[Day 2] Worlds

October 4th - October 7th
PasTimes; 8351 1/2 Golf Road; Niles, Illinois 60714
pastimes.net
mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Post by mikefrench »

reactive mains beats aobs, easily.

reactive mains loses to fear, easily.

for reactive mains to have any sort of chance vs fear, they need to alter their deck with 4-6 dedicated fear counters (thus watering down their deck vs other matches)

look at some of the only reactive mains players on day 2. pistone? didn't do well.

so because fear was expected on day 2 and aobs was not, reactive mains was not a popular decktype, and aobs was free to dominate. not because aobs is broken at all, but because fear screwed up the meta.

i think a decent amount of people DID play fear day 2, and they did so KNOWING that EVERYONE WAS TECHING AGAINST FEAR. yet they ALL (except for 1) went 3-1. had i been at worlds, fear would've been high on my list (depending on how i did playing in on thurs/fri).

for evan: my problem with hunter is that the higher-ups in the PC value his opinion more than they value any other player's opinion. he then uses that to say "fear doesn't need errata, it is a bad deck and easily beaten. it has no bad effects on the meta." then he takes it to day 2 and makes day 3 because of it, which means he knew it was a good deck and lied to the players and the pc because he didnt want it to get errata'd cause he wanted to play it. that's my problem with hunter. he's a lobbyist.


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

Post by PapaLorax »

mikefrench wrote:for evan: my problem with hunter is that the higher-ups in the PC value his opinion more than they value any other player's opinion. he then uses that to say "fear doesn't need errata, it is a bad deck and easily beaten. it has no bad effects on the meta." then he takes it to day 2 and makes day 3 because of it, which means he knew it was a good deck and lied to the players and the pc because he didnt want it to get errata'd cause he wanted to play it. that's my problem with hunter. he's a lobbyist.
Since I have actually read what he said about Fear - you might want to re-adjust what exactly you claim he said. I don't know where you got your information, but it isn't perfectly accurate.

Let's be honest - we are all lobbyists. The whole point of the forum is to lobby...you just don't like that he is lobbying on the other side.

Your argument would suggest that any deck he played on Day 2 would be abusive...obviously that is an absurd statement.

User avatar
Asphalizo
Booster Box
Booster Box
Posts: 1895
Joined: August 31st, 2003, 3:13 pm
Location: Stephenville, Tx
Contact:

Post by Asphalizo »

See this is what is funny. The argument against FWKTIL (V) seems to change a lot, however I think the best argument that the naysayers have is what Chu said. He said that the deck isn't broken its overpowered. The combination of ISD (V)s + FWKTIL (V) is the driving force. I talked to Hunter at worlds about it a little bit and he even said that capping the damage would be fine in order to regulate the card. Chu has also urged that a cap be placed on the card. So I think the majority of people think a cap is needed. Whether or not that cap comes from an errata or by shield is the real question that the PC needs to answer.

However, my real concern and reason for arguing against an errata FWKTIL (V) before worlds was that it would cause to much of a disruption in the meta right before. The arguments against FWKTIL didn't really come to a head until the 4 erratas were released 3 weeks before worlds. Those erratas had very little influence on the meta, especially since the main errata (Tusken Breath Mask (V)) had already been declared a month before-hand. Also, I felt that the PC didn't have enough time to effectively decide on how to contain Fear decks without destroying. Many people would've had the PC completely destroy the deck, but I'm not one of those.

I was actually quite surprised that Hunter brought FWKTIL (V) for Day 2. I knew going in that LSC would be heavy and that a lot of players thought he was going to bring it. I was also quite surprised to not see and Hidden Base Corvettes. Star Destroyers are good right now. They can have good immunity and can hold a lot of pilots that can manipulate space battles. I as well as Joseph Graham both took Endor Ops for space and had the same results as Hunter and Stephen Lewis going 5-3.

