Hey all, over the coming weeks we'll be doing some renovations of the Legacy subforum. There are a lot of changes planned, so I wanted to explain what is going on before we start anything. I also wanted to lay out some ideas for feedback from the community.
Objective 1: Cut back on the number of stickies.
We're going to be unstickying every thread in the Developing section and aggressively cutting back on the number of stickies in the main sub. This should help you be able to see the active discussions the moment that you load the page, instead of forcing you to scroll to find out what's new.
Objective 2: Reorganize the Competitive forum
We've been unhappy with the breakdown of the Established forums for awhile now. While we don't have a solution that we're 100% satisfied with, we do have one that we think is worth giving a shot. We're looking to reorganize the Established forums to a 4 forum model instead of the current 3. We like the way that we provide support to fringe-but-competitive decks, and this model will try to preserve that while making threads easier to find. The four forums will be as follows:
Combo (ANT, High Tide, Belcher, etc.)
Control (Miracles, Death & Taxes, Lands, Enchantress, etc.)
Aggro & Tempo (Burn, RUG Delver, UR delver, almost any other delver deck with the possible exception of UWR delver)
The above was the model that accurately caught the largest number of decks (although still not perfect - Big Mana and Chalice of the Void decks remain somewhat awkward to place). Naturally there will be a bit of shuffling lists around in order to move from three forums to four, but once the dust settles, it should be easy to find the decks you're looking for. At the same time, we're going to be doing a review to see what decks in Developing need to be bumped up to Established.
We need your input: 1. It's been mentioned that other forums (such as my ancestral homeland, the Cube Forum) have a Community Off-Topic thread where denizens of the forum can discuss things not related to the core purpose of the sub. Is this something that y'all are interested in? 2. Primers are an everlasting problem. They are a lot of work to create and can fall out of date fairly easily, but a well curated primer is a pillar around which a community can grow. How can we make it easiest and attractive for those of you considering writing a primer for a deck in which you're knowledgeable? 3. The Ban List thread has been mentioned by a number of users as something that they avoid. A lot of the discussion seems to recycle in there and it's easily the number one area for mod interventions in our sub. Is this something that is valuable to the subforum? What would be the impact if we no longer provided any venue for that discussion? This would mean axing the Ban List thread without opening the rest of the sub for ban list-related discussion. 4. What else can we do to make this forum better or more engaging for users?
Just got to say, you've definitely earned distinction as an MTGS hero
Quote from Stardust »
Because he's the hero MTGS deserves, and the one it needs right now. So we'll global him. Because he can take it. Because he's not just our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. An expired rascal.
Quote from LuckNorris »
ExpiredRascals you sir are a god-like hero.
Quote from Lanxal »
ER is a masterful god who cannot be beaten in any endeavour.
[b]Objective 2: Reorganize the Competitive forum[/b]
[*]Combo (ANT, High Tide, Belcher, etc.)
[*]Control (Miracles, Death & Taxes, Lands, Enchantress, etc.)
[*]Aggro & Tempo (Burn, RUG Delver, UR delver, almost any other delver deck with the possible exception of UWR delver)
[*]Midrange (Stoneblade, Shardless BUG, Jund, Goblins, etc.)[/list]
I like this! I like very much to distinguish more hard control lists from the mid-ranged control lists. I'd put the stoneblade decks inn the id-ranged section,but that's just me. I'd put MUD as prison control - most people do. What other big mana decks are an issue? I'd call Tezz a control list too, I think.
At the same time, we're going to be doing a review to see what decks in Developing need to be bumped up to Established.
Or maybe the other way around? When as the last time Zoo, MUC, Enchantress, or other decks even placed in a major event? New players join this site, and might decide that these decks are competitively viable. I love Enchantress, but I have to face the facts sometimes. I wouldn't want to shuffle decks around the moment they fall out of favour, but if a deck hasn't been good for a very long time, maybe it should be sent back for development? Infect definitely should be moved to established!
Maybe there should be a little introduction as to the philosophy behind a decks inclusion as established?
Primers are an everlasting problem. They are a lot of work to create and can fall out of date fairly easily, but a well curated primer is a pillar around which a community can grow. How can we make it easiest and attractive for those of you considering writing a primer for a deck in which you're knowledgeable?
Fancy prestigious text or icons near our usernames?
Personally I'm (slowly) working away at an EDH primer, and interested in doing more if that one turns out well, so I can't pitch in myself. Also, my deck is Lands, and even if Sparki ever throws in the towel there are probably more qualified users to fill his shows. If it ever gets to the point where you are desperate for somebody for that primer, I will step up and do my best.
The Ban List thread has been mentioned by a number of users as something that they avoid. A lot of the discussion seems to recycle in there and it's easily the number one area for mod interventions in our sub. Is this something that is valuable to the subforum? What would be the impact if we no longer provided [i]any[/i] venue for that discussion? This would mean axing the Ban List thread [i]without[/i] opening the rest of the sub for ban list-related discussion.
I post there a lot, but I wouldn't really miss it. Mostly that thread discuses format health (which is related to a need for bans), and I post when I see something there which I think is absolute rubbish. But my intention is to provide critique of these ideas for the benefit of new (or prospective) impressionable players. I wouldn't feel the need to do that if those posts hadn't been made at all.
Of course people will still sneak little digs at the format health into other thread. Stuff about tier 1 non-blue decks being strictly weaker than decks with blue, or all decks with blue being collectively not diverse. I think it would be hard to draw the line as to what does and doesn't relate to the banned list? eg, a new user ask in the D&T thread if the deck is viable, and somebody answers that is is not because it doesn't run blue. Mayhem ensues, without anyone ever mentioning banning cards. In fact, legitimate banned list discussion might take the biggest hit with this restriction!
Little arguments could break out scattered through this whole section (you'll even see this stuff in the General forum sometimes). You might find it just as messy, but less contained and actually more work to moderate. Maybe that thread has it's best value as a repository for all the useless recycled bickering that turns a lot of users off?
If you get rid of it, I will do my best to respect the other threads. It's hard not to respond to something somebody posts that is (to me) obviously wrong and likely to give newbs a bad impression about Legacy. Just be clear on what the rules are.
[b]Objective 2: Reorganize the Competitive forum[/b]
[*]Combo (ANT, High Tide, Belcher, etc.)
[*]Control (Miracles, Death & Taxes, Lands, Enchantress, etc.)
[*]Aggro & Tempo (Burn, RUG Delver, UR delver, almost any other delver deck with the possible exception of UWR delver)
[*]Midrange (Stoneblade, Shardless BUG, Jund, Goblins, etc.)[/list]
I like this! I like very much to distinguish more hard control lists from the mid-ranged control lists. I'd put the stoneblade decks inn the id-ranged section,but that's just me. I'd put MUD as prison control - most people do. What other big mana decks are an issue? I'd call Tezz a control list too, I think.
The big problem decks are things like 12Post, MUD, and All-In-Red style decks.
But yeah, we've gone ahead and implemented this. Further tuning of deck placement is bound to occur (especially if there's a good case for changing the location of a deck).
