I told you to make a new thread

I'll do this piece by piece to make this easier, and it will be easier for you to pick specific parts for rebuttals.


1.) "Winning 5-6 times in one event doesn't make you good either." In truth, it is 6 rounds double elimination minimum, with cut to top 8. so for the top 2 players, they played a minimum of 9 Games. Each round the competition would be obviously getting more and more concentrated.

I don't know what video you are saying to watch, but I don't have to watch a video, I was at 2 qualifiers topping both, Top 8 in Toronto (Royal Paladins) and 1st in Chicago (Brandon Bastianelli - SDD Golds). In Toronto my teammate won (Brandon Smith - SDD Golds) and he also made top 8 in Chicago as did our teammate Gary Zhang (OTT), who ended up in 4th place. While obviously the earlier the rounds the higher chance you have to be paired up against a subpar deck, as I said each round the chances of that happening get lower and lower.

Someone mentioned here that you can take a trial deck to a tournament and place. Yes this may be possible at a locals, but you'd be hard pressed to do so at a 115 man event (Toronto) or 280ish (my memory on the scale of that event is fuzzy) man event (Chicago).

Regardless, it doesn't give you the right to bash them from the shadows as if you are superior to them. Its not right, considering a lot of people obviously respect you, and by doing so you are lessening the legitimacy of our achievements and the legitimacy of the game. I can't speak for everyone, but Smith and Me play-test and practiced constantly, and now that we are both going to nationals, have begun to do so even more then before.

2.) While the original reason I was attracted to Spectral Duke Dragon was because it was made obvious from the start that my favorite character would be using it, I noticed right at the start that it had some powerful abilities. After pre-ordering the cards and receiving them shortly after the set came out, I was able to slowly grasp the power and strengths of the card through my various locals (this was before me and Smith were teammates and I only ventured to his shop occasionally).

I was still a bit noobish back then, and had a immense hatred for draw triggers since I always drew them naturally, I opted for stands. Obviously this was a bad decision, as only on the sackiest of sacks did that choice ever pay off, but as I said, I was still gauging the power of the deck, and I was stubborn because of how often in the past I drew draw triggers.

After playing against Smith with the deck, he realized how powerful it could be and built his version. At this time I was forced to sell my version to pay bills. Luckily, when set 3 came out, I was able to snipe a lot of Royal Paladin staples at my locals for very cheap, so I was able to make 12 Crit Alfred/Pala fairly cheep. When I talked to Smith about going to Toronto he said he was forming a car and he had a spot, so that is when we started play-testing frequently and the formation of the team.

After playing against the deck instead of just with it, I was even better able to grasp the strengths of the deck, but until after Toronto there would be no way I could afford it. After topping in Toronto (Lost round 5 to a Misplay, which ended up being a good thing as the fact that I beat myself up over it made me less likely to misplay since then. And lost top 8 to Double Crit from OTT when he only had two crits left.) and Smith going 9-0 at Toronto, we began testing for Chicago, as he was determined to get one of us to top with him. One of the locals players had an incomplete SDD Deck, which I traded my Royals for, and then I pieced together the remaining parts from friends/locals. After extensive testing we went to Chicago I felt I was ready, and by the next night I was 10-0 with my Nationals invite secured. I won't say that every single match was a super skilled battle of wits, of course I got paired up vs a couple subpar decks, but overall the majority of decks I faced were well built. Top 8, everyone had a firm understanding of the basics, and it was mostly skill that was required to outplay the opponent, though a little luck never hurt.

3.) Spectral Duke has a lot of benefits, which is the reason it has been doing so well. I don't think its as cut and dry as its the "OP BEST DECK OF THE FORMAT" that some people make it out to be, but it does have a lot of strengths. At the same time, contrary to popular belief, it is very easy to misplay with the deck, and you have to play smart to maintain the advantage, even more so when your off the ride chain. I'll use your article as a basis of correction.

