A response to those wanting details on decks played

[Prime]

I can understand the point PSYCO is making, but you also have to understand that if good players knew their lists were online and public information for everyone, they would be more likely to try to play different decks at tournaments so they are harder to metagame against. Because of this, players become more creative because they can't just play the same deck all year and do well with it.

The game doesn't become stale, it actually becomes more vibrant.

PSYCO, you say that the ones who have potential to become great players will learn from their mistakes. I can understand that concept, but that can only take them so far. Sooner or later, you need to get with people and play the game and work as a group to get better, or your odds of doing well at the game decrease a lot. Many players could become good players if people gave them a push in the right direction, but many people don't for the reasons given in the above replies.

I think it's silly not to help someone, even if they are just going to forget what you said and play whatever they want in the end. I'd rather give them a chance of becoming better and them pass it up, then not give them a chance at all and leave them in the dust. But I guess some players don't think that way. They are more concerned about what tournament they are going to win next.

 

[PSYCO829]

I\'m curious. Are you using a blackberry, or using text messages to post (no punctuation, mis-spelling, sentence fragments, etc.)?

That\'s fine. I have no problem with players who like to keep things to themselves or their small groups.

However, don\'t force those same ideas to the point of requiring PTOs, judges, and other players to maintain that secrecy.

Too often, players falsely accedit their success to themselves, not realizing that they were once newbies.

I used to play Lord of the Rings TCG. LOTR players would always tell me they\'d never play Pokemon because they didn\'t want to beat up on little kids - they craved serious competition. Obviously, they didn\'t understand Pokemon Age Categories. Nevertheless, in a sense, those comments are true. There are a few Pokemon players out there who actually get a thrill from beating up \"little kids\" or \"newbies.\" They have not desire to help those \"less fortunate\" because it would diminish their \"thrills.\"

lol, no, i just dont like using punctuation since my comp has a bad hadit of randomly inserting back slash marks

and as i said before, i have no problem with players talking about what they faced in a tournoment
nor do i have a problem with judges discussing what was played and what won
my problem is when:
A. judges give out deck lists (something i havent seen yet, would severy anger me)
B. players basically getting a megaphone and telling everyone what im playing at a tournoment

and as for those people who beat up on little kids, i know a person like that
i assure you that the team hb people whom i have met are not like that, often they will go and help a little kid or a new player with their decks, often going out of there way to do so
helping the less fortunate is one thing, giving them my hard earned decklist that they did nothing to further or develop... thats another thing entirely

I can understand the point PSYCO is making, but you also have to understand that if good players knew their lists were online and public information for everyone, they would be more likely to try to play different decks at tournaments so they are harder to metagame against. Because of this, players become more creative because they can\'t just play the same deck all year and do well with it.

The game doesn\'t become stale, it actually becomes more vibrant.

PSYCO, you say that the ones who have potential to become great players will learn from their mistakes. I can understand that concept, but that can only take them so far. Sooner or later, you need to get with people and play the game and work as a group to get better, or your odds of doing well at the game decrease a lot. Many players could become good players if people gave them a push in the right direction, but many people don\'t for the reasons given in the above replies.

I think it\'s silly not to help someone, even if they are just going to forget what you said and play whatever they want in the end. I\'d rather give them a chance of becoming better and them pass it up, then not give them a chance at all and leave them in the dust. But I guess some players don\'t think that way. They are more concerned about what tournament they are going to win next.

your first paragraph makes a very valid point
however, if elite players are playing the same deck at a tournoment, people will see whats in them, and attampt to counter, including other elite players
i do see your point though, i suppose it would prevent stagnitation in a metagame...
hmmm...

and as for the second part, you are also correct about that
most players become elite players on their own, and get noticed
often then they get included in the group
true, this isnt really fair, but it is human nature
there will always be groups of elites, and people who do not belong
its sad, but true

thats why players should always strive for originality
its what i put into my decks, and it does seem to work
i may never win another tournoment, but ill be DAMNED if i just play what everyone else does
i probably wont gather a colection of trophies, or medals, or cards or trips, but i get fun out of the game
players who all play the same deck dont get nearly as much fun as people making their own decks, and thus rob themselves of the best experience available
if we give out the decklists, im worried we may do this to our less experienced players as well

 

[KingGengar]

I agree with Prime. When you help another player to become as good as you are, you've done the game a world of service. It would be a shame if Pokemon degenerated to a clique-ish club where you can only win if you know someone. When you continue to help new players, with *GOOD* decklists, you keep Pokemon alive and vibrant. And that torch continues to get passed.

