Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Too Much Information- Worcester + Indy

  1. #21
    Pray for Rain
    Tammit67's Avatar
    Join Date

    May 2010
    Location

    Philadelphia, PA, USA
    Posts

    1,534

    Re: Too Much Information- Worcester + Indy

    Quote Originally Posted by Aggro_zombies View Post
    Just to play devil's advocate here: can a deck really be "good" if no one can play it correctly? Decks like Dredge or Doomsday may be objectively powerful on paper, but if no one can get them across the finish line then they can't really be that broken, can they?
    Yes they can. There is a difference between perceived truth and objective truth. I for one believe in objective truth

    The deck isn't at fault. The pilot has the tools but cannot use them properly.

    Penicillin is still amazing even if I don't know what the hell to do with it.
    Matt Bevenour in real life

  2. #22

    Re: Too Much Information- Worcester + Indy

    Quote Originally Posted by Tammit67 View Post
    Yes they can. There is a difference between perceived truth and objective truth. I for one believe in objective truth

    The deck isn't at fault. The pilot has the tools but cannot use them properly.

    Penicillin is still amazing even if I don't know what the hell to do with it.
    The problem with this is you can apply this line of reasoning to many different underperforming decks.
    Nowhere do you see: Efficient Answers to Other Cards. Force and MMS will never be banned. Deal.
    Bardo, Site Admin

  3. #23
    (' ' '\( 0 ,o)/''')
    TheInfamousBearAssassin's Avatar
    Join Date

    May 2004
    Location

    Northern Virginia
    Posts

    6,627

    Re: Too Much Information- Worcester + Indy

    Quote Originally Posted by Aggro_zombies View Post
    Just to play devil's advocate here: can a deck really be "good" if no one can play it correctly?
    Obviously not. By definition, if no one can make the deck perform then it doesn't matter if the deck might be theoretically good.

    The question of relevance is if someone can perform well with the deck.

    If they can't then suggestions that someone might be able to are mere speculation.
    For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
    And found I was for endurance made

  4. #24

    Re: Too Much Information- Worcester + Indy

    Quote Originally Posted by FieryBalrog View Post
    The problem with this is you can apply this line of reasoning to many different underperforming decks.
    I don't see that as a problem. Some decks just don't do as well because they are more difficult to pilot than other decks.
    "We are goblinkind, heirs to the mountain empires of chieftains past. Rest is death to us, and arson is our call to war."

  5. #25
    Member
    Gui's Avatar
    Join Date

    Nov 2006
    Location

    Brasil
    Posts

    1,073

    Re: Too Much Information- Worcester + Indy

    Quote Originally Posted by FieryBalrog View Post
    The problem with this is you can apply this line of reasoning to many different underperforming decks.
    I guess you can apply this logic to a lot of currently underperforming decks, but this doesn't mean that it's a flawed logic. Maybe these decks are indeed underperforming due to players lack of skill.

    Proof of this is that, despite dredge being at 30% winning rate on this TMI, it still made it into the DTB this month once again.

    Dredge was once know to be an autopilot deck, but against hate you can see how hard it is to play it. Not every avarage joe can do it properly.
    If you fail to explain the reason behind your choice, technically, it's the wrong choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tacosnape View Post
    It's one of the ten strongest cards in Legacy. And in truth, in any deck you design, you really need to have a good reason -not- to run Wasteland.
    Zerk Thread -- Really, fun deck! ^^

  6. #26
    Member
    joemauer's Avatar
    Join Date

    May 2011
    Location

    Louisiana
    Posts

    683

    Re: Too Much Information- Worcester + Indy

    Quote Originally Posted by Aggro_zombies View Post
    Just to play devil's advocate here: can a deck really be "good" if no one can play it correctly? Decks like Dredge or Doomsday may be objectively powerful on paper, but if no one can get them across the finish line then they can't really be that broken, can they?
    Well these decks have shown up high at big tourneys. Doomsday at the BOM, top four and top sixteen, and Dredge at the GP Indy, top four.

    So the decks have proven themselves and recently too. They underperform for a few reasons.

    Firstly, difficult decks to play. Kids see Dredge going off and think it would be awesome to do that not realizing how difficult it is to play. Everyone is well aware of how tough Doomsday is and not enough people give it a shot because it is too difficult.

    Secondly, both decks can get hated out pretty easy. Griselbrand decks are bad for doomsday decks. Since Reanimator is popular again people are packing extra graveyard hate. Dredge decks can only fight so much hate games 2/3 with or without a competent player. Sometimes the opponent just topdecks the tormod's crypt at the wrong time.

    Thirdly, these are combo decks. They both can poop on the pilot. This is important in big tourneys where one or two poopings can knock you out of top eight/sixteen.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)