Jump to content
Tom Brady

Who do you consider the top 5 players ever?

Recommended Posts

tichris93    667

I think the main problem in general is just listing players from yesteryear vs players of today. It's the elephant in the room and no one wants to address it, because it's been beaten to a pulp already. It's the fact that YGO today is nearly an entirely different game from what it used to be. Even the way we quantify resources in actual game play has changed due to the HEAVY introduction of archetypes that virtually build themselves, with not much imagination required. Pat is a great player, who has made innovations as well, big BA being one of them as subtle a change it might be, so that isn't directed at him, just the state of the game in general right now. And it's the very same reason he finds himself trying to get every edge he can (including lying to the opponent outside of the confines of actual gameplay), as much as he wouldn't like to admit it.

the game is played very differently but its stil ygo so there will always be comparisons.

Because there isnt an objective measure of skill, the only way people can attempt to compare is through credentials unfortunately and because of that i cant see how you can exclude Patrick when trying to make an objective list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Soul    7939
I already explained it simply based on credentials though. In actuality any list in this context would be subjective. But don't get me wrong, I'm not comparing skill level. I'm going by credentials as well, along with other factors such as span of actual play time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tichris93    667

I already explained it simply based on credentials though. In actuality any list in this context would be subjective. But don't get me wrong, I'm not comparing skill level. I'm going by credentials as well, along with other factors such as span of actual play time.

you must really value these other factors to put Dale's 17 tops 1 win before Pat's 16 tops 3 win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jhadd1996    247

I realize how hard it is to win even 1 event in ygo. I just used the number 3 because that is what you were throwing around.

My point was just, suddenly topping for a few events or a few formats, does not make you great.
Pat has been consistent. I already this is not about Pat.
I am just saying yea if someone suddenly hit a streak, I probably wouldn't put him in my list of bests (although I liked Cedric Sequerra who was kind of just a flame in the pan, and I'm sure he attempted other events without success).

------
Regarding Pat.
I don't know his top percentage.

But I would consider a few Europeans before him.
It has been a long time since I have seen them. But players like Stephen Memoli, Benedikt Junk.

When I see Pat enter a tournament. He MAY top.
When I saw those two enter. They more likely WILL top.

Like their names always popped up in European coverage or even some Amaerican features.
Granted Pat is despised by Konami America. I don't see him as consistently as others. So if he doesn't top he slips my mind.

So because you think they're more than likely to top than Patrick is and they get featured in Konami articles or whatever (stupidest reason I've ever heard in my entire life) that they're better than Patrick?

Consistency and credentials doesn't make a player great. They never have, and they more than likely never will. Patrick isn't the best because he's won 7 events. Lazaro wasn't the best he won and topped a bunch of events (I can't remember how many exactly.). Great theory produces great results.

Euro also only gets a few events a year, right?. That means they have more time to prepare for them. Of course they're more than likely to top that one event they prepared for for 4 months, and then they the event 7 months down the road. I'm pretty certain if both Patrick and Lazaro would also top the only events they entered where they thought they were going to do well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I already explained it simply based on credentials though. In actuality any list in this context would be subjective. But don't get me wrong, I'm not comparing skill level. I'm going by credentials as well, along with other factors such as span of actual play time.

you must really value these other factors to put Dale's 17 tops 1 win before Pat's 16 tops 3 win.

 

I may be totally wrong about this, but wouldn't Dale's "tops" all be "Top 8s" while Pat's are "Top 64s" or whatever they cut to now?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TFJ    618


I realize how hard it is to win even 1 event in ygo. I just used the number 3 because that is what you were throwing around.

My point was just, suddenly topping for a few events or a few formats, does not make you great.
Pat has been consistent. I already this is not about Pat.
I am just saying yea if someone suddenly hit a streak, I probably wouldn't put him in my list of bests (although I liked Cedric Sequerra who was kind of just a flame in the pan, and I'm sure he attempted other events without success).

------
Regarding Pat.
I don't know his top percentage.

But I would consider a few Europeans before him.
It has been a long time since I have seen them. But players like Stephen Memoli, Benedikt Junk.

When I see Pat enter a tournament. He MAY top.
When I saw those two enter. They more likely WILL top.

Like their names always popped up in European coverage or even some Amaerican features.
Granted Pat is despised by Konami America. I don't see him as consistently as others. So if he doesn't top he slips my mind.

So because you think they're more than likely to top than Patrick is and they get featured in Konami articles or whatever (stupidest reason I've ever heard in my entire life) that they're better than Patrick?

Consistency and credentials doesn't make a player great. They never have, and they more than likely never will. Patrick isn't the best because he's won 7 events. Lazaro wasn't the best he won and topped a bunch of events (I can't remember how many exactly.). Great theory produces great results.

Euro also only gets a few events a year, right?. That means they have more time to prepare for them. Of course they're more than likely to top that one event they prepared for for 4 months, and then they the event 7 months down the road. I'm pretty certain if both Patrick and Lazaro would also top the only events they entered where they thought they were going to do well.
This post is riduclous.

I never said the features mattered.
But yes, I think GREAT players should be more likely to top events they enter. Don't you think Pat should top 90% of regionals he enters. Yes because he is better than most of that field. My point is that Benedikt and others do top a ton of premier events which makes them better imo. Pat is very variable right now about whether or not he tops. It is hard to call someone great if they don't have any credit (other formats he was good).
The feature thing was just saying maybe I remember them more because they get more features. But they get features because they are in the top tables, Pat is often on the bubble.
And I remember players like Vincent Paglia who has a lot of tops but no wins or features. His name is on the top cut often.

But either way, if you aren't likely to top it is hard to call you consistent. Therefore hard for me to call you great.
You also aren't as exciting to follow but that is another matter.



Having 1 event means you are more likely to top????
I can colons of see your point. But there are a bunch of counterpoints.
More chances in America, more practice at a high level in America, etc.
What is this European preparation doing for them? Their lists aren't often drastically innovative or anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jhadd1996    247

 

 

I realize how hard it is to win even 1 event in ygo. I just used the number 3 because that is what you were throwing around.

My point was just, suddenly topping for a few events or a few formats, does not make you great.
Pat has been consistent. I already this is not about Pat.
I am just saying yea if someone suddenly hit a streak, I probably wouldn't put him in my list of bests (although I liked Cedric Sequerra who was kind of just a flame in the pan, and I'm sure he attempted other events without success).

------
Regarding Pat.
I don't know his top percentage.

But I would consider a few Europeans before him.
It has been a long time since I have seen them. But players like Stephen Memoli, Benedikt Junk.

When I see Pat enter a tournament. He MAY top.
When I saw those two enter. They more likely WILL top.

Like their names always popped up in European coverage or even some Amaerican features.
Granted Pat is despised by Konami America. I don't see him as consistently as others. So if he doesn't top he slips my mind.

So because you think they're more than likely to top than Patrick is and they get featured in Konami articles or whatever (stupidest reason I've ever heard in my entire life) that they're better than Patrick?

Consistency and credentials doesn't make a player great. They never have, and they more than likely never will. Patrick isn't the best because he's won 7 events. Lazaro wasn't the best he won and topped a bunch of events (I can't remember how many exactly.). Great theory produces great results.

Euro also only gets a few events a year, right?. That means they have more time to prepare for them. Of course they're more than likely to top that one event they prepared for for 4 months, and then they the event 7 months down the road. I'm pretty certain if both Patrick and Lazaro would also top the only events they entered where they thought they were going to do well.
This post is riduclous.

I never said the features mattered.
But yes, I think GREAT players should be more likely to top events they enter. Don't you think Pat should top 90% of regionals he enters. Yes because he is better than most of that field. My point is that Benedikt and others do top a ton of premier events which makes them better imo. Pat is very variable right now about whether or not he tops. It is hard to call someone great if they don't have any credit (other formats he was good).
The feature thing was just saying maybe I remember them more because they get more features. But they get features because they are in the top tables, Pat is often on the bubble.
And I remember players like Vincent Paglia who has a lot of tops but no wins or features. His name is on the top cut often.

But either way, if you aren't likely to top it is hard to call you consistent. Therefore hard for me to call you great.
You also aren't as exciting to follow but that is another matter.



Having 1 event means you are more likely to top????
I can colons of see your point. But there are a bunch of counterpoints.
More chances in America, more practice at a high level in America, etc.
What is this European preparation doing for them? Their lists aren't often drastically innovative or anything.

 

You're a mong

Also, what does being on the bubble have to do with anything? Your swiss record literally doesn't matter if you make top cut.

Patrick doesn't have credit for people to call him great? Sorry, but how many people would have known the theory Patrick has talked about without him writing articles on it and posting on here? Probably not many, and the few that did know it surely wouldn't tell anyone. Sure, he might not have came up with some of the stuff on his own (I'm not sure on this) bUt that isn't the point. He's also won 7 events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bref    276

My point is that Benedikt and others do top a ton of premier events which makes them better imo.

Regarding Pat.
I don't know his top percentage.

But I would consider a few Europeans before him.
It has been a long time since I have seen them. But players like Stephen Memoli, Benedikt Junk.

When I see Pat enter a tournament. He MAY top.
When I saw those two enter. They more likely WILL top.


Stefano Memoli sure. Benedikt Junk, uh what? He has 4 YCS tops and 1 European Championship top, which is good, but went to at least 22 YCS/European Championships (I only checked the European coverage and added his 2 American YCS tops to the count, but he probably went to more than just the 2). Topping 5 times out of 22 doesn't mean anything near "he more likely WILL top".

You may wanna check the players' credidentials, and in this case their statistics before putting them on the same level as Memoli.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spadaro 3    1581

I'd have pat on my top 5 list, here's why. So first you have to decide what criteria you are using to determine if someone is worthy of this list or not. So i'm gonna borrow from my boy duncan shields (csgo and league players will know who i'm talking about) and say that my criteria is:

- Level of dominance - Exactly how good they were/are at their peak, and how far ahead they were of everyone else. 

 

- Longevity - How long they were able to be one of the best players at the time, or even very good for that matter

- Credentials - Pretty self explanatory

- Eye test - Just watching them play and regardless of what people say, seeing for yourself how good they are (this is a little less relevant in ygo than other games but i guess you can make up for it with theory-oh so whatever)

 

Level of dominance is really in pat's favor imo. I would say he has been the best player for around 2 years now, and not just the best player, but the best by a quite a bit. I don't think there are many too many people (who aren't hard chetters) who were just better than everyone else by quite a large gap at their peak. You can argue that this is because it is a weaker field now but i just think that argument just gets people nowhere tbh.

 

Longevity actually goes against pat a little bit here. While being great for 2 years is very hard to maintain, i think you can argue that other players in the discussion for this list held their peak level for longer than that amount of time. But then again pat is probably still in his peak era so we just have to wait and see and right, but this is definitely a knock you can make against him

 

Credentials, another thing highly in favor of pat. The amount of tops he has had in this condensed period of time is pretty outstanding, especially when most people consider the game to be more luck based, i think it's even more impressive to have a consistent streak of tops.

 

Lastly the eye test, again i think this is a thing that highly is in his favor. Watching him play, talk about his card choices in decks and so on is (along with his credentials) the reason why i think he has been the best player for some time now.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TFJ    618


 

 

I realize how hard it is to win even 1 event in ygo. I just used the number 3 because that is what you were throwing around.

My point was just, suddenly topping for a few events or a few formats, does not make you great.
Pat has been consistent. I already this is not about Pat.
I am just saying yea if someone suddenly hit a streak, I probably wouldn't put him in my list of bests (although I liked Cedric Sequerra who was kind of just a flame in the pan, and I'm sure he attempted other events without success).

------
Regarding Pat.
I don't know his top percentage.

But I would consider a few Europeans before him.
It has been a long time since I have seen them. But players like Stephen Memoli, Benedikt Junk.

When I see Pat enter a tournament. He MAY top.
When I saw those two enter. They more likely WILL top.

Like their names always popped up in European coverage or even some Amaerican features.
Granted Pat is despised by Konami America. I don't see him as consistently as others. So if he doesn't top he slips my mind.

So because you think they're more than likely to top than Patrick is and they get featured in Konami articles or whatever (stupidest reason I've ever heard in my entire life) that they're better than Patrick?

Consistency and credentials doesn't make a player great. They never have, and they more than likely never will. Patrick isn't the best because he's won 7 events. Lazaro wasn't the best he won and topped a bunch of events (I can't remember how many exactly.). Great theory produces great results.

Euro also only gets a few events a year, right?. That means they have more time to prepare for them. Of course they're more than likely to top that one event they prepared for for 4 months, and then they the event 7 months down the road. I'm pretty certain if both Patrick and Lazaro would also top the only events they entered where they thought they were going to do well.
This post is riduclous.

I never said the features mattered.
But yes, I think GREAT players should be more likely to top events they enter. Don't you think Pat should top 90% of regionals he enters. Yes because he is better than most of that field. My point is that Benedikt and others do top a ton of premier events which makes them better imo. Pat is very variable right now about whether or not he tops. It is hard to call someone great if they don't have any credit (other formats he was good).
The feature thing was just saying maybe I remember them more because they get more features. But they get features because they are in the top tables, Pat is often on the bubble.
And I remember players like Vincent Paglia who has a lot of tops but no wins or features. His name is on the top cut often.

But either way, if you aren't likely to top it is hard to call you consistent. Therefore hard for me to call you great.
You also aren't as exciting to follow but that is another matter.



Having 1 event means you are more likely to top????
I can colons of see your point. But there are a bunch of counterpoints.
More chances in America, more practice at a high level in America, etc.
What is this European preparation doing for them? Their lists aren't often drastically innovative or anything.
 
You're a mong

Also, what does being on the bubble have to do with anything? Your swiss record literally doesn't matter if you make top cut.

Patrick doesn't have credit for people to call him great? Sorry, but how many people would have known the theory Patrick has talked about without him writing articles on it and posting on here? Probably not many, and the few that did know it surely wouldn't tell anyone. Sure, he might not have came up with some of the stuff on his own (I'm not sure on this) bUt that isn't the point. He's also won 7 events.
1. I have never said Pat was not good. I haven't made a list, but he should certainly make it over other old players people praise.
I am simply stating my beliefs on things. The question was asked if a period of short dominance excluded someone from being great. And I believe it does. If you win back to back twice. That is amazing, but if you only do it once then whatever you had a good period. But not great.
I mean if you say Pat or Hoban in the ygo community, he is instantly recognized. That alone shows he has influence. And most people here cannot disagree with that.

As for being on the bubble. I think it does matter. If you are constantly on the bubble, fine. I will personally hold it against you since topping at x-2 32nd isn't as great as x-1 7th, especially back when it was top 8 cuts and stuff.
But my point was just right now. Pat is just losing early, staying on the bubble for awhile then scrubbing out. But he accomplished a ton before Nekroz and he may still at Nats.

My point is that Benedikt and others do top a ton of premier events which makes them better imo.

Regarding Pat.
I don't know his top percentage.

But I would consider a few Europeans before him.
It has been a long time since I have seen them. But players like Stephen Memoli, Benedikt Junk.

When I see Pat enter a tournament. He MAY top.
When I saw those two enter. They more likely WILL top.

Stefano Memoli sure. Benedikt Junk, uh what? He has 4 YCS tops and 1 European Championship top, which is good, but went to at least 22 YCS/European Championships (I only checked the European coverage and added his 2 American YCS tops to the count, but he probably went to more than just the 2). Topping 5 times out of 22 doesn't mean anything near "he more likely WILL top".

You may wanna check the players' credidentials, and in this case their statistics before putting them on the same level as Memoli.
I don't follow European yugioh much.
And I admitted that Konami articles bias my memory.

My point was that a very consistent player is greater than one who has a short period of greatness (unless it is just so profoundly unmatched).
But my original comment also, these lists are all NA biased as hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jhadd1996    247

I don't care if events in the 17th century were top 8 cut. Coming 32nd and topping is almost literally the same thing as coming 7th and topping. The only thing that matters is if you win, not what place you come in swiss.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TFJ    618
Then that is your criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ostaph    73

When looking at something like "the greatest ever" you have to take into consideration a lot of stuff. Much of it has been mentioned here. Some point I want to make:

 

1. What makes a good player?

When talking about the best, we have to come to a certain shared understanding what "good" is. Imo there are some features that determine a good player.

a) technical play. This is very important but hard to measure. While I generally think that the ceiling for technical play in Yugioh is not that high, I also think that the difference in ability to play flawless is huge among players. Therefore technical play can have a great influence, when it comes to determine good players.

b) deckbuilding. From my experience the overall level of technical play is so low that playing correctly has more influence on success than deckbuilding. To make bold statement: a player is more likely to consistently achieve good results by playing as close to flawless as possible with a standard build of the best deck than the innovative player with kick-ass techs who makes mistakes from time to time. There might have been players and maybe even are players who are able to play 12+ rounds without mistakes and have a great deck that gives them the edge. It's just very uncommon.

c) mental ability. This is also a big factor. Is the player able to handle pressure? Can he keep his game perfect for 8+ hours? Will he let others intimidate him? Can he keep calm in case of loss? Is he himself an impressive figure at the table? Can he read his opponent? What does he give away to his opp? Those and other factors count.

 

2. How can we measure all this?

Assuming there are or were players who had a lot of all the above mentioned, they must have been very successful, right? I guess so, but it's not impossible that there are players who only play on a regional level and never attend a major event although they are among the best. I think we cannot count these guys because being great is not only about having the ability, but also performing on the highest level. Therefore success counts a lot. Does this mean that the most successful is the best? Maybe. Then we have to know how to determine the most successful. Most tops? Most won events? Most won matches at T1 events? Highest percentage of any of the aforementioned? What if a player attended only one YCS and won it? 100% victory rate. What about players that won everything in a span of 2 years vs. players who were very good over 5 or even more years?

 

3. What about different eras?

I don't think you can give any era of the game more weight than another. A player is not better just because he performed around 2005 vs. a player of today. Both players have to make the best out of all the resources they had at the time and play the game according to how it was played at the time. Weighing eras is totally random and always biased, imho.

 

4 Cheating does matter in a way...

Can we consider players who were caught cheating? When looking at results we actually can't. That is because we can't know whether or not the results were achieved in an honest way or not. When looking at technical play, deckbuilding and mental ability regardless of success, we can. Problem is: without results and looking at success, all these features and the discussions about them are totally subjective. For example, I have been to quite a number of tournaments (smaller events) where Alpay was also there. I am not a friend of his, but some of my friends are. I know him a bit. Point is, I know how good he is, how he plays and what his mental state is. He is one of the very few players who I consider actually being able to play flawlessly over many, many rounds. Most other players I know make more mistakes. And I mean many more. I think that is the reason he tops so often. General level of play is too low for such a good player not to top so many events. Regardless of cheating, I think he is one of the better players in the games history, but technically I can't consider him for the list.

 

5. So stop the wall of text, who are the best?

I dunno. Probably the ones who were listed the most here (taking NA-bias into account, though).

 

