Mario: Why?

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

8 league13 468 60
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Prime

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

    You keep mentioning that you have to setup a stage 2 and stage 1 by turn 3. That isn't the whole idea of the deck. You can follow up a Lucario with another Lucario or with a Machoke. It's not T3 Machamp or lose. And depending on the list, and the luck, you can get a T3 Machamp doing 70. I mean, it doesn't require much, does it? Machop, rare candy (or machoke), Machamp, and 1 fighting energy. 4 cards.

    Again, you assume that Machamp is there for early damage, not for mid-late game damage. Have you played Mario before? And no, I don't mean taking the list off the Pokegym and playing it. Have you actually taking the time to take apart the deck and refine it and test different engines, etc? It really doesn't sound like it. It sounds like you are basing your comments off of what you've seen, or what you feel the deck is about without even playing it. That's not the best idea, especially if your going to preach to the community and try to explain to the community why a deck is bad.

    Well, it doesn't matter who wrote what part. When you put your name at the top of the article, you signed a hidden agreement that says that you agree with everything the article says. For you to come out and say, "well, someone else wrote this, and this might not be the exact view of mine," only makes your article look less solid and easy to pick apart.

    Don't put your name on something you might not have any experience with either. It makes the article look stupid when you talk about an idea you have no knowledge of.

    Is Mario a speed deck? Isn't that an opinion? Some people might see it as a speed deck with Lucario in it, but some might see it as a hybrid, because of the added stage 2.

    Again, the whole comment about not playing before last year hurts the argument. Nothing against you or anything, but maybe if someone else, with more experience would have submitted the article and put you down as someone who helped, the article would have had a better base to it. Because having knowledge of the decks that used to be played helps a ton when looking at current ideas, and especially discussing the legitimacy of those ideas.

    Lucario protects Empoleon's electric weakness, but what protects Lucario's weakness to psychic? You make a big statement about how Mario is bad because it can't protect it's weakness to psychic but then don't talk about how most other Lucario varients (all lucario varients this season) don't protect their weakness to psychic either.

    You don't like the deck, but feel the idea is infinitely better than Mario?

    You could call Celebi ex a tech, but it wasn't a tech that improved any matchups. It just brought back a card. Mario could have easily played Celebi ex for the same purpose, but Celebi ex isn't in the current format is it?

    I never said people would play it because of it's lucky streak, but that players might think for a second about playing it because of all the T1/T2 KO's it got last season. I played it for a single tournament just to see how good it was, and I feel many players have played it once just to really see how good the deck was.

    Okay, so your article is partially trying to tell people not to play the deck last season. I think that was accomplished well enough with the season change. There aren't that many great psychic cards in DP3. DP4 is filled with endless numbers of good cards, so every deck is going to be hurt by the release of DP4.

    One point that was not presented in this thread so far is that decks become more/less playable as the format goes on. Mario seems to be a decent play for Battle Roads. Now, Mario might not seem that good with DP3 cards added in. Not because it isn't good, but because there are different decks in the format and Mario might have better/worse matchups against them. For all we know, when DP4 comes out, and Darkrai is unleashed onto the format, Mario might be the right play against all the fighting weak pokemon being played.

    Only a few decks stay playable throughout an entire season. Can't put down Mario because it isn't one of those decks.

    LOL, do you have any experience with Mario outside of what KingGengar posts? KG lost once to Drapion and once to Claydol ex. I'm sure you've lost against something because of bad luck or just a bad matchup nobody expected. We all have. How can you use that against Mario if it can apply to any deck?

    You also put down the players that were playing Drapion and Claydol ex. You assume their lists were automatically bad.

    Those lucario variants aren't under the radar. If I know about them, then they aren't under the radar. Think about that for a second. Me, with no affiliation with any group, knows about the so-called "under the radar" ideas.

    A "few" people did well with mario too. Why can one "bad" idea get bashed while another "bad" idea not get mentioned at all?

    That leads to a good point. Why bash just Mario? Why not bash other decks you don't like? Why single out Mario?

