Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/11/18 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Hello everybody! Why does it seem to me that this Goat forum has died a little? Anyway, Luxury Gaming (https://www.facebook.com/groups/LuxuryGamingLLC/) organised a FREE 64-man Goat tournament, award the winner with 100$ prize. It then changed it to 128-man because slots were quickly taken. Since this is the biggest Goat tournament since 2005, I feel like it should be talked about! Round 2 is in progress today, each round lasts for 2 days, we are playing single elimination best of 3. IDK what else is there to say. My friend just took out HyperBeam, I will post interesting replays after the tournament is over I hope that some other participants of this tourney also see this post and tell how it is going for them
  2. 3 points
    I was 265 lb in mid feb. I am now 205 lb
  3. 3 points
    It still seems like the default should be that if you have 3 copies of a card you love to draw and there is no externality like tutoring involved, you should be playing 3 copies of the best card. https://stattrek.com/online-calculator/hypergeometric.aspx 5 card hand, 3 copies in deck, 30% chance of getting exactly 1 copy, 3.6% chance of getting more than 1 copy. 6 card hand 5.4% chance of getting more than 1 copy. IMO any argument that "taking three copies is bad" is wrong for cards that are *individually good draws* like the Maxx C vs Effect Veiler setup is completely wrong. Obviously to truly understand this whole system you have to measure the odds your game just in fact ends if you draw doubles next to each other, which is probably impossible except if you are Blizzard or someone else who can perform ridiculously large scale data mining on thousands of human games. The argument that "you don't want to draw two" only makes sense if you automatically lose 100% of those 3.6/5.4% games by drawing doubles, which is probably incorrect. I would guesstimate that drawing doubles probably has a fairly minor impact on your overall win rate for many instances of drawing doubles considering most decks still play a large portion of their deck as "non-combo pieces" and are supposed to be able to function happily if you draw multiples of those non-combo pieces. Obviously though, not all doubles are equal. Drawing 2 maxx going first in a 5 card hand fucking sucks, drawing 2 maxx going second generally rocks. You have to average the win rate out across all your game 1s, and I can definitely see a world where it's game 2 and you KNOW you are going first it's mathematically correct to play 2 Maxx Cs. The thing is you actually have to form a hypothesis and to the math to figure out if that is true or not, which in an ideal world would be running some statistical model on the data of a bunch of DN games to make a confidence interval of what your win rate is if you draw 2 maxx Cs going first. If you actually don't do that math and don't study statistics in college and don't have a bunch of data on your win rates for Maxx C going first, I think the "wow you should play 3 Maxx Cs" shorthand is pretty much the best shortcut when deckbuilding. "Mostly" though, I think that unless you card that you draw doubles in your hand says "if you draw this card next to each other you will lose" you can probably play through it in a lot of cases, and the expected value of playing the 3 of at 3 instead of at 2 and a substitute 40th card in your deck usually outweighs the hit to your win rate in those 3.6/5.4% of cases in which you draw doubles in your opening hand. Improving the quality of the 40th card after all improves your deck across all subsequent turns, whilst the impact of the doubles issue is only felt in the first turn. Anyway this is just my 2 cents, it's not the same as whether you should play for example 3 useless holy shine ball type things, this is about optimal untutored draws like Maxx C or Monster Reborn. The thing that gets me is that when you have the off the wall smart meta calls, they are not built correctly because the person creating the off the wall thing that is the optimal choice for the meta-game, even if it is correct, has made some obvious error or flaw. Objectively good theory like playing the right amount of two ofs and three offs based off the odds of actually drawing doubles of Maxx C can happily coexist with the theory of "wow a hot and spicy meta pick is better than taking standard.deck and hoping you draw well and don't misplay" against a field." There is nothing that says those two things can't get along. Obviously stuff like the difference between playing the third Maxx C and the the first effect veiler as your 40th card probably doesn't impact the win rate a lot. But someone with the right mentality should be spending a cost efficient amount of time making those optimisations from Maxx C to Effect Veiler. Also, the whole Patrick Hoban theory of "don't take the standard deck in take a hot and spicy meta take" is something that only applies to Yugioh in its current form because technical play is not as determinative. In other diverse TCGs and systems where technical play IS the determinative factor, the DBZ TCG that Panini was running that got canned was an example of this, the impact of technical play was *huge* and the metagame didn't devolve into "well I have my windups that I can play optimally you have your windups you can play optimally therefore even if I play 51% better than you a win rate of 60% across 12 rounds of swiss isn't good enough." You have to measure the skill play ceiling of each system and the impact of technical play when you are weighing up your choice. Obviously the hot and spicy pick makes sense if you do in fact have a hot and spicy pick that players aren't prepared for and misplay more vs, or has an innatve advantage, this is 100% true in Yugioh. In other games it is not necessarily true at all, if you can build up a huge win-rate in the mirror match just by hitting a crazy skill ceiling that your opponent's can't it's totally different. Issue is that TCGs and Yugioh and particular ultimately have a very small amount of interactive decisions because there is a smaller number of variables, and the skill gap for controlling those variables isn't as wide. You just don't have that kind of determinative system coming up. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMO though my current hot take looking at Yugioh is that the win rate is definitely hugely impacted by playing something that is easy for people to misplay against, and playing for time is obviously the #1 skill for all tournament players and the most important thing which is depressing. The impact of spending a hours practising allowing yourself to stall for EOMP without getting banned by the judges AND how to speed the game and speed your opponent up when you don't want to go into time is by far the most important skill in Yugioh. Frankly it's almost depressing that obviously unsportsmanlike play is clearly rewarded because manipulating the match if going into EOMP favours you is just such a strong strategy.
  4. 1 point
    Statements like this fail to miss my point. Not because it's wrong, but because the wording of the statement implies that the focus is on "finding optimizations" without specifying how. The how is pretty important. Anyone can say something is optimal and we'd be hard-pressed to prove them wrong. Theory is a small starting point, not an end-game, for optimization, and you never find great breakthroughs through theory. Too many people don't want to test things that are "bad in theory" when in fact the return on investment if you found out that the theory is wrong would be incredible. Obviously I can think of a lot of examples relating to my own experiences here, but most other successful players have their own. People told me that 0 hand traps in Domain Monarchs could never work in theory and never bothered to ask themselves the question, "What if I cut all of my hand traps for more engine cards?" Same with Hoban's Dragon Rulers; he was the only person to ask himself, "What if I just maindecked 3 Vanity's Emptiness?" when everyone else assumed that something like that could never work. TLDR: ACP's Trademarked Super Secret to Success List all metagame assumptions on 3 factors: 1. How widely held is the assumption? 2. How high are the chances that the assumption is wrong? 3. How big would the consequences be of disproving the assumption? Then empirically test the assumptions that score the highest on this 3-pronged scale. Obviously, in most cases, you'll find out that the assumption was correct, but when it's not, the payoff can be huge. Of course there's an art to good testing too, but we'll assume that you know how to test intelligently. If you list, rate, and test your assumptions in this manner, I guarantee your average placing at high-level tournaments will sky-rocket.
  5. 1 point
    "Objectively correct ratios" - I'll send you a $1000 if you can prove that literally anything in your OP about ratios is anything other than opinion. You have no evidence to indicate whether 2 Desires or 3 is better, neither theoretical nor empirical. Like this phrase actually triggers me because you're trying to pass off your pseudo-intellectual nonsense as if it's some ground-breaking game theory. There's no shame in admitting that your opinion is your opinion, and stating otherwise is a toxic attitude that indicates that you care more about looking smart to people on the internet than being intellectually honest. Like I know you think I'm full of shit, but believe me, none of the stuff that you've posted holds any value or is relevant for doing well at tournaments. There are never going to be any deckbuilding rules that you can blindly follow to real success, and when people think that those rules do exist, success is most often found with figuring out how to get away with breaking them. The stuff that was deck-building theory gospel 10 years ago is completely outdated now, and the same will be true in another 10 years. 90% of premiere-tournament-winning decks get derided as being "shitty in theory." In fact, seeing a tournament-winning deck with no big surprises in it is like sighting a unicorn. People would really just like success to be much easier than it actually is.
  6. 1 point
    The end of January can't come soon enough
  7. 1 point
    Banishing desires off desires is irrelevant, but banishing the majority of your monsters and in-engine S/T, leaving you with little to play with IS relevant. I would see the 39 card deck as the bonus and the extra yarded spell as the main draw, although I'd obviously be running upstart regardless in decks where LP isn't a deal-breaker (which is to say most of them because that's just how the game is nowadays).
  8. 1 point
  9. 1 point
    To the arguments on 2 or 3 desires, keep in mind that this legitimately depends on the deck - something like magicians should always be running three because it's a very turn 1 centric deck, and because it has no mass draw engine... meanwhile something like draco would be better off running two because it is incapable of resolving the second desires (the deck needs resources to keep on playing, and typically ''grinds'' over at least a few turns) and because it has a huge collection of draw engines that, together with the increased game length, make drawing multiple desires that much more of a problem. The most common arguments are: - Can your deck resolve the second copy of desires (MR4 Zoodiac could, as once you got to a certain point your deck was pretty much all just one card plays that don't rely on anything else being in your deck). - Does your deck frequently draw multiple copies of desires (at 3), be it from draw effects, game length, or both. To the arguments on upstart; people cutting it back then was, for the most part, silly (health almost irrelevant, engine consistency crucial, no real reason to over 40c for ratio fixing/engine size) - but now people play upstart for more than just the old reason of it being a deck thinner, they also play it because it gets you a spell in grave for your striker spells' additional effects.
