No link yet, I'm afraid.. But I was there and I played him in the final round.Quote:
Originally Posted by Volt
It looked like traditional Counter Slivers, with Hibernation - and no Mutavaults.. pretty straight.
Printable View
No link yet, I'm afraid.. But I was there and I played him in the final round.Quote:
Originally Posted by Volt
It looked like traditional Counter Slivers, with Hibernation - and no Mutavaults.. pretty straight.
It sounds like someone's never played poker before :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryWM
Seriously though good points on the whole. People complain alot when they lose to decks they view as not sub-par. Complaining about those people complaining isn't going to change anything though :tongue:
Complaining is just part of the game like it or not. It's something that you're never going to escape and it's usually not a big deal... esp if you're the guy with the deck that people are complaining about. It's usually fun to hear the complaints then. :laugh:
- Dave
ok ok im the silly fuck who went top 4 with elves. i know there are flaws in the deck but i wasnt playing with the total card pool of choice. btw i do have an 1800 and sometimes pluss eternal rating. there are actually only 7 forests in the build only 17 lands. but the 3 sky shroud elite are the weak link. they will be replaced by the 4th q ranger the 4th heareld and the 2nd caller of the claw. the board remains the same with thorn as an option if i think the meta is combo heavy. my old build did run tity and staff but the fewer non elf cards the better so i eventually droped it. garuk is the nuts. in chicago i won a game with 2 e plagues on board by just making beasts. i have a decent game againts almost any deck. i used to run a one of pack master berofe i switched to collosus i might try to squeeze him back in somewhere. and even though there is no staff and i can only win by turning guys sideways, this does have a combo element to it. heritage goes with nettel sentinal, perfect and q ranger, heareld and caller, sylvan messenger and cards that say elf. ive drawn 8 cards on turn 2 before with a rather large G bomb awaiting on turn 3. btw and i havent lost a match 2 goblins after i took out staff. they really dont have much of an answer when i play a bunch o fucking dudes and draw a bunch o fucking cards on turn 2. i made a goblin player say his first turn lackey was too late. then game after next he felt the same way about aether vial. the only way he beat me one game was 2 sharpshooters in play. of course i have problems with challice but i have the answer in the board and sometimes i run v shaman out of the board. in place of needel. aside from challice, massive ld effects can get me also. mainly geddon and d dreams. but now with 4 q rangers, sink hole and thoes other spells dont bother me so much. i have a good chance at rebuilding befroe they do and killing them. not to mention this deck is kinda chep to build and preforms well against the curent meta. i saw one loam deck there and lost in 3.i probably had my most broken turn 2 against him game 2. i had 16 power in play and caller of the claw backup. he conceded at 19 life. i also lost to rw burn in top 4 because i drew nothing games 2 and 3. didnt see one jitte out of 2 games and 4 boarded in. not to mention he shouldnt have beat grindstone anyways. grindstone punted by conceding to a grunt he couldnt do anything abought when all he had to do was let kid resolve his grunt trigger and then grindstone him before draw. what a punt. but thats ok i would have probably beat him if i saw grindstone instead of chris. im glad another c.o.d. kid top 8ted mono green elf strom ftfw
I could be wrong, but i thought poker players welcome the thought of under skilled players. The "fish" I believe they call them. For the free easy money from tight correct plays. Even though the under skilled players are hard to read because of their misplays.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dxfiler
<3 fullgrip and CoryWM. Cory's post > mtgthesource.com
They don't welcome the 'fish' when they lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryWM
It's way worse in poker... this is coming from someone who spent a good part of the last year in brick and mortar casinos. You name it I've seen it. Cards thrown, chairs thrown, and in one case a person thrown :eek:
So yeah, people complaining in magic when they lose is kind of a drag... but it's nothing compared to people losing in poker.
If you've never played it, best advice I can possibly give is stay away. You don't want to turn into a degenerate... like me :tongue:
- Dave
CoryWM's post, minus the emo, reminds me a lot of the classic debate about what it means and what are the pros/cons of playing a rogue* deck. I'll refer you to Flores' 2004 article on the subject (one of his best, IMO), but I'd like to explicitly quote this part:
Which is the whole difference between playing Merfolk because you noticed that no-one runs Engineered Plague anymore, most manabases revolve around nonbasic Islands, and hitting 3cc with CounterTop is great; and playing Merfolk because you like the little blue guys and just hope you hit the right string of matchups to finally make Top 8. Or playing Burn because CounterTop and CoP: Red are nowhere to be seen and playing Burn because it's what your friend could lend you.Quote:
Rogue is good not because different is good, but because different wins. Rogue deck decisions are based on one thing, and one thing only: metagame predictions. There can be no rogue deck design outside the metagame, and the rewards for playing a rogue deck rarely occur when metagame predictions are not accurate.
