I like the new system, but how about a "point" system that takes into consideration the size of the event and the final place? With the current system an 8th place in a 33 people tourney counts as much as a 2nd place in a tourney with 87 players. And that sounds quite unfair.
I could imagine something like this (rough numbers):
Tournament size multiplicator:
33+: 1 (small, probably local events)
50+: 2 (medium, overregional evenmts)
75+: 3 (outstanding events)
points for ranking
1st to 3rd place: 2 points
4th to 8th place: 1 point
Then you could define (for example, only rough numbers) that a deck needs at least 9 points to be considered DTB and 6 points to be in the metagame forum as an ATW or DTW.
One question about the update: Landstill is listed as both a DTB and an ATW, but the thread in the forum is an ATW thread. With 9 finishes, doesn't it deserve more than an ATW thread?
I kind of feel like we should have an ATW for thresh, since I'm pretty sure not all of them hit the necessary amount of finishes. Isn't that why we don't have a BHWC, UW, UWb, UR, UWr, UWg, UG landstill?
The E.P.I.C. Syndicate: I mean, if they play a lullaby for babies they should at least play the Monster Mash when somebody dies.
Originally Posted by herbig
We actually don't have a relevant Landstill thread. Seriously, do a search - for some reason, we don't have a current thread for Landstill.
Make Tacosnape write one up. That dude loves the cock. I mean... loves to help?We actually don't have a relevant Landstill thread
I support Tao's idea.
YOU'RE GIVING ME A TIME MACHINE IN ORDER TO TREAT MY SLEEP DISORDER.
The problem with Tao's idea is that it complicates the whole process, and that means more work for really no improvement in results. If nothing else, it will allow less decks into the DtBF, which isn't necessarily a good thing. In other words,
More work + little gain = not doing.
It is not that much work. The most complicated calcualation is 3*2 or things like 3 + 6 +1 + 2. And some of you invented Soidarity and TES, one combo turn in these decks is much more complicated than this.
It also would not decrease the number of decks in the Metagame Forum because you can adjust the number of points needed for the Forum.
You could also adjust the Tourney size multiplicator, so maybe that regular events like Iserlohn, Duel land drafts and Duels for Duals always get the factor 2 independent from the number of participants. Potential factor 3 tourneys would be national Legacy championships, the Worlds with Legacy this year, the German Mercadiade (1/2 year with usually 100+ participants) or similar events in the USA like the GenCon.
Now, I don't speak for everyone involved here, but that seems like much more work than counting to five.
This is probably an issue that should be dealt with in coming updates. I believe ATW was to represent something more general like Survival or Loam as those decklists vary to a great degree and often don't have much in common. Most of the Landstill lists only really differ in their removal cards which vary due to the splash colors. Thresh would be very similar to Landstill in that the removal cards and other color specific choices are often made, but most of the cards are the same.
I agree. Basically, when Landstill went back into the LMF, it wasn't played nearly as much as it is now. There were four different splashed that made top8s, so it wasn't easy for us to discern which should be included. We compromised by making the Archetype an ATW, as opposed to a DTW. Now, most of the lists have become some combination of UW, UWb, UWg, or UWbg; all of these are relatively similar aside from a few choices such as sweepers and spot removal. The core is fundamentally the same, so I think a singular thread (focusing on development, not on which combination is better overall) could be created.
I don't have an easy answer for that, frankly.
If I begin from the biased position of "I am right" I can say that discussion about the best decks based on the local data from around the world will happen with or without a bonafide system. But I don't have anything better than that. It is beginning to sound like a lot of work - either in creating a really good interface, or someone always on the spot for updates.
YAY I just got home and saw the new DTBF, and Id like to say GREAT JOB, idk what you guys did but its a lot better now imo, kinda puzzled at Goyf Sligh (this exists?) and BBS but still good job with it!
Two things: I've always hated the name BBS. It makes me think we're talking about a black deck.
Why does UGw Thresh still have a thread in the DTB Forum?!? Am I missing something? Didn't it post one Top 8 finish in the last 10 tournaments? UG and UGb Threshold had exactly as many finishes, and UGrw had one MORE finish than UGw.
Here's my $0.02, lock all the thresh threads and make Jesse Hatfield re-write all the primers. Don't let Alix do it because he's a bad writer. And if Jesse refuses just shave off all his hair at TML. I'm 100% fo cereal.
#mtgfinance follow on twitter: @mtgStaples
Team Brown & Team Unicorn. Does that make me a Brown Unicorn?
How about BSB?
I'm not sure what you're going for here... basically, it needs "Blue" or "U" in its name... in the Magic universe, "B" means Black.
In the terms of acronyms, B usually meant blue, and black usually was Bl/Blk. BBS was actually a name before U became a primary way to determine blue in decks, so it wasn't catching on because the name was catchy enough. I may be mistaken, but it's a good possibility that B became standard for black when Mono-black control came around, using MBC before mono-blue-control used the name MUC.
I've been playing this game for like 13 years, and B has always mean black, and U, blue.
Looks like we have a winner.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote