octillery49
New Member
I like decks with combos I find interesting or cards I like.
But I tend to dislike T2 decks because I find them boring to play.
Scrub player syndrome
- Thread starter Moss Factor
- Start date
- Status
I like decks with combos I find interesting or cards I like.
But I tend to dislike T2 decks because I find them boring to play.
PokemansForGeeks
New Member
So basically you're saying that I'm a scrub because I think the winner of worlds won only because he used the best deck possible? Well if that's the case, then I guess I'll change my name to Scrubs McScrubs because it would've impressed me 10000x more if he had used something I haven't seen 2,000,000 other people playing. Yea, it's pretty impressive that he did win, but I'm more impressed with the people that made top cut with some unknown deck like Scizor/Toxicroak than someone winning the whole thing with a deck people were trying to ban from Worlds because it was so powerful.
I guess that's just my opinion, but it really excites me when people think outside the box instead of playing within their own limits. I know you'll use the "we play to win" argument, but that's the weakest debate I've ever heard of in my life. This is a kid's game, not the 2008 presidential election. It's similar to saying you won the World Series with a team payroll of $400 million; it's nice that you won, but not all that impressive.
I guess that's just my opinion, but it really excites me when people think outside the box instead of playing within their own limits. I know you'll use the "we play to win" argument, but that's the weakest debate I've ever heard of in my life. This is a kid's game, not the 2008 presidential election. It's similar to saying you won the World Series with a team payroll of $400 million; it's nice that you won, but not all that impressive.
Bolt
New Member
I can tell you FIRST HAND that Moss is no stranger to experimentation! :smile:
slayer_chaos
New Member
Because purposefully handicapping yourself with thousands of dollars on the line is a good idea just to please a few people that don't understand high level competition.
If you think something in the game is cheap, then don't play the game.
Food for thought... most top players believed Empoleon/Bronzong to be the best deck for Worlds. This is evidenced by the fact that Eric Craig, Chris Fulop, Alex Brosseau, Sami Sekkoum, John Silvestro, and others went with Empoleon/Bronzong. Jason admits to the fact that Empoleon/Bronzong probably WAS the best deck to play, however his philosophy (a very good one, mind you) is that you should always stick with the deck you are most comfortable playing, even if it is a slight underdog. Gardevoir/Gallade was in fact an underdog this year, but Jason continued to play it simply because he had a ridiculously solid list and plays the deck better than anyone.
The ONLY way that someone could pin even a sliver of luck onto Jason's win is the fact that he avoided playing a lot of Empoleon, a deck that should beat him. Other than that, he played a deck that not only had a losing match against the best deck in the format, but also had every other deck gunning for it.
The point... Gardevoir/Gallade wasn't even the best deck choice for Worlds. There should be no whining!
The ONLY way that someone could pin even a sliver of luck onto Jason's win is the fact that he avoided playing a lot of Empoleon, a deck that should beat him. Other than that, he played a deck that not only had a losing match against the best deck in the format, but also had every other deck gunning for it.
The point... Gardevoir/Gallade wasn't even the best deck choice for Worlds. There should be no whining!
Saying that Ness shouldn't have played GG (if he felt it was the best play for Worlds) is like saying that Phelps shouldn't have worn that new swim suit that Speedo developed.
From what I heard, Speedo offered the suit to any competitor that qualified for the Olympics.
And yet, there were some swimmers not wearing it.
So, was Phelps wrong to use the tool that gave him an advantage over those not using it?
I don't think so. Does anyone?
If not, why is it different with Ness using GG?
From what I heard, Speedo offered the suit to any competitor that qualified for the Olympics.
And yet, there were some swimmers not wearing it.
So, was Phelps wrong to use the tool that gave him an advantage over those not using it?
I don't think so. Does anyone?
If not, why is it different with Ness using GG?
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
Victory is discredited because only rogue is good. I have a lot more respect for a player such as Steve Silvestro, who can showcase his skills with a Raichu deck, rather than Jason K., John K., Matt A., Matt M., or any of those others who used jolteon* in Gardegallade.
I have respect for everyone who was able to play in Worlds period, because I wasn't able to do that.
Regardless of what anyone played, they all achieved something that most people did not, and they should feel proud of themselves. Ness should be on Cloud 9 right now since he's accomplished something nobody else has, and it will take at least another year for someone else to do, and that is if the few people that have won Worlds before get into Worlds next year.
Regardless of what anyone played, they all achieved something that most people did not, and they should feel proud of themselves. Ness should be on Cloud 9 right now since he's accomplished something nobody else has, and it will take at least another year for someone else to do, and that is if the few people that have won Worlds before get into Worlds next year.
~`Flygon`~
New Member
Ness has been good for years,Pl0X aint the reason he won. See if you wouldve said Gino,then I wouldve agreed that Pl0X is the reason,but Ness is good,and he is gonna keep winning until he retires from pokemon because he is PR0
PokemansForGeeks
New Member
Or howabout looking beyond convention? I guess that's why this game turns me off so much. It's because of people with your attitude who only play for the "thousands of dollars on the line." And please don't infer that I don't understand high level competition because I've probably won more tournaments than you've ever been to.
All I'm trying to say is that I have more respect for people who go beyond conventional ideas to win against the masses. I've read so many worlds tourney reports where people played 6,7, or even 8 games against GG. I guess mirrors have good win percentages against themselves? Or howabout using a deck that beats GG? Surely it's not itself. We can sit here and argue about GG this and GG that but the point I'm trying to prove is that I can't honestly sit here and say I have tons of respect for someone who wins with a deck 80% of the field played. The kid who won with Scizor/Toxicroak has pretty much all my respect. You just don't see that nowadays where a person comes out of nowhere with some random deck to win at such a big stage. The GG win was predictable.
ryanvergel
New Member
You'd have more respect for Jason if he chose a deck he was worse with and would probably do worse with?
If he played toxicroak/scizor and got T8 would you give him more respect than 1st with GG?
Last year Tom Roos winning with Flygon wasn't really predicted at all. Neither was Manectric when Jason won with it. Last year Absol was a pretty surprise win. Very very few people ran the deck.
I think you're wrong if you think new decks don't win big stage events anymore. This year there WAS no other possible deck that could win worlds. As all the good players said in the ban gardevoir thread- if you allow Gardevoir to be unhindered it will win Masters for worlds. Sure enough it did. Nothing else could possibly win. If nothing else could win, then surely the best play would be to use it if you want to win. It's not like Jason hasn't done any amazing work with rogue before. Not many other players can back up their rogue with glass like he can.
The fact that GG winning was predictable, however, that doesn't discredit Jason's decision to play it, the fact that it won, or the opinion that Jason is probably the best player. GG being the winning deck was predicted, but you'd have to be a scrub to give someone less credit for winning with the BDIF. It's the BDIF for a reason. Don't blame Jason for winning with the deck and take points away from your opinion of his win- he just ran the most obvious choice. Like 'Pop said- by your line of thinking using an alloy bat at the world series over a wooden bat would be less respectful, etc.
Jason is victorious. Lafonte is victorious. PLOX is victorious.
If he played toxicroak/scizor and got T8 would you give him more respect than 1st with GG?
Last year Tom Roos winning with Flygon wasn't really predicted at all. Neither was Manectric when Jason won with it. Last year Absol was a pretty surprise win. Very very few people ran the deck.
I think you're wrong if you think new decks don't win big stage events anymore. This year there WAS no other possible deck that could win worlds. As all the good players said in the ban gardevoir thread- if you allow Gardevoir to be unhindered it will win Masters for worlds. Sure enough it did. Nothing else could possibly win. If nothing else could win, then surely the best play would be to use it if you want to win. It's not like Jason hasn't done any amazing work with rogue before. Not many other players can back up their rogue with glass like he can.
The fact that GG winning was predictable, however, that doesn't discredit Jason's decision to play it, the fact that it won, or the opinion that Jason is probably the best player. GG being the winning deck was predicted, but you'd have to be a scrub to give someone less credit for winning with the BDIF. It's the BDIF for a reason. Don't blame Jason for winning with the deck and take points away from your opinion of his win- he just ran the most obvious choice. Like 'Pop said- by your line of thinking using an alloy bat at the world series over a wooden bat would be less respectful, etc.
Jason is victorious. Lafonte is victorious. PLOX is victorious.
PokemansForGeeks
New Member
Yea, I would have more respect for him if he T8'd with some rogue than 1st with GG. This is nothing against Jason personally because obviosuly he's a great player, it's more like sour grapes with the Pokemon TCG community for playing within their own limits. It's not like pokemon players are any different than the rest of the world though. I mean, a lot of people become lawyers, doctors, and real estate agents because they're just following the money, not because they enjoy their line of work. Microcosmically, (idk if that's a word ;x) sort of like archetype players.
tyranitar42
New Member
I used to see the exact same thing at the MTG championships. Those guys were intense and driven and their sideboards were set to take on whatever was thrown at them. There were a wide variety of decks, like controls, swarms, dinks, etc, and it was fun to seethat kind of diversity, which so far, I haven't seen much of in the Pokemon community. I only played 2 decks: a beedrill and a T-Tar deck, and didn't always win, saw alot of GG decks in my local league, got beat by ALOT of GG decks at my local league! LOL but I still played what I liked, and had fun. I don't have that kind of drive to win, like the champs. If Jason did it with a GG or a Rogue, he still won, twice in a row, who else can say that? I still will play my bugs and my T-Tars, and have fun winning occaisionally. Just waiting for the ISFD T-Tar to get here in Nov. though...watch out! LOL
Ninjask_161
New Member
sad to say, i would be in it for the cash. also i think anyone here trying to, or have previously payed their way through college would wholly agree with me on that one >.<. and i don't think its fair to call GG an "underdog" by any means.
So, be sure the read the article Matt linked you to... it will help keep the thread on topic & ALSO give you some valuable insight in my opinion.
You mean the Rockets Zapdos/Metal deck that Ness wrote about in 2003? Oh, you don't. I see. I mean, I didn't see the 2008 Arithmetic do well at Worlds. My point isn't to put down that deck (tho I think the choice of name... lacks historical perspective?).
My point is that MANY really smart & talented people tried to pull a Magma Surprise against Gardevoir's BAR-like dominance and failed!
As the PCL judge told me GG is "very strong deck".
Of course he does.
:tongue: I remember he tried something a bit more creative day 1 and missed out of first, so, he switched over and won the jacket. Good for him! Gallade is nothing so dominant as Gatr was, IMO.
I got to watch the Junior champ make a mess of Gardy all day with that deck. It was pretty cool. But Juniors isn't Masters. Could it have made it in Masters? Maybe!
I have a lot of respect for Steve's play too, but that has nothing to do with this. I mean, how does someone even begin to discredit a scoreboard like "I won Worlds?"
I'm just as disgusted by posts that might imply Ness' victory was somehow cheap or wrong as I am by the ones that said Venusaur's was merely lucky. Gosh... posts like that are just mmaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
Good place to put the period, Prime!
But not certain.
I remember the conclusion that Blaziken was going to win in 2004.
Well, that was dead wrong. A lot of people came out with different decks to play in worlds. In the end, best deck in format served the best player at worlds very well.
Hey, and everyone read the link Matt put in the opening post!
You mean the Rockets Zapdos/Metal deck that Ness wrote about in 2003? Oh, you don't. I see. I mean, I didn't see the 2008 Arithmetic do well at Worlds. My point isn't to put down that deck (tho I think the choice of name... lacks historical perspective?).
My point is that MANY really smart & talented people tried to pull a Magma Surprise against Gardevoir's BAR-like dominance and failed!
As the PCL judge told me GG is "very strong deck".
Of course he does.
:tongue: I remember he tried something a bit more creative day 1 and missed out of first, so, he switched over and won the jacket. Good for him! Gallade is nothing so dominant as Gatr was, IMO.I got to watch the Junior champ make a mess of Gardy all day with that deck. It was pretty cool. But Juniors isn't Masters. Could it have made it in Masters? Maybe!
I have a lot of respect for Steve's play too, but that has nothing to do with this. I mean, how does someone even begin to discredit a scoreboard like "I won Worlds?"
I'm just as disgusted by posts that might imply Ness' victory was somehow cheap or wrong as I am by the ones that said Venusaur's was merely lucky. Gosh... posts like that are just mmaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
Good place to put the period, Prime!
But not certain.
I remember the conclusion that Blaziken was going to win in 2004.
Well, that was dead wrong. A lot of people came out with different decks to play in worlds. In the end, best deck in format served the best player at worlds very well.
Hey, and everyone read the link Matt put in the opening post!
NoPoke
Active Member
Did the best deck win worlds? Yes/No? don't ask me.
Did the best player win worlds? (Pass on that one too, though Ness is one of the few players I've watched who is capabable of faultless play. There are certainly others who I would have to put in the faultless category too as unfortunately my own skill is not high enough to see subtle errors that might seperate these faultless candidates.)
I don't see the distinction because for me it is the synergy between deck and player that results in the selection of the Champion. That and a bit of luck on the day.
Hitting heads on ER2 or winning RPS would have maybe given us a different World Champion. The standard of play on the top tables was very very high.
The linked article is interesting but its selection of example scrubs from history is poor. The redcoats gave the world the British Empire - not exactly a scrub performance. Janeway for all I didn't like the character, did what was necessary for the storyline: heck the article even talks of not using characters whose stats are broken. Janeway not taking the easy option was exactly the same as not using a banned character. Chamberlain would run rings round many modern politicians. The central difficulty with the scrub article is that the end does not always justify the means.
Did the best player win worlds? (Pass on that one too, though Ness is one of the few players I've watched who is capabable of faultless play. There are certainly others who I would have to put in the faultless category too as unfortunately my own skill is not high enough to see subtle errors that might seperate these faultless candidates.)
I don't see the distinction because for me it is the synergy between deck and player that results in the selection of the Champion. That and a bit of luck on the day.
Hitting heads on ER2 or winning RPS would have maybe given us a different World Champion. The standard of play on the top tables was very very high.
The linked article is interesting but its selection of example scrubs from history is poor. The redcoats gave the world the British Empire - not exactly a scrub performance. Janeway for all I didn't like the character, did what was necessary for the storyline: heck the article even talks of not using characters whose stats are broken. Janeway not taking the easy option was exactly the same as not using a banned character. Chamberlain would run rings round many modern politicians. The central difficulty with the scrub article is that the end does not always justify the means.
Last edited:
Definitely not endorsing the historical examples. From a certain point of view the American Revolution was a providential donk aided by interference from a spectator. The discipline and play-to-win strategy of the grenadiers was one of those (less than) esoteric things that escaped the author, as much as the ATP cycle does.
Try this, too:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b
- Status