Organizing the Legacy Subforum

wildfire393
Posts: 76
Joined: 1 year ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him
Been thanked: 13 times

Titles & Recognition

Post by wildfire393 » 1 year ago

Proposal: Three primary decklist forums.

1) Proven/The Meta: Decks that have a significant meta share. I would define this as >2% (or maybe >=2%) of the meta on MTGTop8 for the current year (in April or after) or the previous year (Jan-March). These are the "decks to beat" in the Legacy meta, things that any new deck should be aware of.
Within this, the top decks (probably anything with a 5% or greater meta share, should be closely analogous to MTGTop8's or The Source's Decks to Beat) should have Primers, and within those primers, they should discuss their matchups with other top decks.

2) Established: These are decks that have a reasonable number of top 8 appearances (1% or 1-2%) and are known entities, but do not make up a significant portion of the meta. This is likely a little looser than the Proven definition, stuff like Enchantress that has a 0% share but is a well-known deck that has a known configuration, can show up here as well.

3) Developing: This is for brewing decks and decks that have shown up a small amount on MTGTop8

So given the current 2019 MTGTop8 numbers, here's where I'd put this breakdown:

Top Proven Decks (Proven forum w/ Primer)
Death and taxes
Eldrazi Aggro
UR Delver
Stoneblade
UWx Control/Miracles
Grixis Control
Show and Tell
Storm

Proven Decks (Proven forum, Primer not required)
Grixs Delver
Dragon Stompy
Maverick
Lands
Dark Depths
Reanimator

Borderine (Established 2%, these might belong in proven):
Burn
Goblins
Death's Shadow Delver
Aggro Loam
Infect
Elves

Established (1%):
RUG Threshold
Affinity
Arclight Phoenix
MUD
Merfolk
BW Stoneblade
4c Control
BUG Midrange
12Post
Dredge
Food Chain
Painter's Servant

Developing:
Slivers
Humans
BUG Delver
Jund
Bant
Zombardment
Jeskai Delver
Soldier Stompy
Nic Fit
Tezzerator/Antiquities War
Pox
BUG Control
Junk
Landstill
Stax
Faeries
Bomberman
Enchantress
Doomsday
Sneak and Breach
Belcher
High Tide
Shoal Infect

wildfire393
Posts: 76
Joined: 1 year ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him
Been thanked: 13 times

Titles & Recognition

Post by wildfire393 » 1 year ago

I'm leaning towards 2% being in the Proven group because all of those decks are reasonably significant in the meta.

User avatar
Iso
Griever
Posts: 96
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Lionheart
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 3 times

Titles & Recognition

Post by Iso » 1 year ago

I've been looking at the numbers and discussing things with Wildfire. Here's what we've agreed on:

* Anything that has a 2% or higher share of the decklists on MTGTop8 from the last and current calendar year onward (updated June/December) can be considered "Proven".
* Because of the variance/popularity of certain decks, as well as the fact that certain decklists will be recognized regardless of how well they perform in Top 8 of events, that anything that has a 1% share of the decklists on MTGTop8 (or 0% if it is a well enough-known deck) from the last and current calendar year onward (updated June/December) can be considered "Established".
* Anything else can go under "Developing", and as they draw more attention and wins, they can be moved from "Developing" into "Established"/"Proven" as necessary. Primers will be created for every 2% or higher deck, with a focus on the 5%+ shares as the "decks to beat".

I will be creating placeholder threads for the decks with 2% or higher share for users to take over as they are available to do so. Once Wildfire moves these into the "Proven" section he is creating later, I will create placeholder threads for the aforementioned 1%/well-known 0% decks.

Amalek0
Posts: 64
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 17 times

Post by Amalek0 » 1 year ago

Can we just crib the metagame breakdown from the Source? They've been doing this for a long time and have a pretty reasonable method of establishing decks to beat.

wildfire393
Posts: 76
Joined: 1 year ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him
Been thanked: 13 times

Titles & Recognition

Post by wildfire393 » 1 year ago

Personally, I think they use an overly draconian cutoff over at The Source.

schweinefett
Posts: 105
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Post by schweinefett » 1 year ago

Not that I have an immense amount of time to help out and whatnot, but is it possible to have subcategories under the various archetypes? I mean specifically for painter, imperial, shortcake are the 2 common ones, but there are UR, U, daretti spaghettis, bombercake builds, and all of them have a different focus, and need.

