[Day 2] Worlds

October 4th - October 7th
PasTimes; 8351 1/2 Golf Road; Niles, Illinois 60714
pastimes.net
Psychobabble
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 2453
Joined: September 10th, 2005, 6:25 am

Post by Psychobabble »

mike, quit with the impossible to prove personal stuff and address his actual arguments, like his one that rops aobs and ig88 are better than fear. my thoughts on that
all of rops, aobs and ig88 can only do well because reactive mains are either not played or, if played, are not able to play enough cards like evasion cancelers, sense, scum v and clash to beat them consistently. trm-esque decks (and i'm not talking about revo and choke here) should keep those in line - and I could very easily build a deck that would have a good shot against all three - but they simply can't b/c of fear. you cannot look at the meta in isolation.
that's MUCH harder to deny, especially because I could produce a list in about 5 minutes matching my description of a deck that does really well vs rops, aobs and ig88.



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

Post by mikefrench »

wow. if you think lsc beats fear than you need to play against my fear. your 4 system fear might have problems outdamaging lsc, but i won 4+ games vs lsc by at least 10 each. with a range of tech in the lsc, from 6x atrocity v to 3x alter to 6x space fleet cards (hcf and red squad 7 v) etc etc

i also think its funny that you think the toolkit would be good vs ds senate. i'm hoping its not because you think it would suspend poli effects. but my main reason i think its funny is because lsc is already an auto-win against ds senate, no way you thought "i need more tech vs ds senate." scrambled tranny v should already be in there, and civil disorder v is already in for the combat/combat matchup. you don't need more.

and you're missing my point on the day 2 deck thing. i understand that you THOUGHT you had better decks than the fear (which you obviously didnt due to the $150 in your pocket). my contention is that because you played fear day 2, you knew it wasn't a bad deck, and in fact thought that it was a good deck, which is contrary to what you said on the boards before worlds. i know you had "better" decks, but the fact that you chose fear day 2 proves that you thought it was at least good enough to get you to day 3. which means its a good deck. and it is a DONE RIGHT deck, so are you now saying that your DONE RIGHT fear is bad? so are all the other DONE RIGHT decks bad too? that would make most of your tournament wins kinda worthless, if you beat a bunch of scrubs with bad decks.
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.

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14816
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Post by Hunter »

mikefrench wrote: wow, i guess we have a DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. or just TWO DIFFERENT FEAR DECKS. in my opinion, if you play my deck, it's amazing. and in your opinion, if you play your deck, it's amazing (and goes 3-1 at worlds).
WRONG. In my opinion, if someone plays my deck, it is NOT amazing. It's...not all that great. Didn't I JUST FINISH saying that, in what you JUST FINISHED quoting??
mikefrench wrote: and i'm saying BULL. you wouldn't have played fear day 2 unless you knew you could advance to day 3 with it. and you did. why? because it is a GOOD DECK that needs errata.
WRONG. I didn't know I could advance to Day 3 with it. Nobody "knew" they would advance to Day 3 with what they used. I took a risk by using a deck in Day 2 that I KNEW was not the best deck I had at my disposal. I went 3-1 with that deck. For me to go 3-1 with a deck does NOT mean that it needs errata, when you consider the fact that I've won more than 95% of all the tournament games I've ever competed in.
mikefrench wrote: honestly, i don't think your opinion has changed. i just think you've lied about what your opinion is. that, and you have a warped view of what a healthy meta is.
Sorry, you're WRONG. I haven't lied. And anyone who actually KNOWS me (you know, people who...say...live in the same city I do?) would be glad to inform you that I'm NOT known for my lying. Call me condescending, call me arrogant, call me argumentative, call me abrasive, whatever. But calling me a liar is STUPID, and calling me a cheater is STUPID, and anyone who has ACTUALLY known me in person for any length of time, is very well aware of that.

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

Post by mikefrench »

Psychobabble wrote:mike, quit with the impossible to prove personal stuff and address his actual arguments, like his one that rops aobs and ig88 are better than fear. my thoughts on that
all of rops, aobs and ig88 can only do well because reactive mains are either not played or, if played, are not able to play enough cards like evasion cancelers, sense, scum v and clash to beat them consistently. trm-esque decks (and i'm not talking about revo and choke here) should keep those in line - and I could very easily build a deck that would have a good shot against all three - but they simply can't b/c of fear. you cannot look at the meta in isolation.
that's MUCH harder to deny, especially because I could produce a list in about 5 minutes matching my description of a deck that does really well vs rops, aobs and ig88.
i thought BOTH OF US already did that. it's him that's ignoring it.

i remember saying something like

"who's playing 5 meta cards for rops? for cct? for aobs?"

"what are they playing 5 meta cards for? FEAR"

and i remember saying

"reactive mains is good vs aobs, but fear makes reactive mains a non-viable decktype"

and hunter, you can't be arrogant and right on this. either

1) you are a good deckbuilder, and your fear DONE RIGHT is a GOOD deck

or

2) you aren't a good deckbuilder, and your fear DONE RIGHT is a BAD deck

which is it? we all know you are a good deckbuilder, we all know your decktech page is full of GOOD decks.

oh and you knew everyone was coming to this worlds. you knew the best of the best was showing up. you would've known that making day 3 was NOT a given, even with your ego. no way you'd handicap yourself day 2 by playing a bad deck. i'm just not buying it.
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.

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

Post by mryellow »

Hunter wrote:
You must not read many of my posts then, because that one shouldn't strike anyone as being particularly long, by my standards. As for dodging, I asked you 6 questions in my post. None of which you seem able to answer.
No need to answer pointless questions.
Hunter wrote: I really have no interest in being difficult to meta for in Day 2. I'd only be concerned with being difficult to predict on Day 3. I wouldn't expect anyone to meta for me on Day 2, and if they do, I think they are making an obvious mistake. If I had just finished my decklists for Day 2, and then was suddenly presented with your decklists for Day 2, I would not make ANY adjustments to my own decks.
You're okay with taking autolosses? I find this hard to believe... but at this point I find most of what you say to be pretty far from the truth, or at the very least, overly exaggerated and condescending in typical Hunter fashion. This is evident by
Hunter wrote: Of course I honestly think the things I say. If I did not, I would not say them.
LOL? You have got to be kidding me. Even you can't be so brazen at this point. Have some shame.

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

Post by mryellow »

Psychobabble wrote:all of rops, aobs and ig88 can only do well because reactive mains are either not played or, if played, are not able to play enough cards like evasion cancelers, sense, scum v and clash to beat them consistently. trm-esque decks (and i'm not talking about revo and choke here) should keep those in line - and I could very easily build a deck that would have a good shot against all three - but they simply can't b/c of fear. you cannot look at the meta in isolation.
You are absolutely correct.

In my mind there is no point in arguing with Hunter. Either he sees everything from an incredibly skewed point of view, one where he is always right, and somehow can convince himself that his logic is always the correct one, or he is deliberately trying to mislead people and lobby for his own causes. Either way, if it's the latter, why bother using logic to argue? I think it's the latter, although I don't know him well enough. Maybe he really does think all his decks are always the best, that his data is always right, and his take on the meta is always correct. If that's the case, so be it.

I hope the PC can see through his smokescreen. I will do my part to try to correct an error I think the PC has made in its judgement on Fear. But I won't be doing this on one hand and saying I'm not doing it on the other.

Last post on this subject from me.

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14816
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Post by Hunter »

mikefrench wrote:wow. if you think lsc beats fear than you need to play against my fear.
I don't just *think* it beats Fear, I know it beats Fear. I'll trust my playtest results over yours, thanks very much. Not to mention the fact that every time I have played Combat against a Fear deck that was not my own, I won by more than 20. Last year, in Day 2 of Worlds, I truly throttled a Fear deck that seemed to be a perfectly decent build, and I never noticed my opponent making an error. I just had the goods, and there wasn't anything he could do.
mikefrench wrote: i also think its funny that you think the toolkit would be good vs ds senate. i'm hoping its not because you think it would suspend poli effects.
Uh, nope, that's not the reason. I thought everyone already knew why the Toolkit is so good against Senate.
mikefrench wrote: i understand that you THOUGHT you had better decks than the fear (which you obviously didnt due to the $150 in your pocket).
Again, classy. How did you get off the leash this time? I bet I can guess how much money you'd have made in Day 3 if you'd showed up for Worlds. The Rops deck I used is better than Fear. And it is especially better against WYS than Fear. But just because a matchup is in my favor doesn't mean I will win it every single time. And when the deck crapped out on me, Brian Fred is too strong of a player (and WAY too experienced with WYS) to let me climb back into the game.
mikefrench wrote: and it is a DONE RIGHT deck, so are you now saying that your DONE RIGHT fear is bad? so are all the other DONE RIGHT decks bad too? that would make most of your tournament wins kinda worthless, if you beat a bunch of scrubs with bad decks.
Thought I had put this one to rest already. When I posted the deck as a DONE RIGHT deck, it was BETTER. Now, it is WORSE, and it struggles mightily to win games. After the deck went 4-0 at Worlds last year, I didn't say it wasn't very good. After Master Qui-Gon came out, AND Red Squadron 7, AND Alderaan: Blown Away, THEN I said it wasn't very good. And then it lost some of the playtest games that it had won the year before. And so it's win-loss record wasn't very good. In fact, the deck was "barely playable." Any deck that playtested worse than Fear was OUT OF CONTENTION. I absolutely would not consider any dark deck that was worse than Fear. It was THE WORST dark side deck that I still considered to be "playable." That made it "barely playable." "On the brink of extinction." And yes, errata to the card will push it over that brink, and the deck will be "unplayable." And yes, that would be BAD for SWCCG. And the Advocates seemed to understand that, which is why the crusade for an Errata to Fear was a failure. Just as it had been a failure at the time of the Redux (when I had no part in the deck's defense, and it was still defended just fine without my help.) If the Advocates are later convinced to issue an errata to the card, I think that you will all, to sound Star Warsy, pay the price for their lack of vision.

band_member
DS Region: Bespin
DS Region: Bespin
Posts: 1751
Joined: July 6th, 2004, 2:34 pm
Location: Farvana, Bespin, MN
Contact:

Post by band_member »

What are you guys trying to get Hunter to say? That Fear is broken and overpowered? What does it matter whether Hunter says it or not? Isn't it ok for someone to have a different opinion than you? Most people disagree on which decks are better than others all the time. All 40+ people at Worlds day 2 didn't use the same DS. Therefore some people thought on Day 2 that they had a better deck than Fear. Other people did use Fear showing that some people did think Fear was a good deck. All you should say about Fear is that you think it is not a fun deck to play against. If enough people feel that it isn't fun, then it will get changed. If all you say is "I don't like Fear." period then you don't need to argue back and forth about it and try to out-shout anyone who feels different.
-Our game's card designer said "...something as inconsequential as the World Championships for a very dorky hobby."
-Loves eggs.
Image

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14816
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Post by Hunter »

mryellow wrote: No need to answer pointless questions.
Oh? And what makes those questions pointless? The fact that they disprove your assertions that I'm a lobbyist? You didn't choose to avoid them because they were pointless, you chose to avoid them because you can't have any good answers to them. That's why I asked them!
mryellow wrote: You're okay with taking autolosses?
No...but I'd rather have a weak matchup against ONE player, than weaken my deck against the entire rest of the field, just to give myself a better chance against that ONE player. It sounds as though YOU are the one who is okay with taking autolosses, since you happily played a LS deck that you KNEW couldn't beat certain DS decktypes, just because it beats Fear. If I had seen that you were playing EBO right before Day 2 started, would I have changed my dark side deck, just because I know that EBO beats Fear? No. I'm not going to change my deck based on the deck of ONE player. Your deck choice is not a factor in my deck choice. Your deck choice is not important to me. If mine is important to you, then I believe you are making an obvious mistake.
mryellow wrote:
Hunter wrote: Of course I honestly think the things I say. If I did not, I would not say them.
LOL? You have got to be kidding me. Even you can't be so brazen at this point. Have some shame.
What? If I didn't honestly think the things I say, why would I say them? I have no motivation to lie about anything on these forums. So I do not. I have no idea what you mean.

User avatar
PapaLorax
Member
Posts: 2268
Joined: October 30th, 2002, 9:06 am
Contact:

Post by PapaLorax »

Fro everyone who thinks it's too strong. Why didn't more people play it Day 2...and why didn't anyone play it Day 3

Note: I ask these - because I am curious and honestly don't play enough to have a real opinion.

Also - Chu's deck won games by insane margins. Yet 5-7 cards devoted to fear made all the difference? That really doesn't compute to me.

HD was played by 1/2 of Day 3 players. That deck, since it's inception, has required people to play counters against it thereby diluting every LS deck against non-HD decks. Is it more valid because it plays mains to battleground sites?

When I read about other games with cards that need errata - the format has warped into "play the broken deck" vs "play the deck that beats the broken deck". Is that really what we have right now?

User avatar
imrahil327
Tournament Advocate
Posts: 30699
Joined: July 3rd, 2006, 3:51 am
Location: San Diego

Post by imrahil327 »

Not sure about why more people didn't play it day 2, but it is a bad day 3 (match play) deck- it doesn't win by huge amounts, because you have to deploy systems and star destroyers to protect/drain at those systems.
Image
Hunter wrote:Sebulba's W-L record is like...Always and 1. Tebow's is nowhere near that percentage.
allstarz97, about M:TG wrote:I feel like Michael Jordan playing baseball.

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 »

More people didn't play it Day 2 because it's not enjoyable to play, at ALL, and they were worried about running up against decks like Chu's that were designed to beat Fear.

Chu's deck was more of a meta call. AOBS is not unbeatable, it just rolled through Worlds because most LS decks were too focused on competing against Senate/Combat/Fear/IG, including half of a dozen bad cards just for the fear matchup in most cases.
Image

Archmage
Enhanced Product
Enhanced Product
Posts: 597
Joined: September 2nd, 2003, 10:13 pm
Location: Saratoga Springs, NY

Post by Archmage »

PapaLorax wrote:Fro everyone who thinks it's too strong. Why didn't more people play it Day 2...and why didn't anyone play it Day 3

Note: I ask these - because I am curious and honestly don't play enough to have a real opinion.

Also - Chu's deck won games by insane margins. Yet 5-7 cards devoted to fear made all the difference? That really doesn't compute to me.

HD was played by 1/2 of Day 3 players. That deck, since it's inception, has required people to play counters against it thereby diluting every LS deck against non-HD decks. Is it more valid because it plays mains to battleground sites?

When I read about other games with cards that need errata - the format has warped into "play the broken deck" vs "play the deck that beats the broken deck". Is that really what we have right now?

Just a point on the brokeness of AOBS and FEAR. As Chu mentions in his TR, we had a deck that beat his AOBS and did so rather consistently, it also did well against most other deck, but was an autoloss to FEAR, so Jon choose not to play it.
Largest Sanctioned SWCCG Tournament - 1st Place
US National Champion 2006
Rank in local store - 4th - 6th

User avatar
PapaLorax
Member
Posts: 2268
Joined: October 30th, 2002, 9:06 am
Contact:

Post by PapaLorax »

Archmage wrote:Just a point on the brokeness of AOBS and FEAR. As Chu mentions in his TR, we had a deck that beat his AOBS and did so rather consistently, it also did well against most other deck, but was an autoloss to FEAR, so Jon choose not to play it.
Why then is the Fear deck the one in need of an errata?

Aren't they both in the same situation? Good decks that roll if no meta cards are played against them?

I think the attack on Hunter is totally uncalled for. Would it be reasonable to say the TA colluded to drum up all this hate against Fear in the hope that AOBS would be forgotten while everyone put in meta cards against Fear? That would seem just as outrageous as calling Hunter a liar for having an opinion about Fear.

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 »

But that's the thing Evan: You can play a LS deck and pack half of a dozen Fear "counters" (Attrocity V, Red Squadron 7 V, etc), and still get blown out by fear.

If you run half of a dozen DS Senate counters (Leia V, Scrambled Transmission, Civil Disorder V), you actually have a good chance at beating it. And some of those cards actually don't suck! The same goes for most other dark decks.

Either a LS deck can beat Fear and lose to everything else, or have a chance against everything else and get blown out by Fear.
Image

band_member
DS Region: Bespin
DS Region: Bespin
Posts: 1751
Joined: July 6th, 2004, 2:34 pm
Location: Farvana, Bespin, MN
Contact:

Post by band_member »

Schele wrote:But that's the thing Evan: You can play a LS deck and pack half of a dozen Fear "counters" (Attrocity V, Red Squadron 7 V, etc), and still get blown out by fear.

If you run half of a dozen DS Senate counters (Leia V, Scrambled Transmission, Civil Disorder V), you actually have a good chance at beating it. And some of those cards actually don't suck! The same goes for most other dark decks.

Either a LS deck can beat Fear and lose to everything else, or have a chance against everything else and get blown out by Fear.
Sounds like sour grapes to me. Take your loss like a man.
-Our game's card designer said "...something as inconsequential as the World Championships for a very dorky hobby."
-Loves eggs.
Image

User avatar
PapaLorax
Member
Posts: 2268
Joined: October 30th, 2002, 9:06 am
Contact:

Post by PapaLorax »

Schele wrote:But that's the thing Evan: You can play a LS deck and pack half of a dozen Fear "counters" (Attrocity V, Red Squadron 7 V, etc), and still get blown out by fear.
If that statement were true - I would think more people would play Fear. I find it hard to believe people didn't play it because it isn't "fun".

