Day 3: Update

October 19th - October 22nd
PasTimes; 8351 1/2 Golf Road; Niles, Illinois 60714
http://www.pastimes.net/
Jim Jerriko
Sealed Deck
Sealed Deck
Posts: 272
Joined: May 23rd, 2005, 4:55 am
Location: I wish I had more time.

Post by Jim Jerriko »

CubsFan wrote:
deadbody wrote:
CubsFan wrote:
deadbody wrote:Kevin, WYS beats HD dueling every time. Solid HD gives WYS fits. You don't need to build a deck for a certain match-up, but be aware of it's existence if you want to play a deck.

SYCFear speed version gives WYS fits, too much early damage.
I modified my HD to make it a little less dueling and a little more "regular". I still got locked down. I suppose if I had drawn EPP Dengar earlier I could have gotten rid of a Patrol Craft. But HD (even a non-dueling version) is going to be hard pressed to keep occupying the Tat. system AND the Tat. sites at the same time. I bet Richards' WYS would beat any HD as much as 80% of the time.

EDIT: Ask Richards...I think he said that he was 3-1 or 4-1 against HD.
Take one or the other. Give them the tatooine system. CLoak Maul at Kessel (lose 2 instead of 3) and beat them off the ground. Celebration is worthless if they are only occupying at most one site.

Even if Mike Richards is the worlds greatest WYSraiders player, I would be hard pressed to believe that he is beating good players playing good HD's more than 50% of the time.

The deck is strong, there is no arguement there, but it is not unbeateable.
I'm just going on what I saw, man.
Keywords are in bold, Kevin. :lol:
Last edited by Jim Jerriko on October 23rd, 2006, 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.



User avatar
CategoryOneGames.com
Member
Posts: 4465
Joined: March 7th, 2006, 3:52 pm
Location: Utah
GEMP Username: Categoryon
Contact:

Post by CategoryOneGames.com »

I'd say that the only deck that I saw over and over again was WYS. It looked like the field was really open except for this deck on LS because it can handle 80% of what DS has.

WYS is the only deck that I got sick of playing actually all weekend.
Image

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Post by mikefrench »

the chess analogy is as this: if i wanted to play a game with no real interaction with my opponent, i'd just play chess, not swccg. obv big chess fans might find this offensive, but you get the idea. a drain race is not interactive. if swccg as a whole was just about drain races, we'd all eventually get bored and might as well just play chess.

swccg is NOT drains. swccg is battles, drains just balance the game out.

a while ago, someone said something like "wys/raiders pretty much beats anything except for its 1 or 2 bad matchups." that sentence, to me, illustrates what is wrong with swccg. decks shouldn't be autowins and autolosses. there might be favorable matchups and unfavorable, but there should never be an autowin or an autoloss, and thats the point schele tried to make a while ago. when games are decided entirely based on matchup (ie, player 1 plays player 2. player 1's deck A will always beat player 2's deck B. so if you took player random and gave him deck A, he'd beat player 2 with deck B.), swccg's main draw, playskill and strategy, is nullified.

my example really sucked with the player 1 and player 2 and deck A/B stuff, but i hope you understand what i was trying to say.
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

mserisman
Member
Posts: 5048
Joined: August 19th, 2005, 1:42 am
Location: Australia

Post by mserisman »

the chess analogy is as this: if i wanted to play a game with no real interaction with my opponent, i'd just play chess, not swccg.
This doesn't make any sense. Chess is all about interaction. Sometimes battling directly, sometimes avoiding, sometimes feigning one thing and doing another, etc., but the game cannot be played at all without direct interaction.

Unlike swccg where your cards and my cards can never intersect at all.

I think swccg should be more like chess and force more interaction to occur.
"Never content to just rest on your laurels, you are always still reaching skyward, looking to achieve staggering new heights in douchebaggery." - Hunter towards someone who will not be named

mryellow
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 2252
Joined: February 17th, 2005, 11:20 am

Post by mryellow »

mikefrench wrote:the chess analogy is as this: if i wanted to play a game with no real interaction with my opponent, i'd just play chess, not swccg. obv big chess fans might find this offensive, but you get the idea. a drain race is not interactive. if swccg as a whole was just about drain races, we'd all eventually get bored and might as well just play chess.

swccg is NOT drains. swccg is battles, drains just balance the game out.