"The chain itself is mostly useful for facilitating a field changeup, not actually gaining raw card advantage, since each of them break even at best when you factor in your ride for the turn" While true the way you formed the sentence, it still is illogical to think of it that way. The ride for turn is something you must do to maintain advantage, similar to playing a land in early turns is magic. You really should not factor this in. You are achieving your ride for turn and at the cost of sacrificing one unit on board, you gain 2. This should be honestly considered as a +1. The main reason this is good is because it is one of the few decks that can afford to be fairly aggressive early and force cards out of hand/damage on board.

You also seem to say a lot that if you "live through the limit break, your opponent will have lost too much card advantage to win." This is false. The only time that is true is when an inexperienced player doesn't properly think out how he is going to play through to the next turn properly and just limitbreaks without thinking. On numerous games I have limitbreaked twice, even 3 times through a heal if the game went long enough, depending on the situation. The latter is far less likely as I use that single counterblast leftover for something else usually (Dagger or Viv). The extra attack doesn't cause as one sided of a disadvantage if you don't kill them as you think. The cards they are required to use to guard even out nicely, and with properly formed rows you can easily drop 6-8 cards from their hand on a Limit Break turn. This is one of the situations where being skilled with the deck matters.

Also, the ride chain is good for clearing subpar cards from your hand to try to get better units, as is the Limit-break when your hurting for guard and you have a full field. Its not as cut and dry as it has been made out to be. And I don't think any of us plan to open up with or get the ride chain, but its a nice bonus when we do. I'm happy with the Grade 3, and even more so when I can ride the g2 early, which isn't that hard.

I may have came off hostile, but I just don't approve of the way you have seemed to have been speaking about the people who have actually done well in this game. Its not very professional. A lot of people respect you, and when you act like that, in my opinion, its just not right and you have no right to do so. You can only gain so much info from "watching a video". Go to one of these qualifiers and actually compete and then maybe trash talk us. But doing so without doing anything to warrant your feelings of superiority is not proper. Its not hard for someone to say something is easy without actually attempting to do it. I'll try to not be so hostile, but I think it you should maybe stop with the generalizations you are making about the qualified players.

Piece by Piece. I'll play that way too.

veldrien wrote:

I'll do this piece by piece to make this easier, and it will be easier for you to pick specific parts for rebuttals.


1.) "Winning 5-6 times in one event doesn't make you good either." In truth, it is 6 rounds double elimination minimum, with cut to top 8. so for the top 2 players, they played a minimum of 9 Games. Each round the competition would be obviously getting more and more concentrated.

OH MY. 9 rounds, not 5-6. This is still a pitiful sampling size when basing any kind of argument. Luck is too big of a factor to consider anything under a couple hundred a sufficient sampling, but since normal tournament bounds cannot possibly handle that much time it falls far short of adequate.

veldrien wrote:

I don't know what video you are saying to watch, but I don't have to watch a video, I was at 2 qualifiers topping both, Top 8 in Toronto (Royal Paladins) and 1st in Chicago (Brandon Bastianelli - SDD Golds). In Toronto my teammate won (Brandon Smith - SDD Golds) and he also made top 8 in Chicago as did our teammate Gary Zhang (OTT), who ended up in 4th place. While obviously the earlier the rounds the higher chance you have to be paired up against a subpar deck, as I said each round the chances of that happening get lower and lower.

Someone mentioned here that you can take a trial deck to a tournament and place. Yes this may be possible at a locals, but you'd be hard pressed to do so at a 115 man event (Toronto) or 280ish (my memory on the scale of that event is fuzzy) man event (Chicago).

I do enjoy citing names that are available to the public myself sometimes... but I won't call you a liar on this. We don't know that's you and your team, but we have no reasonable way to confirm or deny it.

As for the chances getting lower and lower to play against sub-par decks further in - If this player base wasn't a vast majority of sub-par players, then that math would hold some ground. As it stands - it's still true, but that change in chance isn't a large enough change to make a difference (Especially considering poor decks can beat out the good decks with a random roll of bad 'luck') - Bad decks very likely won't WIN, but they can and sometimes do knock out good decks.

veldrien wrote:

Regardless, it doesn't give you the right to bash them from the shadows as if you are superior to them. Its not right, considering a lot of people obviously respect you, and by doing so you are lessening the legitimacy of our achievements and the legitimacy of the game. I can't speak for everyone, but Smith and Me play-test and practiced constantly, and now that we are both going to nationals, have begun to do so even more then before.