    I hate kricketune so much more than mario. Kricketune is so consistent and is a monster to play against. I'd love to see a card made called "Bug Spray" with just one effect, "KO all Kricketune on the field." And if I ever mention hating other decks, I will mention hating kricketune because that's only fair.

    You still don't address that Lucario/Blissey have no synergy outside of them being two good stage 1's. Seriously, people bash on KG's ideas because he pairs up two good pokemon (not talking about mario, but his other ideas) and then Lucario/Blissey comes around and people praise it. -_-'

    Boost Energy helps keep the deck from falling apart. I agree with you there. But Lucario doesn't do anything with Boost Energy, so a big part of the deck is just useless in many situations. Lucario/Dodrio have synergy, but just don't work because of how different they are in how energy efficient they are.

    I can agree that 3-4 added trainers can change how good a deck can run. I just don't understand why the mario engine can't come close to the empoleon engine. Why does the mario engine have to automatically be bad while the empoleon engine is automatically good?

    That wasn't what I was implying. You've made it very clear to everyone that you have never, ever, in your entire life time, even before playing Pokemon, lost to Mario in any competition with cards and people.
  2. Articjedi

    Articjedi Active Member

    Ambush had a setup man, maybe the lists you played didn't run budew to grab your single tech rare candy on the first turn so you can scramble next turn.

    I don't get the references to ambush, mario is an aggressive deck that tries to do too much with too little space, ambush played for the late game. By the logic some of us are putting up, you might as well say flygon is the same deck as mario because it ran stage ones =\.
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2007
  3. ryanvergel

    ryanvergel New Member

    KG said it best. He agreed with the points. On paper, which is what we're basing this off of, the deck doesn't work well enough to be a tier 1.

    In game? Who knows. Maybe it donks, maybe it rocks. I know I'll never play it because there are better options out there for me.

    It's nice to see both sides of a popular deck. I happen to be on the anti-mario side, but who cares.

    As for Ambush comparisons. Please don't make them. You guys have no idea what went on with the creation with Ambush. Jimmy the genius and the apprentices (me included) made a very good deck that would have had a bigger impact if it wasn't leaked. So it goes. As far as a lack of setup... It had a budew and roselia, and the idea was to let pokemon die and scramble. You didn't want to setup at ALL. You had to quickly start aqua showering. There was no time for a setup pokemon. You didn't need one. If you thought you did, you had a suicidal plant willing to grab a candy or something, or even stall with roselia.

    I'm going to call a weak comparison between the two decks. I'm also going to call a weak comparison between blissey/lucario. Blissey and lucario works together better than machamp and lucario because blissey is the best card in the format, and ANYTHING works with it. ANYTHING AT ALL! Not everything works with machamp. The two decks aren't comparable.

    The main point of the article is this
    : There is ALWAYS a better option. There is a better deck for that day.
  4. SuperWooper

    SuperWooper New Member

    Hey Kant,

    I know you didn't play back then, so I mean no disrespect, but Rock-Lock wasn't prevalent during DX-On. It was illegal during DX-On. Dark Ampharos and Dark Tyranitar were from EX: Team Rocket Returns, the set directly preceding EX: Deoxys.

    I think the most important and well-written point of your article was that Mario isn't versatile, and it's very easy to play around. As long as your deck doesn't lose outright to anything fighting, it's easy to see what your opponent is going to do next.

    Prime - You're right, that's not exactly fair. But I think that Blissey is the better Pokemon than Machamp. Blissey doesn't require Rare Candies, Chansey is a better starter than Machop because of the T2 kill factor, Blissey is quicker and, if you have a Boost in hand, always more efficient. Even without the Boost, Blissey will usually grab a 2HKO just like Machamp would, only Blissey doesn't have the "if you took a bit hit last turn" limitation. Blissey also rids you of a mono-psychic weakness. It accelerates itself.

    The biggest problem with this article was that the word "synergy" was thrown around far too often. Not all decks are combo crazy, like Blastoise from two seasons ago, or Metanite last season. And that's okay. But when your deck isn't a synergetic KO-machine, it needs to beat the metagame. Lucario/Blissey did, and Mario didn't. True story.
  5. KingGengar

    KingGengar New Member

    By FAR, this is the statement I've been waiting to hear. You can make a deck with Blissey with a can of stale tuna fish and it would do great. *That* is how great Blissey is.

    As for Machamp, Prime hits it on the head. 4 cards, 70 damage.

    And yes, thank you for pointing out that Machamp only *must* be the strategy when you start with Machop. Why do you think I run 3 Machop and 4 Riolu? To start with Riolu of course!

    Swarm Lucario is a viable option for Mario. I have also heard players claim that Machamp swarm works better, but I disagree (respectfully).
  6. Clear

    Clear New Member

    Lone Blissey works great with Vaporeon *, which imo is almost useless, lol.
    Lucario has the same thing on for it too, but it also needs speed. 2nd Turn Celios, 2 Fighting. Blissey needs almost the same thing, replace the second energy with boost and TV Reporter for Speed. That's why Lucario and Blissey works together.

    If Mario is great as they say it would be, they would have no problem killing Blisseys now do they?
    Mario only won some BR cause people thought it was good and they only played Mario. In any BR if someone played Blissey, they would make top-cut or close to it, no question. Mario cannot beat it on weakness alone (when it can), doesn't that tell you something? The problem is always the consistancy and the speed it has, and we all seen Blissey out by T2 and doing 60s right?

    If Mario is a deck, then Golem/Exploud is as well, and we all can agree it ain't.
  7. KazamBolt

    KazamBolt Active Member

    I totally agree with you. Mario is a bad deck. Machamp isn't a bad card. Lucario isn't a bad card. Together, they make a bad deck, based almost entirely on luck.
  8. Sandslash7

    Sandslash7 <a href="

    What is the state of the game right now?

    We are having a discussion about the legitimacy of a deck!


    1st. If people really think that Mario is that bad and inconsistant and not a deck, they should make more people play it! Seriously, that gives players more wins, because a mono-Mario format would be so easy to beat.

    2nd. In all the years I've played this game, I've never seen a deck get such a hostile response as Mario. Never (in my experience) has a deck actually had an article written about it for people to STOP playing it. There are some people on this board who dislike Quicketune, but has an article trying to kill it's playerbase come out yet? Not that I know of, but I doubt one will.

    3rd. I don't think that this is actually an article about the legitimacy of Mario. We all know it can win. (and I mean any form of winning, because even luck is needed in Pokemon)

    4th. Mario can easily beat Blissey. In fact, I can make the claim that any deck can beat Blissey at any time it wants too. You know why? Because any deck can be modified in an almost infinitum number of ways. All Mario needs is a few ER2s and a few Lake Boundaries and the match is basically in it's hands. The deck doesn't need to be played rote from the list below us. That's the brilliance of this game. Anyone can beat anyone else if they just invest the time to test and tweak.

    5th. I've played Blissey about 6-8 times with Mario. I've NEVER seen it doing 60's T2. The set up has been much slower than that. (it's only a few games, but they were 3-4 different lists, and still didn't see it)

    6th. Golem/Exploud is a deck, it's just really bad.

    If your claim, that Mario is even worse than mediocre: it's a downright unintelligent play, then why weren't other decks discouraged in a formal way? Like other mediocre decks such as Super Stantler, Sallygross, T2 Dark Steelix, GatrQueen, and Dark Slowking, but did anyone make a ranticle (rant+article) about not playing them? No.
    (now, I do not mean any disrepect to the creaters/writers/players of the above decks. I've personally played about half of them)

    I do realize that Super Stantler was a very looked-down upon deck, but never was there something like this about it. (in fact, the reponse to Super Stantler was very similar to the reponse to Mario, and yet everyone let Stantler die in peace...)

    In actuallity, I almost see this as an strike against the players/creater of Mario. Because you list all these "reasons" that Mario is bad, (and while some are true) you are in fact going after the creator saying "The deck you worked and tested with is utter rubbish, and no one should play it."

    I know if I had created Mario, I would have been hurt by this article.

    Kudos to you KingGengar, you've really taken this in stride.
  9. Prime

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

    I'm happy someone sees the bigger picture.

    And for the record, I don't play Mario and don't really like it either.

    Ryan, just like I have no idea what went into making Ambush, you and others have no idea what went into making Mario.

    My questions, This article: why?
  10. KingGengar

    KingGengar New Member

    Thanks, Sandslash.

    One thing has still not been made clear: why does Mario win, or rate highly, at tournaments on a consistent basis?

    I don't mean "why does Mario win games?" I understand the points made: luck, luck, and... luck. However, to win a tournament takes legitimately more luck than to win a game. And to win many tournaments in many different metagames takes much more luck.

    So, either Mario is the luckiest deck in the world, or else it's more than luck. Either way, you have a fair chance of winning. Not vs Banette EX however.


    I just thought of an interesting publicity stunt. Kant vs me in a 3-game tournament, he playing his favorite deck, Ramen Truk, and me playing mine, Mario, and see what happens.
  11. Bobby

    Bobby New Member


    Despite what anything thinks, this article is NOT WRITTEN TO DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM PLAYING MARIO. ANY of the people who helped with this article will agree with me.

    The reason Mario is getting this when Super Stantler etc didn't is because this argument has been going on FOREVER. Super Stantler lost its hype after a month or so. People have been calling other people out, saying that no one ever gives reasons besides "Mario isn't a deck," and now that some of us have written why we think that, people are getting mad that we voiced our opinions.

    As a matter of fact, a few people in this thread have said that stating opinions doesn't prove that a deck is bad. DUH! F_S even said in the first post that this is an OPINION piece. Also, I don't believe we said "Mario is bad" anywhere in that article. (The plumber line was a joke, in case anyone didn't pick up on it.)

    Covering weakness doesn't always mean "X pokemon is weak to Y type, so I play type Z because it has Y's weakness." Having a variety of weaknesses is often more worthwhile than making a conscious effort to type-match (though, this isn't always the case) because sometimes things take out counters without using weakness.

    Ambush is no comparison because, like Matt said, it WAS NOT a setup deck. In fact, you would usually HOLD your setup (for example, not playing all your basics). The entire game was a poker face. You didn't play anything until you needed to. The strategy actually revolved around Prinplup, and Empoleon was nothing more than a cleanup in most matchups. I think all the successful Ambush played 0 or 1 Candy. Ryan's post is a good read for the Ambush thing.

    The original article actually did address Blissey/Lucario; I don't know why that part got taken out. Really, the only synergy IS that they're both fast stage ones that hit heavy. I won't try to argue more than that, because that's about all there is to it.

    I also don't like Empoleon/Lucario. Maybe the engine isn't even that much stronger, but it appears to accommodate the deck better because it needs less to set up (though, the energy thing is what really turns me away from the deck).

    I'm personally offended that people think we wrote this for "political reasons." People have been ASKING for explanations and didn't like the "Mario isn't a deck" comments. But apparently explanation isn't good enough. Once again, I don't think we ever said Mario is a bad deck (besides the last line, which, for clarification, is a JOKE). The whole point of this article is that there are BETTER decks.

    I give Tom all the props in the world for creating Mario; it has performed well and proven that it is, in fact, a deck. And yes, I did test with it last season. Now, however, I just don't think it's worthwhile.

    Also, if anyone is deterred from Mario by this article, that's their decision. I DO consider Mario when testing; it's one of the reasons I play so many FF and Fire in Blissey.

    I'm pretty sure the "writers" of this article are Kant and I. I'm pretty sure I have experience with Rock-Lock and LBS, considering I Top 16'd nats with the former and won nats with the latter. :D He just submitted it before I did. We both contributed what we had experience with.

    RE SuperWooper: yeah, that was my screw-up, my brain lost track of which format was which when I wrote that. I'll have Kant edit it. Thanks!

