300 posts in this topic

He was talking about the chances of banishing a one-off or two-off left in your deck when you open 5 and activate Desires. And his numbers are correct. There's no need to attack him like that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Oh_The_Irony said:

He was talking about the chances of banishing a one-off or two-off left in your deck when you open 5 and activate Desires. And his numbers are correct. There's no need to attack him like that.

Just because your numbers are correct doesn't mean you are interpreting them correctly. I'm sorry it bothers you that some people disagree strongly with him. The whole running 2 Garnet thing is a bit of a meme for bad deckbuilding at this point so the response is hardly shocking.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let the top player echo chamber bury itself in more bad decks i really dont care either way, more free wins for me

 

the post was literally like two sentences with %s that don't paint anything close to a full picture of the decision to play 2 garnet

 

anyone remember 2 weeks ago when abc was still "67% dragon deck" that was "too inconsistent to ever win an event?"

 

lmao retards

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheGoldenTyranno said:

Just because your numbers are correct doesn't mean you are interpreting them correctly. I'm sorry it bothers you that some people disagree strongly with him. The whole running 2 Garnet thing is a bit of a meme for bad deckbuilding at this point so the response is hardly shocking.

 

Sure but my point is there's basically nothing in his post you can disagree with. He never offered his own opinion on one vs. two Garnet, all he did was point out that the threat of Desires banishing your only Garnet is worth considering and showed some math as to why playing two Garnet makes Desiring then Brilliant Fusing much safer. And he probably touched exactly on why Elvis played 2 Garnet, which was the point of his post in the first place. It was far from a complete analysis, but nothing he said was counterproductive, and much stupider things have been posted recently. For example, as far as I can tell, if you have one slot for Raigeki/Dark Hole in your deck you'd play Raigeki, but if you have two slots you'd rather play two Dark Hole? So even though Raigeki is the better card 2 Dark Hole is better than 1 Raigeki 1 Dark Hole?

 

@ mmf I agree his post didn't touch on a lot of important parts (which mark did a good job of covering). I posted because I thought you thought his numbers were wrong, but I see now that you probably posted those screenshots to show how useless only spouting percentages is? Idk it just seems like a bizarre post to attack because if his post had been just "I think Vu ran 2 Garnets because Desires banishing your only copy of Garnet is a real problem as well" I doubt you would have batted an eye, so you basically got mad at him for adding correct supplementary information to an already okay post, albeit not nearly as much information as he could have added.

Edited by Oh_The_Irony
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Oh_The_Irony said:

 

For example, as far as I can tell, if you have one slot for Raigeki/Dark Hole in your deck you'd play Raigeki, but if you have two slots you'd rather play two Dark Hole? So even though Raigeki is the better card 2 Dark Hole is better than 1 Raigeki 1 Dark Hole?

 

My remarks on that probably were stupid but my logic on this is that just like in Kozmo for instance Dark Hole can better than Raigeki since it can trigger effects and it's good going 2nd so I want to max out with 2 so I draw it early preferably my first turn. Raigeki however, needs to be topdecked after you have an established board you don't want to nuke. So basically if clearing fields going 2nd is a clear struggle at least main deck 2 Dark Hole maybe the 1 Raigeki  with it if you aren't already running too many non-engine cards already. Although as Mark mentioned Book of Eclipse may be the better option right now.

Edited by TheGoldenTyranno
Added a remark or two and edited a spelling error
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ITT we throw around random numbers. If the numbers were correct at least....

 

3BxFB4m.png?1

 

BGw37tl.png?1

 

______________________________________________________________

 

Qr4LQiz.png?1

 

OeLNng1.png?1

 

_______________________________________________________________

 

 

0.2122*0.2857=0.0606

0.1873*0.0756=0.0142

 

the chance to banish garnet in your opening hand when playing one is 6.06%

the chance to banish garnet in your opening hand when playing two is 1.42%

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TheGoldenTyranno said:

My remarks on that probably were stupid but my logic on this is that just like in Kozmo for instance Dark Hole can better than Raigeki since it can trigger effects and it's good going 2nd so I want to max out with 2 so I draw it early preferably my first turn. Raigeki however, needs to be topdecked after you have an established board you don't want to nuke. So basically if clearing fields going 2nd is a clear struggle at least main deck 2 Dark Hole maybe the 1 Raigeki  with it if you aren't already running too many non-engine cards already.  

 

I understand where you're coming from, but (I think) your thought process should be more like this: whenever I draw a random card in my deck, it will either be better more often as Raigeki or as Dark Hole. If it's better more often as Raigeki, play the maximum number of Raigeki allowed before any copies of Dark Hole, and if it's better more often as Dark Hole, play the maximum number of Dark Hole allowed before any copies of Raigeki. If Dark Hole is better than Raigeki and you only have one slot for either cards, you should play 1 Dark Hole.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Oh_The_Irony said:

 

@ mmf I agree his post didn't touch on a lot of important parts (which mark did a good job of covering). I posted because I thought you thought his numbers were wrong, but I see now that you probably posted those screenshots to show how useless only spouting percentages is? Idk it just seems like a bizarre post to attack because if his post had been just "I think Vu ran 2 Garnets because Desires banishing your only copy of Garnet is a real problem as well" I doubt you would have batted an eye, so you basically got mad at him for adding correct supplementary information to an already okay post, albeit not nearly as much information as he could have added.

i was hoping that on dg we wouldn't have to discuss running 2 garnets because of desires at all, because it's just so retarded both intuitively and mathematically that it should be the sort of thing we all write off and ignore outside of repudiating it, the same way we'd react to someone like running 3 upstarts in a 45 card deck or something like that

 

alas i was wrong so i posted the other side of the "only 7% chance to open with both garnets if u run 2" argument and why it doesn't work like that

 

pleasepleaseplease everyone don't waste your breath or brain power debating this retardation, let's talk about important things like whether or not we play brilliant in the first place vs empowerment, or main/sidedeck roles for hand/traps etc

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, mmf said:

, the same way we'd react to someone like running 3 upstarts in a 45 card deck or something like that

 

But my summoner monks and magical abductors!!!!!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why there are false numbers floating around here, but that aside, I figured I'd weigh in on this. There's almost no way that the deck that Elvis played or that I played at the ARG is correct. I felt that it wasn't correct before the event, and I still feel that it isn't correct now. I only chose the build because I simply didn't want to dedicate time to building or theorizing a deck. After some discussion with Elvis after, he shared with me the reasoning behind his card choices. It roughly boiled down to him saying that 44 was the ideal number to have that allows for a larger card pool, while also reducing the likelihood of drawing multiples of cards that you don't want, like Garnet, Brilliant Fusion, Union Hangar, A, B, C, or Desires. He mentions that the only downside is reducing the chance of drawing Union Hangar in the opening 5. He did not share any calculations with me, but after using the list I can say that I felt the benefits. The second Garnet won me a game as well, but only if you consider the specific 2nd Garnet to be the one in the deck and not the hand. Despite it working out great for us, this is all confirmation bias. Until I see actual numerical proof that the 44 build is better, I will believe that we played the worse deck. If you want to reduce the number to 40, I think the best version is the Empowerment version simply because it can play fewer cards and almost have every benefit of Brilliant Fusion. I also believe that maining 2 Dark Hole and no Raigeki, as well as 3 Twin Twisters was correct. People have already mentioned that they are pseudo-combo pieces but also that they help immensely going 2nd which is the deck's main flaw. So basically, I'm almost certain that there is a build that coincides with proper deck theory better than the one we played and I welcome any discussion on how to make it better.

10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been trying out this deck recently. I've tried two variants, my own based on what people said, and elvis's build. 

 

The original build I played had this;

3 A,B,C

2 Of each gadget

3 Photon ( 2 thrasher, 1 rota)

2 Maxx "c"

 

3 terra, 3 hangar, 3 Desires

3 Twin Twist

2 Dark Hole

1 Raigeki

1 Upstart

1 Instant

 

1 Vanity

1 Bottomless

1 Treachorous/ Floodgate Trap Hole 

2 D Barrier

 

However recently I've been testing the brilliant build and like it more, because it reminds me of monarchs where the amount of plays brilliant opens up is insane. The only thing I've run into as a problem( and this is more then likely me playing wrong), is the seraphinite takes up the last spot I need on the field to tag out when i have Buster/seraph/ Xyz monster set up (usually cairngorgon, this guy is insane for protection from opposing dragon busters in the mirror and against metalfoes in my limited testing). Foolish and Trick Clown are also great additions to the deck, making it feel like clownblade reborn, you could probably add the two as a two card engine since they work really well in getting the last piece or a second xyz on board. 

 

Taking Vu's build, you could take out the strikes, a garnet and one other card ( maybe the 2nd maxx "c") and make it 40. Desires will probably cost you some games or make them harder, but really it comes with the card I've been finding. 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can generally banish the Seraphinite with Buster to make space for a defensive XYZ.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone has been talking about the brilliant and the empowerment as 2 separate decks but if you combine them there is the ability to do things very similar to the brilliant deck deck going 1st except with higher odds of opening the power spells as you are also playing empowerment which is very similar to more brilliant fusions in addition to having more cards that let you play going 2nd while I'm not sure this is the correct version it has seemed to have more of the plus sides of the brilliant deck with all of the same issues or slightly less issues

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fairly certain that combining Brilliant and Empowerment isn't correct for a number of reasons, but the primary one being that it takes up an insane amount of space with cards that do essentially the same thing in the deck that results have proven to be unnecessary in such high numbers.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to revive this section as we are about to enter the extremely brief Pendulum Domination format. D/D are capable of making extremely powerful boards turn 1, typically consisting of any combination, or often times all 3, of #38, Crystal Wing, or Seigfried. When facing all 3 of them it is essentially an unwinnable situation going into game 1, but I'd like to figure out a solution which I do not have. Relying on Kaijus are fine I suppose, but does anyone have any other ideas for efficiently eliminating these threats while going second?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double post, sorry

Edited by PennyroyalTea
Double Post
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Winged Dragon of Ra baby version kills 3 monsters. http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/The_Winged_Dragon_of_Ra_-_Sphere_Mode

Lava Golem kills 2 monsters but eats your normal summon.

Double monster eff, one to bait Crystal, then one to play/special summon walk over their field. For example Eccentric to bait the Crystal. Although this eats your normal summon so you're probably done for the turn.

Go 1st and make a board+traps etc.
 

Basically anything that isn't a spell and it heavily depends on what you're playing. Obviously going 2nd you're at a disadvantage since your Hangars, Desires, Instants, Brilliants etc. are negated. So if this becomes big make sure not to main too much spells and probably main Maxx 'C' and traps. I'm thinking Mirror Force is the most obvious one, good 1st and 2nd, only problem is how easily they make all 3 including the Seigfried, so you'd need another trap such as Strike to play around that. But then again, you're mentioning them going 1st with the abso nut board, so expecting to draw good yourself isn't unreasonable. I don't think this deck can really compete for much longer anyway so any win percentage you gain is a bonus. Also unless I'm mistaken Strike is the way to beat that board so it is absolutely key here. Strike makes sure any 1 card you play goes through, while also getting rid of 1 monster they have. You could for example play Hangar, have them use Hope, you negate with Strike. Now you can search, go Thrasher+B, make Dire Wolf/Castel to force their Crystal. But yeah you'd need like an Instant Fusion or Brilliant play + main Trick Clown as well to make a 3rd push, but if you do, it should out their entire field / if you can, set up ABC asap. Or if you do happen to have Raigeki/Dark Hole/Mirror force + Strike, that should out the entire field by itself. 

So basically I think Maxx "C", Solemn Strike + field clearance will be key, or, winged dragon thing but you'd need a good read on the meta to play that over Kaiju. 

What options did you have in mind besides Kaiju's? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth bearing in mind that Sphere Mode also eats your normal summon. Though unlike Lava Golem you can still use Seraphinite's summon. 