Now, two points I want to make real quick and I want to emphasize. First, Raveling and Garrett's SYC decks were not your typcially SYC + Fear (V) decks, so I don't think that they should be included with Hunter and Lewis' decks. They used the engine and it could give them the win, but the deck relied on something else. I won't say anything else cause I think Raveling was going to post the deck and stuff, but I played it and I think I lost 2 force to fear late game during a very quick game.

Second, Chu assessment of the situation seems to be the best. Whether or not FWKTIL (V) is a good deck is not the issue. If the meta takes a turn towards certain types of light decks another outburst of FWKTIL (V) by lots of players could put us in a bleak situation. A cap on the FWKTIL (V) can do a lot to toning the deck down. Arguing over whether or not the deck is good in the current meta or whether or not it is a fun deck is ridiculous. Winning is fun whether you do it with Fear or not. Heck if all we were doing was playing the game for fun. Imperial Propaganda/Atrocity decks wouldn't be in circulation. What is fun about doing what you are supposed to (drain at bg) only to have it canceled and you lose a lot of force? Just some thoughts. Look forward to my Worlds 07 assessment on my blog.
Image
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 »

mikefrench wrote:writes stuff...
I don't get what you're even trying to say. It could be any of these things...
1. Day 2 of worlds was ruined by Fear. Sorry not true. Day 2 of worlds was fun and I (I assume this is true for most others) played against a variety of decks. Maybe you'd have more right to comment on Day 2 if you were there but you were not. Hence your opinion of it is worthless.

2. Hunter shouldn't have played Fear. Sorry but Hunter can play any deck he wants. He can play MBO and Invasion if he wants.

3. Hunter is in control of everything SWCCG related and controls the minds of the PC. Sorry but not true. Lingrell is in control of the PC's collective mind as I saw it get shipped to his house in the Hamptons. One day the guy in charge of destroying everything is Doug Taylor and the next it's Hunter. Give me a break.

4. You hate Fear. Ok that's your opinion. Does everyone have to agree with you? Obviously you feel that it is unreasonable for anyone to disagree with you. If that's the way you feel, than why are you argueing against unreasonable people? The fact that they are unreasonable makes your arguements pointless.
-Our game's card designer said "...something as inconsequential as the World Championships for a very dorky hobby."
-Loves eggs.
Image

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

Post by mikefrench »

PapaLorax wrote:
mikefrench wrote:for evan: my problem with hunter is that the higher-ups in the PC value his opinion more than they value any other player's opinion. he then uses that to say "fear doesn't need errata, it is a bad deck and easily beaten. it has no bad effects on the meta." then he takes it to day 2 and makes day 3 because of it, which means he knew it was a good deck and lied to the players and the pc because he didnt want it to get errata'd cause he wanted to play it. that's my problem with hunter. he's a lobbyist.
Since I have actually read what he said about Fear - you might want to re-adjust what exactly you claim he said. I don't know where you got your information, but it isn't perfectly accurate.

Let's be honest - we are all lobbyists. The whole point of the forum is to lobby...you just don't like that he is lobbying on the other side.

Your argument would suggest that any deck he played on Day 2 would be abusive...obviously that is an absurd statement.
read my posts where i QUOTE HUNTER SAYING THAT FEAR IS NOT GOOD.

i didn't say that any deck he plays on day 2 is abusive, i said any deck he plays on day 2 is good. esp if he goes 3-1 with it. the point is that he SAID it wasn't good in an effort to save it from errata. then he played it day 2, which meant that he did indeed think it was good. which means he was misrepresenting himself to the players and the pc.

i'm just going to ignore raveling, since he's obviously unreasonable.
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.

