Mario: Why?

Discussion in 'Feature Articles' started by desert eagle, Oct 20, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bobby

    Bobby New Member

    I hate how it's IMPOSSIBLE for us to have posted this for any reason besides "propaganda."

    We aren't "elites bashing Mario." ****, I don't even consider myself an elite. Bashing would be "Mario is horrible, it loses to everything, everyone who plays it sucks, KG is a horrible player, etc," which I'm pretty sure none of us said.

    We haven't said that because Mario obviously isn't horrible, as much as I'm sure many would hate to admit it. It's done well (namely Nats, getting top 16). I'm sure quite a few good players have/are using Mario. KG is certainly not horrible, or anything else negative. He was actually more rational in his first post than many others here. Thank you!

    The title is "Mario: Why?" Our question is why play Mario when there are alternatives that are better (in our opinion)? I don't think Mario is that bad, to be completely honest. Theme decks are BAD. Mario is obviously not a theme deck. The entire point is that it we find it to be inconsistent and that other things get the job done better.

    Any opinions of ours that could have been taken as offensive were, to my knowledge, edited out before posting, including a breakdown of a Mario list. Maybe I'll do that again.

    Well, considering KG is pretty much the authority on Mario, it would make sense for him to have a good list. After the image he's made by posting his list on Pokegym in the open, I don't really think he would post a list that isn't his and claim that it is.

    I think other options would still be more effective even if Mario were more consistent. Dodrio is one of my favorites!

    Kricketune and Blissey are simple, too. No one said they aren't. That's one of the things that bothered me about playing Blissey at SIX BRs this fall; I won a lot of games, but there wasn't much room to outplay anyone. The majority of skill involved is predicting your opponent, because you have a fairly limited pool of moves. I think this is just as bad when playing Blissey as it is when playing Mario.

    Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

    I don't look down on him because I know him personally, but even he would agree that winning Turn 1 8 times in a row is much easier than playing out 8 full games.

    I would feel exactly the same if it was another Lucario variant. Aaron lost T1 to a Lucario/Eeveelutions, and whether you're playing against Mario or Aggro Lucario or Lucario/Bibarel, it still sucks to not get to draw a card and have already lost.

    Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

    To explain why we don't think Mario is a top tier deck, and to dispel the myth that we don't like it because it wasn't an SD or something made by an "elite."

    Apparently, that last part didn't work.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2007
  2. Rainbowgym

    Rainbowgym Active Member


    I always wonder what make people think a deck is consistant?
    Was Metanite consistant?
    What is a good definition of consistant?
     
  3. Bobby

    Bobby New Member

    From my experience, yes, Metanite was consistent. I almost ALWAYS got going with that deck; this came from having 4 Holon's Castform, 4 Beldum (essentially free retreaters), and (essentially) 8 Holon Mentors.

    Consistency is how often a deck can execute and win games. For example, Blissey can get a bad start (no supporters, lots of energy, etc) and still win by getting a T2 Blissey. Metanite could operate without a Castform start.

    Inconsistency, in my opinion, is when crippling bad starts are noticeably more prevalent. Everyone can probably remember looking at their hand and thinking "wow, this is COMPLETELY unplayable." An example would be Feebas and 6 energy in Queendom.
     
  4. Tego

    Tego New Member

    But Empoleon has tons of HP and is not weak to Psychic, thus covering your weakness against fast Psychic attackers. From my opinion/experience, your second attacker doesn't necessarily need to take on your weakness' weakness, and it doesn't need to be resistant to your weakness either. All it needs is to not be weak to the exact same thing as your other attacker. So you can choose which Pokemon to evolve and attach energy to according to whom (and what deck) you seem to be facing. With Mario, I find the lack of this choice to be very frustrating. No matter what you do, you will be attaching Energy to Psychic weak Pokemon ever single match, even though you see you're facing a Psychic deck. Thus, Mario might lose to even a mediocre Psychic deck.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2007
  5. Rainbowgym

    Rainbowgym Active Member


    In my experience Metanite was not that consistant, 3 lonely Holon Voltorb starts and nothing usefull in hand during the grinder made me think it really doesn't matter. Bad luck will happen, only some people have more bad luck as others.

    If Blissey can come back from a bad start, I would say Mario can do too. You still can get a T2 Machamp doing 90, just like you can get a T2 Blissey with boost.
    Mario might even have more chance to survive a bad start due to running more basics.
    I don't know how Mario is played but with enough Great ball/Candy/Celio it should have almost as much a good way to get going as some other decks.
    And if Candy is the problem, well Mawile can do wonders for that.
    It's a matter of tweaking and testing.
     