At the same time, we're going to be doing a review to see what decks in Developing need to be bumped up to Established.
Or maybe the other way around? When as the last time Zoo, MUC, Enchantress, or other decks even placed in a major event? New players join this site, and might decide that these decks are competitively viable. I love Enchantress, but I have to face the facts sometimes. I wouldn't want to shuffle decks around the moment they fall out of favour, but if a deck hasn't been good for a very long time, maybe it should be sent back for development? Infect definitely should be moved to established!
Maybe there should be a little introduction as to the philosophy behind a decks inclusion as established?
Our guiding philosophy has been to support decks across the spread of "Legacy Competitive". This actually gets a bit sticky though. Let's delve a little deeper, since we are definitely going to be working to identify decks to drop down. Using existing decks in Established as an example, my own opinions are muddled (this is an example of a number of the decks under review, not a comprehensive list):
1. I'd keep Enchantress and Solidarity up in established. I see both with reasonable frequency in tournaments (every Legacy side event at GPs has an enchantress player, for example) and both are able to be competitive in the current format paradigm.
2. I want to keep Zoo in Established, but I don't have an articulate reason why. Unlike the decks mentioned in #1, I don't see it very often and can't remember facing it.
3. I would want to drop MUC down to Developing. I can't really remember this deck doing much of anything, and it feels more like a rogue pilot spiking a tournament or catching the hearts and minds of the community (akin to Blouses at SCG Sacramento 2012 for the former or pretty much any deck by Greg Hatch for the latter).
4. I have no idea whether Zombardment should be in Established or Developing. Leaning towards Developing, but I could go either way.
5. I want to archive NO RUG. NO RUG only existed in the Misstep era and died immediately after.
6. I want to move Bant Midrange to Developing. Less coherent than some of my other thoughts, but it just [i]feels[/i] wrong for me in Established.
7. I don't really know whether to keep Dreadstill where it is.
--
8. Shardless BUG, Infect, and UG 12Post need to move up to Established (and in some cases, have a thread created)
9. I want to move Aluren up to Established, but I can't say for certain if personal bias is influencing it. It's well known as a regional force in the Pacific Northwest (Seattle area), but conversely I would be unable to say with any certainty that even a single additional pilot beyond myself exists in all of California. This is further hampered by the expensive nature of the deck making it likely to be underrepresented as a fringe deck (akin to Dutch Stax).
Primers are an everlasting problem. They are a lot of work to create and can fall out of date fairly easily, but a well curated primer is a pillar around which a community can grow. How can we make it easiest and attractive for those of you considering writing a primer for a deck in which you're knowledgeable?
Fancy prestigious text or icons near our usernames?
Personally I'm (slowly) working away at an EDH primer, and interested in doing more if that one turns out well, so I can't pitch in myself. Also, my deck is Lands, and even if Sparki ever throws in the towel there are probably more qualified users to fill his shows. If it ever gets to the point where you are desperate for somebody for that primer, I will step up and do my best.
We're certainly desperate, but unfortunately I couldn't tell you a single primer that needs it more than others (Maaaaybe U/G 12post?). Solid and current primers are more the exception than the norm at this point. Lands, D&T, and Burn are the ones that spring to mind as solid, current, and complete.
The Ban List thread has been mentioned by a number of users as something that they avoid. A lot of the discussion seems to recycle in there and it's easily the number one area for mod interventions in our sub. Is this something that is valuable to the subforum? What would be the impact if we no longer provided [i]any[/i] venue for that discussion? This would mean axing the Ban List thread [i]without[/i] opening the rest of the sub for ban list-related discussion.
I post there a lot, but I wouldn't really miss it. Mostly that thread discuses format health (which is related to a need for bans), and I post when I see something there which I think is absolute rubbish. But my intention is to provide critique of these ideas for the benefit of new (or prospective) impressionable players. I wouldn't feel the need to do that if those posts hadn't been made at all.
Of course people will still sneak little digs at the format health into other thread. Stuff about tier 1 non-blue decks being strictly weaker than decks with blue, or all decks with blue being collectively not diverse. I think it would be hard to draw the line as to what does and doesn't relate to the banned list? eg, a new user ask in the D&T thread if the deck is viable, and somebody answers that is is not because it doesn't run blue. Mayhem ensues, without anyone ever mentioning banning cards. In fact, legitimate banned list discussion might take the biggest hit with this restriction!
Little arguments could break out scattered through this whole section (you'll even see this stuff in the General forum sometimes). You might find it just as messy, but less contained and actually more work to moderate. Maybe that thread has it's best value as a repository for all the useless recycled bickering that turns a lot of users off?
If you get rid of it, I will do my best to respect the other threads. It's hard not to respond to something somebody posts that is (to me) obviously wrong and likely to give newbs a bad impression about Legacy. Just be clear on what the rules are.
The issue isn't that the occasional sideways comment would be a problem. Turning a discussion into a banlist critique is a problem, but all of this is essentially how our rules function now anyway.
The crux of the issue really is that the thread is recycled bickering a lot of the time. I had a discussion with a friend and he led with (paraphrased) "I haven't checked in for awhile. Is the B&R thread still going on about brainstorm?". And the answer honestly is "yes, when we aren't threatening warnings". It's generally the same arguments as a year ago, two years ago, three years ago. None of this is meant as a slight to any of our users in any way -- it feels like that thread brings out the worst side of our forum. I can't actually remember feeling "that was a productive discussion" in that thread in forever. It really struck a chord with me when it came up that it might just be something that we didn't actually need. Even if we did away with it, I still figure a thread for discussing a ban announcement would make sense, but that's significantly different from the function of the Ban List thread that exists today.
List tags are malformed.
Just got to say, you've definitely earned distinction as an MTGS hero
Quote from Stardust »
Because he's the hero MTGS deserves, and the one it needs right now. So we'll global him. Because he can take it. Because he's not just our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. An expired rascal.
Quote from LuckNorris »
ExpiredRascals you sir are a god-like hero.
Quote from Lanxal »
ER is a masterful god who cannot be beaten in any endeavour.
The good thing about the B&R discussion, is that it keeps that garbage out of all the other threads. Consider it a sacrifice zone if you will. Exiled perhaps.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy: WRDeath and Taxes UWRMiracles UBTezzerator GTrinity GBWRLoam URLandstill
Modern: WUBValue Titan UMerfolk WGDeath and Taxes
If you unsticky the banlist thread it doesn't do anything really.
As for a thread popping up about a banlist change when a change occurs that's infinitely more effective than what the B&R thread talks about as then you're talking about something that's fact and not hypothetical. You can argue about whether so and so would be safe or so and so should be banned but in the end it doesn't really matter unless WotC makes a banlist update as I doubt what's talked about in that thread influences them in any way especially when some people have advocated for cards that the DCI would consider ludicrous to be unbanned like necropotence.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Yawgmoth," Freyalise whispered as she set the bomb, "now you will pay for your treachery."
The good thing about the B&R discussion, is that it keeps that garbage out of all the other threads. Consider it a sacrifice zone if you will. Exiled perhaps.
