country. It's a fair approximation, given the constraints, and it's more precise a picture than it would be if it included decks that aren't being played here.
When there are factual links showing Top-8s and other various tournaments, how in the frozen hell isn't it accurate?
Every time a new set comes out, little trinkets flake off that set and cause a minor disturbance to our meta. While it may not seem like much, those little flake are gonna add up with other little flakes from previous sets. This in turn causes savage cockroaches to swarm those flanks and transform into a super I-kick-the-crap-out-of-you cockroach. [See Onslaught, Darksteel, aka Goblins etc].
But, then more flakes come off more sets and cause more disturbances and those flakes get eaten by bigger cockroaches that devour those smaller, previous cockroaches [See Thresh, Ichorid, etc].
Our meta is filled with thousands of flakes with tons of cockroaches eating those flakes: what the source tries to do is tame those cockroaches that are the biggest so we know which ones are the biggest.
Does any of that make sense?
Guys, I think some people, myself included, have taken this DTB issue too far. Sure the forum may not be perfect, but I suppose there has to be some kind of system to determine what goes in there and changes tot he system should be made through the proper channels, not ranting. Aluren will probably not be in the DTB Forum for long and Goblins will probably be back soon enough.
It's quite accurate as a representation of your position. You claim that:
-the LMF provides useful information on how to prepare for tournaments.
-decks which are successful only in Europe have no bearing on American tourmament results.
-the title "Deck to Beat" means that American players should be prepared to beat it.
According to you, the LMF is an accurate reresentation of the necessary obstacles to tournament success, so accurate in fact that it is useful for competitive players to use as a gauntlet. Obviously this is impossible if you are ignoring what are at least as good designs from at least as good players in a better environment. These designs do come to America and do dominate our players because we don't pay attention to them.
American Legacy has serious problems with ignorance of foreign technology. Despite having flexible strategies and good matchups against many decks, it took Americans over a year to figure out that Threshold was very good, AFTER it dominated a 1000 man tournament in France. And you want to keep hiding the decks they have developed? Because competitive players won't know enough to take good designs when they see them? Or are the Europeans just worse than we are and their successes are insignificant?
There is no "here." You assert that there is no unified global Legacy and in the next breath want to tell me there is a unified American legacy. Everyone who has played in two or more large Legacy tournaments knows this is nonsense.
It would be more precise if we actually included competitive decks that are good enough to succeed in a larger, more consistent environment. Competitive players do copy designs from Europe and they are important. There is no reasonable justification for excluding the data.
He's not asserting there's a unified American legacy. He's asserting that it's foolish to test against decks that do not show up at American tournaments if you're going to be playing in an American tournament.
You need to stop deliberately interpreting posts to construct strawman arguments. It's tiresome.
European technology can certainly be incorporated into American decks but to automatically assume a sizable percentage of the expected field to do so has been empirically determined to be incorrect.
When in doubt, mumble.
When in trouble, delegate.
Right, the overused straw-man defense pops up again. I doubt any of you have any actual training in formal logic. I'm not using a straw man.
I'm taking Godzilla's words literally and deducing their meaning. If you have a problem with critical analysis then there's no shame in excusing yourself from the severe strain of logical argument.
They can show up at American tournaments, and they do. In fact, the better they are, the more likely American players are to adopt them and succeed with them.
What exactly do you think competitive players do when preparing for a tournament? Not scour European tournaments for the best tech?
Then again, when was the last time the DTB management did prepare for a competitive tournament?
I'm pretty sure that straw man arguments involve creating an easily refuted argument and pawning it off on the other guy.
This asserts a unified American Legacy metagame?
You also need to read my posts in their entirety as opposed to merely glossing over them.They can show up at American tournaments, and they do. In fact, the better they are, the more likely American players are to adopt them and succeed with them.
What exactly do you think competitive players do when preparing for a tournament? Not scour European tournaments for the best tech?
It's difficult to test against the perceived changes a very small amount of the field may or may not make to a deck that they may or may not play due to overseas success.
When in doubt, mumble.
When in trouble, delegate.
So you predict Ghostway cropping up shortly, in the American meta-game?
I keed, I keed.
For comparison, I went through the t8s and ran them through the requirements for the DTB forum, first the last 6 European tournaments, then American.
Europe;
DTB
U/G/r Threshold
U/G/r/w Threshold
U/B/g/w/ Landstill
CRET Belcher
DTW
Elves
Vial Goblins
Solidarity
UW Fish
ATW
Life from the Loam
Landstill
America;
DTB
UGR Threshold
Cephalid Breakfast
Vial Goblins
DTW
TES
Enchantress
Aluren
ATW
Survival
Life from the Loam
Landstill
Take it how you will.
Last edited by Peter_Rotten; 10-07-2007 at 12:44 PM. Reason: made it pretty
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.
Your deduction is inaccurate. I never said there was a universal American metagame. I said that American players shouldn't be told to prepare for decks that they're not going to face at an American tournament.
At first when I started this thread I was simply confused & seeking answers... After reading through I have realized that I have started an arguement on which decks belong in the METAGAME FORUMS and the selection system we use to include those decks there.
Personally I think that if we started taking in data from everywhere else and started taking a more objective view of things we may be able to evolve as players in general.
I heonestly beleive that the European meta is far more evolved than the American East Çoast Meta... Perhapes te West Coast (although far more diverse) is even weaker due to lack pf interest/players; but I do not know.
The Japanese are dominating, you cannot argue that... perhapes if we start looking at the T8's of these more evolved areas and start basing our analyses off of data from throughout the world we could then have one extremely healthy and diverse meta that we can all participate in.
Decks are in the metagame forums because they belong there, although I do beleive they do need to look at the other metas instead of just the East Coast, which is what you guys are doing.
What makes you(or anyone) think that Europe and Japan have "more developed" Legacy metagames?
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.
look at the diversity of the decks and the number of competative players.... that will answer my question quite well.
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.
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.
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.
If it's inaccurate, it's because there is no way to reconcile all of your different claims. American players are just as likely to play European decks as they are other American decks in tournaments. Trust me, I've actually played in them.
European decks are more likely to influence tournament compositions than decks from, say, California. It's wrong to exclude European decks and pretend that California is more relevant.
We are not in the business of prediction. The LMF exists to show what is happening in American metagames, not what "should" be happening or what might happen. If European decks win American tournaments, they're added to the LMF. Until that actually happens, they're not considered decks for which preparation is required by American players.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote