DeckBuilding like a CHAMPION . . .

[Magnechu]

Can we delete all the Cobi/Spart comments?

 

[Ardoptres]

I am sooooo good, DEFINITELY aboooove 10, because I am soooooo goood. ZOMGZ NO1 C4N B34T M3!!111!!!one!!one!!!


Am I doing this right?

 

[Rogue Archetype]

Can we delete all the Cobi/Spart comments?

When I get a large block of free time to put together what I originally posted with some CONSTRUCTIVE INPUT that others have left and make a more refined rating scale, I'll just LOCK this thread and post a brand new rating scale.

 

[chriscobi634]

When I get a large block of free time to put together what I originally posted with some CONSTRUCTIVE INPUT that others have left and make a more refined rating scale, I'll just LOCK this thread and post a brand new rating scale.

Once again I apologize for arguing with SPARTA and almost ruining this thread. I enjoy participating in your threads. I see them as good forms of discussion, fun and interesting.

When you start over you may want to suggests to people to rate themselves at a Cities level, States level, Regionals level, Nationals level and at a World(s) level. It varies from tournament to tournament; the playing field gets more competitive as the stakes get higher.

Ryan also suggested that people should also mention what they have accomplished; kind of to justify the rating they give themselves.

 

[SPARTA]

Agreed with Cobi.

Also, now that I re read it the specifications for this thread are quite lose, which might be why so many people are overrating themselves.
According to this rating system, if you show up at a local league tournoment and people do not want to face you, you are 8+.

 

[Rogue Archetype]

Average: You know the archetypes, you've seen the good cards coming out. You use claydol in your decks and you know that dumping 5 pokemon on your bench against dusknoir is bad. You are familiar with archetypes but cannot make any yourself. You make top cuts around 50% of the time, but usually not nationals or going to worlds. You can build a pretty consistent list, but cannot tech your archetypes and lists with the extra difference to boost yourself to the next level.

Above Average: You are known in your state. Your name is heard a decent amount, and people ask about your record. You can build a pretty good deck, and your deck can contain individual techs and variants that allow for success (such as adding a tech pokemon line such as Mewtwo lvl X) which are chosen based on a specific metagame. An above average player can consider the metagame, tech somewhat appropriately, but is still unable to create consistently good, new archetypes or other solid decks.

Good: A good player is someone confident in understanding the metagame and also the construction of lists and others' lists. A good deckbuilder can understand the mechanics of another's engine, setup, strategy, by seeing few cards and extrapolating such information. A good deckbuilder can PREDICT and ANTICIPATE a metagame and formulate techs to respond to it. A good deck builder can sometimes make new, powerful decks, but these decks do not pan out to be steadfast archetypes.

Great: A great deck builder is someone who can finally create a new archetype of some sort. This deck builder understands the metagame and can design a new deck which is not expected or seen by many, and construct it in a way to do well in a variety of situations and in a variety of hands. A great deck builder can tailor a deck to a metagame, and a deck for a metagame. A great deck builder can quickly make deck adjustments, and formulate brand new, yet successful, lists with little time due to previous skill training.

Elite/Lafonte: This is the supreme level of deck mastery. This level of player can not only anticipate a metagame, come up with new and innovative ways to employ said tactics and deck modifications and styles, but also win with them and have others do successfully. This level of player is consistently a threat at tournaments, whose lists perform extremely well, especially when used by several or many people. An elite deckbuilder can build a deck for any metagame in any age group in any contemporary format. This level of player often introduces enough changes into a standard deck, that even an elite player's archetype deck is at least 10% different than most, if not more (often times 20-25% (12-15 cards different sometimes). This level of player has contributed to or created an original archetype, or helped introduce a standard version or essential tech to an archetype.

There we go. 5 categories that would probably be easier to differentiate skill levels and approximations. This is essentially an expanded and clarified set of RA's top 7 or so. So imagine if RA's thread had a 12 tier system instead pretty much, with the skill more evenly spread.

Either that, or we like making allusions to awesome hip hop songs from the early 00's :thumb:

It's kinda funny you failed to call out the people who called themselves 1's, even though they take just as much humor in this as we do.

But I am interested in the self-improvement quality of this post, so I'll throw in my critique:

In my opinion, it is too easy to qualify as "9" or even "10." The way I see it, in any TCG, you have a pyramid-like distribution of skill level on the 1-10. Although I am honestly clueless how to qualify 4-7, here's how I'd qualify 8-10 and 1-3:

-A very small group of the most legendary players, who have won the biggest tournaments (10).
*I'm thinking of National and World champions when I say "legendary."

-A group of about 50 people who are recognized inter/nationally as huge threats at any venue (9).
*"Name" players.

-A group of a a couple hundred who are solid players that often do well (8).
*A good chunk of worlds invitees over the years, and even a few people who have never seen worlds invites.


-A very hazy, ambiguous range of players from "below average" to "good" (4-7).
*The absolute minimum it takes for anyone - anywhere - to earn a Worlds invite is a "6."

-The thousands of consistent league-goers (3).
-The thousands/tens of thousands of occasional league-goers (2).
-The tens of thousands of non-experienced casuals who make up the bulk of card purchases (1).

If you REALLY wanted me to, I could've said "shortly after the turn of the millennium." :thumb:

But yeah, I actually think that the title of the thread is appropriate for describing 9's and 10's: "DeckBuilding like a CHAMPION"

There is almost a ton of intelligent deckbuilding invested in a national or world champion's list - here are your 10's.
There is often a ton of intelligent deckbuilding invested in a regional champion's list, but more room for wackiness - here are your 9's.

By the OP, it seems like anyone can get into the 8+ camp, and or the 9+ camp. Part of the process of evaluating your skill is recognizing not only who you are _above_, but who you are _below_.

So now to really answer the question:

By RA's post, I see myself as a 10: my lists are almost always at the pinnacle of consistency, and I tend to have very good showings with them as a result; however, "10" has implications of perfection/near-perfection, and that doesn't suit me at all.

I take a lot of pride in the products I come out with, but there's also much room for improvement!

First I want to say something about the descriptions: being in top cut doesn't say anything about player skill. With the new numbers it's almost completely luck-based, unless you go x-0. I've been x-1 and without top cut at 3 CCs this season. OppWin tiebreaker is obscured in almost every tournament because of random byes, dropping players etc so it's kind of random decision who advances to the top cut.

Your description of stage 9 would fit best to me, however, I don't think I'm that good, compared to the international field of players. Some parts of stage 8 and others could also be applied to me (Togechomp ftw).



lol?
Sometimes I just point on my Claydol to show I'm going to use its power, nobody ever said something about this. And the few tournaments I played Gardy I usually said something like "your Rose" to announce Telepass. Even if you didn't say anything and just started to search your deck, it would be minor gameplay error (unless the power could be blocked in any way) which is max Warning according to penalty guidelines.

Will you stop talking about my cat already?
UGH.

Ok, on a serious note, the best way to become a better player is through experience and analysis. You look at the best decks, you investigate what makes them the best, then you do the same with other formats. What did they have in common, why was this the, which characteristics made it better than other decks at the time. As you learn what makes these decks better than the rest, you can try implementing that into your decks, then you see what the results were. You continue doing this until you're hypothesis is proven correct or incorrect, at which point you continue looking forward and investigating.

In short, the scientific method, if used correctly, can be used to improve yourself.

But above all else, LISTEN. If a player like Ryan Vergel comes and tells you to do one thing, and some random tells you to do another, you always take into account what the more experienced player says first. Don't just take their word for it though, ask, investigate, find out WHY you should make those changes. In short, TEST TEST TEST.

Hope this helped.