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


    NONE of us mean ANY disrespect to ANYONE. Do you honestly believe that we think Mario or KG is THAT bad when they made Top 16 at probably the most difficult event in the world? Sorry if I'm coming off rudely, but I'm a little sick of hearing how we wrote this as a publicity stunt. I say congratulations to anyone who does well with Mario! HUGE props to Tom for making a deck that has performed well! No one should take that away from any of them.

    Answer to question- This article: to explain why "the elites" don't like Mario.

    Would you rather have people just post Mario isn't a deck everywhere?

    Again, I'm not trying to be rude. :)
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2007
  12. pokemonmike

    pokemonmike Active Member

    Very well said, Iactually thought some people had a little class , especially the Canadian players but i am being proved wrong....Pity actually. If being a "Elite" player means posting rubbish I never want me or my son having that status.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 30, 2007
  13. Prime

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

    But why just Mario? And why Mario? If this article was made to show that there are better decks out there, why not post some examples of better decks, and disect them to show why their engines are better? This article doesn't explain anything like that, it just gives reasons why not to play Mario.

    None of us are trying to be rude, and I'll take anyone criticism towards any of my comments.
  14. Bolt

    Bolt New Member

    I'd just like to point out that most popular "Empoleon" decks can likely function without Empoleon. Prinplup is a very solid stage 1, spreading damage all over the field for one energy. It can follow up by using virtually the same attack as Empoleon for WW. Of course, I don't know every single decklist in the world, but I'd be willing to bet that successful Empoleon decks are fully capable of going without Emp itself. Even Ambush didn't focus on it.

    It's not my interpretation that the article is saying "Mario isn't a deck" but that "Mario is not as good a deck as people think." The authors have done a really nice job as to backing up their claim that the deck isn't good and I just don't see it as an attack of any kind. Also, keep in mind that it's an opinion piece.

    I'm sure people would be willing to write more articles like this for other decks, I can think of a few if anyone would like.
  15. KingGengar

    KingGengar New Member

    And so the carnage begins...

    Don't say I didn't warn you...
  16. k-psycho

    k-psycho New Member

    From personal experience, the writers and the contributers of this article have all noticed the same flaws in this "deck" and thus the article is created (along with constant bickering from both side in the matter of the legitimacy of it being called a deck).

    We could post some examples of a speed deck, or a set up deck, or anything else but you cant fit it up against mario because the deck doesnt fall into a category like others.
  17. ryanvergel

    ryanvergel New Member

    I deleted posts that weren't pertinent to the topic at hand. Posting a sarcastic comment or complete nonsense isn't what we're looking for.

    And to any elites or friends of elites: Keep your posts legit. Otherwise you're going to do the opposite of what the authors intended. This isn't a joke article. Having fun is cool, but if your posts are NOTHING but spam and you affiliate yourself with the authors then you're taking merit away from the authors.
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2007
  18. desert eagle

    desert eagle New Member

  19. LucarioLvlX

    LucarioLvlX New Member

    I am a big desert eagle fan. I have beaten him a few times and lost to him a few more. Throne of Legends and I worked with this deck to try and win some Battle Roads. Throne suggested putting in 2-3 Girafarigs to start and draw out Rare Candy and other trainers. I suggested the name "Luigi". We played it in the first couple of BRs and picked up 4 Victory Medals, one junior, 2 senior and 1 masters. Mission accomplished and we moved on. I have built a nice Psychic deck that T1s Riolu! But, as you can see by my screen name I still like Lucario!
  20. rhodesia123

    rhodesia123 New Member

    empoleon/lucario is better than machamp/lucario? i dont think so. im sure you wont like opening with a riolu with only water energy in your hand, or a piplup with only fighting nrg.

    machamp vs empoleon: i would much rather do 90 damage and confusion than 70 and 20 to the bench. confusion is a powerful status effect, either forcing the opponent to retreat or risk flipping tails.

    revenge: 70 dmg for 1 nrg is fine. we dont live in the lugia ex 200 dmg days anymore.

    i believe the reason people are discouraging the use of mario is they think losing t1/t2 is "cheap". well i think trying to win the game as early as possible is a perfectly fine method for playing the game.

    kudos to kg!
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page