The Proven Competitive section needs to be modded. A lot of decks in there really have no business being there. I'm glad that people have been putting up primers and that a lot more effort is going into this forum. And I know I probably sound like an ass after not putting up any new decklists/primers and now I'm complaining but its getting kind of ridiculous.
Just because some one wrote a primer for a deck doesn't mean it should be shoved into proven, I appreciate how much effort can go into these primers, I was writing one up but between soccer and schoolwork I had to drop something so obviously forums come after real life, but a lot of these decks haven't put up decent results with any consistency in ages.
RGSA, when was the last time you heard that T8 a few tournaments? And Burn, it can win, and it will probably show up in a lot of metas since it at least has a chance against a lot of decks and is one of the cheaper decks to build but I wouldn't go so far as to put it in proven since it isn't really an upper tier deck. "Proven Competitive - The Decks that Shape the Upper Tier".
And then we have the Dreadnought archetype thread, no match up info, decks that have completely different strategies, and no results. Why would this go into Proven Competitive, so you made a long post, doesn't mean your deck(s) is(are) upper tier contenders. Not like I'm personally attacking you Complete Jank but threads like these I think are perfect examples of ones that shouldn't be in Proven.
Other questionable decks include Dredge-a'-tog, ATS, MBA(this one because it was a meta game deck not because its a top contender in the current meta), Angel Stompy, BW Confidant, Rifter, and maybe Angel Stax(but i'm not sure if this has been putting up results or not) and probably more I might have missed a few. And why are Iggy Pop and Solidarity still stickied? These haven't been too relevant for a while especially if goblins has been unstickied.
So I'm glad that the forums are starting to go in the right direction but continue to clean things up please. Having that out-of-date of a Proven section is ridiculous, especially after the push for a new mod to clean things exactly like this up.
Well that's how the forums used to be bladewing but the mods put Proven Competitive available to any deck thoroughly tested with some success. The Top Tier is in the seperate part of Proven Competitive. I can see no reason for complaint here. It is much better than it used to be.
But really, if I'm a new player looking for information about the legacy format, I want to know the best decks. I want to know what consistently performs well. What I don't want to see is are threads about are the deck that some dude who I've never heard of, that hasn't placed at any big events at all, came up with that could beat the decks in his local meta. This isn't going to help me prepare for anything. I also don't want to see decks that used to be powerhouses, but haven't done anything in a while (ATS, I'm looking at you). Oh, and look at the stickies: IGGy Pop, Solidarity, and Threshold. That's a fragile, slightly slow, combo, an old combo deck past it's prime and not played any more, and one list for the best deck in the format and all of it's variations. We have three different threads for Survival of the Fittest decks, for God's sake!
Thus, the Proven Competitive forum definitely needs cleaning up, and although I have to go to bed now, I'll suggest some things tomorrow.
i suggest to have something similar to what the source does. you have new decks at the bottom level with decks for critique.
then you have a second subset with decks you see in the meta.
and then you have only the top tier'ed decks so far in the 'proven competitive'. you could say that as a requirement to move into the second tier or the proven competitive that a primer has to be written or something to that effect.
there needs to be no primer requirement for the last tier.
i think that would help out the clutter. but good job on working at it so far mods.
We have 3 Different Survival Threads because there are 3 different Archetypes of Survival. Well actually 4, but I have yet to get the Rec Sur thread to post for some reason. ATS is an older Archetype that is no longer tier 1. RGSA/RGBSA has actually taken multiple top 8's with in the past year. Welder Survival has taken a large top 8, as well as 13th at Gencon.
When we were discussing how to improve the Proven section, it was discussed and providing proper write ups for older decks that have never been posted is something that should happen, so I took on the Survival decks because of my experience with them.
As for Phyrexian Dreadnought, it too has performed well, and not only in my hands. If I remember right, someone took top 16 with it at Gencon, and I am 19-1-5 (Actually 23-1-1 with special considerations) with decks from that Archetype. As for the Match-ups, I have posted stuff on that before with other decks, and few have been able to replicate what I state, even with details on how to play out the deck in the matches. I can see that some things will be added and changed as we go, and possibly adding match ups could be one of them. I just don't want to argue over small little things. Many of the decks are easily analized as far as match-ups are concerned.
I'm not upset about the decks that are posted in there but more so the fact that many of them have. "Under Construction" or "Primer to Follow" yet nothing has happened.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In Vintage (Type 1) > Budget Deck Discussion forum:
Maybe the decks that haven't done well lately should be in a sub-forum or atleast labeled. Things like ATS are about 3 meta shifts behind, and having decks like that just sitting in our proven comp without anything saying when/why they were competitive in their respective metas could be extremely confusing to any new (legacy) players looking through our forum.
Quote from Complete_Jank »
As for the Match-ups, I have posted stuff on that before with other decks, and few have been able to replicate what I state, even with details on how to play out the deck in the matches.
I don't think I understand what your saying here. Are you saying you've posted rough MU %'s for other decks, and other people haven't gotten the same results? You should still at least put something on what are bad match ups for you and some explanation as to why. Espescially in Proven Competitive. " All New threads in Proven Competitive must have a Primer with a Decklist, Card Choices and Matchups." Straight from the rules, even if people find MUs to be different its something that should be getting discussed for decks in Proven Comp.
Just because some one wrote a primer for a deck doesn't mean it should be shoved into proven, I appreciate how much effort can go into these primers, I was writing one up but between soccer and schoolwork I had to drop something so obviously forums come after real life, but a lot of these decks haven't put up decent results with any consistency in ages.
RGSA, when was the last time you heard that T8 a few tournaments? And Burn, it can win, and it will probably show up in a lot of metas since it at least has a chance against a lot of decks and is one of the cheaper decks to build but I wouldn't go so far as to put it in proven since it isn't really an upper tier deck. "Proven Competitive - The Decks that Shape the Upper Tier".
And then we have the Dreadnought archetype thread, no match up info, decks that have completely different strategies, and no results. Why would this go into Proven Competitive, so you made a long post, doesn't mean your deck(s) is(are) upper tier contenders. Not like I'm personally attacking you Complete Jank but threads like these I think are perfect examples of ones that shouldn't be in Proven.
Other questionable decks include Dredge-a'-tog, ATS, MBA(this one because it was a meta game deck not because its a top contender in the current meta), Angel Stompy, BW Confidant, Rifter, and maybe Angel Stax(but i'm not sure if this has been putting up results or not) and probably more I might have missed a few. And why are Iggy Pop and Solidarity still stickied? These haven't been too relevant for a while especially if goblins has been unstickied.
So I'm glad that the forums are starting to go in the right direction but continue to clean things up please. Having that out-of-date of a Proven section is ridiculous, especially after the push for a new mod to clean things exactly like this up.
Thanks
Thus, the Proven Competitive forum definitely needs cleaning up, and although I have to go to bed now, I'll suggest some things tomorrow.
then you have a second subset with decks you see in the meta.
and then you have only the top tier'ed decks so far in the 'proven competitive'. you could say that as a requirement to move into the second tier or the proven competitive that a primer has to be written or something to that effect.
there needs to be no primer requirement for the last tier.
i think that would help out the clutter. but good job on working at it so far mods.
When we were discussing how to improve the Proven section, it was discussed and providing proper write ups for older decks that have never been posted is something that should happen, so I took on the Survival decks because of my experience with them.
As for Phyrexian Dreadnought, it too has performed well, and not only in my hands. If I remember right, someone took top 16 with it at Gencon, and I am 19-1-5 (Actually 23-1-1 with special considerations) with decks from that Archetype. As for the Match-ups, I have posted stuff on that before with other decks, and few have been able to replicate what I state, even with details on how to play out the deck in the matches. I can see that some things will be added and changed as we go, and possibly adding match ups could be one of them. I just don't want to argue over small little things. Many of the decks are easily analized as far as match-ups are concerned.
I'm not upset about the decks that are posted in there but more so the fact that many of them have. "Under Construction" or "Primer to Follow" yet nothing has happened.
Nothing says budget help like receiving $5000 in recommendations.
I guess leaving out Time Walk, Timetwister, and Ancestral Recall is budget.
I don't think I understand what your saying here. Are you saying you've posted rough MU %'s for other decks, and other people haven't gotten the same results? You should still at least put something on what are bad match ups for you and some explanation as to why. Espescially in Proven Competitive. " All New threads in Proven Competitive must have a Primer with a Decklist, Card Choices and Matchups." Straight from the rules, even if people find MUs to be different its something that should be getting discussed for decks in Proven Comp.