a while ago, someone said something like "wys/raiders pretty much beats anything except for its 1 or 2 bad matchups." that sentence, to me, illustrates what is wrong with swccg. decks shouldn't be autowins and autolosses. there might be favorable matchups and unfavorable, but there should never be an autowin or an autoloss, and thats the point schele tried to make a while ago. when games are decided entirely based on matchup (ie, player 1 plays player 2. player 1's deck A will always beat player 2's deck B. so if you took player random and gave him deck A, he'd beat player 2 with deck B.), swccg's main draw, playskill and strategy, is nullified.

my example really sucked with the player 1 and player 2 and deck A/B stuff, but i hope you understand what i was trying to say.
Eh, I think that analogy is bad, but I understand what you're saying, and I agree that decks shouldn't be autowins and autolosses.

I didn't go to worlds, but I'm kind of shocked by the idea that WYS is so uber-powerful. WYS with Raiders (or without) is not a new deck, and DS is quite stronger and faster and has more direct damage than it did back in the day when WYS first came out in Ref 2. That was back in the day when you couldn't get 3 autograbbers under your shield and people actually played There is No Try. So logically this really can't be possible.

And I'm sure the meta has developed since Nationals, but way back then I was having trouble coming up with a good light deck that could topple the best dark side could offer. Granted I haven't thought of SWCCG much since then but has the meta really shifted that much to the point that people are talking about how WYS is broken? What else can LS play? Maybe I should just wait for some decklists. I can think of a number of dark decks I'd like to play against WYS in a heartbeat.

mryellow
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 2252
Joined: February 17th, 2005, 11:20 am

Post by mryellow »

mserisman wrote:
the chess analogy is as this: if i wanted to play a game with no real interaction with my opponent, i'd just play chess, not swccg.
This doesn't make any sense. Chess is all about interaction. Sometimes battling directly, sometimes avoiding, sometimes feigning one thing and doing another, etc., but the game cannot be played at all without direct interaction.

Unlike swccg where your cards and my cards can never intersect at all.

I think swccg should be more like chess and force more interaction to occur.
Yeah that's kinda how I feel too. At least the sides are always balanced in chess.

mserisman
Member
Posts: 5048
Joined: August 19th, 2005, 1:42 am
Location: Australia

Post by mserisman »

a while ago, someone said something like "wys/raiders pretty much beats anything except for its 1 or 2 bad matchups." that sentence, to me, illustrates what is wrong with swccg. decks shouldn't be autowins and autolosses. there might be favorable matchups and unfavorable, but there should never be an autowin or an autoloss
I think you are forgetting the aspect of deciding what to play. If you knowlingly play a deck that is an auto-loss to some, you are gambling on getting a superior match up for you.

You can't have it both ways.

We can't continue a relentless pursuit of the holy grail of deckbuilding - the auto-win deck - without also having match up issues and other meta issues that arise.

Bottom line for me is that this worlds had a ton of different variety. Last big tournament I played in competitively in 1997 - you could have one deck, and one deck only that would win. That is why I walked from the game for about 5 years in disgust.

With the meta pretty open and a dozen or so varieties in play now, that keeps people in.

Just my opinion.... no flames..
"Never content to just rest on your laurels, you are always still reaching skyward, looking to achieve staggering new heights in douchebaggery." - Hunter towards someone who will not be named

legspinner
Booster Pack
Booster Pack
Posts: 132
Joined: November 8th, 2005, 11:46 pm
Location: Canberra, Australia

Post by legspinner »

CubsFan wrote:
Now, am I calling for errata or a bullet? No. But maybe a subtle dark side helper card that massages WYS matchups might be in order.
It seems to me that this might be a good DS 'helper card' for playing against WYS patrol craft:

Assault Rifle (v) [v-set 1]
Deploy on any Imperial warrior or Chief Bast. May fire during a battle or attack at same or adjacent site. May target a character, creature or vehicle for 1 Force. Draw destiny. Target immediately lost if destiny + 1 > defense value.

Its a very powerful card in any case ... I think it gets cut from decks because its destiny 2 and because of Klor-Slug (v) but I reckon it is still worth playing. At least the Patrol Craft (and passengers) die.
Nitsuj wrote:
I really have no choice but to ignore this post, because I cannot penetrate your shield of belief.

CubsFan
Booster Box
Booster Box
Posts: 1373
Joined: November 1st, 2002, 2:40 pm
Location: Chicago

Post by CubsFan »

Jim Jerriko wrote:
CubsFan wrote:
deadbody wrote:
CubsFan wrote:
deadbody wrote:Kevin, WYS beats HD dueling every time. Solid HD gives WYS fits. You don't need to build a deck for a certain match-up, but be aware of it's existence if you want to play a deck.

SYCFear speed version gives WYS fits, too much early damage.
I modified my HD to make it a little less dueling and a little more "regular". I still got locked down. I suppose if I had drawn EPP Dengar earlier I could have gotten rid of a Patrol Craft. But HD (even a non-dueling version) is going to be hard pressed to keep occupying the Tat. system AND the Tat. sites at the same time. I bet Richards' WYS would beat any HD as much as 80% of the time.

EDIT: Ask Richards...I think he said that he was 3-1 or 4-1 against HD.
Take one or the other. Give them the tatooine system. CLoak Maul at Kessel (lose 2 instead of 3) and beat them off the ground. Celebration is worthless if they are only occupying at most one site.

Even if Mike Richards is the worlds greatest WYSraiders player, I would be hard pressed to believe that he is beating good players playing good HD's more than 50% of the time.

The deck is strong, there is no arguement there, but it is not unbeateable.
I'm just going on what I saw, man.
Keyboards are in bold, Kevin. :lol:
If you are saying that Richards dominated with WYS only because he wasn't playing good players, you are going to have an entire state wanting to take you behind the toolshed. Did you play him? I would guess not. If you did, I highly suspect you might not be so bold.

Meeker
LS Region: Corellia
LS Region: Corellia
Posts: 183
Joined: April 23rd, 2005, 11:09 pm
Location: The Man, The Myth, The Legend

Post by Meeker »

mserisman wrote: You can't have it both ways.

We can't continue a relentless pursuit of the holy grail of deckbuilding - the auto-win deck - without also having match up issues and other meta issues that arise.
IMO it kind of goes both ways, and it always has.

If you choose to play a deck (like WYS) that has a huge upside in some matchups, as well as horrible mismatches, then sure, your not going to be able to play the deck autoplay style and win out with it.

Its more or less what happened on Day two this year. I dunno why but before worlds everyone seemed to have a boner over WYS, so Senate seemed like the obvious choice. Its not even a close game, even with Senate counters.

WYS has 3-4 autoloss matchups. It always had. And im pretty sure that if you look at the data for day 2 and 3 this year your going to find that WYS failed pretty badly. One or Two players going 3-0 w/ it doesnt make it broken if 10 more go 0fer.

Anyway back on topic. Like i said, you cant play a deck that cant compete in certain matchups and expect to find the perfect deck. At some point the game is going to be based on skill.

TRM is a good example of that. Untill recently player skill was the most important factor in seeing if TRM was going to win a matchup or not. There are many other decks out there right now that are the same way. They have some favored matchups, but at the same time you can have a chance to win against any deck if you outplay the other side.
Bluethrawn wrote: Without MN's leadership over the last years, SWCCG is nothing today, plain and simple.
Image[img]

_maul
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 5682
Joined: June 16th, 2004, 9:10 pm
Contact:

Post by _maul »

Meeker wrote: Untill recently player skill was the most important factor in seeing if TRM was going to win a matchup or not.
That's why I personally liked TRM so much.

Jim Jerriko
Sealed Deck
Sealed Deck
Posts: 272
Joined: May 23rd, 2005, 4:55 am
Location: I wish I had more time.

Post by Jim Jerriko »

CubsFan wrote:
Jim Jerriko wrote:
CubsFan wrote:
deadbody wrote:
CubsFan wrote:
deadbody wrote:Kevin, WYS beats HD dueling every time. Solid HD gives WYS fits. You don't need to build a deck for a certain match-up, but be aware of it's existence if you want to play a deck.

SYCFear speed version gives WYS fits, too much early damage.
I modified my HD to make it a little less dueling and a little more "regular". I still got locked down. I suppose if I had drawn EPP Dengar earlier I could have gotten rid of a Patrol Craft. But HD (even a non-dueling version) is going to be hard pressed to keep occupying the Tat. system AND the Tat. sites at the same time. I bet Richards' WYS would beat any HD as much as 80% of the time.

EDIT: Ask Richards...I think he said that he was 3-1 or 4-1 against HD.
Take one or the other. Give them the tatooine system. CLoak Maul at Kessel (lose 2 instead of 3) and beat them off the ground. Celebration is worthless if they are only occupying at most one site.