I definitely agree with this. Everyone knows what that thread is, and if people for some arcane and unknowable reason want to post in it, they're welcome to it. It doesn't harm the rest of us to have a thread that we knowingly avoid due to its basically rehashing, in varying degrees of animosity, the same old opinions. Those that post there evidently enjoy it, and I see no good reason to begrudge them that.
Put the ban/unban thread in it's own folder. Then we can add additional topics. Sure there are those annoyed about the topic of brainstorm but I don't see any wrong in talking about the card. I do think it's annoying when players start calling others stupid for talking about the card. I think the problem is that too many are assuming this forum has the power for pushing/putting cards on the ban list. I think ban/unban is more for venting - we don't have the power to ban/unban anything. But I feel that because too many are assuming this - the argument gets heated.
I disagree with this because of how developed all the stickied decks where you could say that those decks where the "best of developing". Now when say a new user shows up he will be drowned out by other decks that may just be ideas of whim or less developed rather than getting an idea of some of the more successful brews and what level he would need to compete at with those other brews.
I already saw they are unstickied but could I suggest a "hall of fame" sticky? Just one thread that links to all the most developed and successful developing legacy decks, sort of an efficient way of cleaning up all those stickies but at the same time giving brewers a resource to see the "best" developing deck without having to figure out for themselves based off of views and post count.
Also how would the review process for moving decks from developing to established work? Based off of tournament results? Numbers only approach? This process seems interesting and I would love some insight as to how that would work.
We're certainly desperate, but unfortunately I couldn't tell you a single primer that needs it more than others (Maaaaybe U/G 12post?). Solid and current primers are more the exception than the norm at this point. Lands, D&T, and Burn are the ones that spring to mind as solid, current, and complete.
I definitely can't help much. I've been playing Lands exclusively for 18 months now, and barely qualified to do that! Also, I'm a slow worker. I've been at that EDH primer for two months, and it's still not finished.
Put the ban/unban thread in it's own folder. Then we can add additional topics.
This is a great idea. Section ideas:
cards we think should come off
Brainstrom
Discuss recent changers to he list
Banned list theory - what makes a card ban-worthy?
Is the format too blue?
Or whatever.
This way you can actually help the users who avoid the current forum. They might be able to discuss what they want without having to sift through what they don't want.
On the other hand, this is an increase in workload, while shutting the thread down altogether would be a decrease. Resources are limited, and MTGS doesn't we the community an avenue for any specific discussions - especially those that are deemed unproductive and require extra moderation. I am too busy to volunteer reliable help, so if a whole new section is too much That's well understood.
I disagree with this because of how developed all the stickied decks where you could say that those decks where the "best of developing". Now when say a new user shows up he will be drowned out by other decks that may just be ideas of whim or less developed rather than getting an idea of some of the more successful brews and what level he would need to compete at with those other brews.
This is a good point. It's good to distinguish decks which have had moderate success, as well as those which have had success in the past but have fallen out of favour. But again, it's more work.
I like the idea of moving all the ban crap to its own folder. Second that. Would not be against just getting rid of it altogether either. Like that option the best.
I think you should look to do something like the Modern boards (or The Source) where you have a list of currently well performing decks in a single folder and then you have the sub folders like you do now. I also feel like just a general cleanup could be useful on the folders, some of the older, not so well performing decks could perhaps be put in another folder or moved out of the big titled folders. An example being Cephalid Breakfast, a deck I really think has fallen to the "Unlikely to see play again" statis. Maybe some decks need to be moved from "Established" to "Developing"
Primers are never going to be easy to deal with. Some people are invested in a deck to the point of wishing to pen a primer, others not so much. I feel like its something that you can not really control. People will do it or people will not. I mean some of the "Primers" are still just decklists posted by Korsakovia from back before the site fell into Civil war.
A "Shoot the *****" thread would be nice, if you could though I would hide it from non registered users. Somewhere for those who want to talk but not a distraction from those who come to the site for Legacy.
I know this is not going to be agreed to, but I feel like one of the things that makes me feel less engaged here is that, while designed to protect people against bullying, the rules on how you can talk, what you can say and how you say it can leave a very sterile feel to this place. I would rather type like I would in a group of friends, say the odd comment that is off the cuff, be a bit more free to talk like an adult as opposed to having to self censor myself. It is one of the reasons I rather hang out on The Source and only come here for Legacy once in about 2 weeks now. If your going to open a thread to off topic speech, let the grown ups talk like grown ups. Legacy has an older crowd and it just feels so shallow, hollow and sterile in this forum a lot of the time.
@the idea for a B&R subforum: I don't think this one is really on the table. This is for a number of reasons:
1. From a moderation perspective, this is loss in every regard. We very much would rather avoid carding under any circumstances. It's better for the forum if we're not intervening on a regular basis and the B&R thread already generates more mod intervention and mod judgment calls on to card or not than the rest of the Legacy forum combined. It also has the problem that it would add a volatile subforum that no mod would want to frequent.
2. It generates an additional burden on screen real-estate. We've been right up against the edge of what I'd consider reasonable for awhile. An additional forum makes it more likely that those with lower resolution screens will be unable to see any threads without scrolling.
3. I don't think the B&R thread has sufficient activity to warrant a full subforum.
@Dice_Bag regarding speech: Could you elaborate on the type of speech that you'd like to see us support? I can't guarantee that we'd be able to adjust to support it, but at minimum, I want to understand it so that we can better grasp what you and others are looking for in your legacy browsing.
@Dice_bag regarding Established: This was actually something we discussed and eventually tabled. My opinion is that it makes it too many clicks to find the thread you're interested in. Needing to potentially hunt through three forums to find your thread (Developing, Established-[Macro Archetype], Established-[Top of the Metagame]) gets pretty bad for people who aren't already forum regulars.
@Crimhead and Mugenkira on Developing: I like the idea of a "best of developing" thread. If one of you wanted to take ownership and maintain a list, I will gladly sticky it. The goal is to make the forum better for browsing -- one sticky is totally in line with that.
Just got to say, you've definitely earned distinction as an MTGS hero
Quote from Stardust »
Because he's the hero MTGS deserves, and the one it needs right now. So we'll global him. Because he can take it. Because he's not just our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. An expired rascal.
Quote from LuckNorris »
ExpiredRascals you sir are a god-like hero.
Quote from Lanxal »
ER is a masterful god who cannot be beaten in any endeavour.
I like the idea of moving all the ban crap to its own folder. Second that. Would not be against just getting rid of it altogether either. Like that option the best.
I think you should look to do something like the Modern boards (or The Source) where you have a list of currently well performing decks in a single folder and then you have the sub folders like you do now. I also feel like just a general cleanup could be useful on the folders, some of the older, not so well performing decks could perhaps be put in another folder or moved out of the big titled folders. An example being Cephalid Breakfast, a deck I really think has fallen to the "Unlikely to see play again" statis. Maybe some decks need to be moved from "Established" to "Developing"
Primers are never going to be easy to deal with. Some people are invested in a deck to the point of wishing to pen a primer, others not so much. I feel like its something that you can not really control. People will do it or people will not. I mean some of the "Primers" are still just decklists posted by Korsakovia from back before the site fell into Civil war.