  6. Hatter™

    Hatter™ Active Member

    as stated, this is an opinion article. I like it, it has started some nice discussion.

    On a side note, id like to point out I was the first person to post Machamp/Lucario on the gym : )
     
  7. DarthPika

    DarthPika New Member

    Empoleon/Lucario is far superior to Mario. Why?

    Because Machamp has lousy Pre evolutions.

    Empario also beats Mario 4/5 Times.

    Philip M. Who went 15/3 with Empario beat every Mario he played, and his only loses where due to t2/3 Donks.

    Empario is also not as hard to use with the nrg as ppl seem to think. I wont say exactly what my list uses, but I will say that part of it is in Stones and Castaway.
     
  8. Bolt

    Bolt New Member

    Reading over this thread, it looks like a few people are missing the point entirely. As with any debate, there's going to be people arguing for both sides, but ALSO as with any debate it's important to look at the facts.

    IGNORANCE is not bliss.

    It's cool to discuss what you disagree with, but try sticking to that, maybe?
     
  9. moza

    moza New Member

    Just clarification:

    Consistancy is how often your deck sets up out of a certain number of games, example would be if your deck gets set up 8/10 games, it would be consistant.

    Speed is how fast IN THAT GAME that it gets set up.

    T2 medicham was very SPEEDY and consistant because it set up almost all of its games very fast.
    Metanite was consistant, not necesarrily(my spelling sucks) fast.

    Just pointing that out.
     
  10. Lawman

    Lawman Active Member

    Please define "elite"? Is it someone who is friends with your "team" and play decent pokemon?? Glad to know you and your team are the definers of "elite". IMO, it is better to say...."friends of author or others in said teams....please keep your posts legit".

    PM and Kant: Why dont you post decklists if you want to "help out" others in deck choices? Heck, why dont you just give us the deck "us" lower peons should play, so we can bow down to your "greatness"

    /end sarcasm

    Really....the most important question is WHY write this article about THIS deck?? IMO, post a fix/suggestion in the original deck help thread and then move on. But to go onto a deck thread and to call any deck "not a real deck" is simply rude. You all have to agree with that, correct??? Especially if someone is truly new to the game. Really showing great SotG there. Plus, you ruin the growth in the game.

    IMO, this article will not do a thing to GROW the game. Whether you like the deck or not, KG's thread GREW the game bc it exposed players to a simplist deck that most people could afford and build and stand a decent chance of doing well in a tourney. Top tier players can still play w/e deck they desire.
    Last I checked, no one gave the Silvestros any crap about "Donkados" by writing a counter thread to any flariados deck! Trust me, I saw many a player fail miserably w/ a flariados deck bc they didnt know how to play it. The "trick" to the deck is fairly simple....knowing when to spring the "trick" is another thing.

    Keith
     
  11. bulbasnore

    bulbasnore Administrator Staff Member Trader Feedback Mod

    This is the second time I quote Bolt ... :eek: "get ready to tie up the boat in Idaho!" <= there's a puzzler for you. PM me the answer. Best PM explanation of WHY I said that, gets a prize or even better, a NO PRIZE. Any posted explanations will receive an infraction if I see them.

    Let's not get ad hominem folks! I think there have been some pretty fair answers to Jeremy's question of 'why this article?'. Let those stand for the moment for the question of motivation and move on.

    It's been wearying to see the 'not a deck' business. Epithets are NOT what the Gym is about. The Gym has been about knowing the game better, since longer than most of us have been playing. Mudslinging, spam, and 'look at me/my group posts' diminish that knowledge. THIS, agree with it or not, helps me know the game better. Anytime someone comes out and 'splains it, it is 1000x better than just 'hitting' at something/someone. I don't have an opinion on Mario, the deck, but even if I did, this, like KG's Mario thread is a contribution. Bashing, however brief, is just a waste of everyone's time. I'm tired to death of the bashing, incl. and especially the Mario bashing, because it is so prevalent. KingGengar has had the high ground; I like to think his steadfast stand has drawn out a more reasoned response and I'm glad to see it, as an improvement to the earlier trash(ing).