I want you to show me one instance where she bashed someone who DIDN'T deserve it - who wasn't making an ass of themselves in some way or proving that they very likely have read (or understood) NONE of Alice's articles.

veldrien wrote:

2.)~Story~

This is nothing but a bragging story explaining your journey to your national invite. It shows no facts. It doesn't even deserve a number when it comes to debating things.

veldrien wrote:

3.) Spectral Duke has a lot of benefits, which is the reason it has been doing so well. I don't think its as cut and dry as its the "OP BEST DECK OF THE FORMAT" that some people make it out to be, but it does have a lot of strengths. At the same time, contrary to popular belief, it is very easy to misplay with the deck, and you have to play smart to maintain the advantage, even more so when your off the ride chain. I'll use your article as a basis of correction.

"The chain itself is mostly useful for facilitating a field changeup, not actually gaining raw card advantage, since each of them break even at best when you factor in your ride for the turn" While true the way you formed the sentence, it still is illogical to think of it that way. The ride for turn is something you must do to maintain advantage, similar to playing a land in early turns is magic. You really should not factor this in. You are achieving your ride for turn and at the cost of sacrificing one unit on board, you gain 2. This should be honestly considered as a +1. The main reason this is good is because it is one of the few decks that can afford to be fairly aggressive early and force cards out of hand/damage on board.

First off - this whole forum, Alice included, are STRONG advocates for SDD and GP as a whole not being the strongest thing to walk earth. So you're on OUR side there.

Secondly - you are taking out of context her statement. If you look at EVERY deck at once and consider riding to not be a -1, then no deck -1's on ride and SDD chain is a +1. But Alice looks at it the RIGHT way - you are using a card to ride, something you could use for something else - not true of lands in magic 9 times out of 10 - and it IS a -1. She holds ALL decks on this standard. All in all, it's semantics that truly hold no weight and not something to really fight over.

veldrien wrote:

You also seem to say a lot that if you "live through the limit break, your opponent will have lost too much card advantage to win." This is false. The only time that is true is when an inexperienced player doesn't properly think out how he is going to play through to the next turn properly and just limitbreaks without thinking. On numerous games I have limitbreaked twice, even 3 times through a heal if the game went long enough, depending on the situation. The latter is far less likely as I use that single counterblast leftover for something else usually (Dagger or Viv). The extra attack doesn't cause as one sided of a disadvantage if you don't kill them as you think. The cards they are required to use to guard even out nicely, and with properly formed rows you can easily drop 6-8 cards from their hand on a Limit Break turn. This is one of the situations where being skilled with the deck matters.

Yes, against a strong opponent simply living through the limit break isn't enough, but if you are equally skilled and can see them going for final turn, stopping that attack or setting yourself up to be able to handle it does set them far enough back to give you a winning advantage. I've played against good GP players with Duke - staving off the VG stand does halt them more often than not.

veldrien wrote:

Also, the ride chain is good for clearing subpar cards from your hand to try to get better units, as is the Limit-break when your hurting for guard and you have a full field. Its not as cut and dry as it has been made out to be. And I don't think any of us plan to open up with or get the ride chain, but its a nice bonus when we do. I'm happy with the Grade 3, and even more so when I can ride the g2 early, which isn't that hard.

Here's your first mistake - Unless you're sacrificing your 3 boosters to the LB, you actually have a better chance of breaking even on guard (Sacc'ing a G2 interceptor, pulling a 5k shield - assuming you've equally pulled cards out of your deck and down to about 30 cards by here, you'd have a 1/3 chance of hitting a check with a single drive and give yourself 10k guard - not going to go for the math right now, Alice does it better than I do anyway) than actually gaining any.

veldrien wrote:

I may have came off hostile, but I just don't approve of the way you have seemed to have been speaking about the people who have actually done well in this game. Its not very professional. A lot of people respect you, and when you act like that, in my opinion, its just not right and you have no right to do so. You can only gain so much info from "watching a video". Go to one of these qualifiers and actually compete and then maybe trash talk us. But doing so without doing anything to warrant your feelings of superiority is not proper. Its not hard for someone to say something is easy without actually attempting to do it. I'll try to not be so hostile, but I think it you should maybe stop with the generalizations you are making about the qualified players.

I myself have been in on the winner bashing - but not that they won. There are multiple major flaws in half of the top decks - lack of 4 perfect guards, missing key cards, running stands outside of a stand heavy clan (You yourself said stand don't work as well as draw in GP - I can attest to their POOR use in OTT, yet second place in http://cf-vanguard.com/en/cardlist/deckrecipe/WC2012_Australia for a quick example that immediately hit me as an OTT player) - The video she suggests are watching the finals gameplay videos from some of the qualifiers. There are some GRIEVOUS misplays. You assume (Second mistake) that our statements are blanket statements about all of the winners when they are not.

Wolf pretty much did all of the demolishing I was going to do, but fuck it, I'll do some too.

Quote :

1.) "Winning 5-6 times in one event doesn't make you good either." In
truth, it is 6 rounds double elimination minimum, with cut to top 8. so
for the top 2 players, they played a minimum of 9 Games. Each round the
competition would be obviously getting more and more concentrated.

9 games is not a sufficiently large sample size to make those claims either. Tournaments are not experiments until you get a tournament with closer to 100 rounds and it's Swiss so each player keeps playing. Then you'll have 100 rounds per individual that you can compare to the same number of 100 rounds of other individuals. Having elimination style actually means there's a higher chance that bad players or bad decks move up because of chance (due to the small sample size). That's the opposite of a test of skill.

Quote :

I don't know what video you are saying to watch, but I don't have to
watch a video, I was at 2 qualifiers topping both, Top 8 in Toronto
(Royal Paladins) and 1st in Chicago (Brandon Bastianelli - SDD Golds).
In Toronto my teammate won (Brandon Smith - SDD Golds) and he also made
top 8 in Chicago as did our teammate Gary Zhang (OTT), who ended up in
4th place. While obviously the earlier the rounds the higher chance you
have to be paired up against a subpar deck, as I said each round the
chances of that happening get lower and lower.

Yeah, you really do have to watch the video. You come in here taking a dump on my head for bashing someone; and those someones were in the video, in plain view, doing stupid bullshit. Watch the video. Claiming you don't have to looks more like you're running away. No one gives a shit about you or your team since you decided to be a hostile dick on a forum no one knows you in. Funny enough, had you come in here as a normal member, you could've mentioned who you were and everyone would congratulate you as we did the Great Nature player who went 5 rounds undefeated. In fact, one of our members was a judge at Chicago and wanted to say you were good. Except now you just have a reputation as a dick. So you're a smart guy; watch the goddamn video and compare our comments with the horrendous plague you see on your screen.

Quote :

2.) _storytime_

That's not an argument. What the hell is this bullshit? I don't care about your personal feelings and motivations and it's not an argument. It's just an anecdote. Are you deliberately wasting both of our time?

Quote :

3.) Spectral Duke has a lot of benefits, which is the reason it has been
doing so well. I don't think its as cut and dry as its the "OP BEST
DECK OF THE FORMAT" that some people make it out to be, but it does have
a lot of strengths.

Okay so you and I agree 100%. It has some strengths. It's not God. Done. What's the problem?

Quote :

At the same time, contrary to popular belief, it is very easy to misplay
with the deck, and you have to play smart to maintain the advantage,
even more so when your off the ride chain. I'll use your article as a
basis of correction.

Yeah, like not using Duke's limit break when your opponent is at two damage. That's a pretty big misplay.

Quote :

While true the way you formed the sentence, it still is illogical to
think of it that way. The ride for turn is something you must do to
maintain advantage, similar to playing a land in early turns is magic.
You really should not factor this in.

It's actually sad that I have to point this out:
Look at your cards before you ride
Look at your cards after your ride
OH LOOK, THEY HAVE SHRUNKEN BY 1!
Riding is a minus, I don't care what your personal opinion is. Every deck has to -3 from riding unless they have a special chain or skill. This is why a retreating vanguard is good. It keeps you at your initial 7 starting cards (hand + vanguard). Riding, as a mechanic, is a built-in way to keep players from constantly switching up Grade 3s just to gain soul or new skills by making them minus to do it. It's also a way to keep the early game tight and compact without card numbers getting out of hand. It's a built-in mechanic to the game. You minus when you ride. Saying it's not a minus because you have to is like saying the Draw Phase isn't a plus because you have to. What the fuck. So yes, Duke's entire chain is a +0 in 1/3 of games (probability that it will occur). Plus zero is important when riding.

Quote :

You also seem to say a lot that if you "live through the limit break,
your opponent will have lost too much card advantage to win." This is
false. The only time that is true is when an inexperienced player
doesn't properly think out how he is going to play through to the next
turn properly and just limitbreaks without thinking.

You mean like when they do it while the opponent is at 2 damage?
Stop and think for a moment about what you even said. Duke is -3 to activate, +1 from the extra drive check. You don't count twin drive or your Draw Phase since both players get that and it should be assumed you came out each turn with a total of +3 at least (coming out of your turn with less means you dun fucked up and can't guard). So -3 +1 being -2. Hey let's ask everyone here if they want to -2 while in Late Game without outright winning. Yeah, I bet the answer is no thank you. In Late Game every single card matters. Even if you survive by guarding in the previous turn, next turn, you won't have a way to regain your lost field. It's ridiculous to bet that you will. And if you do, either you're falling into the statistical outlier portion of chance or your opponent is just bad. Very bad. Limit Breaking twice with Duke, means your opponent is very likely bad. It's never even happened to me.

Quote :

I may have came off hostile, but I just don't approve of the way you
have seemed to have been speaking about the people who have actually
done well in this game.

You took legitimate criticism out of context and didn't even check what I was criticizing. You didn't come off as hostile. You came off as incompetent. Just ask the other members here. Especially when you decided to single me out specifically instead of them.

Quote :

A lot of people respect you, and when you act like that, in my opinion, its just not right and you have no right to do so.

Who cares if a lot of people respect me? I'm some random girl on the internet with a blog. I have just as much right to call people bad as they have to not try to get better at this game. Your bullshit philosophic hurt feelings statement doesn't phase me. This community is about building a better Vanguard Fighter. Not about being a hugbox and catering to peoples' emotions. We don't give a shit. If we're wrong, we get toasted and then we fix it. If we're right, we toast those who are wrong so they can fix it. All we care about is weeding out bad play.

Quote :

You can only gain so much info from "watching a video".

Except my statements were exactly about that video and nothing else. Are you braindead?

Quote :

Go to one of these qualifiers and actually compete and then maybe trash talk us.

As already shown, those events aren't statistically significant for showing player skill. If you're good, you're good independent of a tournament event. I shouldn't need to tell you what a bullshit "argument" that is. It doesn't take a fucking genius to see obvious misplays and call people on them. You're still just coming off as hostile and arrogant.

Also the statements weren't generalizations. Just further showing your reading incompetence. You know, it's really sad. I actually expected to hear debating points from you. But everything you posted was just you being indignant and hurt feelings about something that doesn't even concern you. It was you taking shit out of context and making up a bunch of fallacious reasoning. When one of my judges said you were a good player I was shocked that the same brain you used to play Vanguard was the same one you used to "debate" me.

Come back with facts, evidence, reason, and a point.

That video makes me cringe every time, WHY MUST YOU POST IT?! It is a BLASPHEMY! >.< A link to it would suffice...

In all seriousness, though, there are SO many misplays in that one short video, it is a wonder how those two made it to top two. Makes me wish I could make it to regionals, easy game.... stupid... Oh well,

My god that was bad. All the stuff with the triggers, the horrible card conduct.. ACK! I've seen better average playing by BYOND dregs.

I understand that you think you are good, but I have never heard of a gaming experiment, especially one where you need 100 + rounds of play to decide anything. That is the most absurd thing that I have ever heard. Now I can understand if you meant 100 games of play testing in which we play many games all the time. If you insinuating that you are a better player than anyone without proof or anything behind your reasoning then you are just being very arrogant. I understand you have a very good opinion on the game and you use really big words, but that don't mean shit. It honestly does not.

