Could you just use a bleedin' map to display the information so we can all move on? Is it somehow unclear to you people that a map conveys all this info in an easily understood manner?
You put ALL the info on the map from every tournament reported. That way you need not ever decide which info is useful to whom. Let people decide for themsleves if they think doofus.dec repeatedly top4-ing in Guam is something to consider in his sideboard.
sheesh
The thing is we can't base metagame information on Top 8 information. There is no way to know if the Top 8 accurately represents the field in which those decks did well in. If you base LMF on Top 8 then you have a listing of the decks that are making Top8. You have very little information about the overall metagame.Originally Posted by SpatulaOfTheAges
Our current method only tells us the most successful decks and that is all the LMF can really represent.
What's the solution then? We could simply remove the DTB idea entirely, and label all decks that perform well as DTW.
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.
DTB could change to mean decks that are making Top 8? Or is that what a DTW is ?
You're being thoroughly American about this whole question.
If the decks in the local German metagame have no bearing on your tournament, then neither do the decks from the massachusets metagame, or new york metagame, or ohio metagame. You are just choosing to pay attention to American decks because there exists a border associating those areas, which is meaningless to the game of Magic and which should not be used to make competitive decisons.
Either all Magic is local and the concept of a DTB forum is absurd, or we have to judge decks only on their strengths.
I'm not sure it's necessary to abandon the DTB/DTW/ATW format entirely. It seems to have some merit.
If you want to keep things similar to how they're set up now, but improve them slightly, this is was I would recommend.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deck to Beat (DTB) - A Deck to Beat is a deck which has at least five placements in Top 8's at 33+ person tournaments in the most recent ten tournaments.
Deck to Watch (DTW) - A Deck to Watch is a deck which has at least three placements in Top 8's at 33+ person tournaments in the most recent ten tournaments.
Archetype to Watch (ATW) - An Archetype to Watch is an archetype or set of decks (e.g., Survival) that has at least three placements in Top 8's at 33+ person tournaments in the most recent ten tournaments.
Moderator's Deck Recommendation (MDR) - The moderator's deck recommendations are one to two decks each month that the moderators on The Source have recommended, as a group, to test against. These may include decks that have performed at a high level in one or two breakout tournaments during the past 6 months, or have been historically strong and the moderating staff feel are still relevant to the current Legacy landscape.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) The numbers in each of these descriptions has been bumped up, which would allow for more tournament data, which would theoretically increase if global tournament data is all included, and this could of course be revisited if there seem to be far too many or too few decks indentified by these calculations.
2) The concept of Moderator's Deck Recommendation (MDR) can help to fill the gap in identifying the best one or two decks that are not consistently Top 8'ing for whatever reason, but that most adepts/moderators still feel would have a significant impact on current Legacy tournaments. For example, if Goblins or CRET Belcher did not consistently top 8, but was still considered as a strong choice by tournament players, this would provide an opportunity to still identify it in the forum as one of the most potent strategies in the current Legacy landscape, and something to keep in mind when designing decks. There could be a subforum in the 'Adept Lounge' or 'Moderator's Lounge' with a thread for each month (for example, 'November 2007 MDR Discussion'), where the adepts could debate and ultimately choose the 1 or 2 decks that would be included this way, if they felt it was necessary to include any at all that given month.
Finally, this thread uses the terminology LMF frequently, even though the terminology seems to have been abandoned elsewhere. I would ditch the 'LMF' thing altogether (as it doesn't even say what it stands for anymore, at least that I can find), and instead just use another term (Decks to Beat, or Format Defining Decks, or something else).
Find me on Twitter at @JMJACO and @EternalCentral. If you have an interest in Vintage Eldrazi, check out my book Eldrazi Meditations.
The 6 tournaments number was decided upon when 50 person tournaments were far less frequent, and before we lowered the number of players to 33. At the time, 6 tournaments often encompassed anywhere from 3 to 5 months' worth of data, thus a larger sampling would mean a serious problem as far as currency is concerned. Given that the factors have changed, I agree that a larger sampling makes more sense. The mod staff will discuss this and come to a decision on what changes should be made in this regard.
Good point. We'll take care of that as well.Finally, this thread uses the terminology LMF frequently, even though the terminology seems to have been abandoned elsewhere.
The map idea seems very reasonable to me.
You all did not even include any Alabama tournaments in your statistics either. I know that the tournament that I went to had more than 50 people. And it was listed on this site.
Where? We (meaning Anwar) are terribly thorough with listing qualifying tournies in the Historical T8 thread. I doubt that we missed one. Do you have a link?
Found it. The data is incomplete. However, I wish that you had pointed this out earlier.
In general inclusion in the Historical Top 8 thread requires Top 8 decklists. Without them we are left with nothing but names and that doesn't seem like it adds much information or understanding. In my opinion, the best part of the Historical Top 8 thread is that you can actually see what is winning and use that for deckbuilding, metagaming, or just general understanding about the format.
When I reread my post, I realized that there may be a slight chance to misinterpret it. Just to clarify, when I said that the data was incomplete, I was specifically speaking about the Alabama tournament not having a full T8 list and also no decklists.
Another way to make the LMF would be to develop a more advanced system. Maybe some sort of point system based on how well a particular decks performs compared to the number of people attending to the tournament. This data should 100% objective and include worldwide top 8's with equal status.
This sounds the most fair to me, but what to I know.
This is debatable depending on how big my boobs feel in the morning.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote