Slashtap

NAWCQ 2014

86 posts in this topic

I am curious to know the statistics of yugioh champions and drop-out rates.

 

I mean obsessions just tear your away from your career in general.  I can't name specific names here because I'm referring to people EVERYBODY loves, including my personal friends, but if you step back and look at what the game has done to them, it's actually frightening.  Like just start naming in your head the people who are remembered for tops/rings in the game in recent years and look at what they've ended up doing.  Several quit school or took forever to finish.  Several turned to full time vending.  From a doolist's perspective their constant string of month to month vacations on the pro circuit is living the dream, but you have to wake up eventually.  Or think of it from the other side: how many players who tour the circuit also maintain work/life balance in a way that can truly be deemed healthy, and do not allow Yugioh to limit their fulfillment of their career potential?  Sam is the first on a very short list of folks I consider actually modelling this.  This thread was as much a letter to myself as it is to my fellow readers on that matter.  Because when all is said and done about the ushering in of the theory age, the evolution of the game, the things I've been pondering about the nature of card theory...it all comes back to reminding myself which "event" I'm really trying to win - one that isn't two days, but rather, four years.  I can't give you stats, and due to friendships, I won't give you names, but think through the list of name players, and decide for yourself how far Yugioh - or your own particular passion - will take you.

 

I "quit" Yu-Gi-Oh (I use the term loosely since I didn't even know what competitive play was back then) while I was in college. I managed to get my Bachelors and Master's in 4.5 years and was able to secure a nice job and make it appx. 18 months into a long-term relationship with the woman that would eventually become my wife. When I "returned", Yu-Gi-Oh was supposed to be a hobby; something to do in my spare time, not consume it entirely. But when I found myself discontent with post-academic life, and simultaneously discovered competitive play, the game became an outlet. Playing YGO to take my mind away from the stresses of "real life" has been effective. So effective that I lost a lot of focus and perspective on it. No, my marriage or career aren't in jeopardy; nothing like that. I've  "maintained work/life balance" (as Johnny described it), yes, but I consider that to be a personal under-achievement. Therefore I should not be at the top of your list, Johnny:

 

and do not allow Yugioh to limit their fulfillment of their career potential?  

 

What am I getting at?

 

Yeah, I suppose it's possible to "maintain a balance" and you could say I have modeled that but I only achieved it by being away from the game and having my priorities straight. But if I continued to have the right priorities then I might have done a better job of advancing it even further, rather than "maintaining" it.

 

To call Yu-Gi-Oh a "children's card game" is entirely accurate in the sense that's who should be playing it, and those who are playing it beyond that point truly do lack a certain level of maturity.

 

My weakness at this point I guess is being too stubborn to move on when I'm stuck at eight and want to get to ten. There are some personal life landmarks that I'll be arriving at relatively soon (next 6-18 months), where I will have more opportunity, flexibility and control, as well as an increased amount of responsibility. When those times arrive, I'll be moving on for good regardless of 8, 9 or 10 but for now I still have a goal that I want to achieve in this game, so until then, I'm just ignoring what I already know to be true. More power to those who can do what the rest of us have simply chosen not to do.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that I don't think you mentioned is: Variane

 

Every card game has variance, but it is shown on a wider scale especially in such a diverse format. One cannot decide an opening hand, and if the opponent has all the answers or opens amazing, there is not much one can do about it. Someone told me a long time ago, Yugioh is 1/3 Luck, 1/3 Skill, & 1/3 Deck. Luck is a huge factor that I think you are dismissing, and the deck choices. I think you mentioned rouge accounts for only 0.5%, but rouge this format is around ~10%-15% if you take the statistics from the European WCQ.

 

The same goes for mirror matches especially, whoever goes first or whoever draws better usually wins. The skill is deciding when to play what card, and when to save what card for what time, but even those can be non-factors when playing someone of equal or greater skill.

 

On Dark Hole/Mind Control. Those are generic outs, and generally good throughout the duel. HAT mirror is grindy, so a well-timed Dark Hole/Mind Control for XYZ can put you ahead and flat out win the match. I don't see how it can be a bad choice to keep in such a crucial game (The Finals).

 

No sir.  There is so much flat out incorrect about what you've said.  Variance is an excuse for individual games (and even then only when you've played to perfection), not entire tournament results.  In a diverse format, you first identify which deck is out of equilibrium.  For this event, it was Sylvan.  Rock was played in something like 80%, therefore it was objectively correct to choose Paper.  One cannot decide an opening hand in the most literal sense only, which is to choose the five exact cards that appear.  This statement, however true, is redundant and meaningless.  You test and construct your deck correctly and "math it out" such that your opening hands will match or beat your opponent's opening hands by the largest margin you can enforce.  If the opponent has all the answers and opens amazing, then you've lost one game.  This absurd level of variance does not take place twice in the same match usually.  If it does, then you can BEGIN considering it a bad beat.  If it happens to you three times before round 11 is over, then you cannot attribute this to bad beats.  You have constructed your deck incorrectly, played incorrectly (surprise, there is such thing as beating developed boards and autowins), etc.  There is absolutely SO much you can do about it.  Most of it takes place before you register, which creates the ILLUSION that you could "do nothing about it."

 

I don't know who said the 1/3 1/3 1/3 thing but these kinds of meaningless mantras achieve nothing but the placation of players who would like to think they cannot improve their results.  The idea doesn't even make sense to begin with.  What does it mean?  1/3 of the time luck is going on, 1/3 of the time skill, and 1/3 of the time deck?  Obviously not.  A turn doesn't progress through stages like this.  There is always a combination of all three taking place.  So what, then?  The division of effort or time?  That isn't correct either.  You don't spend 1/3 of your time practicing technical play and 1/3 of your time thinking about your deck list.  Your technical play allows you to determine optimal card choices.  It isn't even possible to separate the three into distinct elements.  You construct your deck to reduce the luck factor.  They are not three equal forces.  If your hand "couldn't do anything" against your opponent's, it still cannot be called variance unless you objectively chose the correct deck.  Otherwise, your hand being unplayable may very well be a choice you made and just didn't realize, that choice being when you wrote down specific names in your deck list.

 

The next statement simply exhibits poor reading comprehension.  I never said rogue was .5%, I said the deck that happens to counter mine was less than .5%.  Rogue is 16.4%, and that has nothing to do with variance.  You take rogue into account when you build a deck.  My deck counters backrow decks, as is the nature of combo vs. permission, and just naturally has upwards of a 90% win probability against at least a two-thirds chunk of that 16.4%.  However, there are a few strategies that counter Sylvans.  For argument's sake, let's say there are only two, like the ones I've deduced, and they comprise a 2.5% chunk of hat 16.4%.  This, naturally, suggests that Sylvan is a great choice for the event.  There is no deck that leaves 0% uncovered in a diverse format.  2.5% is an amazing deal.  Consider LSR, for instance.  If you play that, you have 16% Geargia 4% Sylvan alone - at least a 20% chunk of unfavorability.  You simply choose a deck that gets that closer to 0.

 

I don't think I even want to touch the next thing you said.  It's so far from the truth that I think it would take not one answer, but layers and layers of fundamentals to tease apart all that is wrong with this statement.

 

Dark Hole is an incredibly awful choice in the HAT mirror lol.  They didn't play MC at all, which I pointed out as an error on both their parts.  There are far far too many cards that are better than Dark Hole in the mirror.  There is just no justification for what they did, as it is very unlikely that not a single one of the 15 cards left in the side was better than Hole.  Show me their main and side and I will tell you how they should have sided for the mirror.

 

You haven't merely said incorrect things here and there; the entirety of your philosophy is twisted and skewed.  I can identify concrete things I could have done before and/or during each premier event I didn't top this year that would have all but ensured my spot in the box.  You simply cannot convince me that variance is as powerful a force as "1/3" when both Pat and I are unable to identify a single failed top that actually was just a result of luck.  He and I and others in the community are identifying our mistakes constantly.  One of the most detrimental mistakes you can make is to think there aren't any just because you don't see them.  Did you see how subtle Pat's plays were in the OP?  If he had gotten his first warning repealed, he could have counted his Sylvans more carefully in top 16, and potentially made it to worlds.  Playing around warning (the penalty, not the Solemn) is the definition of subtlety.  If you don't look for these tiny things, then you start seeing only variance.  That's when it becomes easy to start talking about lucksacking.  Think about it: for it to be actually true that you didn't top a premier due to variance suggests that you are playing at a level that surpasses Pat.  Unlikely.

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you mentioned rouge accounts for only 0.5%, but rouge this format is around ~10%-15% if you take the statistics from the European WCQ.

i had no idea a color could account for an entire 15% of the metagame, can you link those stats from euros?
7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you mentioned rouge accounts for only 0.5%, but rouge this format is around ~10%-15% if you take the statistics from the European WCQ.

i had no idea a color could account for an entire 15% of the metagame, can you link those stats from euros?

You are the worst.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stayed at the DoubleTree Hotel this weekend and washed my hair with the Oreander shampoo they provided.  Too fitting.  We all agreed to say "summon the whole forest" when we Soul Charged for big trees, but I totally forgot.
 
Thought this was spooky: Last year when we shot Pat's deck video, we snuck in a scripted joke about playing only one Lonefire Blossom when Lonefire was at two.  "If the first Lonefire just gets the second Lonefire, why not just cut out the middle man?"  That became our favorite joke of the weekend.  A year has passed, and not only did Lonefire go to two, but it ended up in our nats deck, neither event we remotely foresaw.  And sadly, no, we did not cut out the middle man.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stayed at the DoubleTree Hotel this weekend and washed my hair with the Oreander shampoo they provided.  Too fitting.  We all agreed to say "summon the whole forest" when we Soul Charged for big trees, but I totally forgot.

 

I see your agreed phrase and raise you the one my friends have seemingly agreed on in one of my local testing circles:

 

"Magic Wand! Make my monsters grooooOOOOoooooOOoow!!!!"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Urthor losing to a user named Watt Giraffe who won with Wattgiraffe and had a picture of a Giraffe as his avatar

really the most important part of the thread think u guys are getting a lil off topic

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naveen/Oh_The_Irony actually met him in person at Nats, apparently he was a pretty chill guy. 

 


And yes he was played Watt

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

brb organising Luke Feeney Vs Watt Giraffe grudge match on DN

 

Best idea ever


 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was really an amazing read. I especially loved the parts dealing with insight into Konami's actions, since concrete info like that is so hard to come by. I really, really wish Tewart would post more list explanations like he did for the March 2013 list (though to be fair, it once seemed likely that a lynch mob would be formed as a direct result of that list).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that I don't think you mentioned is: Variane

 

Every card game has variance, but it is shown on a wider scale especially in such a diverse format. One cannot decide an opening hand, and if the opponent has all the answers or opens amazing, there is not much one can do about it. Someone told me a long time ago, Yugioh is 1/3 Luck, 1/3 Skill, & 1/3 Deck. Luck is a huge factor that I think you are dismissing, and the deck choices. I think you mentioned rouge accounts for only 0.5%, but rouge this format is around ~10%-15% if you take the statistics from the European WCQ.

 

The same goes for mirror matches especially, whoever goes first or whoever draws better usually wins. The skill is deciding when to play what card, and when to save what card for what time, but even those can be non-factors when playing someone of equal or greater skill.

 

On Dark Hole/Mind Control. Those are generic outs, and generally good throughout the duel. HAT mirror is grindy, so a well-timed Dark Hole/Mind Control for XYZ can put you ahead and flat out win the match. I don't see how it can be a bad choice to keep in such a crucial game (The Finals).

 

No sir.  There is so much flat out incorrect about what you've said.  Variance is an excuse for individual games (and even then only when you've played to perfection), not entire tournament results.  In a diverse format, you first identify which deck is out of equilibrium.  For this event, it was Sylvan.  Rock was played in something like 80%, therefore it was objectively correct to choose Paper.  One cannot decide an opening hand in the most literal sense only, which is to choose the five exact cards that appear.  This statement, however true, is redundant and meaningless.  You test and construct your deck correctly and "math it out" such that your opening hands will match or beat your opponent's opening hands by the largest margin you can enforce.  If the opponent has all the answers and opens amazing, then you've lost one game.  This absurd level of variance does not take place twice in the same match usually.  If it does, then you can BEGIN considering it a bad beat.  If it happens to you three times before round 11 is over, then you cannot attribute this to bad beats.  You have constructed your deck incorrectly, played incorrectly (surprise, there is such thing as beating developed boards and autowins), etc.  There is absolutely SO much you can do about it.  Most of it takes place before you register, which creates the ILLUSION that you could "do nothing about it."

 

I don't know who said the 1/3 1/3 1/3 thing but these kinds of meaningless mantras achieve nothing but the placation of players who would like to think they cannot improve their results.  The idea doesn't even make sense to begin with.  What does it mean?  1/3 of the time luck is going on, 1/3 of the time skill, and 1/3 of the time deck?  Obviously not.  A turn doesn't progress through stages like this.  There is always a combination of all three taking place.  So what, then?  The division of effort or time?  That isn't correct either.  You don't spend 1/3 of your time practicing technical play and 1/3 of your time thinking about your deck list.  Your technical play allows you to determine optimal card choices.  It isn't even possible to separate the three into distinct elements.  You construct your deck to reduce the luck factor.  They are not three equal forces.  If your hand "couldn't do anything" against your opponent's, it still cannot be called variance unless you objectively chose the correct deck.  Otherwise, your hand being unplayable may very well be a choice you made and just didn't realize, that choice being when you wrote down specific names in your deck list.

 

The next statement simply exhibits poor reading comprehension.  I never said rogue was .5%, I said the deck that happens to counter mine was less than .5%.  Rogue is 16.4%, and that has nothing to do with variance.  You take rogue into account when you build a deck.  My deck counters backrow decks, as is the nature of combo vs. permission, and just naturally has upwards of a 90% win probability against at least a two-thirds chunk of that 16.4%.  However, there are a few strategies that counter Sylvans.  For argument's sake, let's say there are only two, like the ones I've deduced, and they comprise a 2.5% chunk of hat 16.4%.  This, naturally, suggests that Sylvan is a great choice for the event.  There is no deck that leaves 0% uncovered in a diverse format.  2.5% is an amazing deal.  Consider LSR, for instance.  If you play that, you have 16% Geargia 4% Sylvan alone - at least a 20% chunk of unfavorability.  You simply choose a deck that gets that closer to 0.

 

I don't think I even want to touch the next thing you said.  It's so far from the truth that I think it would take not one answer, but layers and layers of fundamentals to tease apart all that is wrong with this statement.

 

Dark Hole is an incredibly awful choice in the HAT mirror lol.  They didn't play MC at all, which I pointed out as an error on both their parts.  There are far far too many cards that are better than Dark Hole in the mirror.  There is just no justification for what they did, as it is very unlikely that not a single one of the 15 cards left in the side was better than Hole.  Show me their main and side and I will tell you how they should have sided for the mirror.

 

You haven't merely said incorrect things here and there; the entirety of your philosophy is twisted and skewed.  I can identify concrete things I could have done before and/or during each premier event I didn't top this year that would have all but ensured my spot in the box.  You simply cannot convince me that variance is as powerful a force as "1/3" when both Pat and I are unable to identify a single failed top that actually was just a result of luck.  He and I and others in the community are identifying our mistakes constantly.  One of the most detrimental mistakes you can make is to think there aren't any just because you don't see them.  Did you see how subtle Pat's plays were in the OP?  If he had gotten his first warning repealed, he could have counted his Sylvans more carefully in top 16, and potentially made it to worlds.  Playing around warning (the penalty, not the Solemn) is the definition of subtlety.  If you don't look for these tiny things, then you start seeing only variance.  That's when it becomes easy to start talking about lucksacking.  Think about it: for it to be actually true that you didn't top a premier due to variance suggests that you are playing at a level that surpasses Pat.  Unlikely.

First off, I was just making generalizations, and when I said Variance, it covers more than I mentioned such as deck selection, card selection, skill, outside factors, mindset of the player, luck, ect... Variance does exist, and I would have a hard time believing that some players @ the NA WCQ did not experience some kind of variance. You mentioned that Variance can affect one match, but unlikely the next which I will disagree with. One can walk into an event, play perfectly and play the best deck, but still not top, and I strongly assume that has happened this weekend. Variance all adds up, and even if it's slightly, it affects the entire outcome. I am not using Variance as an excuse, but it's just a realistic hidden power that exists especially in card games.

 

If you say compare Yugioh NA WCQ to the largest fighting game tournament in the world such as EVO which just happened this weekend. Yugioh shows signs off MUCH greater variance than a fighting game. The top 8 in Melee in particular showed incredible amounts of consistency. The 5 "Gods" in the game: Mango, Hungrybox, Armada, M2K, & PPMD all placed within the top 5 in the bracket. The 3 "Gods" of Marvel vs Capcom placed top 3 in bracket as well: Justin Wong, ChrisG, Filipino Champ. If the NA WCQ was replayed over again, I am 100% positive that the results would be different. The same could not be said in yugioh for the fighting games I mentioned because last year the same players literally placed within the the top 8 the previous year.

 

The 1/3 Skill/Luck/Deck is another generalization, and has nothing to do with making excuses about being unable to improve results.  I know you work really hard at this game, and I truly respect you, but Yugioh is not a math equation. One can play the perfect deck, have the perfect tech choices, play perfectly, and still not win an event. I believe this to be a factor of variance. The winner Korey McDuffie is a very intelligent person, and has been on & off yugioh for years. He played a solid deck with solid matchups. HATs can just play is safe, summon/set a monster pass, and play comfortably. Combo decks have to worry about b.row and if this card works at this time, side-deck cards, yadyayda. According to your logic, did he play the best deck? No...so does that automatically exclude him from making a wise-choice? It's not always about the best deck. The best deck might give you the best chances of winning and doing well, but that does not always happen, and I'm guessing that's what happened to you, and probably other DGZers. Another part of variance is player skill and "mindgames" which I rarely see talked about here. It's an underlying aspect that makes the top players of this game the best. It's very underated, and I've heard how Korey used mindgames in his top 64 matches to get his wins. 

 

I don't think Sylvans are quite out of the equilibrium that you mentioned either. The deck loses to backrow & HATs going second, unless you draw a copy or two of your 6 reborn cards. Playing Kuribandit/Lonefire, then getting Sanctum'd, Miracle Fertilizer getting Ignition'd, the trees getting bottomless'd/knightmare'd/torrential'd, XYZ's Black Horn'd, ect...but many things can go wrong, and you will soon not be able to keep up once you stop drawing your reborn cards/lose too much life. Sylvans can draw bad too, which you experienced in your tournament report. The deck is really powerful, but not as consistent as you make it out to be. 150 matches is not a lot of testing tbh especially for a national event. It's a really good amount, and your effort in collecting data is noted, but I've seen people grind more games on DN + IRL together, and that is not enough, so maybe you didn't practice enough to fine tune all of the kinks in your deck.

 

Whoever asked for the Euro WCQ list: https://tcg.konami-europe.com/coverage/metagame-breakdown/  Rogue was roughly 16.4%(173/1057) of the meta @ the WCQ, and I imagine it to be similar for the NA WCQ.

-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed reading this very much, thank you for your effort. I was the Hieratic Ruler player who practiced and spoke with you in round 4. Unfortunately I lost the top that you said Hieratic Ruler would be likely to get to a Mermail player that dropped Moulinglacia on me twice in a row round 11. I finished 67th in swiss as an x-3 but it doesn't show for anything because I did not draw with him. I guess he's just next level, playing a card that would frequently be a lost battle phase or dead weight in so many situations and versus so many other matchups.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Italy

Spaghetti is my favorite food so I am mad that I will miss out on that authentic cuisine.  

italian food sucks in italy, which is ironic

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Italy

Spaghetti is my favorite food so I am mad that I will miss out on that authentic cuisine.  

italian food sucks in italy, which is ironic

 

Is that right? There a story to your saying this?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pizza sucks in italy?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah kinda. italian pizza is nothing like the "americanised" pizza we all have in the west, the good restaurants make it in a proper traditional way which you may not be used to. it's not as simple as just tomato sauce and mozzarella, they add in lots of tomatoes and herbs as well, and if you're looking for a deep dish style pizza you're gonna have a bad time.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also on another note actually related to the topic at hand.

 

You mentioned that 50 mins is a much better time limit for constructed play. Is there any way we as players could push to try and have that implemented? It seems a bit optimistic, but will the heads up at Konami listen to a petition or a mass email or something?

 

A lot of you are much more qualified than me to try and sort these things out. Like, I'd love if we can get a group effort going and try and actually fix the game where we find it's broken. I'm just salty becuase I woulda topped these euros if it weren't for time, and a stupid stalling bujin player. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious to know the statistics of yugioh champions and drop-out rates.

 
I mean obsessions just tear your away from your career in general.  I can't name specific names here because I'm referring to people EVERYBODY loves, including my personal friends, but if you step back and look at what the game has done to them, it's actually frightening.  Like just start naming in your head the people who are remembered for tops/rings in the game in recent years and look at what they've ended up doing.  Several quit school or took forever to finish.  Several turned to full time vending.  From a doolist's perspective their constant string of month to month vacations on the pro circuit is living the dream, but you have to wake up eventually.  Or think of it from the other side: how many players who tour the circuit also maintain work/life balance in a way that can truly be deemed healthy, and do not allow Yugioh to limit their fulfillment of their career potential?  Sam is the first on a very short list of folks I consider actually modelling this.  This thread was as much a letter to myself as it is to my fellow readers on that matter.  Because when all is said and done about the ushering in of the theory age, the evolution of the game, the things I've been pondering about the nature of card theory...it all comes back to reminding myself which "event" I'm really trying to win - one that isn't two days, but rather, four years.  I can't give you stats, and due to friendships, I won't give you names, but think through the list of name players, and decide for yourself how far Yugioh - or your own particular passion - will take you.  This is a question I am asking myself on the daily because I am constantly rethinking my response.  I know I want worlds.  I know I want a ring.  I know I want to put my brain on digital paper so that I can eventually leave without keeping an ounce of knowledge to myself.  But I don't want to concede certain parts of my life outside.  In-game isn't the only place I wrestle with paradoxes.

Even before this thread, I have had suspicions of well-known competitive players having struggles outside the yugioh world. I've had these suspicions ever since reading the ARG player profiles of famous ygoers. But this pretty much confirms it for me. To think about the hundreds or thousands of hours people spend on online and IRL on yugioh, which cuts away time spent on the rest of your life, is kinda scary. It brings me back to that post you made in my thread about time = money - how we should be critical of time not spent on personal developmental and career development.

Not tryna kiss ass but I respect you johnny for the fact that despite being involved in yugioh (and probably other hobbies), you got into medical school and are on your way to becoming a doctor. The willpower to keep your life balanced is admirable.

Personally, I've invested a lot of time online for yugioh. I've been thinking of going to the YCS near me this fall, but do I really wanna spend more money and time on the game? IMO unless I'm competitive in the game, the game is a waste of time. Plus, this next school year is gonna be very very important for me...

At the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves which game is more important to win. A children's card game, or life?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what sparked the whole discussion in the first place was someone came up to me (Idk if dgz or not) and started talking theory with me out of the blue.  I wasn't occupied so I had fun with it, and he just threw out the most random questions, which got me thinking about things like whether Yugioh is just two different games (some people play combo Yugioh and some people play grind Yugioh).  Anyway one question he threw out was: top 5 formats ever.  I forgot to throw this into the report itself but this was just another neat theme that made my weekend interesting.

Do things like this bother you and other top players? I try to refrain myself from even saying hi unless I know them just because I assume they get confronted by people for autographs and the like constantly

Naveen/Oh_The_Irony actually met him in person at Nats, apparently he was a pretty chill guy. 

 

And yes he was played Watt

I watched some of these games. This nigga constantly drew RUM7 off upstart, it was hilarious.

 

He was cool as fuck though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really appreciate this post because I felt you hit a good point with the deck discussion threads. I feel like I can make a write a decent post and it will get completely ignored. Great example was when I posted a combo for Lavalval Chain to dump Blaster in Sylvan thread. I was expecting some good conversation about it but felt it was ignored. Except I felt people were just pissing around in the thread saying how bad the deck was etc. So kinda want to say fuck it tbh because sharing ideas to spruce the Sylvan discussion didn't amount to anything.