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

Post by DarkLordOTS »

Asphalizo wrote:Now, two points I want to make real quick and I want to emphasize. First, Raveling and Garrett's SYC decks were not your typcially SYC + Fear (V) decks, so I don't think that they should be included with Hunter and Lewis' decks. They used the engine and it could give them the win, but the deck relied on something else. I won't say anything else cause I think Raveling was going to post the deck and stuff, but I played it and I think I lost 2 force to fear late game during a very quick game.
Unfortunately, these decks work so well because Fear is so strong. Most people recognize that in order to beat Fear you absolutely have to do X. With these decks, once you did X, you lost the game. Its a damned if you do, damned if you dont situation and the fact that one card can give you that choice is a bad bad thing.
Me: "So first Sidious fingered Amidala, then Maul went down, then Emperor went down."
Tom: "Sounds like a pretty intense sexual experience."

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 »

mikefrench wrote:....i didn't say that any deck he plays on day 2 is abusive, i said any deck he plays on day 2 is good. esp if he goes 3-1 with it. the point is that he SAID it wasn't good in an effort to save it from errata. then he played it day 2, which meant that he did indeed think it was good. which means he was misrepresenting himself to the players and the pc.
Wow it's like you uncovered Watergate or something. This is obviously something that we should all care about. You keep posting about this because it keeps getting more interesting. It's very very important that you get to the bottom of this.
-Our game's card designer said "...something as inconsequential as the World Championships for a very dorky hobby."
-Loves eggs.
Image

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 »

Raveling = the new forum troll?

Seriously, has he made any productive posts in the past month?
Image

User avatar
Lukes Bionic Hand
Retired Advocate
Posts: 3196
Joined: January 26th, 2003, 2:44 pm
Location: A realm of existence so far beyond your own you cannot even imagine it
Contact:

Post by Lukes Bionic Hand »

Bah, it's just satire. Funny too.
The Smoking Gungan wrote:worf plays for canada even though that team has no honor and plays dirty
Image Image

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14817
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Post by Hunter »

DarkLordOTS wrote: 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.
All of that means absolutely NOTHING. First off, it is 100% impossible to prove which deck requires more talent, patience, or wits to win with. Never in a million years could that matter of strict opinion be resolved. But more importantly, it doesn't matter. Not in the slightest. Whether or not a deck is broken, or overpowered, has literally nothing to do with how easy or difficult it is to play. Let's say there is a broken deck, that, when played at maximum efficiency, is virtually incapable of losing a game. Let's say I was one of only 4 players in the entire world with the ability to play the deck at maximum efficiency, and that in the hands of any other player, the deck was merely mediocre. Would I then try to argue that the deck didn't need errata, because so few players could excel with it? And because it required so much talent? Of course not. Broken is broken. And since I would look at everything OBJECTIVELY, I would have to admit that the deck required attention, even though I was one of only 4 people who could break it. So when someone says "It would be okay for Deck A to be too strong, but not for Deck B, because Deck A requires a lot of player skill, and Deck B is an auto-play" then THAT person is the biased lobbyist, whose opinion should be discarded. Meanwhile, without ANY prejudice in favor of the Fear decktype, I can continue to say: It is not broken. It is not overpowered. It isn't even the best DS deck available.

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14817
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Post by Hunter »

mikefrench wrote: for evan: my problem with hunter is that the higher-ups in the PC value his opinion more than they value any other player's opinion. he then uses that to say "fear doesn't need errata, it is a bad deck and easily beaten. it has no bad effects on the meta." then he takes it to day 2 and makes day 3 because of it, which means he knew it was a good deck and lied to the players and the pc because he didnt want it to get errata'd cause he wanted to play it. that's my problem with hunter. he's a lobbyist.
The higher-ups in the PC value my opinion more than any other player's? That's news to me. I wonder if it is news to them too. I still never said it was a bad deck. And I would definitely go one further than to say "it has no bad effects on the meta." I think it has good effects on the meta, and in fact is of critical importance to the meta. And if it were removed from the meta, all hell would break loose. You keep saying I lied. I never lied about anything. I never said the deck was terrible. I never said the deck was unplayable. I never said anything that I am not STILL SAYING RIGHT NOW.