I respect your opinions more than mine...I just have a hard time seeing how this is in need of errata (which I put a pretty high bar on - admittedly). I also really don't like what some people suggest for the errata as I see it as being errataed right into oblivion as most people's opinion.

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 »

The reasons I didn't play Fear:
1) Playing against a deck that it auto-loses to, like what Chu played. Since people hate Fear, and hate losing to Fear, and know how good it is... I didn't want to be put in that situation.
2) Not enjoying playing with it. This was huge to me PERSONALLY, because it was an 8 game tournament, and I don't play that often anymore (on purpose).
3) It didn't win by enough when it did win, on a day where differential meant everything (as proven by how Day 2 ended up).

Speeders didn't win by much, but had many autowin matchups, and could be beaten by decks designed to beat it (but lost to many other decks). It got errata'd. Same with Walkers.

I think other people didn't play Fear because they wanted to play dark decks that would take advantage of people playing bad Fear counters, and win by more differential. I think "enjoyable to play" did get taken into account with some players as well.
Image

DarkLordOTS
Member
Posts: 585
Joined: October 11th, 2003, 7:27 pm
Location: Manhattan
Contact:

Post by DarkLordOTS »

PapaLorax wrote:
Archmage wrote:Just a point on the brokeness of AOBS and FEAR. As Chu mentions in his TR, we had a deck that beat his AOBS and did so rather consistently, it also did well against most other deck, but was an autoloss to FEAR, so Jon choose not to play it.
Why then is the Fear deck the one in need of an errata?

Aren't they both in the same situation? Good decks that roll if no meta cards are played against them?

I think the attack on Hunter is totally uncalled for. Would it be reasonable to say the TA colluded to drum up all this hate against Fear in the hope that AOBS would be forgotten while everyone put in meta cards against Fear? That would seem just as outrageous as calling Hunter a liar for having an opinion about Fear.
There is a huge difference between FEAR and Chu's AOBS.

Fear, once properly made, is pretty much an auto-play and auto-win. It takes no skill to pull and deploy things. I made a crappy SYCFEAR and went 1-1 with it before dropping. The loss I took was the last game before I dropped, against Pistone, where I simply just wanted to end the game and do something else, I still managed to drop him from 30ish to 13 differential after the game was all but decided. Fear does pretty much the same thing every game and doesnt require any special talent to play.

Chu's AOBS on the other hand requires a great deal of talent, patience, and wits to win with, needs to be adaptable and doesn't do the same thing every game... just similar things.

Why did no one play FEAR day 3? As previously mentioned.
Why didn't more play it Day 2?
1) Its not fun for most people.
2) It doesn't win by a lot of diff, and people might have wanted to play something else for higher wins.
3) It was expected and thus teched for, giving other decks a better shot at being unteched.
Me: "So first Sidious fingered Amidala, then Maul went down, then Emperor went down."
Tom: "Sounds like a pretty intense sexual experience."

Archmage
Enhanced Product
Enhanced Product
Posts: 597
Joined: September 2nd, 2003, 10:13 pm
Location: Saratoga Springs, NY

Post by Archmage »

PapaLorax wrote:
Schele wrote:But that's the thing Evan: You can play a LS deck and pack half of a dozen Fear "counters" (Attrocity V, Red Squadron 7 V, etc), and still get blown out by fear.
If that statement were true - I would think more people would play Fear. I find it hard to believe people didn't play it because it isn't "fun".
How many players were playing dedicated anti-fear cards? A lot, I don't know how many until the deck list come out. Still FEAR did very well.

How many players were playing dedicated anti-AOBS cards? I would guess none. That combined with Jon Chu, the greatest SWCCG player of all time, playing the deck led it a 4-0 +stupid day 2.

Secondly, by your logic, AOBS is far weaker than FEAR, because 1/3 as many people played it.

FEAR is poorly designed and overpowered.

I can honestly say in our play testing coming into worlds with Jon the only question we had for decks was "Will this deck do well against FEAR?" because everything else we felt we could play against through skill, but FEAR could just beat us down and gave us zero chance to win through good game play.

FEAR causes you to design your deck to beat FEAR, other dark deck types allow you to play well with a deck of good cards and you have a chance of winning.
Largest Sanctioned SWCCG Tournament - 1st Place
US National Champion 2006
Rank in local store - 4th - 6th

Post Reply

Return to “[FY07] Worlds Weekend 2007”