Jump to content

ACP

┬╗Retired Staff
  • Content count

    16129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    298

ACP last won the day on October 7

ACP had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

33416 Not Everyone Can Be a Master

About ACP

  • Rank
    Not everyone can be a master
  • Birthday 11/28/90

Profile Information

  • Gender
    fucking white male
  • Fav YGO Deck
    Is Gishki still good?
  • Location
    FL
  • Interests
    Creating ridiculous profile fields

Contact Methods

  • Discord
    ACP#0028

Recent Profile Visitors

15160 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. "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.
  3. 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.
  4. You don't win major tournaments by doing what is considered "optimal" and "the norm." Some people say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. In the context of strategy games, insanity is doing the same thing as everyone else and expecting different results. If everyone does what's "standard and optimal," then the only reason that anyone wins a tournament is because someone has to. Hoban was remarkably good at going X-2 day1 into day2 top cut miss for a long period of his career when he was playing super standard decks. Once he dared to break away from the norm and innovate, he was the best player of his era. Similar thing happened with me on a different scale. From 2010-2011, I mostly played obvious and standard decks like Blackwings, Plants, and Six Samurai, and was remarkably consistent at managing to go X-2 day1 into day2 scrub. Once I started playing what most of my peers considered to be bad decks in 2012-2013 like Chaos Dragons, Gishki, and Domain Monarch, I was consistently top32ing YCSs. In fact, the only premiere events that I did not top in that time period were a YCS and a nationals where I made the mistake of reverting back to playing a standard Rabbit deck. Oops! What happens to most competitive players is that they get stuck in long plateau of being able to consistently do well at locals but falling short of success at the premiere events. This is because the formula for success at locals is the exact opposite of the formula for success at YCSs. At locals, you can almost win just by showing up. With only 5 swiss rounds and a lot of bad players, you will find that by playing a top tier deck and not making any huge blunders, you will walk away with prizes far more often than not. People will be punting you match wins, and you just have to make sure that you don't punt them back. There will also be some competent players like yourself, but not enough of them to prevent you from making top8. For the most part, you'll all be able to stay out of each other's way and share the success. At a YCS, by the time you're 3-0 or 4-1, virtually all of the idiots have been weeded out, and the majority of your competition is people who are playing standard decks and aren't making any huge blunders. You've got several rounds to go, so if you're also just showing up with a standard deck and standard plays, statistically speaking, you're a huge underdog for making the top cut. You'll probably blame luck for not getting there, and you'd be absolutely right to do so! Remember, if everyone does what's "standard and optimal," then the only reason that anyone wins a tournament is because someone has to. But of course, there's another option here, which is just not being "standard and optimal." Want to know how to succeed in business? Know something substantial that your competition doesn't know. Do you think that Apple's strategy to develop the first real touchscreen smartphone was considered to be "standard and optimal"? Do you think that Zappo's strategy to sell shoes on the internet was considered "standard and optimal"? Do you think that Toyota's strategy to forgo the Ford-style assembly line and create a just-in-time production line was considered "standard and optimal"? Do you think that Netflix's strategy to sell people DVDs through the mail was considered "standard and optimal"? Do you think that Southwest's strategy to offer low fares, no fees, and no assigned seats was considered "standard and optimal"? Do you think AirBNB's strategy to create a hotel business without owning any hotels was considered "standard and optimal"? Do you think that Twitter's strategy to create a social network based on hashtags and character-limited messaging was considered "standard and optimal"? The principles here apply to any competition, TCGs included. Stop being lazy and following the wisdom of the crowd. Question your assumptions, abandon your fear of failure, experiment, and find something far better than what the rest of your competition has. You won't be doing what anyone else considers to be "optimal", and that's precisely how you'll crush the competition.
  5. being an adult sucks

    Aaron, I'm virtually in the same boat. Same age, same networth, same kind of job, same general life circumstances, same feeling of lack of accomplishment. It's certainly not hard, in fact it's brutally easy, which is what bothers me. PM me if you want to vent and get my thoughts. I'd rather not go into details publicly.
  6. Need help making porn

    The first 6 pages of this thread were amazing. I actually did make one sex tape with the glass but I decided to just delete it instead of posting it because I didn't think it was that great tbh. I still stand by my analysis of rape. If anything, the #MeToo movement kinda showcases the point that I was trying to make. The reason that we found that there was so much sexual assault in Hollywood and other elite communities is the fact that the culture allowed men to consistently get away with it. If rapists were caught and punished 100% of the time, I honestly think there would be almost no rape. There's a lot of sociological evidence to show that cost/benefit analysis goes into any premeditated crime, and I don't see why rape would be any different. Needless to say, if the rapists did not enjoy the act, they would also not be raping anyone. It's two pretty basic premises ("criminals consider consequences before committing a crime" and "rapists enjoy sex"), and yet people freaked out about it for no reason. I honestly think if we do want to stop rape in our society, the motives of the potential rapist do need to be given some thought.
  7. Bye everyone, good luck with the site.
  8. Technically we're got another 12ish hours until the season is over. Other people could still qualify.
  9. Shit People Say In Discord

    We're currently teaching the bot how to shitpost
  10. Well, you're in plat right now so maybe not lol.
  11. Shit People Say In Discord

    ACP-Today at 7:01 PM mmf vapes, no need to listen to him Silver-Today at 7:01 PM word mmf-Today at 7:01 PM i only vape ironically ACP-Today at 7:01 PM no such thing ACP-Today at 7:02 PM do you also suck dicks ironically? mmf-Today at 7:02 PM i have before ACP-Today at 7:02 PM "haha wouldn't it be funny if I sucked your dick right now" "yeah lol it would be hilarious" mmf-Today at 7:03 PM yeah that was kinda the conversation Silver-Today at 7:03 PM ahh id be tempted too
  12. Goat Duel Review Thread

    I did a review of one of the matches between @BuildTheWalia and @LunarDarkGaia two of our lower ranked players. There are definitely lots of mistakes that people new to the format can learn from.
×