Nov. 1st DTBF update and changes to the current system

[AnwarA101]

I'd be worried about "successful." The are decks in the Established forum that are successful. Maybe change it to "For the currently most successful decks." Awkward, but it's also tomorrow's problem.

Sounds okay, a quick thesaurus search reveals "triumphant". I'm liking it.

[Nihil Credo]

Use a better thesaurus. Mine also offered "lourishing, going, palmy, prosperous, thriving", which you'll admit are much more sexy.

[TeenieBopper]

lourishing

I vote for this one. it makes Legacy seem like the 12 year old you want to ravage.

[Zach Tartell]

I vote for this one. it makes Legacy seem like the 12 year old you want to ravage.

Second.

[Bovinious]

you guyz are such pedobears.

[Nihil Credo]

you guyz are such pedobears.

[Bovinious]

ALL CP ARE BELONG TO PEDOBEAR, LOLI SPECIFICALLY :)

LULZ, I'm such a /b/tard.

[JACO]

WHEREAS, I first threw out the idea of cutting tournament size based on rounds, not arbitrary numbers divisible by ten.

THEREFORE, I demand that my name be credited whenever that idea is mentioned, referenced, or recognized indirectly, ie. whenever someone posts information about a 36 person tournament.

I thought this was funny, and then I read Matt's post and Adam's post and about pissed myself. If you don't think there's any incentive to contribute, then don't and just shut up about it. It's simple. People post in these forums to either help others out, to attempt to improve the game, for some ego boost, or because they simply think they have nothing else better to do. Which one are you?

In regards to updating the DTB Forum, I still think the idea I proposed was best, in regards to accurately setting parameters, and creating a gauntlet that would shift with the metagame. For reference:

...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.

And don't worry, no credit is necessary. ; )

[Getsickanddie]

Meh. The whole "DTB" forum concept, no matter what set of qualifications is used, will always be more anecdotal than scientific. This system at least shows the international legacy community some measure of respect.

[Zilla]

In regards to updating the DTB Forum, I still think the idea I proposed was best...

Well, we're using the first 3/4 of your suggestion already, as far as the numbers are concerned. With regards to the MDR concept, I'm against it, for a couple reasons: first, it leaves the DTBF contents open to personal bias, which is something the mod staff has worked hard to remove from the system entirely.

Second, it presupposes that the moderators are the most highly informed about the state of the format, which I don't think is particularly accurate. I think it's safe to say that there are many Adepts on this site with a more intimate knowledge of the current metagame than the mod staff as a whole.

If this system were to be implemented at all, it would make more sense to include all of the Adepts, but then you're talking about a group of more than 20 people, who... um... on occasion have some minor difficulty coming to a complete concensus on certain matters.[/tactful understatement]

I think a system which removes personal bias to as great an extent as possible is the most desirable option, and an MRD/ARD inclusion in the DTBF would be a step way from that.

[Tacosnape]

I still think lack of an "Archetype to Beat" is retarded. What happens if different Survival decks suddenly place 24 times in 8 Tournaments? Wouldn't Survival have eclipsed the "To watch" status by this point?

[mikekelley]

What a shitshow this has caused, over something so petty.

I'm all for going back to having Solidarity, Goblins and Thresh as the only decks to beat. Nah, not that, but you know what I mean. I don't even know why we have to have a seperate forum for this kind of thing. Let it sort itself out I say.

That way, if people can't figure shit out and only test against those three decks, the smart people would win.

Let people figure their own ideas out. Less hand holding, more fuck-offing.

[DeathwingZERO]

I'm all for the new setup. Giving more decks the opportunity to be noticed for their power, rather than their location, is going to help the format as a whole out. Even if some of the European decks show up in small numbers for a while, at least people will start to develop and play with them, and vise versa for the rest of the world.

At this rate, decks will start merging and evolving, and then we'll be seeing the DTBF hitting a closer example of what the metagame actually looks like, regardless of area.

[Lego]

This idea probably makes no sense, in which case you can just feel free to ignore it, but I've been wondering about it for a while. I feel like we should somehow differentiate between different tournaments. Let's take an incredibly hyperbolic hypothetical to illustrate me point:

Deck X beats every Combo deck in the format, but loses to absolutely everything else. In one 50 person tournament, 5 people playing Deck X are the only non-combo decks in the room. They all Top 8, and Deck X is now a deck to beat. A dozen people play it at the next 4 or 5 big tournaments, and they all fail to place, because they face things other than Combo more than once. That particular tournament was a really good tournament for Deck X, but most tournaments are poorer environments for it.

If we somehow weighted the number of DIFFERENT tournaments that a deck placed in, Deck X may never have made it all the way to DTB status. Does that make any sense?

[Nihil Credo]

It makes some sense: multiple placements in different tournaments are less likely to be the result of a twisted metagame than the same number of placements in a single tournament. However, with so few Legacy tournaments to draw our estimations from, I think trying to adjust for such minor chances would do more harm than good.

[APriestOfGix]

You're a genius. There, are you happy now? Congratulations, you egotist, you've gotten the credit you think is so goddamn important.

Satisfying your narcissism is obviously more important than accurate representation of the metagame.

Edit - Warning for Flames. ~ Nightmare.

warning himself = siged...

[AnwarA101]

Lego Army Man, I think that the result of any one tournament isn't likely to skew the results for very long. Since we have a monthly update, under the current system a deck would have to put 5 decks into the T8 of one tournament to be a DTB without any support from other tournaments. I think anything that severe probably deserves to be labeled as a DTB for at least a month to see if those results hold up. If they don't, its a blimp on the radar, but if they hold up then its good thing we started tracking its results early.

[Nightmare]

Lego Army Man, I think that the result of any one tournament isn't likely to skew the results for very long. Since we have a monthly update, under the current system a deck would have to put 5 decks into the T8 of one tournament to be a DTB without any support from other tournaments. I think anything that severe probably deserves to be labeled as a DTB for at least a month to see if those results hold up. If they don't, its a blimp on the radar, but if they hold up then its good thing we started tracking its results early.

This is exactly correct. If a deck puts up 5 out of 8 at one event, it's worth looking at (see - Breakfast). If it turns out to be a fluke, the problem solves itself.

[Zilla]

This is exactly correct. If a deck puts up 5 out of 8 at one event, it's worth looking at (see - Breakfast). If it turns out to be a fluke, the problem solves itself.

Agreed. Under the old system, where less placements were required, this was more of an issue and the mod staff had indeed discussed adding a multiple tournaments clause to deal with this phenomenon. But when 5 placements are required? That would have to be one hell of a fluke, and it would be worth noting if it did happen.

Anwar, we'll look at rewording the DTB requirements to denote successfulness as you've suggested, using as sultry a synonym as we can find in order to appease the masses.

[AnwarA101]

Anwar, we'll look at rewording the DTB requirements to denote successfulness as you've suggested, using as sultry a synonym as we can find in order to appease the masses.

Sounds great. I'll be working the thesaurus to find that elusive yet sultry term that will make the DTB a haven for inquisitive minds.