Or, in this particular case, between running Elves because Forestwalkers outrace Tarmogoyf and turn 2 Wirewood Herald is more scary for Pernicious Deed.dec than turn 1 Lackey; and running Elves because you have most of the deck from T2 and might as well run this side event too, huh?
Both situations can lead to a Top 8. But in one case, people will have to physically alter their decks to handle your attack, else you'll keep blazing through Swiss rounds; in the other, they'll just have to learn how your deck works and play correctly against it.
* if you say "rouge" I'll Stendhal your Balzac
Lets be clear, I'm not saying that a random merfolk deck is good very often, if ever. it was merely a bad example I could come up with to demonstrate the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nihil Credo
However, I do feel that you have illustrated my point perfectly on the deck hating part of my post. Every deck that is new and wins tournaments is rogue. Until it puts up results. Just look at some of the threshold builds, wastelands + stifles, + 3 or 4 colors etc. On paper this deck gets shot down. If I was to post that list a year ago, people would pick it apart, saying the manabase is too shaky etc. Fast forward to a major tournament, where a team puts a few into the Top 8 with the deck. All of a sudden it's the new Deck to beat.
We've shifted the entire forum to. " I know you think the deck is good, but until you prove it, you're wrong."
Look at another real life example, of our current situation. Take the medical field. We're looking all kinds of cures for all kinds of diseases.
In reality. the "experts" hardly ever come up with the cure, even though they're working on it 24/7 for years. It's the random guy in a lab with no recognition, that makes the breakthrough. He finds that you can do something, that doesnt cure the disease, but puts the experts one step closer to understanding what is needed to cure the disease.
This is because your mind becomes one track, why would it want to work harder? If you see a pattern, you check your memory to see if it's right or wrong. You don't analyze data where you know the answer already.
We need fresh eyes. Ones that don't know the patterns. So that they will test results, we feel we already know.
Am I gonna use my play test time to test merfolk? Probably not, I haven't noticed anything game breaking being added to them. It's not my pet deck, so I don't have it laying around either. This story repeated throughout all of us, is why this deck doesn't advance.
How about we have a first place tracking thread, to promote other DTW up to the DTB database. That way, the players in these smaller tournaments, have a reason to contribute. Right now as a community, we're saying, if you don't play in a 30 plus tournament, we don't care what you think.
There's so much data, not being mined from the tournaments we're already playing. Will the one good player in his 10 person tournament show up and win with burn, and win 10 weeks in a row? Sure. It'll skew the results? Sure it will. But I think the good players will be able to take in the DTW results in with a grain of salt. Much like we do now.
Heh, I actually didn't notice that you'd mentioned "50 merfolk 10 Islands.dec". I brought up Merfolk because I actually think it's got some serious potential as a metagame deck right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryWM
Well, I don't think you're suggesting that anyone else should prove it, right? Or that we should assume the deck is good unless it scrubs out 5+ times in a month?Quote:
We've shifted the entire forum to. " I know you think the deck is good, but until you prove it, you're wrong."
Each of us spends some time testing those decks that just strike his fancy, and some more time testing those decks that may not be as intriguing but that show potential.
You need some criteria to pick which decks to devote the latter category of time to. Tournament results are a fine one. Sound arguments in favour of the deck (whether you yourself came up with them, or they were posted by somebody else) are another. Do you know of better ones? 'Cause I don't.
By the way, bringing up the medical field, or any other serious work, is irrelevant. Those people's research have important consequences and they're being paid for it, so even a 1% chance of coming up with a new development can be worth pursuing. Playing Legacy is a hobby, so the threshold is much, much higher.
I think you misunderstood the reason behind the 33+ players cut.Quote:
How about we have a first place tracking thread, to promote other DTW up to the DTB database. That way, the players in these smaller tournaments, have a reason to contribute. Right now as a community, we're saying, if you don't play in a 30 plus tournament, we don't care what you think.