 

In this deck, Kaijus are almost certainly correct to be siding going second over the other two options because a lot of the time you don't have a play if you can't normal summon. This isn't a case similar to siding Denko against Paleozoic either - where it doesn't matter since they can't typically capitalise on your lack of follow up play because the vast majority of the time they'll not be able to out Denko. In this matchup, you can still outright lose after dropping Lava Golem over Crystal + Siegfried and do nothing else. Sphere Mode also has problems since the standard build of D/D typically ends on 2 monster boards the majority of the time.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing to keep in mind is that the OCG had Outer Entity Azzathoth to negate Siegfried+Crystal Wing, and we don't.

 

Considering that January end is going to be DDDs until Zoodiacs arrive, I'm pretty sure you can get away with (maining) Cherries and D/D/D Flame King Genghis.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not ideal but I don't think having #91: Thunder Spark in extra deck hurts. Requires 3 LV4's but destroys any F/U monsters except for itself. 

It's true that the Lava Golem/Sphere side is very meta-specific so you need a strong read on the meta to side it, but if you do, I expect you to also side a lot of traps so that you won't get blown out after not having a NS. This all depends on how good D/D actually is but I won't believe for a second that they can consistently make these 3 monsters, then after you Sphere them do it again, except if 'consistently' means 25% of the time. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, it may be time to play #S39 Prime again. It sucks but being able to put Lightning on board facing even a #38, Siegfried, and Crystal Wing by using a Thrasher or an Instant Fusion that they likely wouldn't negate could possibly be your ticket back in the game. You'd be able to kill whatever the problem card is at the moment but you'd have to hope they don't have another progressive play next turn in the form of Trishula or something else that can eliminate Lightning.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I would negate the Instant. You may want to keep your 2 spell negations for doubles of Raigeki/Dark Hole, or Union Hangar+Raigeki/Dark Hole, but doing so is wrong because the Instant Fusion will provide extra deck acces that could out any of the 3 cards meaning you 'have' to negate it, while also your opp could have double Hangar and now you make their 2nd Hangar 'live' by negating the first rather than negating the Instant, also if your opp draws doubles of Raigeki/Dark Hole then so be it. Them having that + Instant + still having a follow-up play? That is extremely unlikely to happen, where the Instant turning into an extra deck monster that deals with something is very likely to happen.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're probably right about that, I didn't think it through enough.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this deck got Top 8 at a CT regional:

 



1 A-Assault Core
1 B-Buster Drake
1 C-Crush Wyvern
3 Cyber Dragon
3 Cyber Dragon Core
3 Cyber Dragon Drei
3 Galaxy Soldier
2 Honest
3 Jizukiru, the Star Destroying Kaiju
2 Maxx "C"
2 Swift Scarecrow
2 Thunder King, the Lightningstrike Kaiju
Monsters [26]

2 Cyber Repair Plant
1 Foolish Burial
2 Instant Fusion
2 Interrupted Kaiju Slumber
2 Machine Duplication
2 Overload Fusion
2 Power Bond
1 Raigeki
2 Twin Twisters
Spells [16]

1 Cyber Network
1 Vanity's Emptiness
Traps [2]
Deck Total [44]

 

2 Anti-Spell Fragrance
2 De-Fusion
2 Denko Sekka
2 Flying "C"
2 Soul Release
2 System Down
1 The Winged Dragon of Ra
2 The Winged Dragon of Ra - Sphere Mode
Side Deck [15]

 

1 ABC-Dragon Buster
2 Chimeratech Fortress Dragon
2 Chimeratech Rampage Dragon
1 Constellar Pleiades
2 Cyber Dragon Infinity
2 Cyber Dragon Nova
1 Number 38: Hope Harbinger Dragon Titanic Galaxy
1 Panzer Dragon
1 Sea Monster of Theseus
1 Ultimaya Tzolkin
1 Void Ogre Dragon
Extra Deck [15]

 

1) Can make Trap monster boards going 1st (ABC, Ultimaya, CDI), and can OTK going 2nd

2) Plays around Dimension Barrier because you XYZ, Fuse, and Ultimaya Synchro in the same deck.

 

And this is only going to get better once we get the Invoked monsters, because you can Power Bond Merkabah at 5000 ATK.

 

0

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.