You are trying to make something so shallow so deep you can not totally put percentages behind certain plays and your numbers are not infallible so stop pretending that they are. I wish I would have joined this forum a long time ago to put a stop to your silly rambling and non-sense talks. So you can ban me delete my post and tell me how stupid I sound because I don't have to use big words to make people think i am smarter than them or to make people think I know more than anyone else, because I do not. The only thing I do know is that neither do you. This is an experiment by the way to see if you ban everyone who disagrees with you or wait maybe I will have to make 100 + posts to come to a conclusion.

Epic insults man. You totally proved your point.

OGTriggerz wrote:

I understand that you think you are good, but I have never heard of a gaming experiment, especially one where you need 100 + rounds of play to decide anything. That is the most absurd thing that I have ever heard.

ANY data worth using needs to be tested. And by tested, I mean more than 10 games. Scientific Method at it's most basic level, if you can't get that then please, go read up on it.

OGTriggerz wrote:

Now I can understand if you meant 100 games of play testing in which we play many games all the time. If you insinuating that you are a better player than anyone without proof or anything behind your reasoning then you are just being very arrogant. I understand you have a very good opinion on the game and you use really big words, but that don't mean shit. It honestly does not.

None of us said we were great players. We simply said that the people in that video - as well as most of the people (MOST, key word) who have been making top places aren't what you would call strong players.

OGTriggerz wrote:

You are trying to make something so shallow so deep you can not totally put percentages behind certain plays and your numbers are not infallible so stop pretending that they are.

This right here... is a load of crap. No, plays can't be valued like that, but when it comes to card counts in decks it can be, when it comes to the mixing of your deck it can be - when two values can be set up next to each other, you CAN make calls based on the math.

OGTriggerz wrote:

I wish I would have joined this forum a long time ago to put a stop to your silly rambling and non-sense talks. So you can ban me delete my post and tell me how stupid I sound because I don't have to use big words to make people think i am smarter than them or to make people think I know more than anyone else, because I do not. The only thing I do know is that neither do you. This is an experiment by the way to see if you ban everyone who disagrees with you or wait maybe I will have to make 100 + posts to come to a conclusion.

Other than the word Scientific, I didn't use more than seven letters per word in this post. If it's still too hard for you to read, I can step it down more for you. No, rather than use big words, you simply bash on the people in this forum, saying we're all full of crap when you don't have a single piece of info to back up any of your words. Come back when you can learn to read so I can really show you how wrong you are. Thank you for joining and I hope you learn a lot here, you obviously clearly need it.

Can someone please tell me when any of the moderators, or Alice has ever banned someone from this forum? Anyone? I didn't think so...

PuppyCop wrote:

Can someone please tell me when any of the moderators, or Alice has ever banned someone from this forum? Anyone? I didn't think so...

We've deleted posts when the need, and I mean NEED, arises (Well, Alice has) - But almost ANY post put here can be a learning tool, so we tend to not like the idea of deleting them - be it learning simple game mechanics that should be fundamental all the way to learning that when you act like an ass, you tend to be treated with those same gloves so we kindly ask you to refrain from that.

But no, everyone deserves to have a chance to learn with other people and to help this game growing. Banning would be very prohibitive of that growth, so it is AVOIDED.

Actually I've never deleted a post. I move them all to the hidden Trash forum because that's what they are.

@OGTriggerz,
Oh god I fucking lolled when I read this post. Yet another person joining just to scream their impotent rage at people on the internet. Yes, yes, we get it. You don't understand how the Scientific Method works and you can't understand simple math. That's great. But everyone else doesn't have to be such a fool. And as Wolfen said, we don't claim to be good. We just claim lots of others are really bad when it's deserved. This community is about facts and evidence, not opinions and good feelings. We're not a hugbox. And we raise ourselves to a certain standard.

Just a question, has OZTrigger or Veldrien even watched the video in question? You know, the players we -were- "insulting". I mean, you only have to be the most mediocre of players to notice those blatant misplays. I don't think we ever said anything about Veldrien himself at all until he came in raging.