A "Shoot the *****" thread would be nice, if you could though I would hide it from non registered users. Somewhere for those who want to talk but not a distraction from those who come to the site for Legacy.
I know this is not going to be agreed to, but I feel like one of the things that makes me feel less engaged here is that, while designed to protect people against bullying, the rules on how you can talk, what you can say and how you say it can leave a very sterile feel to this place. I would rather type like I would in a group of friends, say the odd comment that is off the cuff, be a bit more free to talk like an adult as opposed to having to self censor myself. It is one of the reasons I rather hang out on The Source and only come here for Legacy once in about 2 weeks now. If your going to open a thread to off topic speech, let the grown ups talk like grown ups. Legacy has an older crowd and it just feels so shallow, hollow and sterile in this forum a lot of the time.
I'm pretty much on board with this. My only change would be to eliminate as many sub forums as possible (read: as needed). Modeling exactly like The Source would be prime, in my opinion.
As for B&R talk, I feel like that thread should be locked one month before an announcement and two weeks after. This would allow people to ***** and moan in a proper amount of time. All ban talk that doesn't throw the OP objective out the window should be allowed, but ever cautiously. Maybe actually binning the original and creating a new one each announcement and having the OP have a list of cards no longer allowed to be talked about unless a card has blatantly become obvious as a problem, I.E Survival, Memory Jar, Moxen, etc.
The forum is already looking better. Old threads should be reviewed and eliminated with all out dated info. Have someone piece together relevant info before deletion. Like Legacy, the forum should be self regulating.
A question for those in favour of keeping the Ban List thread around:
Would you be amenable to trying a test period with a seasonal Ban List thread (a new one with a limited life span created for each new ban list update)? This would be something we'd try for maybe two set releases (Such as Magic: Origins and Battle for Zendikar) and then revisit to ascertain which is preferable.
Just got to say, you've definitely earned distinction as an MTGS hero
Quote from Stardust »
Because he's the hero MTGS deserves, and the one it needs right now. So we'll global him. Because he can take it. Because he's not just our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. An expired rascal.
Quote from LuckNorris »
ExpiredRascals you sir are a god-like hero.
Quote from Lanxal »
ER is a masterful god who cannot be beaten in any endeavour.
As long as it stays in a single thread that does not pollute the rest of the forum with the same tired material, then a seasonal version or not doesn't matter to me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy: WRDeath and Taxes UWRMiracles UBTezzerator GTrinity GBWRLoam URLandstill
Modern: WUBValue Titan UMerfolk WGDeath and Taxes
A question for those in favour of keeping the Ban List thread around:
Would you be amenable to trying a test period with a seasonal Ban List thread (a new one with a limited life span created for each new ban list update)? This would be something we'd try for maybe two set releases (Such as Magic: Origins and Battle for Zendikar) and then revisit to ascertain which is preferable.
2. Primers are an everlasting problem. They are a lot of work to create and can fall out of date fairly easily, but a well curated primer is a pillar around which a community can grow. How can we make it easiest and attractive for those of you considering writing a primer for a deck in which you're knowledgeable?
I haven't been very active in the forums, but I will try to give some input here and I hope this doesn't sound too absurd. To motivate writing a new Primer, or rewriting an existing one more attractive, how about about some badge next to their name, just like the moderator badge? I think that only very active and knowledgeable members would actually volunteer for writing a new primer and how about giving them the rights to moderate their own primer? This would have the upside of giving the author of the primer a reason to keep the primer updated(maybe)and stay engaged in the conversation of the deck. When he feels that he doesn't have the time to mod the thread anymore, he can just resign his rights. This may or may not take off some stress from the mods too, but you would probably have to rewrite the website and add special access rights, which means more work.
To add on what you said about Lands and Burn having the most complete primer of the decks, I think the reason for this is, that the card don't change that are played. Wizards won't print better burn spells than Lighting Bolt and Chain Lightning. They haven't printed any good land since Thespian's Stage either, that would replace any card in lands.
Most decks actually stay pretty constant, so even a 2-year old primer is often fairly okay, so I don't think it's something unique to burn/lands.
We can definitely reassign rights on a dead primer if we have someone willing to take over.
As to the reward for Primers, I'd be down to do a something like a yearly "best primer" award (awarded to any current primers, regardless of original pen date -- they would just need to be nominated and current). I'll look into what I might be able to do as a sort of "thank you" prize -- it probably wouldn't be much, maybe even just on the level of the old site's trophy system.
Just got to say, you've definitely earned distinction as an MTGS hero
Quote from Stardust »
Because he's the hero MTGS deserves, and the one it needs right now. So we'll global him. Because he can take it. Because he's not just our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. An expired rascal.
Quote from LuckNorris »
ExpiredRascals you sir are a god-like hero.
Quote from Lanxal »
ER is a masterful god who cannot be beaten in any endeavour.
1) decks that basically don't exist: The Gate, Aggro Elves, MUC, and Dreadstill.
2) decks that consistently fail to do well: Affinity (I cry, but it's true), Dragon Stompy/All In Red, Aggro Loam, High Tide, Enchantress, BWx StoneBlade/Dead Guy Ale, Pox
Another idea would be to create a higher level than "Established", "Dominant/Decks to Beat/Top Decks/Whatever" Leave Developing for decks that are, as archetypes, in flux, established for decks that are not but are not major highlights of the current meta, and the new category for decks that consistently currently do well (revised maybe every 6 months or ban change, whichever is shorter) a la the source. There would be a firm criterion for the top decks, whereas established would have its current fuzzy boundary.
I've mentioned it before, but I think there is value to the banned/restricted thread I feel it just needs to be retooled. It could be its own sub with the cards as threads. That would make it easier to see the previous talk on a given card rather then going through hundreds of pages to find something.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
------------------- Keep Abiding or Get Mangled ------------------
I've mentioned it before, but I think there is value to the banned/restricted thread I feel it just needs to be retooled. It could be its own sub with the cards as threads. That would make it easier to see the previous talk on a given card rather then going through hundreds of pages to find something.
agree 100000%
it would be awesome to list all the ban cards (the most common talked about) and list all those cards that are usually addressed for banning (not saying this thread will ban the cards but it's a perfect place for everybody to voice their opinion)
1) decks that basically don't exist: The Gate, Aggro Elves, MUC, and Dreadstill.
2) decks that consistently fail to do well: Affinity (I cry, but it's true), Dragon Stompy/All In Red, Aggro Loam, High Tide, Enchantress, BWx StoneBlade/Dead Guy Ale, Pox
Another idea would be to create a higher level than "Established", "Dominant/Decks to Beat/Top Decks/Whatever" Leave Developing for decks that are, as archetypes, in flux, established for decks that are not but are not major highlights of the current meta, and the new category for decks that consistently currently do well (revised maybe every 6 months or ban change, whichever is shorter) a la the source. There would be a firm criterion for the top decks, whereas established would have its current fuzzy boundary.
I'm on board to demote all in category 1. (I'm inclined to kick Solidarity down too -- the DTT ban crushed its last leg to stand on)
Category 2 I'm not inclined to bump down though. I could see maybe a case or two for specific decks on that list (AIR, for example), but most I much prefer in Established where they are fairly common decks (as far as legacy goes). As an example, you can pretty much bet that there will be an enchantress player in the room at any event with 20 or more players.
As to tiers, I think they're a headache on a whole load of logistical levels.
1. Legacy is nowhere near as codified on power level as other formats
2. Deck prevalence is not and indication of power in Legacy (refer to Aggro Loam's utterly dominating performance in Lille if you need an example)
3. Any breakdown we make will be as arbitrary as our current breakdown (meaning I'm not seeing an expected gain)
4. It makes finding the thread for you deck more of a headache for new posters.
I've mentioned it before, but I think there is value to the banned/restricted thread I feel it just needs to be retooled. It could be its own sub with the cards as threads. That would make it easier to see the previous talk on a given card rather then going through hundreds of pages to find something.
I am totally on board for any recommendations for fixing the Ban List thread, but under no circumstances is it going to become a full subforum. As mentioned above, it's generally bad for the forum, and in the abstract it also is a non-starter because we have no interest in making the most contentious and aggression-filled thread into an entire subforum. (This is before we even consider the ridiculously circular discussions that go on in there: go back to 2013 and review the arguments about brainstorm and then ask yourself if they are meaningfully different from ones posted recently).
Just got to say, you've definitely earned distinction as an MTGS hero
Quote from Stardust »
Because he's the hero MTGS deserves, and the one it needs right now. So we'll global him. Because he can take it. Because he's not just our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. An expired rascal.
Quote from LuckNorris »
ExpiredRascals you sir are a god-like hero.
Quote from Lanxal »
ER is a masterful god who cannot be beaten in any endeavour.
We need your input: 2. Primers are an everlasting problem. They are a lot of work to create and can fall out of date fairly easily, but a well curated primer is a pillar around which a community can grow. How can we make it easiest and attractive for those of you considering writing a primer for a deck in which you're knowledgeable? 3. The Ban List thread has been mentioned by a number of users as something that they avoid. A lot of the discussion seems to recycle in there and it's easily the number one area for mod interventions in our sub. Is this something that is valuable to the subforum? What would be the impact if we no longer provided any venue for that discussion? This would mean axing the Ban List thread without opening the rest of the sub for ban list-related discussion. 4. What else can we do to make this forum better or more engaging for users?
Re: Objective 2 - There are a lot of decks that really aren't "competitive" in this meta. Elves for instance is a terrible and failing deck choice recently, I won't go into that because I don't want to begin a debate about banning top or terminus, etc. But as someone else mentioned mtgthesource does a good job at organizing consistent top decks compared to decks that show their face once in a while. This could be a good place to at least get a few ideas. Maybe organize it similar to the Modern Primer where you have Tier 1, 2, developing competitive, etc.
Re: Input #2 - Maybe if you created a template for what is needed to create a primer, it would be easier to give people something as a starting point and allow the users to make edits from there to customize it for the primer they are creating. It may help to find people whom might be interested in creating Primers for existing/new decks.
Re: Input #3 - Ban list discussions are easy to avoid because it is a topic that is most toxic among magic players. No one ever thinks that their deck deserves to have a key card banned and some just want their pet cards back and will defend their point to the death. If you remove it entirely, you will have much of this discussion happening in deck primers/threads rather than in one controlled environment. Although if you want to clean up and tidy up the banned list discussion, WeaponX idea is actually a really good one. It gives a much more controlled environment for people to discuss the banning of specific cards and helps keep the thoughts and responses more precise and organized so that actual useful discussions can be had rather than a free-for-all about any and every card that "should" be banned/unbanned.
Re: Input #4 - The search engine is really poor at times. There have been several times that I have tried to go back to search things from over a year ago and just couldn't find them so I had to resort to clicking page by page. I don't know much about programming, but I do know that the search function should find something when I type in the word Tibalt as it is not a commonly used card and I know I have talked about it in a specific thread.
We need your input: 2. Primers are an everlasting problem. They are a lot of work to create and can fall out of date fairly easily, but a well curated primer is a pillar around which a community can grow. How can we make it easiest and attractive for those of you considering writing a primer for a deck in which you're knowledgeable? 3. The Ban List thread has been mentioned by a number of users as something that they avoid. A lot of the discussion seems to recycle in there and it's easily the number one area for mod interventions in our sub. Is this something that is valuable to the subforum? What would be the impact if we no longer provided any venue for that discussion? This would mean axing the Ban List thread without opening the rest of the sub for ban list-related discussion. 4. What else can we do to make this forum better or more engaging for users?
Re: Objective 2 - There are a lot of decks that really aren't "competitive" in this meta. Elves for instance is a terrible and failing deck choice recently, I won't go into that because I don't want to begin a debate about banning top or terminus, etc. But as someone else mentioned mtgthesource does a good job at organizing consistent top decks compared to decks that show their face once in a while. This could be a good place to at least get a few ideas. Maybe organize it similar to the Modern Primer where you have Tier 1, 2, developing competitive, etc.
The Tier 1, 2, developing distinction was what I mentioned above as being harder to break down for Legacy. I also was never much of a fan for the Source's split on "Decks to Beat" -- like, yeah, Miracles is a lock for such a list, but it felt random as to many of the other decks that featured there (as an example, I seem to remember Burn being there within the last year or two).
One thing that has been floated in side conversations on this subject would be to wipe our subforum breakdown within Established, have Established by limited to the number of threads that fit on one forum page (Teia & I would curate this selection). I'm not excited by it, but it seemed worth mentioning.
On a complete aside: I disagree that elves is a "failing choice" right now, and even a crappy miracles match-up does not make a deck suddenly unplayable or uncompetitive. (A more extreme analogy from another format might be Ruel & Chan's PT T8 with Owling Mine in Type2, where they literally could not beat one of the top decks -- Gruul aggro)
Re: Input #2 - Maybe if you created a template for what is needed to create a primer, it would be easier to give people something as a starting point and allow the users to make edits from there to customize it for the primer they are creating. It may help to find people whom might be interested in creating Primers for existing/new decks.
I can do this.
Re: Input #3 - Ban list discussions are easy to avoid because it is a topic that is most toxic among magic players. No one ever thinks that their deck deserves to have a key card banned and some just want their pet cards back and will defend their point to the death. If you remove it entirely, you will have much of this discussion happening in deck primers/threads rather than in one controlled environment. Although if you want to clean up and tidy up the banned list discussion, WeaponX idea is actually a really good one. It gives a much more controlled environment for people to discuss the banning of specific cards and helps keep the thoughts and responses more precise and organized so that actual useful discussions can be had rather than a free-for-all about any and every card that "should" be banned/unbanned.
While I'm not as hardset as my previous comments indicated on this, I'm still pretty against this. One thing I will do though is talk with the EDH mods -- they recently implemented a similar such subforum and it seems a good place to look for analogous feedback.
