Frosty Decay

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

Can we all just agree TEW is just a terrible player who loves to argue semantics and be done with it?

 

 

 

Would you care to provide some, I dunno, evidence?

 

He's an OCG player, but he's not terrible. He get s a bit bright-eyed over cerain combos, but everyone is guilty of that at one time or another.

 

He's one of the most productive players on the site, though he admittedly does phrase what he says a bit less than optimally, usually.

 

I can legitimately say I was sad when he was banned before, because he was one of the few people I looked forward to getting opinions from, because he knows a lot about the game, even if he doesn't exactly let that on.

 

 

I said fine. BLS is a 1-card OTK, and most decks have to take multiple turns of setup to pull off an OTK, which means it's likely NOT an OTK. Goat Control is not a golden standard, because it's basically a game that no longer exists, and working to make Goat Control again puts YGO in range of losing to HS/MTG.
 
No. Do not argue semantics. You know full well what my point was, and you even ignored what your initial point was in order to argue semantics.
 
... what

You should definitely compare power levels between games. It's a major reasons that said games have draws over the other.

YGO is a high-power high-speed game, and that's a major part of its draw. You're not restricted at all, really, and you don't have to go slow unless it gives you an absurd advantage.

This is what sets it apart from other games. Being fast paced and overpowered is its selling point.

Why did I say M&M? Can you not understand context?

I said Performapal. "Pure". 13-14 hands out of 15 are nut hands. This doesn't have to do with M&M, this has to do with Purepal, which is actually playable with Monkeyboard.

Skill as a deck builder is not the same as skill as a player. At all. There are multiple levels of skill that stack together, and you didn't prove that the more skilled player wins out.

lower variance means lower luck so i don't see what your problem is aside from opting not to use am educated vocabulary, especially in regards to card games. It has nothing to do with time, you're the one that implied they corresponded.
 
The deck is inconsistent as balls, and does not have the deck space to consistently run backrow, enough monsters, and have a diverse enough extra deck.

You are really, really overglorifying intelligent deckbuilding. Yes, it's important, but a bad deck is a bad deck regardless of how well you build it. Good Player Bad Deck happens, but that's still not enough to justify it.

And can you tell me which tournament this was? Because it sounds like you're talking about one of the OCG's many pseudo-locals. In fact, that's an issue with using the variety of decks in the OCG as an issue, so I'll come back to this.

Did I ever argue floodgates aren't luck? I'm just saying that you attempted to demonize luck, but then praise decks for having niches based on drawing into cards. Sure, they're strong, but you're being inconsistent, and that's not enough to defend the decks.

That's not how logic works.

You don't spare a broken card because it's abused by other cards. Yang Zing shouldn't have Mistake, Skill Drain, OR L1T. It just so happens that they do, and that Qli uses 2/3 of those better.

RR is a weak deck. Their niche is filled by better decks, their cards are too restricted to be used effectively in higher levels of play, they don't have enough good R4s to make, and they are mroe vulnerable to getting nuked than any deck except for D/D/D. They're a nuisance at best, they only see play because people adore Shun for some reason beyond my grasp.

If a deck is outclassed at what it does best, you don't play it. This is an example of the OCG playing decks just because. Argue against it all you like, but streamlining a bad deck isn't enough to matter. Especially when they likely don't top more than locals, ever. That is just a factor of the OCG's overly casual mindset on the whole showing.

you mean that card that got banned for being a negative influence on the game? I mean, it may not have been the biggest thing, but that point about TER in the past is weak as s***.

Now see, here you go arguing semantics again, instead of supplying real points.

I'll digress to floodgates first. Cards like that will always find a decktype(s) to abuse them. IT's only a matter of time. And that design is poor. You should not be able to simply shut down X amount of the game for drawing a card while the opponent didn't draw removal. IT is an inherently bad concept in a game with no resource system.

"Play to win" applies to the mindset IN GAME. They play what they want, but they generally play with the mindset to win their own game as opposed to ruin the opponent's. The GUB example was a breath of fresh air in this regard, but this isn't the usual. At least, it never was before.

And then, again, you flip flop the next f***ing sentence.

wow you mean gozen in RR is innovative and not f***ing common sense? huh, what a shock

I mean really, you keep glorifying something f***ing obvious. That means a deck made metacalls. Whoopdedoo, doesn';t make it good. IT just shows someone saw some potential tech that other decks did, then threw it into their pet deck and took it to play. That does not make it a good or playable deck, and you really need to learn the difference.

TCG has examples, too. Like TeleGrandsoil or REDRUM Control. Doesn't mean they were good decks.
 
how does that mean the lock is a good thing for the game? That's just a lazy excuse.
 
And... It only lasts a turn or two? How does having a shot at amassing an advantag eover the opponent like that sound fair? Is cold wave fair? It's a "1-turn lock", too, and you say that shouldn't count.

And here we go. I know it's addressed at Ihop, but the smaller tournaments thing is a big deal.

Given the smaller size, the true potential of decks is not as shown or refined. The process is shorter, so the chaff can make it through, as it's not as rough.

Winning a small OCG tournament or doing well in it doesn't mean a deck's good. It means someone picked up a deck they liked, threw in some metacalls, and played with it. But the size outweighs the success.

And you did a lot more than that. You tried to put the TCG down from the start, with the time comment. Then I didn't even come in here attcaking OCG at all, you just went for the TCG's jugular immediately in response, so the real problem shows here.

Oh, and I just have to say, can you f***ing stick to an argument?

You said you hated luck and prefer wins fair and square in your last post, but this post glorified luck as something that happpens. Make up your damn mind. You constantly sway on things you say, and then you try to play semantics or disregard context in order to bolster unrelated points, so as if to improve your chances of 'winning' the argument, regardless of sticking to a stance.

In doing so, your plan, whether you realize this or not, is to tear down the opponent by constantly having answers to their points, but you lack the consistency to work with it, and this is a common theme with you. All it does is make you desperate to be right.

 

 

Guess you really can destroy your credibility in a matter of months. Honestly I shock myself sometimes

[The Warden]

You had credibility?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

You had credibility?

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.....

[epicmemesbro]

So is this some expose of sorts???

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So is this some expose of sorts???

Nah, it's just me commenting on how I drove away everyone who once supported me

[epicmemesbro]

Oh crap, I thought Areion was the who posted this topic. Your pics look similar.

[·Toot]