Another? How many times has this happened? But seriously dude, stop. We dont say we're better than anyone due to arrogance, we just looked at the game. Go on, look, from an objective standpoint they made misplays, it's no more arrogant than calling out a move as dumb in chess (like giving away a piece). If you look at the articles, you'll see she gives all of the math so that peer review can be done. Her Ride Chain articles had some inconsistencies that were pointed out and fixed. If you think our judgements are wrong, than prove your point by scientifically analyzing them in the same way we have. We're not above admitting when we are wrong but you havent actually done anything. Pick of a calculator give us some data and do the effing math. You get anything different from us feel free to post it (although I guarantee no math will show those players as playing optimally). Until then, yelling at us isnt going to prove anything and it defiantly wont get us to change the way we do things around here.

Well said.

I'm going to refuse to watch the video. Obviously if they topped the tournament they must be good players.

Anyway, personal story time.

So I went to the store to go get milk for my ailing mother. I noticed a pack of vanguard cards next to the milk, and instantly bought it. I don't know why, but I did. It was like a force controlling me, a force beyond comprehension. I opened the pack and was greeted by an SP Spectral Duke Dragon. I put him into my deck and the next thing I know I was undefeatable. I played 2 games and won both of them. "My god... this card gives me a 100% win ratio" I said. Startled by this news, my best friend challenged me to a final match. I won that game as well. 3/3 games won by putting Spectral Duke in my deck.

My testing was flawless. I know you "sciencefags" value the scientific method, but don't worry. I controlled for all possible variables. I minimized luck by sacrificing a goat before each match to minimize the negative juju impact of the spirits. Both players (me and my opponent) said the same 10 prayers at the same time to the same goddess (Aphrodite) to ensure equal luck, and both of us sacrificed one Hershey Bar in her name (the bar is highly processed so all bars are alike).

We both wore the same clothes and I set the temperature at 75 degrees Fahrenheit.

Checkmate scrubs. You can't argue with this flawless testing.

Wow man. I just get voices in my head telling me to follow the feelings of the cards.

They're retards. I mean, they tried to get me to make 20k for my Vanguard instead of the smart 21k. My head voices suck at Vanguard.

I am not bashing players. I don't like insults. I feel like there is no where including this forum where freedom of speech is not allowed. Alice while being a smart person I think she is a better analysis than player, But i don't want to get involved or be a part of a forum or anything that restricts the freedom of speech especially on a card game.
Honestly it is silly that Alice thinks crossrides are broken. And the big words Alice I was referring to were in another thread "scientifically observable chance" which means nothing. Chance is something that can not be measured it is almost like saying lets observe luck and i know you said you don't like the word luck but chance and luck run hand in hand unless by chance you meant statistics. Then you should have just said that.
Science and Card games don't mix. Neither do Science and religion. I don't even like them brought up in the same sentence. I would never restrict the flow of information that can be presented that is not even the American way.

And i feel that you words are not to big for me to understand I just think the words you use are fluff to try to get people to think you are smarter than you are.

Quote :

Science and Card games don't mix.

So you don't playtest?

Dude, Science and everything mix. Game theory, card advantage, statistics, odds. All this stuff has been confirmed for decades. This even goes beyond tcgs, people have been doing this with Poker and Blackjack. Card Counting?

Seriously, no one is limited freedom of speech, if she did, you would be banned. But you cant expect us to believe anything you say without doing the work to back you up. Alie never monolithically said Crossriders were broken. There were months of discussion by all sides, you can see them right here. If you think we came to the wrong conclusion then challenge our reasoning pull up some figures or numbers. You cant say we're wrong "just cuz." Good play IS analysis, because the game is all about thinking properly. There is a proper way to play CFV just like there is to play Go or Chess. These are observable facts backed up by evidence and mathematics. Vanguard is not a game where you have total control. So if you want to win you make every action optimize the chances of success. It's a Numbers Game, and the basis of any strategy is to admit that the strategy exists, if their is no Science to Cardgames than how can anyone know how to do anything? We make fun of you because you came here with hostility and with no verisimilitude. You say you read her articles? So show me exactly what parts you disagree with and why, and then we can get back to you wither explaining what you don't get to correcting any mistakes you may point out. But if you just sit here swinging at us all you're going to do is get laughed at.