I think one of the biggest problems with the old mtgs was that they lumped a lot of the painter builds into one discussion, which kinda stifled chat/made it harder to find relevant info.

User avatar
Iso
Griever
Posts: 96
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Lionheart
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 3 times

Titles & Recognition

Post by Iso » 1 year ago

In some respect, I understand where you're coming from - finding info on Reanimator was always a hassle, as I personally play mono-B Reanimator. However, the issue with that is the flip side of the argument: That breaking the discussion up into too many different places can also stifle talk on the deck. I'll consult with Wildfire and see what we decide.

User avatar
Iso
Griever
Posts: 96
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Lionheart
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 3 times

Titles & Recognition

Post by Iso » 1 year ago

So, we've decided that if there are less-tested variants to the already-posted decks, here, that they can have their own spin-off thread under Developing, and that it would be on the users to create that distinction within the decks listed. If we feel like something isn't enough of a variant, we'll just merge the thread with the already-existing one for the deck in question.

In other words, knock yourself out.

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 529
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Has thanked: 75 times
Been thanked: 76 times

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

Are you going to moderate out the "my first vampire deck" threads that plagued developing in mtgs. Under the old mtgs Developing had old respect able but well known decks like parfait, stax, soldier stompy, high tide (and ludicrously Dragon Stompy and Miracles) etc., but ridiculous amounts of decks that were full of creatures, a couple of old cards, and had curves from two to six mana, and often no stack interaction. It was clear that many posters had not heard of Storm, Belcher, Reanimator, Show and Tell etc., nor in some cases the blue Cantrip engine, Force, Chalice etc. There was nothing wrong with having the guys post the decks, but I for one felt like a bad Father Christmas, stealing presents rather than taking them. I rarely ignored these posters as that is rude, and there were an awful lot. Is it worth a format intro sticky?

schweinefett
Posts: 105
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Post by schweinefett » 1 year ago

Iso wrote:
1 year ago
So, we've decided that if there are less-tested variants to the already-posted decks, here, that they can have their own spin-off thread under Developing, and that it would be on the users to create that distinction within the decks listed. If we feel like something isn't enough of a variant, we'll just merge the thread with the already-existing one for the deck in question.

In other words, knock yourself out.
So I wanna make a thread for some decks that I play, but I don't really have a primer or anything like that setup. It's an already existing sub-archetype, so it feels a tad weird to be the progenitor of that discussion out of the blue.

I guess I'll start something, then get it deleted if it's not cool.

User avatar
Iso
Griever
Posts: 96
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Lionheart
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 3 times

Titles & Recognition

Post by Iso » 1 year ago

drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
Are you going to moderate out the "my first vampire deck" threads that plagued developing in mtgs. Under the old mtgs Developing had old respect able but well known decks like parfait, stax, soldier stompy, high tide (and ludicrously Dragon Stompy and Miracles) etc., but ridiculous amounts of decks that were full of creatures, a couple of old cards, and had curves from two to six mana, and often no stack interaction. It was clear that many posters had not heard of Storm, Belcher, Reanimator, Show and Tell etc., nor in some cases the blue Cantrip engine, Force, Chalice etc. There was nothing wrong with having the guys post the decks, but I for one felt like a bad Father Christmas, stealing presents rather than taking them. I rarely ignored these posters as that is rude, and there were an awful lot. Is it worth a format intro sticky?
We'll move posts that don't belong where they are posted into the correct location for those posts.
schweinefett wrote:
1 year ago
Iso wrote:
1 year ago
So, we've decided that if there are less-tested variants to the already-posted decks, here, that they can have their own spin-off thread under Developing, and that it would be on the users to create that distinction within the decks listed. If we feel like something isn't enough of a variant, we'll just merge the thread with the already-existing one for the deck in question.

In other words, knock yourself out.
So I wanna make a thread for some decks that I play, but I don't really have a primer or anything like that setup. It's an already existing sub-archetype, so it feels a tad weird to be the progenitor of that discussion out of the blue.

I guess I'll start something, then get it deleted if it's not cool.
I think it'll vary on a case-to-case basis. Give it a whirl, and if it feels inappropriate where it is, we can always move it.

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 529
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Has thanked: 75 times
Been thanked: 76 times

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

Great. I am working on two primers over the next couple of weeks, thanks for holding them. Back in the day the Pox thread on MTGS was a great and exciting place to discuss, If we can get more threads like that then this section will flourish...)

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Legacy”