Fo' real, last year I said I was going to develop a deck that would work excellently, perhaps change a few things around, but most of all, would be open for the public to see and use. That was Mario. I'm not the only person to do this. Many people develop decks and want them posted as Feature Articles or Archetypes, hoping for some fame or the ability to spread a good deck around and get the folks playing it.

But did you notice the resistance from the "Pokemon establishment" (the teams and know-it-alls) who said Mario would never fly? I'm not trying to bang the Mario drum (this time) as much as say that it seems that there is a real fascination with keeping all new ideas "in the family" (Mafia mentality?).

I'm glad when people share their ideas. It seems to me that I heard some of these same people complain that the current state of Pokemon was "boring" and "flat" with all the power decks. Well, then, spice it up by sharing a sparkling deck. Then, it won't be boring anymore.

It seems like these same folks want attention paid to hoaxes like Claydol EX, and to secretive societies like TRUK, and to spurious lists of accomplishments, without putting their abilities into the open arena. What if Michael Jordan told you that he wouldn't give you any information of his ability to fly? Or if Tiger didn't open up about his little secrets? We'd be like, "What a jerk!" True pros don't hide their abilities, only their game strategy, game by game.

 

[desert eagle]

D00d, anyone can beat anyone in a game if they get GOD luck and the other one gets...whatever the opposite of GOD luck is. It's going to happen...a lot. Good players are going to lose to lower skilled players when their deck doesn't setup and their opponent gets lucky enough to get their deck setup. You cry over the fact that someone could have the "good" list and get the deck set up and beat the better player, but the better player is better for a reason, and if they haven't prepared their deck for the chance of their opponent getting setup, then they haven't played enough against that deck.

You are missing the entire point of my argument.

Good lists have a better chance to set up than bad lists. The player's skill has nothing to do with how the cards come out, and matches will be decided because of it. A matchup can vary alot depending on how bad the other player's list is. Like the example I made before, 4 matchups vs a good deck with a 75-25 matchup vs 4 matchups vs a bad list of the same deck with a 90-10 chance of winning, lowering the good player's (who metagamed properly) chances of going 4-0 through those matches by half. Publishing decklists like this lowers the skill level of the game, and puts more into luck and matchups, which this game doesn't need.

It has nothing to do with in game skill, when a good list sets up much more consistently than a bad list.

 

[Prime]

You are missing the entire point of my argument.

I don't get your point? Okay, I will listen very closely.

Good lists have a better chance to set up than bad lists.

I agree.

The player's skill has nothing to do with how the cards come out, and matches will be decided because of it.

Matches decided on luck. I agree.

A matchup can vary alot depending on how bad the other player's list is.

I agree 100%.

Like the example I made before, 4 matchups vs a good deck with a 75-25 matchup vs 4 matchups vs a bad list of the same deck with a 90-10 chance of winning, lowering the good player's (who metagamed properly) chances of going 4-0 through those matches by half.

But you discount many other factors. Players skill can easily make up for a less than perfect list. Now, depending on how skilled the player is determines how much their skill can make up for the less than perfect list. But even with a awesome list, with bad luck, you are going to lose more often.

Publishing decklists like this lowers the skill level of the game, and puts more into luck and matchups, which this game doesn't need.

Have you been under a rock for 2 years? The format is already been all about luck and matchups. Show me a tournament (Nationals, Worlds) where a player has had bad luck or bad matchups and still won (without having a massive amount of one or the other). Because so many players are skilled, and because the "best" list gets around sooner or later, Nationals/Worlds is affected very heavily by luck and matchups.

To say posting lists online would put emphasis on luck and matchups would be like saying giving a gun to everyone would cause people to kill each other. People are ALREADY killing each other and tournaments are already heavily controlled by luck and matchups.

