Discussion in 'Feature Articles' started by desert eagle, Oct 20, 2007.
Mario did destroyed the chance that holon's castform would see play this year.
I think mario is not given much creadet as it should. I am not saying that it is the best deck nor the worst (after all there is just no way a bad deck could do good a big turnament) Luck is a big thing of the deck for I have tested out mario myself and mario may not be my cup of tea it defently is not a bad deck. But then agen if I look at this with luck well even krickatune needs alot of luck to win after all any prized krickatots/ tunes spells doom for the deck. (My husband achully had all 4 tunes prised well I can tell you that game ended quickly) I play with delta draw in my main turny deck and I get no energy starts and or no suporter/trainer starting hands my usully my deck goes down. Luck can also give you that golden hand and you end up pwning your oponent. I also agree that mario needs a bit more luck but can work. Maby not quiet like most other decks but I guse that is why mario is kind of uniqe. With the weakness well that always could be a problum for any deck. I don't have any psy decks around here so I never tested mrio agenst its worst matchup but hay even those decks could stat out bad (agan all to do with luck.) Even blissy (wich is an awsome card) can have a bad day as well and if matched up agens miro it probuy will die. You say well there is holon energy with fire energy to counter that. Well what will happen if you can't get that spacific energy( like it was all prized) these thing do happen and weather we like it or not luck will always be a big factor in any game. Yea blissy is good but the cards in mario are not bad eather. So to wrap up mario is not what I would call the best deck out there but I would not say its the worst.
i'll take you on for kant if you want, since I am better with the deck than kant is. A best of 5 would more legit.
I'm going to agree with this one here.
This article shouldn't even be featured, it's nothing but a load of propaganda.
This reminds me to a certain group of people bashing about Grumpigstall.
The designer of that deck also asked those people to play against him and ALL of them lost.
Never underestimate a deck which has been perfected during a period of time.
Mario can be such a deck.
I'm gonna have to agree with KazamBolt here, both of the cards are good, but not together. Machamp/megainum is good. Many other things are better with lucario.
But, then again, I did win with it against what? R-gon, 2 good infernape lists, empoleon/lucario, MOVING TRUK OMG OMG, as well as, really, countless other decks. The only time I lost with it was when an infernape donked me.
I'm just going to have to say it, kinggengar's list on the featured articles forum is just plain bad. That is by far the worst list I have ever seen for the deck. Don't base your opinions on one list. Team legion has a really good list, which gives it a consistent t2 setup. So, you can't say mario is bad in general, it's just one of those decks where a good list and player skill decides the game.
It isn't a deck to most, but to a player experienced with it, it is really good. You guys just base your opinions on what you see in one list. How many people have really played it?
No, not ALL of them lost.
And to all the ppl who say that "have you ever USED mario in a tourney?", yes, yes I have. A premier event at that! I went 2-2 :x
They didn't? I got another impression, but I will ask Andceo.
Anyway, Mario is a deck like any other creation with 60 cards is a deck.
Why should a deck forfill any kind of "standards" to be considered a deck.
You have to have skill with it , only then is it a good deck. I did good with it since I started playing it. (btw, in my sig, 2 of those losses are not from mario. I played a lot with it and needed to see what the format was so I could prefect my list for mario.) I also won a DX-on tournament with an HP-on mario.
Regardless of whether or not the people who wrote the article think it's a good deck, it is still winning, so I think that speaks for itself. Like it or not, Mario is a deck, even if it doesn't meet your specific "criteria" for being a deck. And Mario is here to stay. Besides, you mention how easy it is to beat, so stop whinning.
10 times? What about 50? 80? Perhapss 100 would be good enough for you.
It's not exactly how many times you play the deck, but how quickly you learn and understand the deck.
That is how Martin was able to go 14-0 at nationals with a deck he picked up the night before.
It's not the deck, it's the player. # of times a deck is played =\= player's skill with deck, there is a big difference.
Back on the subject of mario...
I've always cosidered myself n00bish...I don't wanna be like the people that go around saying things like "i got t32 at worlds haw haw i'm better than you," (not that anyone does say that, just that they might have an issue with modesty.
So, I guess I have to realize that mario isn't good, it's just my skill. Is that what you're trying to say, moza?
They don't have to because they already cite allegedly better examples. A little bit of looking does even more work for them (i.e. looking at Dante's topic on Blissey/Lucario).
Anyways, I already gave Kant a few brief opinions about the article before it was posted, and all of it still holds true. A few points are...
-Synergy=/= good decks, and lack of synergy=/= bad decks. Prime is 100% right in addressing Blissey/Lucario: an excellent deck that realistically has NO synergy.
-Simplicity=/=bad. The best example of this is Blissey. Even though it has more tricks than Mario, it's just as easy to figure out, no matter the variant.
-When you put your name on top of an article, you _do_ lay claim to the opinions introduced in it if you don't specfiically cite sources. Even though you guys wrote separate sections each, and are claiming a "don't shoot the messenger" role, people still pay attention to the names at the top of the article. Nobody regards the "et al" (and others) that follow because those people only offered minor contributions.
No, it's not actually.
All I was saying is that the # of times you play a deck does not show how much skill with that deck you possess. Some people need to play with a certain deck for a LONG time to get to know it(I did with queendom), while other ppl can pick up a deck anytime and play it(what I do most nights before a tourney, or what Martin did).
This article was made to show why mario is NOT a top 1/2/maybe eve 3 tier deck. There are just better options then it.
But whatever works for you. Just be glad me/dan aren't in your division anymore :]
OH...sorry...I meant really that mario is as good as the skill you have with it.
No amount of skill will make it a tier1, or even tier 2 deck, I'm sorry to say. I have played well over 60+ games with mario tweaking my list, and I did it JUST to prove my point that it isn't good, or good enough for me to use in a tourney.
Did you skip the first paragraph? The entire point of that paragraph was because of people that agree with your statement.
Well, considering we don't know how those games went besides winning turn 1...
Anyways, I don't know of any "elites" that lost to Mario at nats. If you can think of any, please LMK. Almost none of these "elites" played set up decks, either. I can tell you that there were no decks withheld by ANY of these secret teams due to a Mario matchup. No one who helped write this article has lost to a T1 Riolu, but many have, such as those 8 people in the grinder. How can you say he would have won without that win? I'm not saying that's the only way he made it; we don't know the games, or the hands, or the setups. The question is how many of these games WOULD have been lost without those T1 wins? How many would still be wins? It is our opinion that given the inconsistancies we've found, more would have been lost than won, assuming the other player had a good hand. Maybe that's wrong. Hence, the article is OPINION aided by observation and testing (yes, we've tested with it).
There was something else I was going to say, but I forgot in the middle of that.
People seem to look down on the guy who got the T1 wins, but I wonder if people would have looked down on him as much if he ran just 4-4 Lucario. Because running Lucario solo is accepted by people this season and I feel people might overlook how luck-based other lucario decks are and focus a lot of their luck-based conversations on Mario, which I think we can all agree is a Lucario variant.
just curious, why did you write this article?
Does it really matter? Like if someone plays a deck that isnt a deck you should beat them without a problem. I wont play a mario varient cuz of the things horrible weird consistancy. The deck does have a strategy whether you like it or not. Strategy=Donk ur opponent, Heavy dmg hitters, Quick Kos, Agressive, Rush the opponent.
I remember last year people called flaridos "thats not a deck". That was a consistant awsome deck. Unlike mario it had stage 1's and amazing consistancy. Only thing it really needed was SSU flips which made it win the game basically. Just to solve the beef that its not a deck. It really shouldnt bother you that much seeing it should be an easy win for you.
Separate names with a comma.