  10. 1 point
    See, there's a difference between innovating and not being a fucking retard about your card ratios. IMHO you described innovation while barely touching upon objectively correct ratios in your first response. But hold on, let's get to that: The difference between 2 Desires and 3 Desires might not mean the difference between winning a YCS and not winning a YCS (technical play is slightly more important than correct deckbuilding imho) but if I can take that miniscule 1% boost to my win rate over the course of a near-20 round YCS then there's really no reason not to take it. Also the point about Upstart is just plain wrong: many Striker lists still play the 1 Upstart to this day. If people cut it back in 2016 it probably wasn't due to the "emotional" reasoning you discussed but more than likely because there were actually 40 cards they needed to play in their decks and Upstart would've either been the 41st card or worse than that.
  11. 1 point
    Playing a two-of because you don't want to see it too often is a perfectly legitimate reason for running a 2-of and I don't know why anyone would think otherwise. What evidence does anyone have to support any kind of statement like "You can only play a 2-of under X set of conditions"? People just want to have their shitty "theories" (which are really conjectures, as we'd say in the scientific community) validated by other people and then are so insecure that they get upset when someone dares to disagree with them. I also think that a lot of people put too much weight in certain decisions that have a relatively minuscule impact on their success. No one is going to make top cut because they decided to play 3 Pot of Desires instead of 2. There are pros and cons to both, and this kind of decision might boost your matchup against the field by 1%, if that. There are a thousand other decisions that you will make in that tournament that will be more relevant to your success. I don't think Roland Fang would've gotten 1st at NAWCQ 2017 instead of 2nd if only he hadn't made the huge mistake of playing 2 Pot of Desires. What people also don't realize about card ratios is that other than the obvious decisions (staple 3-ofs), the average player is making these decisions based on emotion rather than fact. For example, I made a pretty interesting prediction after Upstart Goblin was limited: that people would stop playing it because writing down 1 Upstart Goblin did not feel as mentally satisfying as writing 3 Upstart Goblin on a decklist. This turned out to be correct. Despite the fact that the "theory" behind Upstart Goblin being good remained exactly the same, everyone suddenly decided that they didn't like the card anymore. Although again, whether or not you decided to play a single copy of Upstart Goblin not going to be the deciding factor in your performance. But frankly the psychological aspect of deckbuilding is often ignored and very interesting in my opinion. A lot of people get really triggered by "weird" numbers on decklists, but apparently the person who just won this YCS is not one of them. Pro tip: Don't make the mistake that most Yugioh players make and pull theory out of your ass to try to justify what was in reality an emotional decision. It's hard to recognize in the moment that you're doing this, but as soon as you accept the fact that as humans, we're all fallible and subject to emotion, you'll become more self-aware and pick up on it more often. Do you have a hard emotional bias towards 3-ofs or 2-ofs? Then force yourself to try the other one for awhile. It's pretty hard to figure out which ratio is better if you literally refuse to try the other one.
  12. 1 point
    this thread is literally 5 years old
  13. 1 point
    Just bought Dragon Quest 11 yesterday. So far I’m liking it. It’s been a while since I’ve played a classic turn based rpg
  14. 1 point
    And I trump unsourced silly rulings that likely went out of date years ago.   You can't summon something of the wrong type, period.   Konami's own FAQ page is law on this now, not old rulings.
  15. -1 points
    Ok everybody...... I'll put this to rest... rivalry of the warlords states "control" it does not say " players can only summon the declared type". And since they are both continuous traps that do not conflict effects they both are on the field always... heres a breakdown... Rivalry is played then dna surgery is played (doesnt matter which order of play happens, unless involving chains to summon..) since both trap card effect field presence in non conflicting ways they can both resolve. Dna surgery declares machine (for efs sake) Now because monster are not being "prevented" from being summoned they can actually attempt to be summoned. When they hit the field, a field check is made and dna surgery will change the monsters type before rivalry notices it's not a machine.. this can happen because rivalry states the it only effects cards you "control" monsters are not "in control" in your hand, graveyard, deck etc... you can only " control a monster whilst on the field... Soooo to shorten it.. yes dna surgery gets around rivalry because once the monster becomes in your "control" it is the type declared by dna surgery.. it's very simple but overcomplicated because it's not read carefully.