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

Post by mikefrench »

lol @ "OBJECTIVELY"

so you're completely objective when discussing these matters, but no one else is? this is funny.

almost everyone knows that you're NOT objective on these matters, so stop trying.
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: 14817
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Post by Hunter »

mikefrench wrote: almost everyone knows that you're NOT objective on these matters, so stop trying.
Sorry, but that just doesn't make ANY sense. What are you basing that on? Why would I not be objective? I can't understand where you would get the idea that there is any bias, prejudice, or hidden agenda in my arguments. I don't have an attachment to the SYC objective, or big blue decks, or any of the cards that help the Fear deck win games. I don't have pet decks. I don't care what is good, as long as I have a couple decks I can play, that give me a reasonable chance against the popular decks from the other allegiance. And you can't prove otherwise, because I know what *MY* thoughts and *MY* feelings are.

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 »

Objective wrote:not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
Subjective wrote:placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
Image

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14817
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Post by Hunter »

Schele wrote:
Objective wrote:not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
Perfect. If that doesn't exactly describe the answers I give whenever someone asks my thoughts about a card, decktype, etc. then I don't know what would. Because not only are my responses "not influenced" by my personal feelings or prejudice, but in fact, I usually don't HAVE any personal feelings or prejudice in the FIRST PLACE.

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 »

Hunter wrote:*MY* thoughts and *MY* feelings
Subjective wrote:placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
hm...
Image

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

Post by DarkLordOTS »

Hunter wrote: All of that means absolutely NOTHING. First off, it is 100% impossible to prove which deck requires more talent, patience, or wits to win with. Never in a million years could that matter of strict opinion be resolved. But more importantly, it doesn't matter. Not in the slightest. Whether or not a deck is broken, or overpowered, has literally nothing to do with how easy or difficult it is to play. Let's say there is a broken deck, that, when played at maximum efficiency, is virtually incapable of losing a game. Let's say I was one of only 4 players in the entire world with the ability to play the deck at maximum efficiency, and that in the hands of any other player, the deck was merely mediocre. Would I then try to argue that the deck didn't need errata, because so few players could excel with it? And because it required so much talent? Of course not. Broken is broken. And since I would look at everything OBJECTIVELY, I would have to admit that the deck required attention, even though I was one of only 4 people who could break it. So when someone says "It would be okay for Deck A to be too strong, but not for Deck B, because Deck A requires a lot of player skill, and Deck B is an auto-play" then THAT person is the biased lobbyist, whose opinion should be discarded. Meanwhile, without ANY prejudice in favor of the Fear decktype, I can continue to say: It is not broken. It is not overpowered. It isn't even the best DS deck available.
My point distilled:

If player skill is 95% and deck is 5% then things are ok.

If player skill is 50% and deck is 50% of the game then things are good.

If player skill is 5% and deck is 95% then things are bad.

----

Furthmore, I would say that your example is completely ludicrous. You seem to be saying that, for some reason, Person A who plays a game absolutely flawlessly, never makes a mistake, hits every destiny, and always preforms the optimal move should for some reason lose ? That would be 'maximum efficiency'. Any intelligently constructed deck played at maximum efficiency should always win. Anyone who plays chess at 'maximum efficiency' will always win. Perhaps white needs a nerfing?

The goal of the game is two-fold after all. Building a good deck AND playing it well. Playing it well should always be the side we prefer to have weighted more because it will not effect the top players (they'll be top as long as its not weighted deck heavy) and because we want to avoid roshambo.

Fear is an immensely powerful deck weighted very heavily in the construction aspect. Build a good Fear and you can't lose except to anti-fear or really really messing up. SWCCG has always abhorred these types of decks. Always. Look at what has been fixed in the past and it was always a decktype that, once constructed, pretty much played itself. AOBS does not do that.


In Short:
Chu's AOBS wins because he plays it.
SYCFA tends to win because someone plays it.
Me: "So first Sidious fingered Amidala, then Maul went down, then Emperor went down."
Tom: "Sounds like a pretty intense sexual experience."

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

Post by XjedeyeX »

band_member wrote:
mikefrench wrote:....i didn't say that any deck he plays on day 2 is abusive, i said any deck he plays on day 2 is good. esp if he goes 3-1 with it. the point is that he SAID it wasn't good in an effort to save it from errata. then he played it day 2, which meant that he did indeed think it was good. which means he was misrepresenting himself to the players and the pc.
Wow it's like you uncovered Watergate or something. This is obviously something that we should all care about. You keep posting about this because it keeps getting more interesting. It's very very important that you get to the bottom of this.
its like once ben kline was banned, raveling decided to take up the torch
Image

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14817
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Post by Hunter »

Schele wrote:
Hunter wrote:*MY* thoughts and *MY* feelings
Subjective wrote:placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
hm...
Could you possibly take things any more out of context? Point remains: If I were describing my posts about Fear, or KDH, or Crossfire, or any other card/decktype that I've commented on, then your definition for "Objective" seems a perfect, word-for-word match.

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14817
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Post by Hunter »

DarkLordOTS wrote: Any intelligently constructed deck played at maximum efficiency should always win.
Uh, sure? So long as you ignore the TREMENDOUS impact of blind luck that is inherent in this game? Surely you must know that a player can build the best possible deck, have an excellent deck matchup, play the game flawlessly, and still lose? Drawing comparisons with chess when it comes to playing at "maximum efficiency" is nothing but a waste of time.
DarkLordOTS wrote: Fear is an immensely powerful deck weighted very heavily in the construction aspect.
According to you. I find it to not be that powerful at all, really.
DarkLordOTS wrote: Build a good Fear and you can't lose except to anti-fear or really really messing up.
Disagree strongly. I have repeatedly beaten Fear in games where I was not using a deck that would be regarded as "anti-Fear" and in games where my opponent made no obvious errors. I just played the normal LS decks that I liked, and used the normal LS cards in them, and then beat Fear. It's not that hard.
DarkLordOTS wrote: SWCCG has always abhorred these types of decks. Always. Look at what has been fixed in the past and it was always a decktype that, once constructed, pretty much played itself.
On this one, I don't need to say "according to you." Instead, I can just say "you're wrong." The cards that received errata were the ones that were too good, NOT the ones that "played themselves." There is NO correlation between a card's power-level, and its ease-of-use. A card (or deck, or strategy) is either overpowered, or it isn't, and that can never have anything to do with how difficult the card (or deck, or strategy) is to master.
DarkLordOTS wrote: In Short:
Chu's AOBS wins because he plays it.
SYCFA tends to win because someone plays it.
That sure didn't seem to be the case in the games I heard about. The players I talked to, who were IN some of those games, seemed to be able to sum up the entire game as "Elis, Beatdown, GG."

So if a Fear player is deciding how many cards to give up to Thrown Back on turn 1, which turn to start deploying to space, when to play Sidious, how much force to save on the opponent's turn, which card to pull with Bewil, which cards to lose to a drain, whether to play the Control against that first Atrocity or whether to save it for an Alter, which shields to pull when he knows he can't pull all the ones he wants, whether to move a ship, or multiple ships in front of the Falcon, or just leave the Falcon alone, etc. etc....a lot of these decisions may not be real "tough." But nothing, nothing, NOTHING is simpler in SWCCG than "play guys, beatdown, win."

If AOBS only won when Chu plays it, there wouldn't have been 2 other players who did well with it last year. If Fear did well when anyone plays it, then MORE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE PLAYED IT during the past couple years, and more of the people who DID play it, would have won events with it. They didn't. Fear very rarely won events, because the people playing it tended to LOSE. Even if you found a way to explain away the deck's consistent lack of popularity, you'd have an even tougher time explaining away its consistently poor win-loss record.

Post Reply

Return to “[FY07] Worlds Weekend 2007”