I've found that the best way to improve is to lose. When you lose, you see what you need to fix, what worked, and what didn't work. I saw so many losses during the first 5 months that I started playing in OP. I would make new decks and think, "Man, they'll never see this coming!" only to be thwarted by players who know how to capitalize on small misplays and anticipate my moves. Building your own deck, putting each card in with a purpose, and having a pattern for the deck is something that will come with experience. However, building your own decks isn't the only thing you need. The deck needs to win! Just because someone can put together a deck and it looks good when typing it up doesn't mean it's consistent or a winner. Like others have said, testing is key. No deck is perfect on it's first build. It may look like it can beat the metagame, but without the ability to play it, the deck will fail.

Nothing beats experience and knowlege of the game. Yeah, with the help of T1-T2 decks luck can beat skilled players, but in the end, it's the skilled that win. Luck can only take you so far; eventually it will run out.

Edit:

I would rate myself a 9.

Let me just point out, if the good players in your area don't know your name, then I'm sorry. That should automatically point out that you are no where near an 8, 9, or 10. For instance, I have read posts by Rambo, Ryanvergel, DarthPika, and some others that have posted on this thread and I believe them when they say they are great players becuase they prove it in what they post. Some others of you who are saying you're 9s and 10s, well, I don't think that anyone will rate you that high other than yourself until you start winning bigger tourneys. Grab some trophies and Medals to back up your statements!

These are all posts I can take something from and build a better rating scale for you..

Just putting everything together so I don't have to search it out later...

 

[vorg7]

I'd say I'm a 8.75 I've made top cut at 2/3 of the tourney's I attend but I can never win a tourney. Last year I went 2nd and 3rd at states. Then I went 6-0 at regionals but my Fire TRUK lost to a semi-random water deck in the top cut. I went 3-4 at worlds.

 

[Martin]

I don't see how each individual player can rate themselves so high. What you would need to make this scale more accurate is a panel of established players to decide if each person's criteria meets professional status.

 

[SPARTA]

As I said before, not a single person outside of Ryan who rated themselves above a 7 is above a 3.

 

[Jaeger]

I don't see how each individual player can rate themselves so high. What you would need to make this scale more accurate is a panel of established players to decide if each person's criteria meets professional status.

Yea I agree I have seen very few people give themselves accurate ratings. However I will point out that even a borad of experienced players can be biased towards their friends/teams.

 

[Rogue Archetype]

I don't see how each individual player can rate themselves so high. What you would need to make this scale more accurate is a panel of established players to decide if each person's criteria meets professional status.

Yea I agree I have seen very few people give themselves accurate ratings. However I will point out that even a borad of experienced players can be biased towards their friends/teams.

That would be Ridiculous.

This thread's topic was about reflection and SELF-EVALUATION.

Those who ARE NOT HONEST with THEMSELVES will simply hold themselves back.

Part of becoming a great player is being your own best critic.

I'm trying to provide a TOOL that may be used to think about YOUR OWN development in understanding of game mechanics, misplay reduction, metagame, and knowledge of decks/card combos

People who merely run and and say "I'm a 9 without having read/understood the criteria are free to do so."

They don't get it. They, probably never will. Let's face it, we NEED those guys to propel the great players to the Top Cut! They keep enrollment up and they actually think that they were close to winning their matches ... You have to have losers in order to have winners right?

Don't worry about what everyone ELSE is saying they are.

As with any self-improvement process that involves internal-reflection YOU JUST WORRY ABOUT YOURSELF and let the ignorant remain in their dark abyss of backward progress.

This is for you to have a conversation WITH YOU.... ask yourself questions, enhance, and advance.

Be honest with yourself and build from there.

I COULD REALLY CARE LESS IF YOU RATE YOURSELF A 10.
That's SO NOT going to stop me from getting better.

If you read 10 people saying they're "9"s, will YOU stop playing ?

Alrighty then . ..