Re: Input #4 - The search engine is really poor at times. There have been several times that I have tried to go back to search things from over a year ago and just couldn't find them so I had to resort to clicking page by page. I don't know much about programming, but I do know that the search function should find something when I type in the word Tibalt as it is not a commonly used card and I know I have talked about it in a specific thread.
This is outside our personal scope, but this is specific enough that I can flag it for Feyd to bug our devs over.
Just got to say, you've definitely earned distinction as an MTGS hero
Quote from Stardust »
Because he's the hero MTGS deserves, and the one it needs right now. So we'll global him. Because he can take it. Because he's not just our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. An expired rascal.
Quote from LuckNorris »
ExpiredRascals you sir are a god-like hero.
Quote from Lanxal »
ER is a masterful god who cannot be beaten in any endeavour.
Quote from votan »
:ER:, you suck as a hero
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Objective 1: Cut back on the number of stickies.
We're going to be unstickying every thread in the Developing section and aggressively cutting back on the number of stickies in the main sub. This should help you be able to see the active discussions the moment that you load the page, instead of forcing you to scroll to find out what's new.
Objective 2: Reorganize the Competitive forum
We've been unhappy with the breakdown of the Established forums for awhile now. While we don't have a solution that we're 100% satisfied with, we do have one that we think is worth giving a shot. We're looking to reorganize the Established forums to a 4 forum model instead of the current 3. We like the way that we provide support to fringe-but-competitive decks, and this model will try to preserve that while making threads easier to find. The four forums will be as follows:
We need your input:
1. It's been mentioned that other forums (such as my ancestral homeland, the Cube Forum) have a Community Off-Topic thread where denizens of the forum can discuss things not related to the core purpose of the sub. Is this something that y'all are interested in?
2. Primers are an everlasting problem. They are a lot of work to create and can fall out of date fairly easily, but a well curated primer is a pillar around which a community can grow. How can we make it easiest and attractive for those of you considering writing a primer for a deck in which you're knowledgeable?
3. The Ban List thread has been mentioned by a number of users as something that they avoid. A lot of the discussion seems to recycle in there and it's easily the number one area for mod interventions in our sub. Is this something that is valuable to the subforum? What would be the impact if we no longer provided any venue for that discussion? This would mean axing the Ban List thread without opening the rest of the sub for ban list-related discussion.
4. What else can we do to make this forum better or more engaging for users?
Body Count: GRRRUUUUUUUUUUU
إن سرقت إسرق جمل
Level 1 Judge
My Cube for use with 6th ed. Rules
I like this! I like very much to distinguish more hard control lists from the mid-ranged control lists. I'd put the stoneblade decks inn the id-ranged section,but that's just me. I'd put MUD as prison control - most people do. What other big mana decks are an issue? I'd call Tezz a control list too, I think.
Or maybe the other way around? When as the last time Zoo, MUC, Enchantress, or other decks even placed in a major event? New players join this site, and might decide that these decks are competitively viable. I love Enchantress, but I have to face the facts sometimes. I wouldn't want to shuffle decks around the moment they fall out of favour, but if a deck hasn't been good for a very long time, maybe it should be sent back for development? Infect definitely should be moved to established!
Maybe there should be a little introduction as to the philosophy behind a decks inclusion as established?
Fancy prestigious text or icons near our usernames?
Personally I'm (slowly) working away at an EDH primer, and interested in doing more if that one turns out well, so I can't pitch in myself. Also, my deck is Lands, and even if Sparki ever throws in the towel there are probably more qualified users to fill his shows. If it ever gets to the point where you are desperate for somebody for that primer, I will step up and do my best.
I post there a lot, but I wouldn't really miss it. Mostly that thread discuses format health (which is related to a need for bans), and I post when I see something there which I think is absolute rubbish. But my intention is to provide critique of these ideas for the benefit of new (or prospective) impressionable players. I wouldn't feel the need to do that if those posts hadn't been made at all.
Of course people will still sneak little digs at the format health into other thread. Stuff about tier 1 non-blue decks being strictly weaker than decks with blue, or all decks with blue being collectively not diverse. I think it would be hard to draw the line as to what does and doesn't relate to the banned list? eg, a new user ask in the D&T thread if the deck is viable, and somebody answers that is is not because it doesn't run blue. Mayhem ensues, without anyone ever mentioning banning cards. In fact, legitimate banned list discussion might take the biggest hit with this restriction!
Little arguments could break out scattered through this whole section (you'll even see this stuff in the General forum sometimes). You might find it just as messy, but less contained and actually more work to moderate. Maybe that thread has it's best value as a repository for all the useless recycled bickering that turns a lot of users off?
If you get rid of it, I will do my best to respect the other threads. It's hard not to respond to something somebody posts that is (to me) obviously wrong and likely to give newbs a bad impression about Legacy. Just be clear on what the rules are.
List tags are malformed.
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
But yeah, we've gone ahead and implemented this. Further tuning of deck placement is bound to occur (especially if there's a good case for changing the location of a deck).
Our guiding philosophy has been to support decks across the spread of "Legacy Competitive". This actually gets a bit sticky though. Let's delve a little deeper, since we are definitely going to be working to identify decks to drop down. Using existing decks in Established as an example, my own opinions are muddled (this is an example of a number of the decks under review, not a comprehensive list):
1. I'd keep Enchantress and Solidarity up in established. I see both with reasonable frequency in tournaments (every Legacy side event at GPs has an enchantress player, for example) and both are able to be competitive in the current format paradigm.
2. I want to keep Zoo in Established, but I don't have an articulate reason why. Unlike the decks mentioned in #1, I don't see it very often and can't remember facing it.
3. I would want to drop MUC down to Developing. I can't really remember this deck doing much of anything, and it feels more like a rogue pilot spiking a tournament or catching the hearts and minds of the community (akin to Blouses at SCG Sacramento 2012 for the former or pretty much any deck by Greg Hatch for the latter).
4. I have no idea whether Zombardment should be in Established or Developing. Leaning towards Developing, but I could go either way.
5. I want to archive NO RUG. NO RUG only existed in the Misstep era and died immediately after.
6. I want to move Bant Midrange to Developing. Less coherent than some of my other thoughts, but it just [i]feels[/i] wrong for me in Established.
7. I don't really know whether to keep Dreadstill where it is.
--
8. Shardless BUG, Infect, and UG 12Post need to move up to Established (and in some cases, have a thread created)
9. I want to move Aluren up to Established, but I can't say for certain if personal bias is influencing it. It's well known as a regional force in the Pacific Northwest (Seattle area), but conversely I would be unable to say with any certainty that even a single additional pilot beyond myself exists in all of California. This is further hampered by the expensive nature of the deck making it likely to be underrepresented as a fringe deck (akin to Dutch Stax).
We're certainly desperate, but unfortunately I couldn't tell you a single primer that needs it more than others (Maaaaybe U/G 12post?). Solid and current primers are more the exception than the norm at this point. Lands, D&T, and Burn are the ones that spring to mind as solid, current, and complete.
