I think WotC should design a bunch of fake spoilers they can flood the web with everytime something leaks as a plan B. New Planeswalker leaks -> they send out 5 simliar cards. Noone will know which one is real. Most leaks are already regarded with suspicion by the community and it will be fun to guess which are the fake cards.
The backup needs to come from players trying things out. One person alone can't create a new format. So if you wanna know if it's fun, more people need to know about this. I'm not saying it is the perfect solution, but at least it's something. Legacy seems to be dying a slow death. I get that not everybody will like it and I understand the concern, but I think something needs to be done to keep Legacy alive.
Wouldn't it Just Be Modern?
The most common retort I've heard regarding No Reserved List Legacy is "wouldn't it just be Modern?" The answer is a resounding no. While manabases would look like Modern, the cards and decks would look much more like Legacy. We have Brainstorm, Wasteland, Force of Will, Daze, Cabal Therapy, Pyroblast, Flusterstorm, Lotus Petal, Rishadan Port, Counterspell, Crop Rotation, and many others. We would still be able to lock people out of the game with Sensei's Divining Top and Counterbalance, cascade into Ancestral Vision, Invigorate an Inkmoth Nexus, and Tendrils of Agony for 20 damage. These cards are what ensures No Reserved List Legacy looks much more like Legacy than Modern.
Yes buy them, they won't drop much in price after rotation if at all. Fetches are Modern and Legacy staples after all. Now they are as cheap is they will be till the next printing in 2025 or something.
Okay, can somebody explain this to me in more mathematical terms? Could you give an example for this "phenomenon"? I really can't make sense of this.
Also, could you explain how any of this is relevant to the debate hand?
In Appendix A of the paper FaustJ linked to you see the math that descibes this, but I suggest you read the whole article. As for the relevance, as IronPlushy said before, those statistics aren't really relevant at all, for many reasons. All they do is give us what is to be expected when you have a normal distribution. First of all, we don't have enough data for magic, also skill doesn't always lead to good result. Then there's cultural, biological, financial factors ect. ect. that are not accounted for at the moment. So all this provides is kind of a counter argument for those people that explain the tounament result with women and men having different skill levels. There are just too many open questions to say anything definite about the subject, but I hope we all (at least those without severe brain damage) have to agree that everybody should have the same chances and therefore be treated equally.
Regarding the statistics confusion:
Let's assume a normal distibution of skill (intelligence ect.) of the whole population. If you look at tournaments you are only dealing with samples of that population. A larger sample has a higher chance of having extreme values, so the variance of the bigger sample group should be expected to be higher. This means you can't assume a normal distribution with the same variance when dealing with two differently sized groups. I think therein lies the confusion.
I mean seriously, in the first two major events with BFZ the top 16 included a total of 4 or 5 Dragonmaster Outcast and 4 Catacomb Sifter main boarded out of roughly 320 total creatures (20 a deck .. I am not going to throw a major amount of time running the numbers). And even worse is Dragonmaster Outcast is a reprint. [...]
Now please count how many Gideons where in those decks.
I love it.
Control players for the next few months be like:
Video
Just throwing this out there. I'm not a big expert on legacy. So, what are your thoughts on this?
Don't, please. You know it won't happen
Right, didn't realise the absence of a land type. Thanks!
In Appendix A of the paper FaustJ linked to you see the math that descibes this, but I suggest you read the whole article. As for the relevance, as IronPlushy said before, those statistics aren't really relevant at all, for many reasons. All they do is give us what is to be expected when you have a normal distribution. First of all, we don't have enough data for magic, also skill doesn't always lead to good result. Then there's cultural, biological, financial factors ect. ect. that are not accounted for at the moment. So all this provides is kind of a counter argument for those people that explain the tounament result with women and men having different skill levels. There are just too many open questions to say anything definite about the subject, but I hope we all (at least those without severe brain damage) have to agree that everybody should have the same chances and therefore be treated equally.
Let's assume a normal distibution of skill (intelligence ect.) of the whole population. If you look at tournaments you are only dealing with samples of that population. A larger sample has a higher chance of having extreme values, so the variance of the bigger sample group should be expected to be higher. This means you can't assume a normal distribution with the same variance when dealing with two differently sized groups. I think therein lies the confusion.
Now please count how many Gideons where in those decks.