 

[Magnechu]

As I said before, not a single person outside of Ryan who rated themselves above a 7 is above a 3.

lol you don't even know who half of the people are that rated themselves higher than 7s. Zach, Omar, Bolt, myself, and a few others are certainly at least 9s, if not 10s.

I plan on giving good insight into 9s and 10s when I get some free time.

 

[SPARTA]

lol you don't even know who half of the people are that rated themselves higher than 7s. Zach, Omar, Bolt, myself, and a few others are certainly at least 9s, if not 10s.

I plan on giving good insight into 9s and 10s when I get some free time.

I did not see you, Bolt, Omar, Zack, or any other good player I recognize rate themselves such or even take this thread seriously.

Hence my post.

 

[selerky]

...This is for you to have a conversation WITH YOU.... ask yourself questions, enhance, and advance....

And post your thoughts to yourself online. :lol: sounds like everybody's blog.
I'm not even going to rate myself.

 

[ShadowTogetic]

This is for you to have a conversation WITH YOU.... ask yourself questions, enhance, and advance.

If I really want to have a conversation with myself, I'd rather talk proofs

 

[Croatian_Nidoking]

Aside from the "top-cutting half the time" bit, I'm practically a 9.

I'm a paradox in some ways: I can really mop the floor at Prereleases and Mom-and-Pop tournaments, but can't seem to top-cut to save my life at regular events (aside from last year's FL Regionals). I wind up either in 5th place or I try one of my other decks in a tournament and epic fail. Sometimes I'm my own worst enemy.

- Croatian_Nidoking

 

[Bolt]

haha my name is mentioned so many times and I haven't even posted yet

9 for me? I think so.

I'm probably not too great of a deck builder... on my own, at least. Working with friends and teammates and whatnot, I feel that at this point in my career I'm able to provide helpful fixes and ideas towards decks. Rambolt with Zach and most recently Abomasnow with Mikey and Jimmy Ballard are probably the two most successful decks I've put a heavier amount of work into. (Although that Banette/Blissey list did get Jimmy a Worlds invite).

Play wise though, I feel like I've gotten exponentially better over the past say 2-3 years. I used to just be flat out MEDIOCRE, not really top cutting events, but having respectable showings at tournaments. Now I've got a couple trophies and medals behind me to at least remind myself that I'm getting better.

What I'd really like to know is what the more successful players (who I see all the time) in my area think of me. NORTHEAST THAT MEANS YOU.

 

[abacus]

9 for sure and I worked super hard to get there. My brain still hurts from trying to out play some beasty masters...

 

[ArmoredMewtwo]

I stand by what I rated myself earlier on in this thread. I must admit, I'm not the absolute best player in my area (there are two, perhaps three excluding Keith that can beat me when I'm on my A-Game... I exclude Keith because I've not played him [or his sons, for that matter] in quite a while), but I'm far from the worst. And that's including even people whom don't go to our League on a regular basis (mainly due to transportation reasons).

Eight about covers me, and I might have been cocky to say nine (though I also stand by the argument of 'if I didn't focus on Yu-Gi-Oh!, I'd probably be a higher rank'). I don't care how pompous some of you are, you are not gods. There will always be someone whom can beat you, notably someone outside of your elitist circle, and it's foolish to deprive others of the chance to reflect upon themselves (or even mock them for it), especially if you do not know these individuals. If you want to keep arguing with me and anyone else confident enough to state this (even if it is unjustified), that's your problem. Though, obviously, Rogue Archetype has made the point that this is a matter of self-reflection, so it's probably best if you leave them be.

... That's a lot of parenthesis... I think I'm done for now.

 

[Renzo]

I say I'm between 7 and 8 considering how I skipped the last two seasons. I was ALWAYS big on deck strategy and love building decks, especially rogue decks. Lol the first and only year I play, I won City with HP Flybutops Yeah... it's kind of funny how I got better at the game by not playing the TCG for 2 seasons than by playing it.