    Motivation? I can't judge it sufficiently well to make a statement (I see Lawman and I were typing a the same time, but I get the last word at the moment ;-). Content? Significant, I say. Carry on the discussion!
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2007
  12. SuperWooper

    SuperWooper New Member

    The people who disapprove of this article probably weren't actively trying to learn something by clicking on this thread, and those who are buddies with the writers probably just came here with the intention of backing up their friends. A bunch of the posters here clicked on the thread just to pick a fight about Mario's legitimacy without necessarily considering the meat of the original post, or get into a discussion about something unrelated to the topic, or, if they were genuinely interested in learning, got caught up in all the controversy (at which point they skimmed the article and walked away thinking, "Yeah, Mario's bad because these guys said so, " or, "These guys are dead wrong, Mario's awesome.")

    Who's been convinced or swayed as a result of this thread? Nobody! Nobody that's spoken up about it, anyway. The people on either side of the fence were there before this topic went up were on the same sides then as they are now. What a waste. =/

    Mario is a deck in that it consists of sixty cards. And like every other deck in this game, it must pass or fail on its own merits, and the merits of the people playing it. So quit bickering, everybody, and focus on City Championships - they are less than a month away!
     
  13. Lawman

    Lawman Active Member

    I do find it interesting that the co-authors of this article have written/started zero (Kant) deck idea threads and P M hasnt written a deck thread since 2005. That is not to say they dont post fixes/suggestions in some deck threads.....I have seen them do this. I just wish they would post more often w/ positive suggestions vs the negative (as this op ed piece seems to depict).

    Of course, one could say the same about me, but since I am a PTO and full time judge, any deck idea posted could be alleged to be "ripped" from a player at one on my tourneys. Better to leave that issue alone. IMO, fixes and suggestions in re decks are better taken from the players vs the PTOs/judges.

    Keith
     
  14. desert eagle

    desert eagle New Member

    Well, I can't deny the fact that I haven't posted any decks yet, but I can promise that we will have articles for the BR TRUK decks up before cities.
     
  15. Bolt

    Bolt New Member

    I think he was just trying to keep the thread spam-less...

    Is there really that much of a condescending tone in the article? I don't think Bobby's been anything BUT kind, polite and helpful on the gym ENTIRELY. He even said himself that he doesn't consider himself an "elite." This post, as well as other reactions to the article only make it seem (to me at least, I won't speak for everyone else) that people aren't willing to take the advice of "elite" players, only their decklists.

    Random question: Is there a difference between somebody going up to a good player and asking them if they should run a Machamp/Lucario deck or if a good player takes the time to write why they shouldn't play a Machamp/Lucario deck.

    'Snore - I have no idea what half of your post meant, but on a completely UNrelated subject, are you one of the guys who made fun of my goatee at Nats :(
     
  16. Prime

    Prime Content Developer<br>Blog Admin<br>Contest Host

    I don't debate just to debate. And I'm not here to defend Tom. I'm here to defend deck ideas in general, and here to debate whether this article was needed or not. I am unbiased in that I don't play the deck or even like it, but I am biased in that I am a friend of KG and that I would stand up for him if needed. But that's not the main reason I am arguing in this thread.

    And I usually don't post stuff like GG. So let it slide every now and then, capeesh?
     
  17. eriknance

    eriknance New Member

    At this point, I don't even know if I want to get in on this discussion, seeing as I might just add fuel to some fire... somewhere. However, I guess I owe it to the community seeing as I performed pretty well at Battle Roads with Mario.

    This article is an opinion piece, that's true. However, just because something is stated as an opinion doesn't mean it's okay to say. Let's remember that. After reading through this whole thread I found Bobby's various replies to be more insightful than the article itself. His answers to various questions people have had actually have a voice, whereas the article seems to be nothing more than a convenient gathering of the different things people have said about Mario over time. I could probably look around on the PokeGym and recreate this article with little comments people have already said. "Luck Factor," "Inconsistency," "Lack of Draw"... these are all things that have already been said before. So why are they being said again? It is my opinion that the posting of this article served to create a bit of a battleground between the people who believe Mario is horrible and the people who believe Mario is good. I mean, people can learn something from it, but they could have learned all of this stuff just as easily by looking at more posts by an "elite" who has a negative opinion on Mario. And that's pretty much that...