tldr, most successful is the best. Task is to determine what we call most success. Cheaters mustn't be considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A Red Stone    16
I think that people don't realize there is a difference between playing to win the event and playing to top. In my eyes Patrick is not performing as consistently as he is playing to win the whole event and he does so willing to take the risk that he might not top. I guess he has reached the level where topping isn't enough for him, he wants to make the top cut and win the event. This might mean his main deck choices are influenced by this, I guess he is trying to find the balance between risk taking in approaching the tournament and he is taking risks in deck building. Risk taking is rewarding but its important to balance it, which I think he is struggling with right now. There are players that play to top, to make themselves a name. However, it seems they are too scared of failure to take risks and this is where Pat shines. Taking risks is vital to becoming the best and it seems that's what is holding a lot of players back right now. Playing it safe doesn't work all the time, you won't get anywhere in life by playing it safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»TS Fearless    7066
I think it was Soul who said it but it really is just a different game than before. IMO Lazaro is probably the best player this game has ever seen but I think that because he had it all. His technical play is something that no one has now. If you want to talk about his deck building then sure, Apprentice Monarch, Zombies, perfected TeleDAD etc were all amazing innovations but now that the game is different and so archetype based, you just can't make innovations to that degree anymore. I think Pat's Dragunity, Mermail, LS Shaddoll, and big BA are just as much innovations as Lazaro's decks were. And he isn't finished yet. His technical play just probably isn't as good as those of the past because it doesn't really matter now and I I'm assuming he probably just doesn't care about that aspect as much as deck building and mind games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Soul    7939

Yeah the only problem is that most of those innovations lacked the traction and longevity of the aforementioned. Again, not that it's necessarily because they weren't as good, but because the meta changes trends very quickly now and decks get phased out all the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patrick Hoban    6363

I often wonder if my strategy is correct. I know that deckbuilding has a much higher ceiling than technical play, but it has a pretty heavy tradeoff in consistency over multiple events.  The entire purpose of deckbuilding is to make it so you can maximize what you can do and minimize what your opponent can do. When you get it "right," technical play is de-emphasized, because your deck can do more so each individual decision you make matters less. Your deck is more forgiving. Similarly, locking your opponent out through floodgates is the most effective means of making it so they can't play. In these respects, good deckbuilding actually contradicts good technical play. 

 

This actually explains a lot. I won more events than anyone else because I was able to get deckbuilding "right" in each of those six consecutive formats. When you succeed in making a deck better than everyone else in the room, you win the tournament. The problem is that when you get it right and people copy the deck, you can't really keep making a better deck. The interactions are limited and the power curve makes it so usually only a couple of things could have been playable. Then when people copy the deck, their deck is more forgiving and can lock you out, but you don't really have the option of just making a better deck. It creates a paradox where more in-game options actually de-emphasizes technical play, because those options correlate with a more powerful, and thus more forgiving, deck. 

 

When you have fewer options and your deck is less powerful, it's less forgiving and each option is more significant. As time goes on, the concepts they established are built on. We know more about deckbuilding than they did then, thus we know how to build more explosive decks. Their card pool was also significantly more limited, and thus they had a lower ceiling to build explosive decks. Less explosive decks means there is more focus on technical play, even though the decks actually had fewer options. This all results in them being able to get to top cut at a higher percent, but not actually winning the tournaments as often. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Noelle    5845

That's of course assuming that when everyone starts playing that more powerful/less technical play oriented deck that something else doesn't become the best as a result that can counter that strategy due to having a favorable matchup in some way. Can you say for certain that something like that doesn't exist every time? I think that would be the logical thing to strive to find out in that scenario. If nothing exists, then the best still has to be the last deck, but it's at that point that striving to find such a strategy has more merit as far as allocating your time practicing than a deck everyone already A. can play correctly and B. has generally the same list as. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care if events in the 17th century were top 8 cut. Coming 32nd and topping is almost literally the same thing as coming 7th and topping. The only thing that matters is if you win, not what place you come in swiss.

 

 

LOL and you called me retarded..... goj lurk more, clearly u still dont get it. 

TS Fearless, on 03 Jun 2015 - 08:12 AM, said:

I think it was Soul who said it but it really is just a different game than before. IMO Lazaro is probably the best player this game has ever seen but I think that because he had it all. His technical play is something that no one has now. If you want to talk about his deck building then sure, Apprentice Monarch, Zombies, perfected TeleDAD etc were all amazing innovations but now that the game is different and so archetype based, you just can't make innovations to that degree anymore. I think Pat's Dragunity, Mermail, LS Shaddoll, and big BA are just as much innovations as Lazaro's decks were. And he isn't finished yet. His technical play just probably isn't as good as those of the past because it doesn't really matter now and I I'm assuming he probably just doesn't care about that aspect as much as deck building and mind games.