Thanks for this thread and sorry you missed out on your trip to Italy.
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So what sparked the whole discussion in the first place was someone came up to me (Idk if dgz or not) and started talking theory with me out of the blue.  I wasn't occupied so I had fun with it, and he just threw out the most random questions, which got me thinking about things like whether Yugioh is just two different games (some people play combo Yugioh and some people play grind Yugioh).  Anyway one question he threw out was: top 5 formats ever.  I forgot to throw this into the report itself but this was just another neat theme that made my weekend interesting.

Do things like this bother you and other top players? I try to refrain myself from even saying hi unless I know them just because I assume they get confronted by people for autographs and the like constantly

 

This varies so much between people that there's no one answer.  Some people love it.  For instance, the most common question Desmond asks is, "Am I in it?"  He loves being mentioned, talked to, asked for autographs.  Desmond only uses google for two things: to watch anime and to search his own name.  Meanwhile, there are those who may not want to be approached.  When in doubt, just go for it.  If you ask a question the person probably gets asked a lot, they may give you a canned response.  When I first met Pat and Joe, they weren't interested in talking.  I asked Joe for advice between rounds and he kept saying the line he's known for, "the next round, the next game, the next turn," or something like that.  When I first tried to talk to Pat online, he answered everything with, "Idk, maybe."  People ask Pat how to stop bubbling and he'll usually say, "Don't overside."  There's more to it than that but it becomes tedious answering the same question one individual at a time; that's why we are writing it all down for everyone in a book.  Some day I will just say, "Read chapter __ if you would like to know more about that," not because I want to dismiss people, but this is just how to address the most people on a time constraint.  When it comes to autographs, my opinion is that if a player is at that height of fame, it is his responsibility to do it for the community, regardless of whether it's a chore for him.  When in doubt, just introduce yourself.  You never know if something good may happen.

 

Weirdest thing this weekend for me was someone stopped me in the restroom when I was about to use a stall.  Then, when I left the restroom, I told Pat, "Someone just introduced himself to me in the restroom..." and before I could finish the sentence the same guy went up to shake Pat's hand.  Try to be tactful lol.  Cutest thing all weekend was two little kids asked him to sign stuff.  Mama Lev told me that at locals he and Riker recently experienced a situation where a literal helmet (as in, mentally handicapped individual) presented this awful deck to Pat and Pat took the time to look through it and tell the guy the deck was awesome and all that, and I thought that was just really cool, probably made his day.  Champions should do stuff like that.

 

As for me, I talk about being an introvert a lot.  This means I do better one-on-one than with large groups, so engaging me when I'm alone is usually a good time to talk.  I like when you ask challenging questions, and always appreciate when you guys say you enjoy my writing.  Maybe someday when I stop sucking at cards you guys will approach me to tell me something other than how well I write lol.  That's how I'm going to determine how good I am, haha.  The higher the autograph request to "I like your writing" ratio, the better I'm doing at tournaments.  Right now all I get is the latter.  Here are three topics I think can become tedious, and I have grouped them by the day that they should probably not be mentioned.

 

Friday: What a person's playing/the current meta.  Depending on what you ask, this can be rather intrusive.  This is kind of like asking someone to join your testing circle last minute when you have no relationship with them.  On Friday, Pat told everyone who approached him he would play LSR.  "Ask me what I really think on Sunday."
Saturday: How did a player lose, if he isn't x-0.  Unless you're friends or he brings it up of his own accord, he likely wants to reflect on his loss privately.

Sunday: "Congrats on your top."  This is like being at a family reunion and your uncles and aunts asking you why you aren't married yet.  "Congrats on not doing what you came here to do" is how it sounds, even if you mean well.  Some people are content to just reach top cut, but if you aren't sure whether you're speaking to that kind of person, just withhold the congratulations.  If it's the person's first top, by all means, congratulate him.  I personally wouldn't do this for someone who is in the box often unless he got top 4 or 2 at a YCS or top 6 at the WCQ.  A lesser performance, I just give em a hug and remind them they're still the best (if it's Pat).

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 So kinda want to say fuck it tbh because sharing ideas to spruce the Sylvan discussion didn't amount to anything.

 

get it the sylvans are all plants

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dyu9lk.jpg

18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the fuck is that levertt kid doing? 

 

"lalalala, time to play pretend picnic"

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.