Quote :

Alice while being a smart person I think she is a better analysis than player,

Huh, pretty weird since you've never seen me play before and you don't agree with any of my analyses.

Quote :

But i don't want to get involved or be a part of a forum or anything that restricts the freedom of speech especially on a card game.

Then why are you here? We have to keep this site orderly and devoid of shitposting. Every site has rules. And we didn't for a very long time. Now we do. We have a couple of them but not many. Compared to every other forum, we're still the most free.

Quote :

I just think the words you use are fluff to try to get people to think you are smarter than you are.

Everyone here knows exactly what I'm talking about. But you'd know that if you lurked more here and in the IRC before posting. I don't speak above anyone else's understanding.

Why am I even replying to someone who thinks you can't measure chance and that the scientific method can't be used with card games? Stay free.

And Meeb You are funny. That is a cool story. I myself believe in the scientific experiment process, but not when it comes to cards. Percentages of drawing a certain hand have no barring on actually drawing the hand honestly and you have to learn to play with the statistics and without them in order to win. Statistics will help you build a more consistent deck but it won't help you play better. Bad players will continue to be bad players until the learn to do something different.
The players in the video have nothing to do with me but even if they misplayed every round they still topped. Which means that the playing field was less than optimal to your standards i guess, but since it seems everyone has a opinion on there play style and misplays I am pretty sure that you guys can top and win if they can right?
Stop judging other players and worry about your own game. And to Alice I think you would be a good reporter for events and you have the statistics and numbers in the right place. I do think you can do great things for the game, but remember just like I am going to be judged for speaking my opinion against yours so will you.

OGTriggerz wrote:

Chance is something that can not be measured>

So basically you're a fucking retard who never did statistics in school.

You're a fucking dunce and whatever country educated you should feel ashamed of itself.

Alice i am not basing your playing skill versus your playing skill.

I am basing your player skill versus your results versus your ability to educate others on the game.

I am not opposed to all of your thinking, but to me using the scientific method to play cards games is the same as using luck or God to dictate my next play lol.

The Scientific Method in card games to me can be used while building and play testing the deck. But the Scientific Method has nothing to do with them playing a certain way or not. They misplayed to you but when you are under pressure many people do things they may normally never do.

That being said you guys saying that they suck because they made several mistakes during the one match and judging them based on that is contradictory to the scientific method you guys use. That was just one game and one instance in which they were under a lot of pressure and it very well could have been their first time in that situation in their life. Which adds to the pressure put on them.

I think I am a good player in this game. My personal credentials includes 2 tops with one being an undefeated win. But even I with 12 + years of tcg play several tops in Magic (statewide) tournament, National top 32 in Yugioh, and now Cardfight!! Vanguard. I played one of my worst games in My history of playing games during a SCG Open where i got a televised feature match. Reason being I was so concerned with not making the bad play not over extending not looking bad not misplaying, that I did all of the above. Not that I was or am a bad player but there was a out side presence that I was not used to.

Quote :

That being said you guys saying that they suck because they made several mistakes during the one match and judging them based on that is contradictory to the scientific method you guys use. That was just one game and one instance in which they were under a lot of pressure and it very well could have been their first time in that situation in their life. Which adds to the pressure put on them.

Stop taking things out of context.

Quote :

I think I am a good player in this game. My personal credentials includes 2 tops with one being an undefeated win. But even I with 12 + years of tcg play several tops in Magic (statewide) tournament, National top 32 in Yugioh, and now Cardfight!! Vanguard. I played one of my worst games in My history of playing games during a SCG Open where i got a televised feature match. Reason being I was so concerned with not making the bad play not over extending not looking bad not misplaying, that I did all of the above. Not that I was or am a bad player but there was a out side presence that I was not used to.

Logical Fallacy mode initiated. Stop trying to have a pissing contest. This doesn't help your argument one bit.