    I keep hearing about this horrible trainer line Mario has in it, but to my own knowledge, in all of the games I've playtested Mario with, I've never had a bad setup... never. Okay, I take that back. I lost one game at a Battle Roads with Mario because I couldn't get any evolutions for some reason and my opponent sped right through my deck. She was playing Mario. Aside from that, I have an outstanding list that does very well in getting set up. I don't play just 5 draw cards (or 3, as this number seems to keep going down for some reason), I play a bunch of them. I also play some trick cards that helped me quite a bit in Battle Roads. If the "bad trainer list" thing is due to KG's Mario thread, I can see why some people might not like the deck (too many single cards in KG's list for my taste); however, this doesn't mean that all Mario lists look the same.

    And as far as strategy goes, I guess I have to go ahead and explain it to everyone to quiet the notion that Mario doesn't have any strategy. Here's how it works folks:

    Mario works as a deck because Lucario works as a card. Many people have acknowledged the strength of Lucario while at the same time denying Machamp's place in the deck. However, Machamp does have his purpose here. Ideally you'll want to start with Riolu and go to Lucario. If you start with Machop you can build up to Machamp, but after he goes down start sending in the Lucarios. The Lucario swarm is held in place with Machamp. Since Lucario is probably the fastest Pokemon in the game in terms of damage-dealing, you're never going to be down in prizes. This means that Scramble Energy won't work mid-game/late-game. With that said, what does work in terms of "comeback ability" when you're ahead? What can hold things in place when Lucario goes down? That's right, a single Fighting Energy on Machamp. Playing Machamp with Lucario offers the Mario player the chance to swarm with Lucario without nearly any drawback. I can throw Fighting Energy down on multiple Lucario all I want and not have to worry about building up a Machamp (or Empoleon, Rampardos, etc.). It's not about getting Machamps out by turn 4, it's about first swarming with Lucario and getting ahead while not having to worry about damage decline mid-game/late-game. If I'm playing Lucario with Empoleon I have to focus at some point on powering up an Empoleon since it can't do 70 damage with just one energy. Having Machamp in the deck allows you to set up multiple Lucario, and when the time is right, pull off 70 damage for very little cost.

    Here's my own take on it all. Certain players feel that Mario is a bad deck, so they posted this article to dispel the notion that they are jealous of said deck. All of these notions were only brought about because of what these certain players were saying ("Mario is not a deck," "It has horrible consistancy," etc.). This argument -- this article even -- wouldn't exist if Mario were a bad deck. If that were the case, those certain players wouldn't have even paid any attention to Mario. Instead, they would have focused their minds elsewhere. It was only when Mario started doing well (and KG started talking so much about his deck) that people started voicing their negative opinion on the deck. Since then things have spiraled down to this point, where we all keep tossing shouts around in a desert that has become the Mario discussion.

    _________________________________________

    People, it's over. Mario really isn't that bad of a deck. I mean, it's just not. I'm a good player who stands by Mario's effectiveness, even though I don't really like the deck. I've playtested with it, I've won tournaments with it, I beat TRUK lists in Battle Roads with it... it's not a bad deck. It's obvious at this point that the people who stand by Mario's effectiveness aren't backing down. In the same way, those who are "against" the deck aren't budging either.

    Let's all take a deep breath and exhale. I personally think it's time to stop the discussion of Mario. Those who play it play it, those who don't won't. We should be focusing on more important things at this moment anyway. As for me, I'm working on an extensive article about the different deck strategies that people can use when it comes to playing in a tournament (as well as helpful tips on how to create effective decks). Since many people will continue arguing this thing out, I have just this one thing to say: nobody is going to win the discussion. Trust me on this. If you're wanting to come up with a witty reply to something somebody said, just don't. Anger is contagious, and this unbelievably trite argument won't rest until everyone gets their minds stuck on something else. I, for one, would like to see that something be a productive piece of information for the general audience of this game.
     
  18. KingGengar

    KingGengar New Member

    Well, I'll take a little of the blame for crowing, if I did. I am, after all, an excitable (and exciting) guy (in parentheses may be ignored, if you desire).
     
  19. Prime

    Prime Content Developer<br>Blog Admin<br>Contest Host

    Good post Erik, I agree. This debate won't end because of this article.
     
  20. Bolt

    Bolt New Member

    And for all that's said in favor of how good Mario is, nobody's allowed to say why they think Machamp's not the best choice for the deck? KG made a post about how much he loves Mario before this article was published, which unless a mod showed him the article ahead of time, was completely unrelated....so what if this article had instead been a reply to that, "Why I Don't Love Mario"

    They usually don't post articles like this. So let it slide every now and then, capeesh?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page