Because of that, players want every little advantage they can get. That is why many players become rule lawyers when they hit the table. If the opponent makes one mistake, ohhh, they are going to pay for it. The fun leaves the game when people get too focused on winning, and in my honest opinion, many people take it too far.

Too many people strive to win, but forget about having fun in the process. There is going to be a winner no matter how good you and your opponent's play. But there can easily be a lack of fun at a tournament.

It has nothing to do with in game skill, when a good list sets up much more consistently than a bad list.

You discount the idea of shades of gray when it comes to deck lists. There isn't one "good" list and many "bad" lists, even if that disrupt the whole "TRUK" idea. You can still do just as well using another "good" list than you can with the popular so-called "good" list.

But many people don't realize that. How often do I see someone asking someone for a list. Heck, I've asked someone for a list. But I only do it to learn about the deck. After I have learned enough about the deck, I alter the deck to my fancy, and guess what? It does just as well if not better than the list I originally used.

 

[Rambo1000]

prime, if a team full of good players tests the **** out of a list for a long time, the list will be, pretty much, perfect. at least as perfect as it's gonna get.

 

[Prime]

prime, if a team full of good players tests the **** out of a list for a long time, the list will be, pretty much, perfect. at least as perfect as it's gonna get.

For them. If two teams test the (bleep) out off a list for a long time and end up with two lists, which one is better?

 

[SteveP]

You are missing the entire point of my argument.

Good lists have a better chance to set up than bad lists. The player's skill has nothing to do with how the cards come out, and matches will be decided because of it. A matchup can vary alot depending on how bad the other player's list is. Like the example I made before, 4 matchups vs a good deck with a 75-25 matchup vs 4 matchups vs a bad list of the same deck with a 90-10 chance of winning, lowering the good player's (who metagamed properly) chances of going 4-0 through those matches by half. Publishing decklists like this lowers the skill level of the game, and puts more into luck and matchups, which this game doesn't need.

It has nothing to do with in game skill, when a good list sets up much more consistently than a bad list.

No doubt a consistent deck is great in the long run. The last two Master's Worlds #1 decks prove this point.

Straight Blissey/tech (with the right decklist) is so consistent, it's a thing of beauty. It reminds me of the old Haymaker beatdown decks. But consistent decks usually exhibit one vulnerability - they are easily countered, based on the current format.

Personally, I will always choose consistency over combo-setup. Newbies will always play consistent decks better than combo-setups because the decisions are fewer.

So, I can see desert eagle's point. A consistent deck can overcome a bad matchup against a less-consistent deck. Nevertheless, a consistent deck still has it's vulnerabilities.

For example, Yamato at last year's Worlds knew that Torterra absolutely destroys Empoleon. So he techs in Infernape, making Empoleon less consistent. The more consistent Absolutions didn't do as well in Swiss, but in the best-of-3 matchups, they do much better, winning it all.

Decklists reveal why decks are consistent. Consistent decks do well regardless of the players, though the odds increase based on whose playing them.

 

[desert eagle]

But you discount many other factors. Players skill can easily make up for a less than perfect list. Now, depending on how skilled the player is determines how much their skill can make up for the less than perfect list. But even with a awesome list, with bad luck, you are going to lose more often.

Think about it this way. If their skill takes away some of their chance of winning, say a 10% less chance, with the bad list in the example they win 65% and with the good list they win 80%. Same significant difference in the long run.

 

[SteveP]

Have you been under a rock for 2 years? The format is already been all about luck and matchups. Show me a tournament (Nationals, Worlds) where a player has had bad luck or bad matchups and still won (without having a massive amount of one or the other). Because so many players are skilled, and because the "best" list gets around sooner or later, Nationals/Worlds is affected very heavily by luck and matchups.

I know this one kid who accredits his losses to his opponent's luck and his wins to his skill (deck-building, meta-gaming, play-decisions, etc.). In my experience, you cannot attribute too much to either side of this luck/skill coin. Both play significant roles during the process of finding the best-of-the-best at any particular tournament. At any particular moment during a tournament skill might be more important than luck, and vise versa.

 

[Bobby]

Oh, how I wish every game of pokemon was decided completely by skill.

Good lists aren't ALWAYS more consistant! Take Metanite. If you had a "good" list, you were probably playing Latios*, Lugia ex, possibly Groudon ex, only 1 Dragonair, and no draw besides MAYBE both holon draw cards. A "bad" list would play no tech basics (less bad starters) and more middle stage evolutions, thereby making it more consistent.

And that is when you say, "Oh well," and life continues on. Too many players are too concerned with now. They must win THIS tournament NOW. They can't accept a loss, and a few are very poor losers when they lose a game to someone they feel isn't as "good" as them. If you lose, try harder next time.

I agree, except when you CAN'T do anything about your loss. For example, Nats 07... I lost to Turn 1 Skill Hack. Twice. I don't think "trying harder" is going to win me that game. Same with losing T1 to a Riolu. I understand saying "oh well" at something like a BR, but these things happen at huge events, too. I got 33rd at nats because of illegitimate losses, and Aaron Curry missed grinding into worlds because he didn't even get to draw a card against Riolu. Five other people also lost T1 to a Riolu at the grinder.

Point being: sometimes working harder isn't enough. I understand luck-based wins are part of the game, but I don't think anyone should be criticized for losing TURN ONE, when you don't even get to draw.

Anyway, since that was kind of off topic... I honestly don't have that much of a problem with publishing winning decklists.

Pros:
-Beating opponents with better lists won't hurt your resistance as much because they will do better.
-Players with better lists yield more points when you beat them, because they will have done better; in addition, your losses to them will hurt you less because they won't be as far below you as those to whom you didn't give help.
-If someone is playing a deck whose list has been posted online, there's less of a chance that the list will have surprises, or things you wouldn't expect; if it did, I don't see how an online list would affect that.
-If a deck becomes popular via online publishing, it will be easier to predict the metagame.
-Winning a tournament gets you even more respect because you beat less "randies" and more "good players." (Since these players will probably become "better" through using/understanding these lists... but this might not always be the case! I really don't know.)
-You'll get better games and feel good about helping other players (although I'm sure a lot of people don't value this one highly).

Cons:
-The list that the winner (hopefully) worked hard to perfect is COMPLETELY revealed, making it easy to copy and requires players to think less on their own (in many cases).
-Players of lesser skill winning because they were given a more consistent list.
-???


I honestly laugh sometimes when I read the "TRUK Engine" thread. I've seen every legit trainer in the GAME right now posted on that thread. I'll give you all some clues:

1) TV Reporter, Celio's Network, Holon Mentor, Team Galactic's Wager, Copycat, Castaway and Steven's Advice are not specific to the "TRUK Engine." In fact, I think every deck that is to be considered reasonable should be playing some combination of the above Supporter cards.

2) Let's do some logical thinking here. Would you play Quick Ball in a deck with 20+ pokemon? Probably not. Would you play it in something with 8 Pokemon, such as Turn 2 Blissey? I would, and I do. And since it has already been confirmed on Pokegym that Blissey is not synonymous with a TRUK deck, what can we conclude?

Steven Silvestro helped me with my Blissey list that I won 3 BRs with. He didn't use a TRUK Engine. I was 1st in the world yesterday. You don't need this secret engine to win.

 

[PSYCO829]

I love you bobby

 

[SteveP]

Yeah, good post Bobby! The concept of helping lesser players become better, elevating their rating, thus earning you better rating points when you beat them (or losing you fewer points if they get lucky and beat you :wink, is brilliant!

 

[Bobby]

Yeah, good post Bobby! The concept of helping lesser players become better, elevating their rating, thus earning you better rating points when you beat them (or losing you fewer points if they get lucky and beat you :wink, is brilliant!

I know, I thought appealing to those players who are concerned about their rating when presenting my arguements was a genius idea, too. :smile:

But nice point that you got in parenthesis, I forgot about that!

 

[Burninating_Torchic]

Yeah, good post Bobby! The concept of helping lesser players become better, elevating their rating, thus earning you better rating points when you beat them (or losing you fewer points if they get lucky and beat you :wink, is brilliant!

... Are you KIDDING me?
That's got to be the most cynical, glass-is-half-empty post I've seen in a while.

So, you're saying that whenever someone helps someone in this game, the only possible reason is that they have an ulterior motive that involves beating that person and getting more points for themselves at a later time?

My god. Perhaps it's not the players that violate SotG that ruin this game, but instead the people that are overly paranoid about those players.

=/

 

[KingGengar]

... Are you KIDDING me?
That's got to be the most cynical, glass-is-half-empty post I've seen in a while.

So, you're saying that whenever someone helps someone in this game, the only possible reason is that they have an ulterior motive that involves beating that person and getting more points for themselves at a later time?

My god. Perhaps it's not the players that violate SotG that ruin this game, but instead the people that are overly paranoid about those players.

=/

I love this guy.

 

[PSYCO829]

... Are you KIDDING me?
That\'s got to be the most cynical, glass-is-half-empty post I\'ve seen in a while.

So, you\'re saying that whenever someone helps someone in this game, the only possible reason is that they have an ulterior motive that involves beating that person and getting more points for themselves at a later time?

My god. Perhaps it\'s not the players that violate SotG that ruin this game, but instead the people that are overly paranoid about those players.

=/

congradulations BT
you are officially awesome

 

[rhodesia123]

Aaron Curry missed grinding into worlds because he didn't even get to draw a card against Riolu. Five other people also lost T1 to a Riolu at the grinder.

Point being: sometimes working harder isn't enough. I understand luck-based wins are part of the game, but I don't think anyone should be criticized for losing TURN ONE, when you don't even get to draw.

solution: dont use a deck that requires a fighting-weak 50 hp basic

 

[SteveP]

... Are you KIDDING me?
That's got to be the most cynical, glass-is-half-empty post I've seen in a while.

So, you're saying that whenever someone helps someone in this game, the only possible reason is that they have an ulterior motive that involves beating that person and getting more points for themselves at a later time?

My god. Perhaps it's not the players that violate SotG that ruin this game, but instead the people that are overly paranoid about those players.

=/

Did you absolutely overlook my parenthetical statement about losing to those you help?

Typical liberal. Take things out of context and distort them far beyond their intended meaning. So, let me expound.

Helping someone become better, with the end-goal to make your competition better, is a noble cause. You're less likely to beat them, but when you do, there's a higher sense of accomplishment. Likewise, when they beat you, you feel a sense of pride for your "apprentice," knowing they probably could not have beaten you without your tutoring.

Helping others become better, thereby elevating your own competition, is by NO MEANS contradictory to the Spirit of the Game. Making others better in order to help yourself become better is NEVER a bad thing.

Oh well. I'll never understand the liberal idea that winning means someone has to lose, which in their mind's eye, is an evil, cynical concept.

 

[PSYCO829]

Did you absolutely overlook my parenthetical statement about losing to those you help?

Typical liberal. Take things out of context and distort them far beyond their intended meaning. So, let me expound.

Helping someone become better, with the end-goal to make your competition better, is a noble cause. You\'re less likely to beat them, but when you do, there\'s a higher sense of accomplishment. Likewise, when they beat you, you feel a sense of pride for your \"apprentice,\" knowing they probably could not have beaten you without your tutoring.

Helping others become better, thereby elevating your own competition, is by NO MEANS contradictory to the Spirit of the Game. Making others better in order to help yourself become better is NEVER a bad thing.

Oh well. I\'ll never understand the liberal idea that winning means someone has to lose, which in their mind\'s eye, is an evil, cynical concept.

in order for there to be a victor, there must be a loser
that is the nature of competition

members of team hb do help out lesser player with THEIR decks, the decks the lesser players make themselves
the lesser players then do better at tournoments, and thus feel better

if i were to come up to you and take ur deck, throw it out the window, and hand you another list, you would probably be annoyed, if not angry
not to mention i would have robbed you of a chance to work with your own deck and what you want to do, rather than give you something that \"works\"

put the lists up for grabs for anyone to see, and originality will die on the spot
mark my words