The issue isn't that the occasional sideways comment would be a problem. Turning a discussion into a banlist critique is a problem, but all of this is essentially how our rules function now anyway.
The crux of the issue really is that the thread is recycled bickering a lot of the time. I had a discussion with a friend and he led with (paraphrased) "I haven't checked in for awhile. Is the B&R thread still going on about brainstorm?". And the answer honestly is "yes, when we aren't threatening warnings". It's generally the same arguments as a year ago, two years ago, three years ago. None of this is meant as a slight to any of our users in any way -- it feels like that thread brings out the worst side of our forum. I can't actually remember feeling "that was a productive discussion" in that thread in forever. It really struck a chord with me when it came up that it might just be something that we didn't actually need. Even if we did away with it, I still figure a thread for discussing a ban announcement would make sense, but that's significantly different from the function of the Ban List thread that exists today.
List tags are malformed.
Body Count: GRRRUUUUUUUUUUU
إن سرقت إسرق جمل
Level 1 Judge
My Cube for use with 6th ed. Rules
Modern: WUBValue Titan UMerfolk WGDeath and Taxes
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/legacy-type-1-5/661941-list-of-stores-that-support-legacy
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?28892-Compilation-Of-Legacy-Streams
As for a thread popping up about a banlist change when a change occurs that's infinitely more effective than what the B&R thread talks about as then you're talking about something that's fact and not hypothetical. You can argue about whether so and so would be safe or so and so should be banned but in the end it doesn't really matter unless WotC makes a banlist update as I doubt what's talked about in that thread influences them in any way especially when some people have advocated for cards that the DCI would consider ludicrous to be unbanned like necropotence.
Currently Playing:
Retired
I definitely agree with this. Everyone knows what that thread is, and if people for some arcane and unknowable reason want to post in it, they're welcome to it. It doesn't harm the rest of us to have a thread that we knowingly avoid due to its basically rehashing, in varying degrees of animosity, the same old opinions. Those that post there evidently enjoy it, and I see no good reason to begrudge them that.
Overall record: 139-98-15
Total number of matches: 252
Win percentage ignoring draws: 58.649789
Win percentage including draws: 55.158730
Put the ban/unban thread in it's own folder. Then we can add additional topics. Sure there are those annoyed about the topic of brainstorm but I don't see any wrong in talking about the card. I do think it's annoying when players start calling others stupid for talking about the card. I think the problem is that too many are assuming this forum has the power for pushing/putting cards on the ban list. I think ban/unban is more for venting - we don't have the power to ban/unban anything. But I feel that because too many are assuming this - the argument gets heated.
In his Second 100 days - Yawgmoth's Bargain is unrestricted in Vintage.
What is going to happen in the Next 100 days!!!
I disagree with this because of how developed all the stickied decks where you could say that those decks where the "best of developing". Now when say a new user shows up he will be drowned out by other decks that may just be ideas of whim or less developed rather than getting an idea of some of the more successful brews and what level he would need to compete at with those other brews.
I already saw they are unstickied but could I suggest a "hall of fame" sticky? Just one thread that links to all the most developed and successful developing legacy decks, sort of an efficient way of cleaning up all those stickies but at the same time giving brewers a resource to see the "best" developing deck without having to figure out for themselves based off of views and post count.
Also how would the review process for moving decks from developing to established work? Based off of tournament results? Numbers only approach? This process seems interesting and I would love some insight as to how that would work.
This is a great idea. Section ideas:
This way you can actually help the users who avoid the current forum. They might be able to discuss what they want without having to sift through what they don't want.
On the other hand, this is an increase in workload, while shutting the thread down altogether would be a decrease. Resources are limited, and MTGS doesn't we the community an avenue for any specific discussions - especially those that are deemed unproductive and require extra moderation. I am too busy to volunteer reliable help, so if a whole new section is too much That's well understood.
This is a good point. It's good to distinguish decks which have had moderate success, as well as those which have had success in the past but have fallen out of favour. But again, it's more work.
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
I think you should look to do something like the Modern boards (or The Source) where you have a list of currently well performing decks in a single folder and then you have the sub folders like you do now. I also feel like just a general cleanup could be useful on the folders, some of the older, not so well performing decks could perhaps be put in another folder or moved out of the big titled folders. An example being Cephalid Breakfast, a deck I really think has fallen to the "Unlikely to see play again" statis. Maybe some decks need to be moved from "Established" to "Developing"
Primers are never going to be easy to deal with. Some people are invested in a deck to the point of wishing to pen a primer, others not so much. I feel like its something that you can not really control. People will do it or people will not. I mean some of the "Primers" are still just decklists posted by Korsakovia from back before the site fell into Civil war.
A "Shoot the *****" thread would be nice, if you could though I would hide it from non registered users. Somewhere for those who want to talk but not a distraction from those who come to the site for Legacy.
I know this is not going to be agreed to, but I feel like one of the things that makes me feel less engaged here is that, while designed to protect people against bullying, the rules on how you can talk, what you can say and how you say it can leave a very sterile feel to this place. I would rather type like I would in a group of friends, say the odd comment that is off the cuff, be a bit more free to talk like an adult as opposed to having to self censor myself. It is one of the reasons I rather hang out on The Source and only come here for Legacy once in about 2 weeks now. If your going to open a thread to off topic speech, let the grown ups talk like grown ups. Legacy has an older crowd and it just feels so shallow, hollow and sterile in this forum a lot of the time.
Current decks of choice:
Vintage: Shops.
Legacy: Lands.
Modern: Lantern.
1. From a moderation perspective, this is loss in every regard. We very much would rather avoid carding under any circumstances. It's better for the forum if we're not intervening on a regular basis and the B&R thread already generates more mod intervention and mod judgment calls on to card or not than the rest of the Legacy forum combined. It also has the problem that it would add a volatile subforum that no mod would want to frequent.
2. It generates an additional burden on screen real-estate. We've been right up against the edge of what I'd consider reasonable for awhile. An additional forum makes it more likely that those with lower resolution screens will be unable to see any threads without scrolling.
3. I don't think the B&R thread has sufficient activity to warrant a full subforum.
@Dice_Bag regarding speech: Could you elaborate on the type of speech that you'd like to see us support? I can't guarantee that we'd be able to adjust to support it, but at minimum, I want to understand it so that we can better grasp what you and others are looking for in your legacy browsing.
@Dice_bag regarding Established: This was actually something we discussed and eventually tabled. My opinion is that it makes it too many clicks to find the thread you're interested in. Needing to potentially hunt through three forums to find your thread (Developing, Established-[Macro Archetype], Established-[Top of the Metagame]) gets pretty bad for people who aren't already forum regulars.
@Crimhead and Mugenkira on Developing: I like the idea of a "best of developing" thread. If one of you wanted to take ownership and maintain a list, I will gladly sticky it. The goal is to make the forum better for browsing -- one sticky is totally in line with that.