There's so much data, not being mined from the tournaments we're already playing. Will the one good player in his 10 person tournament show up and win with burn, and win 10 weeks in a row? Sure. It'll skew the results? Sure it will. But I think the good players will be able to take in the DTW results in with a grain of salt. Much like we do now.
It's not that we think that player quantity = player quality; Japan has large tournaments yet their decks mostly suck (not in the "unusual" type of suck, in the "running Goblin Chariot" type of suck). It's that a deck making Top 8 in a six-round tournament must have won at least four matches in a day, which is less likely to be a product of sheer luck.
I don't think I conveyed my message clearly here. When I mean proving the deck. I was also thinking about how hard it is to prove a deck. Even if you pioneered the threshold deck. It would be hard to prove it. You have to play in a 33+ person tournament, and make top 8, without any fine tuning. As we see here, after a year of tweaking, threshold still didn't make top 8 at this tournament. Now imagine you're pioneering the deck, and didn't make top 8, at this point you might abandon it, due to not being able to prove it. More over the help you're trying to seek, wants proof it works before helping.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nihil Credo
As for suboptimal lists winning tournaments. This intrigues me more than others I guess. When i see a guy win a tournament with goblins running goblin chariot. I instantly think, the deck must be strong, he's winning the tournament, when the deck isn't even optimized. I could replace those cards and do even better! However not seeing the deck at all, I think that it isn't placing anywhere, and is outdated and done for.
I think we could loosen the grip on what data we allow in. It's not hard to see what the Top 8 decks played against, and make your own judgment accordingly.
I guess my bottom line is. Even if you have revolutionary tech, the best deck, and make no play mistakes at a 33+ tournament. You can still lose, and not "prove" your deck. It's much easier to put up results, in a 15-20 man tournament. Over the coarse of a month or so. Where you place 1-3rd every week. Besides observing something over a longer time period is better than a 1 time event.
I'm not saying I have the best ideas to open it up more. However I do think someone can come up with something better. Maybe the requirement is, 10 match wins, vs 1800+ eternal player playing a tier 1 deck.
Maybe indeed. Collecting pairings and ratings statistics is unfortunately beyond anyone but the DCI itself's data-mining abilities. However, on a case-by-case basis, if you put up a new thread in N&D with a notice that says "PERFORMANCE: Has won 19 out of 26 matches against opponents with average Eternal rating of 1814", or something like that, I'm pretty sure people would take notice, and for that matter it would help speed up the thread's promotion to Established.
Any links for the Top8 lists ? Sorry if this was posted on another page or thread.
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazin.../472adecklistsQuote:
Originally Posted by aTn
Thanks a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by DireLemming
Does anyone know the full t8s for the two prelims?
I don't know for sure, but I remember most for the first (10:00 am) prelim. This is what I've got:Quote:
Originally Posted by iOWN
2 UGr Thrash (one was me)
1 Enchantress (I remember the player, not the deck too well...)
2 Goblins (at least one Rgb)
1 UW Landstill w/ scepters and chants
1 Ugb(w?) Landstill
1 Unknown
they fucked up the order of the top 8 on the wizards website. slivers won and chris did get 2nd, but me and grindstone guy should be three and 4. dragon stompie lost to me first round of top 8. i think wizards is ashamed of me and probably realized they fuck up in trying to offset the power of blue with all the green creatures u could dream of, and might be trying to down play my deck. mono green elves isnt my first choice in my local tourneys, because the local meta has adjusted to the fact i might be there with that stupid green deck, and also because i won my last 3 tourneys in a row there playing rw loam. but my big tourney deck is gonna be elves because i finish matches, i dont draw games like a stalled out blue deck can. and if you are going to play 7 matches you might as well play something that will finish with enough time to relax between rounds. 7 rounds isnt easy. plus who has any good hate for this build. people will be scared of the big decks that every one thought would be there in force.
Ahem, um actually I came in 3rd. You're right about the order being screwed up - basically that list is the top 8 in no particular order.
I was in 2nd after the Swiss and lost in the Semis to Blake after beating the FaeStill deck in the Quarters... definitely came in 3rd place. I have the uncut antiquities sheet to prove it.
yep. i took a picture then, i sold mine asap because its almost useless to me. but i got a twister for it.