Even if Mike Richards is the worlds greatest WYSraiders player, I would be hard pressed to believe that he is beating good players playing good HD's more than 50% of the time.

The deck is strong, there is no arguement there, but it is not unbeateable.
I'm just going on what I saw, man.
Keyboards are in bold, Kevin. :lol:
If you are saying that Richards dominated with WYS only because he wasn't playing good players, you are going to have an entire state wanting to take you behind the toolshed. Did you play him? I would guess not. If you did, I highly suspect you might not be so bold.
MOD EDIT: UNCALLED FOR PERSONAL ATTACK

User avatar
Thomas Caspersen
Member
Posts: 8197
Joined: November 29th, 2004, 2:30 pm
Location: Norway (Toola)

Post by Thomas Caspersen »

I think the PC should focus some energy to "fix" as many of the auto-loss scenarios as they can. They have never been a positive side of the game (MBO vs SYCFA to name one). Bad match-ups spices up things, and puts extra challenges on the players, which is fine.
We now have a wide variety of decks to choose from, on both sides, and that is very good.
Image

lawtalkingguy
Booster Box
Booster Box
Posts: 1407
Joined: June 5th, 2005, 6:03 am
Location: Dreamland

Post by lawtalkingguy »

XjedeyeX wrote:
lawtalkingguy wrote:
Jim Jerriko wrote: I would like to know what specifically you think is wrong with HD that would require 'neutering'?
You're making an unsupported assumption here. I never said HD had to be 'neutered.' It just has to be 'dealt with' -- and this is likely as not to affect the increasingly strong support network of cards which have pushed it to critical mass. That's actually its biggest problem. The mechanics of the HD deck itself are fine. We've had eight years to figure that stuff out. It's the dozen ways the deck can cover its weaknesses now that make it troublesome... and which prompt it to overrun day two of worlds.

In fact, one might say that HD is one of those bellwether decks which should always be floating somewhere aroudn the tier-1 level in any meta. Any deck significantly stronger is a problem, just as any deck significantly weaker could perhaps use help.
annnnd the cards that did the most to cover those weaknesses? WTO and ECv... cant say noone saw that coming
I call semi-shenanigans. WTO(v) was an absolute non-factor at Worlds, and basically continues to be. I even hit TRM at one point and they just played right through it.

EC(V) plays great in HD, and before I go all out and say it is a part of HD's new "toolkit" of which I have referred, remember that the same starting slot could just go to Endor Shield, by which you get Merrejk and whichever bg system you wish and not just Fondor. (and you can then pull Thrawn with the other Endor Shield pull, and he's already in the deck, so that's a pure gain.) It's a trade-off to be sure, as with ECv you basically gain like three force in the early going (not an insignificant gain, that) and give up some flexibility and the knowledge that you either must risk a whiff turn one, or use your IAO Combo first and give up a drop/thrownback to get Fondor once you know it's available in the deck.

So on balance we're talking about a gain of three usable force and a loss of three things: giving your opponent a drop/tb pull in most cases, a pull of thrawn, and the flexibility of choosing which bg planet you want (as a drain of more than one without needing POTF would have been nice). That's a strategic decision that does not suggest bad balance either way. I will still credit you with half a card on the HD toolkit second-guess-a-thon, but not two whole cards as you claim. :)

Schele
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 11599
Joined: May 18th, 2004, 4:15 pm
Location: Ackbar is an anagram for Barack. It's a trap!
Contact:

Post by Schele »

I think you can ask any TRM player how big of a deal is and they'll all tell you the same thing I did. WTO(V) alone scares people from playing TRM, because as it is TRM already has enough bad matches, they don't want additional autoloss(or near autoloss) matchups simply because someone plays WTO(V) in their deck as well.
Image

Psychobabble
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 2453
Joined: September 10th, 2005, 6:25 am

Post by Psychobabble »

Schele wrote:(and more time spent playing with it would've helped too).
Should've played it vs me online :). Rustan discovered one really bad matchup doing that (test #5 pwns ig88), and it would have helped a lot playing it more. And I did keep my mouth shut :).

CubsFan
Booster Box
Booster Box
Posts: 1373
Joined: November 1st, 2002, 2:40 pm
Location: Chicago

Post by CubsFan »

Jim, my bad...I totally missed the joke the first time I read the post.


And MBO vs. SYC isn't an autoloss anymore...no more Mon Mothma (v) to add to the draw, so having the D* Assault Squadron actually makes it really, really hard to blow up the D*.

Schele
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 11599
Joined: May 18th, 2004, 4:15 pm
Location: Ackbar is an anagram for Barack. It's a trap!
Contact:

Post by Schele »

Psychobabble wrote:Should've played it vs me online :). Rustan discovered one really bad matchup doing that (test #5 pwns ig88), and it would have helped a lot playing it more. And I did keep my mouth shut :).
We knew that, but by that point you should have lando/ig/gun out and defensive fire in hand... so you can capture the guy with the saber. Believe me, there are ways around it.
Image

XjedeyeX
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 2412
Joined: September 7th, 2003, 8:31 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Contact:

Post by XjedeyeX »

lawtalkingguy wrote:
XjedeyeX wrote:
lawtalkingguy wrote:
Jim Jerriko wrote: I would like to know what specifically you think is wrong with HD that would require 'neutering'?
You're making an unsupported assumption here. I never said HD had to be 'neutered.' It just has to be 'dealt with' -- and this is likely as not to affect the increasingly strong support network of cards which have pushed it to critical mass. That's actually its biggest problem. The mechanics of the HD deck itself are fine. We've had eight years to figure that stuff out. It's the dozen ways the deck can cover its weaknesses now that make it troublesome... and which prompt it to overrun day two of worlds.

In fact, one might say that HD is one of those bellwether decks which should always be floating somewhere aroudn the tier-1 level in any meta. Any deck significantly stronger is a problem, just as any deck significantly weaker could perhaps use help.
annnnd the cards that did the most to cover those weaknesses? WTO and ECv... cant say noone saw that coming
I call semi-shenanigans. WTO(v) was an absolute non-factor at Worlds, and basically continues to be. I even hit TRM at one point and they just played right through it.

EC(V) plays great in HD, and before I go all out and say it is a part of HD's new "toolkit" of which I have referred, remember that the same starting slot could just go to Endor Shield, by which you get Merrejk and whichever bg system you wish and not just Fondor. (and you can then pull Thrawn with the other Endor Shield pull, and he's already in the deck, so that's a pure gain.) It's a trade-off to be sure, as with ECv you basically gain like three force in the early going (not an insignificant gain, that) and give up some flexibility and the knowledge that you either must risk a whiff turn one, or use your IAO Combo first and give up a drop/thrownback to get Fondor once you know it's available in the deck.

So on balance we're talking about a gain of three usable force and a loss of three things: giving your opponent a drop/tb pull in most cases, a pull of thrawn, and the flexibility of choosing which bg planet you want (as a drain of more than one without needing POTF would have been nice). That's a strategic decision that does not suggest bad balance either way. I will still credit you with half a card on the HD toolkit second-guess-a-thon, but not two whole cards as you claim. :)
so if you use iao combo then ecv you trigger drop, but if you pull merjik and then the system you have used force AND trigger drop? how is that in any way even, plus you have a guy sitting there that your opponent can beat up.

read brandon's post. Even though you can build decks like TRM around WTO sort of, it forces you to build them in such a way that they are much much worse, and totally kills other decktypes completely.

to wit, do you think it was because of any other cards that TRM "was an absolute non-factor at Worlds, and basically continues to be." in other metagames heavy with decks like watto, senate, and huntdown, TRM was a strong counter to those decks and heavily played. I submit to you that it isnt now (and other decks arent as well) BECAUSE OF WTO and no other reason.
Image

choongie
Sealed Deck
Sealed Deck
Posts: 269
Joined: January 12th, 2003, 11:49 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Post by choongie »

I'll just say this - WYS is a GOOD deck in the hands of a GOOD player. Chris Shaner proved this by NEVER losing with his WYS deck...not in playtesting, not in tournaments - NEVER. He doesn't even pack a Kessel! Anyway, if I played the SAME exact deck, I'd probably lose because it's not something I'm comfortable with. But if a good player has a good deck that they are comfortable with...then they're going to win most of the time. DDM had a really, REALLY creative WYS deck, but I'm not going to post the details here because I don't know if he wants to give it away yet...again, good player with a good deck.

However, I do have to agree with Scott. I was sick and tired of seeing WYS. Luckily I playtest with Shaner all the time, so I packed Guri (non-v) x2 (but in the long run, even that didn't help). I also packed an extra catch card, so I could catch both Fallen Portal AND Control/Tunnel Vision.

Post Reply

Return to “[FY06] Worlds Weekend 2006”