Body Count: GRRRUUUUUUUUUUU
إن سرقت إسرق جمل
Level 1 Judge
My Cube for use with 6th ed. Rules
I'm pretty much on board with this. My only change would be to eliminate as many sub forums as possible (read: as needed). Modeling exactly like The Source would be prime, in my opinion.
As for B&R talk, I feel like that thread should be locked one month before an announcement and two weeks after. This would allow people to ***** and moan in a proper amount of time. All ban talk that doesn't throw the OP objective out the window should be allowed, but ever cautiously. Maybe actually binning the original and creating a new one each announcement and having the OP have a list of cards no longer allowed to be talked about unless a card has blatantly become obvious as a problem, I.E Survival, Memory Jar, Moxen, etc.
The forum is already looking better. Old threads should be reviewed and eliminated with all out dated info. Have someone piece together relevant info before deletion. Like Legacy, the forum should be self regulating.
Would you be amenable to trying a test period with a seasonal Ban List thread (a new one with a limited life span created for each new ban list update)? This would be something we'd try for maybe two set releases (Such as Magic: Origins and Battle for Zendikar) and then revisit to ascertain which is preferable.
Body Count: GRRRUUUUUUUUUUU
إن سرقت إسرق جمل
Level 1 Judge
My Cube for use with 6th ed. Rules
Modern: WUBValue Titan UMerfolk WGDeath and Taxes
Sounds fine to me.
We can definitely reassign rights on a dead primer if we have someone willing to take over.
As to the reward for Primers, I'd be down to do a something like a yearly "best primer" award (awarded to any current primers, regardless of original pen date -- they would just need to be nominated and current). I'll look into what I might be able to do as a sort of "thank you" prize -- it probably wouldn't be much, maybe even just on the level of the old site's trophy system.
Body Count: GRRRUUUUUUUUUUU
إن سرقت إسرق جمل
Level 1 Judge
My Cube for use with 6th ed. Rules
1) decks that basically don't exist: The Gate, Aggro Elves, MUC, and Dreadstill.
2) decks that consistently fail to do well: Affinity (I cry, but it's true), Dragon Stompy/All In Red, Aggro Loam, High Tide, Enchantress, BWx StoneBlade/Dead Guy Ale, Pox
No deck in the second list has had more than 5 top 8s in 2015 so far: http://www.mtgtop8.com/format?f=LE&meta=100
Another idea would be to create a higher level than "Established", "Dominant/Decks to Beat/Top Decks/Whatever" Leave Developing for decks that are, as archetypes, in flux, established for decks that are not but are not major highlights of the current meta, and the new category for decks that consistently currently do well (revised maybe every 6 months or ban change, whichever is shorter) a la the source. There would be a firm criterion for the top decks, whereas established would have its current fuzzy boundary.
Level 1 Judge
Currently Playing:
W Death and Taxes
BGR ScapeWish Nic Fit
BGR Punishing Nic Fit
-----The Legacy Flowchart-----
Tiny Leaders Overlord
agree 100000%
it would be awesome to list all the ban cards (the most common talked about) and list all those cards that are usually addressed for banning (not saying this thread will ban the cards but it's a perfect place for everybody to voice their opinion)
In his Second 100 days - Yawgmoth's Bargain is unrestricted in Vintage.
What is going to happen in the Next 100 days!!!
Category 2 I'm not inclined to bump down though. I could see maybe a case or two for specific decks on that list (AIR, for example), but most I much prefer in Established where they are fairly common decks (as far as legacy goes). As an example, you can pretty much bet that there will be an enchantress player in the room at any event with 20 or more players.
As to tiers, I think they're a headache on a whole load of logistical levels.
1. Legacy is nowhere near as codified on power level as other formats
2. Deck prevalence is not and indication of power in Legacy (refer to Aggro Loam's utterly dominating performance in Lille if you need an example)
3. Any breakdown we make will be as arbitrary as our current breakdown (meaning I'm not seeing an expected gain)
4. It makes finding the thread for you deck more of a headache for new posters.
I am totally on board for any recommendations for fixing the Ban List thread, but under no circumstances is it going to become a full subforum. As mentioned above, it's generally bad for the forum, and in the abstract it also is a non-starter because we have no interest in making the most contentious and aggression-filled thread into an entire subforum. (This is before we even consider the ridiculously circular discussions that go on in there: go back to 2013 and review the arguments about brainstorm and then ask yourself if they are meaningfully different from ones posted recently).
Body Count: GRRRUUUUUUUUUUU
إن سرقت إسرق جمل
Level 1 Judge
My Cube for use with 6th ed. Rules
Re: Objective 2 - There are a lot of decks that really aren't "competitive" in this meta. Elves for instance is a terrible and failing deck choice recently, I won't go into that because I don't want to begin a debate about banning top or terminus, etc. But as someone else mentioned mtgthesource does a good job at organizing consistent top decks compared to decks that show their face once in a while. This could be a good place to at least get a few ideas. Maybe organize it similar to the Modern Primer where you have Tier 1, 2, developing competitive, etc.
Re: Input #2 - Maybe if you created a template for what is needed to create a primer, it would be easier to give people something as a starting point and allow the users to make edits from there to customize it for the primer they are creating. It may help to find people whom might be interested in creating Primers for existing/new decks.
Re: Input #3 - Ban list discussions are easy to avoid because it is a topic that is most toxic among magic players. No one ever thinks that their deck deserves to have a key card banned and some just want their pet cards back and will defend their point to the death. If you remove it entirely, you will have much of this discussion happening in deck primers/threads rather than in one controlled environment. Although if you want to clean up and tidy up the banned list discussion, WeaponX idea is actually a really good one. It gives a much more controlled environment for people to discuss the banning of specific cards and helps keep the thoughts and responses more precise and organized so that actual useful discussions can be had rather than a free-for-all about any and every card that "should" be banned/unbanned.
Re: Input #4 - The search engine is really poor at times. There have been several times that I have tried to go back to search things from over a year ago and just couldn't find them so I had to resort to clicking page by page. I don't know much about programming, but I do know that the search function should find something when I type in the word Tibalt as it is not a commonly used card and I know I have talked about it in a specific thread.
One thing that has been floated in side conversations on this subject would be to wipe our subforum breakdown within Established, have Established by limited to the number of threads that fit on one forum page (Teia & I would curate this selection). I'm not excited by it, but it seemed worth mentioning.
On a complete aside: I disagree that elves is a "failing choice" right now, and even a crappy miracles match-up does not make a deck suddenly unplayable or uncompetitive. (A more extreme analogy from another format might be Ruel & Chan's PT T8 with Owling Mine in Type2, where they literally could not beat one of the top decks -- Gruul aggro)
I can do this.
While I'm not as hardset as my previous comments indicated on this, I'm still pretty against this. One thing I will do though is talk with the EDH mods -- they recently implemented a similar such subforum and it seems a good place to look for analogous feedback.
This is outside our personal scope, but this is specific enough that I can flag it for Feyd to bug our devs over.
Body Count: GRRRUUUUUUUUUUU
إن سرقت إسرق جمل
Level 1 Judge
My Cube for use with 6th ed. Rules