Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix Ignition View Post
Please don't tell me this is how you're getting your new testing results. You have to realize that people on MWS are 90% of the time testing new decks, testing odd deck tweaks, or just practicing with something they have no idea how to use, and 10% of the time playing a deck that they play normally for the fun of stomping on someone in the 90% column (and 85% making up percentage statistics).

Mainly, the only good MWS does is to make you get a feel for how a deck runs and whether it is going to perform somewhat well. The getting real playtesting statistics will only come from playing against people who are good at decks that they are currently playing.

I mean the whole percentages thing was funny in the beginning because the majority of the decks you listed were played by you, and pi4meter played the NG deck repeatedly. He even told me after I got a game on him (after 3 tries) in the mirror match that he was really surprised because you had never beaten him in the mirror before.

Now that is something we can all see a problem with.
Wait what? I never said it was a problem, so how is it a problem? And how does it matter if our group tests IRL or on MWS. BUT OMG THE SHUFFLER IS BAD SEE LOLOLOLOLOL THAT WAY YOUR TESTING RESULTS WILL BE SKEWED BECAUSE ALSO THE SHUFFLER IS BAD AND FAVORS NG, YEAH! I WIN.

Okay, I'm not retesting crap. It's amazing that you still need proof that this deck is as advertised. (about 65% win against the current field) Nobody has actually provided a reason why the matchups should be bad, we've provided the reasons why the matchup should be good, and in case reasoning can't persuade you we've also played thousands of games against each other and maybe hundreds against other source members. But in case that wasn't enough, we also said we even played more games just now. Then everybody forgets that we already presented our main argument and are just adding icing to the cake, and focuses on what's lacking in like our 10 most recent games. "We even did..." usually signifies that we've already presented our crushing argument. Now we're just interested in putting the nail in the coffin so to speak. Even that is too loose of an analogy, because the nail was already in the coffin when we played thousands of games and reasoned our list through.

As such, I may decide to play more games with this list, but I'm not testing anymore except against new builds. You can ask me how I'm doing and I'll respond, but I'm not making a point of tabulating my wins against the known decks anymore because I already know it's precisely what is listed. The argument that it would be lower for pros is retarded. It's true, it's just a horrible argument. Everybody would do worse if their opponents were better. Nice red herring. You may assume all our results were played with nonpros. But if a deck can do even 50% against pros when played by mere paupers such as Matt and I, that too is an equal statement of strength of the deck. So why is it that having a lower matchup against pros is a good argument? You won't be able to answer this question because it's not well-formed: it's a horrible argument.

Matt may have the temperament to tabulate results again but we agreed to post this for the evolution of the metagame. If the players won't proliferate the deck, then I doubt logical reasoning is the way to forward the case. Maybe you just need to see it for yourself to debunk some superstitions or something.