 

I think this is by far the greatest post on this thread. 

I often wonder if my strategy is correct. I know that deckbuilding has a much higher ceiling than technical play, but it has a pretty heavy tradeoff in consistency over multiple events.  The entire purpose of deckbuilding is to make it so you can maximize what you can do and minimize what your opponent can do. When you get it "right," technical play is de-emphasized, because your deck can do more so each individual decision you make matters less. Your deck is more forgiving. Similarly, locking your opponent out through floodgates is the most effective means of making it so they can't play. In these respects, good deckbuilding actually contradicts good technical play. 

 

This actually explains a lot. I won more events than anyone else because I was able to get deckbuilding "right" in each of those six consecutive formats. When you succeed in making a deck better than everyone else in the room, you win the tournament. The problem is that when you get it right and people copy the deck, you can't really keep making a better deck. The interactions are limited and the power curve makes it so usually only a couple of things could have been playable. Then when people copy the deck, their deck is more forgiving and can lock you out, but you don't really have the option of just making a better deck. It creates a paradox where more in-game options actually de-emphasizes technical play, because those options correlate with a more powerful, and thus more forgiving, deck. 

 

When you have fewer options and your deck is less powerful, it's less forgiving and each option is more significant. As time goes on, the concepts they established are built on. We know more about deckbuilding than they did then, thus we know how to build more explosive decks. Their card pool was also significantly more limited, and thus they had a lower ceiling to build explosive decks. Less explosive decks means there is more focus on technical play, even though the decks actually had fewer options. This all results in them being able to get to top cut at a higher percent, but not actually winning the tournaments as often. 

This is even a greater post. but lets put this scenario then pat. let's say two players run the best deck("the perfect deck"). what would be the scenario here? what percentage would be higher? the player drawing the stones because both decks are that powerful or does skill have a high percentage? really interested in this btw. 

 

 

 

On to the person calling jae kim on his dq, for gods sake his deck was stolen lol everyone would of done exactly the same thing. dont kid yourself. and as soul said, joe you truely are a class act.

 

edit 

 

about memoli, if he's the italian guy, if im not mistaken(which i can totally be), hasn't he been established as dirty player? correct me i'm wrong though. 

 

another thing, my list was pretty accurate pretty similar to most pros on this site, but why has no one consider galileo? i think that guy is the nuts lol. he tops EVERYTHING he enters, or are you guys just doing north america? =(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Urthor    10204

Memoli certainly doesn't have a clean reputation at all.

 

 

 

Regardless I think at this point, Lazaro had technical play AND deckbuilding, Patrick has his explosive deckbuilding specialty and theory, but that doesn't necessarily translate into being a legendary technical player as well.  Lazaro had both, Billy arguably only has technical play at an all time MVP standard, Patrick's got some misplays on the ARG stream and I've heard stories about him not being all that flash on occasion, being put on tilt easily.  

 

Connect the dots?  Idk.  I still maintain that when even Patrick and Billy have such easily appreciable flaws, it just shows you the massive gaps there are in the absolute apex of Yugioh.  Atm even if Pat's the best in the game, he's not close to being a truly fantastically awesome player, or I doubt he is while I keep hearing all these stories of him playing badly.  He just has better decks but isn't anything special when playing on an even playing field, and even if he argues that playing on an even field is foolish, he actually probably NEEDS that technical play aspect of the game desperately badly at this point, when he doesn't have that deckbuilding win rate holding him up you can't just go into tournaments with the win rate of a normal mortal.  

 

Even if you're going to do the admirable thing and not cheat, you at least should have some freaky dueling skills every time.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hi i'm dm    2353

Uther is #1 at having zero creds apart from a high dgz post count, going x-3 drop at any event and also at getting punched in the face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Tygo    14112

Uther is #1 at having zero creds apart from a high dgz post count, going x-3 drop at any event and also at getting punched in the face.

 

Don't forget losing to bladedge!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+mmf    23482

Uther is #1 at having zero creds apart from a high dgz post count, going x-3 drop at any event and also at getting punched in the face.

wanna buy my deck list

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.

×