Why I Love Mario
- Thread starter KingGengar
- Start date
you cant do contructive critisizm for mario
you just really cant
its like a kid coming up to you with an umbrella and telling you he is going to jump off the roof of his house so he floats safely down, and him asking you for advice
yes, my advice is DONT DO IT
i cant give contructed critisizm for a deck that simply shouldnt be constructed, sorry
you just really cant
its like a kid coming up to you with an umbrella and telling you he is going to jump off the roof of his house so he floats safely down, and him asking you for advice
yes, my advice is DONT DO IT
i cant give contructed critisizm for a deck that simply shouldnt be constructed, sorry
Chairman Kaga
Active Member
You could if you truly cared to try. But it's difficult to do from the top of that high horse.
fine, constructive critisizm
drop the machamp
add in blissey/rampardos
i have no high horse, i constantly refer to myself as the worst player in fl, even though my tournoment record speaks for itself otherwise
you really accused the wrong person buddy
KingGengar
New Member
Zach, in actuality I was thinking the same exact thing (the Pokemon line), but perhaps for different reasons. But I have all kinds of builds I'm working on. Let's try to keep the constructive criticism to this level. If you ever went to my Feature Article, you'll see that I talk out all sorts of scenarios with people.
prime asked me about it in a pm i just pm'ed him back my reasoning behind it sooo you can ask him to PM it to you to compare ideas if you want.
It was a borrowed deck :X I feel bad because I got caught up in my own testing and didn't practice much with her.
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
Also, the article explains many of the inconsistencies we found in the trainer engine. This is where the community gets to use their brains; what can you change to FIX the engine? I'm not against helping people develop my ideas, but I'm not going to give anyone all the answers either. If you know why a deck doesn't work (our analysis comes from personal experience and observed playtesting, though your personal experience may show different results, and more power to you if it does), it becomes easier to make it better.
Last edited:
KingGengar
New Member
Don't beat yourself up on that. I often get lost in playtesting. Stay up too late. Forget that dinner is burning!
Like I said, I'm not against changing things around. When I first started Mario, no Holon Engine. Eventually, people convinced me to test with it, and it was monster, especially Lass (sniff.. I miss her). After the rotation, I went with 6 Draw, and people convinced me to test 8-9, and that became the norm. Then, someone mentioned that Castaway/Draw was the better engine, and by golly, correct. So, credit where it's due. But to make changes, I have to hear suggestions, and to give credit, someone has to step up to the plate (e.g., chriscobi).
I guarantee my playtesting differs from yours. First, your metagame is different. Second, playstyle. Third, decks we test against and their lists. Fourth, caliber of players to play against. In order to stay equal, I test v myself. But I play Mario in tournaments, where it counts. So, I appreciate the honor you give by saying "more power" but I take nothing away from your own observations and experience.
Thanks, Bobby
and then get a fresh new 4 diff junk cards again?
mario never was, is not, and never will be a top tier deck, nothing personal, but its the truth (which has been out there for a while, lol). "Defending" mario simply proves how inconstant it is, like ALL well-skilled players/deckbuilders said.
If you like it, okay, its your rights.
And the excuse "Mario won X BR's"... so what?
"I got Top16 in nats" with Mario, so what again? I won my nats with Superstantler (Scizor EX/Stantler/Schuckle tech), but i never spread out that Superstantler was the best deck ever or even being Top tier, simply becuz i know it was a choice based on Metagame and its not that great in fact.
In one of my BR's i played with flyqueen (flygon EX LM, yes, our format is LM-on till december 31th) i faced mario.
He started with Riolu and machop on bench, energy and 2 pluspower in his hand. NOT A SINGLE SUPPORTER (again mario's inconstancy), i started with lone trapinch, warp point and mentor, boost, rainbow, candy and queen.
I went first, energy on trapinch, passed.
He didnt draw any supporter, tried T1 donk me.
I guess i dont need to say that i completly pwn him after playing mentor.
Dont get me wrong, nothing personal, but accept the truth (oh no, silly joke again here :lol: ).
Afterall, mario is.... fun.
KingGengar
New Member
Once again, the head of tyranny raises itself. The "current Brazilian champion" has issues with Mario, and so the hammer of his critical analysis thuds down with the subtlety of Brittany Spears, and with as much class. Nothing personal to *you* (as I do not know you), but there is not a shred of information in your post which would help an inexperienced player choose a deck. This is the stated reason for all of the negative press, is it not? To help the so-called ignorant?
So, SuperStantler to you is junk? You have not described the SuperStantler which is the Archetype on Pokegym (not the Front Page list anyway).
And LM-on is worse for Banette EX, not Flygon, which is 50-50. You were fortunate to get your quick start. Your statement, "NOT A SINGLE SUPPORTER" is not indicative of Mario, but of any bad hand. As if you never drew 7 such cards in your life.
Thanks for your input.
So, SuperStantler to you is junk? You have not described the SuperStantler which is the Archetype on Pokegym (not the Front Page list anyway).
And LM-on is worse for Banette EX, not Flygon, which is 50-50. You were fortunate to get your quick start. Your statement, "NOT A SINGLE SUPPORTER" is not indicative of Mario, but of any bad hand. As if you never drew 7 such cards in your life.
Thanks for your input.
All that = Bad list.
Ardoptres
New Member
Allan, seriously, Mario isn't bad because you faced one, who had a really bad start.
EVERY deck has horrible heeellll starts sometimes. Even Flyqueen. (Real name is E-Gon or FlyCharge btw)
I was looking to make a Lucario deck the other day, and was really tempted to use Machamp as backup Pokemon, without even thinking about it being Mario. It just seemed really obvious and good.
Then I thought, hey, that's Mario, oh well, maybe another time.. :x because I know it isn't THAT great, and has an overall bad matchup against the field. (which consists of Blissey)
It isn't toptier, but it's near.
EVERY deck has horrible heeellll starts sometimes. Even Flyqueen. (Real name is E-Gon or FlyCharge btw)
I was looking to make a Lucario deck the other day, and was really tempted to use Machamp as backup Pokemon, without even thinking about it being Mario. It just seemed really obvious and good.
Then I thought, hey, that's Mario, oh well, maybe another time.. :x because I know it isn't THAT great, and has an overall bad matchup against the field. (which consists of Blissey
)It isn't toptier, but it's near.
Shadow_Killer801
New Member
This will most likely change though because of the new secret wonders coming out.
vanderbilt_grad
New Member
Gardevoir and other psychic decks are likely going to start seeing more play. That alone would hurt Mario, but I'm thinking that some of the newer fighting cards are going to force changes as well. For instance Flygon + Lucario could be a strong play. Donphan and Dugtrio also interest me fighting wise. All three are weak to water so they would do away with the Mono psi weakness.
SuperWooper
New Member
Big deal. Every deck gets bad hands once in a while. If your post went more along the lines of, "I played him in swiss and in the top cut, and all three games, he had inconsistant starts," maybe it would make a little sense.
Besides, it's no wonder you won that match. Look at the quality of your hand versus his poor one. Give me a break.
KingGengar
New Member
Flygon and Donphan interest me for testing. Gallade is a little odd for me- I'll need to check into it (for me). Dugtrio - eh.