Jazz

How to Side in Goat Format

130 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Jazz said:

 

I should rephrase. Their's is definitely better against Chaos or Goat. Not sure whether Zoo decks should make main deck choices with the mirror in mind as Bazaar of Baghdad is suggesting. I'd err with no, as it's not a huge portion of the meta. If we want to talk math, I think maining Mystic LV2 is +EV for them.

 

I'm not suggesting they make changes with the mirror in mind, I'm saying the deck looks they they couldn't decide whether they wanted to worry about the mirror or not. Cutting Skill Drain implies they're worried about the mirror, but playing Solemn suggests the opposite(and in general doesn't make much sense with 0 Drain in the deck). Snatch Steal is the nuts in the mirror, but awful against goats. Mystic Swordsman is alright against goats, (in my experience much worse than you seem to think it is due to it's inability to apply life point pressure, and how awkward it is to play around Mirror Force with the card,) but a literal brick in the mirror. 

 

My problem with the deck is that it doesn't make sense, not that they're making a poor metagame decision. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really inputting into the discussion here but I feel this was less of a "How to Side in Goats" and more of here is a sample side deck and other cards that are commonly sided.

 

I was looking at more of a more thorough guide telling us what cards to side out in what matchups, what cards are in going first against which decks and what cards are in going second against which decks.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jazz said:

I've played against both Zoo lists and their's is definitely better.


What does their list look like? I wonder how Mobius and Solemn can fit in there.

 

It's weird to me that everybody in this thread seems to assume Chaos is necessarily linear and doesn't use Scapegoat. This description only applies to Chaos Turbo, which is a much worse Chaos variant than Chaos Control or Chaos Recruiter. I usually don't even side for the Turbo variant because of how inconsistent and vulnerable to disruption it is.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2016 at 10:00 PM, ACP said:

So basically you next leveled yourself into filling your sidedeck with bad choices like D.D. Assailant, Dekoichi, and Seven Tools of the Bandit because people were overly prepared for the good options. And none of the zoo players adapted by adding D.D. Survivor to their postboard toolbox options to capitalize on your approach to the matchup. Can't argue with that I suppose.

Both me and Tyler played Survivor for this reason 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2016 at 10:18 PM, TheAntiAntimetaAzn said:

Their backrow is only good when they have a monster, and they tend to waste valuable cards like Exiled Force just to get it out of the way. Assailant also ended up being one of the best top decks in the top deck war, since Zoo plays so many Trap cards. 

 

 

Quote

gimmicky card that'll die to Tsuk

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On August 20, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ynusgridorh said:


What does their list look like? I wonder how Mobius and Solemn can fit in there.

 

It's weird to me that everybody in this thread seems to assume Chaos is necessarily linear and doesn't use Scapegoat. This description only applies to Chaos Turbo, which is a much worse Chaos variant than Chaos Control or Chaos Recruiter. I usually don't even side for the Turbo variant because of how inconsistent and vulnerable to disruption it is.

 

Their list is hyper linked in the OP. It's also the one currently on format library.

 

As for Chaos control variants, I didn't talk about them much because there's not much you can or should side against them. They play very similarly to the Goat mirror. They also vary a ton. Against your build specifically, I side Dekoichis for Exarions and Dustshoots for Sakuretsus, that's it.

 

Perovics Recruiter build smokescreens to goat so that's a whole separate issue. You probably want to make minimal changes against that kind of deck, like simply swap Exarions for Dekoichis.

 

In case you haven't noticed I don't like playing Exarion against any deck that plays Sorcerer. I think it's a serious liability.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2016 at 6:03 PM, Ynusgridorh said:

That's certainly the best way to use Dust against Burn but even if you get rid of their stall spells, it's still not that easy to win via beatdown. Good Burn decks run 3 Ojama Trio and 3 Nightmare Wheel along with a bunch of monsters with good defensive stats (Stealth Bird, Koala, Gardna) so they can still survive long enough to Burn you out. I'd rather not take any chances and shut down half of the deck with Decree right away so I can focus all my attention on cards like Wave-Motion Cannon.

 

You have a polar opposite attitude to mine against Burn. I'm very aggressive against Burn. I'm usually not worried about WMC at all, actually. I see it as a bit of a 'red-herring', a card that's purpose is to impose a turn clock. I'd rather try to beat the clock than to remove the clock, because usually I think I have a very good chance to do so. I'll preferably use my dusts on battle floodgates and facedown cards set next to WMC. That clears the path for Mystic LV2, which clears the defenders out of the way better than any card in the format. While WMC is a very scary card to face, and it might be scary not knowing exactly how you'll get rid of it over the next several turns, it has a major drawback in that it doesn't protect the Burn player in any way shape or form. That's what I want to exploit.

 

This also lets me save my Dusts for Nightmare Wheel, if I really want to get rid of the card. Say it's locking up a Faith for example. I will also most certainly keep my Airknights in for burn, as being able to tribute off a TER, a nightmare wheeled monster, or a Lava Golem can be really clutch.

 

Of course if I really have to, I will kill the WMCs, but it's sort of a last resort for me. I want to take a shot at running away with the game. Ideally I want to get BLS out or keep flipping magician of faith to totally blow the burn player out. Wasting my dusts on WMC can get in the way of doing that, so to speak.

 

Ojama Trio is a special concern. The best way to counter it is to get 3 monsters on the field as quickly as possible, but that's not always possible. You can still play around it to an extent by only summoning monsters you would be comfortable having stuck on the field in an Ojama lock. I used to always like having at least one pair of cards in my side deck that could get rid of an Ojama lock in a pinch, but I no longer really do. Creature Swap to an extent might be able to remove an Ojama token in a major pinch--for example I could swap over a weak monster in attack position, then suicide attack that monster with an Ojama token. This seems like a horrible play, but you would get to steal a monster with it, then you get a free monster slot to drop something like Tsuk or BLS which could totally swing the game for you. I used to value Zaborg and Raigeki Break as cards that could break the Ojama lock, but I no longer side those. I also have Ring and Torrential to dispose of them if I really have to, since I won't be siding in Royal Decree.

 

So ultimately I think that the Royal Decree + Chiron/Mobius strategy and the Mystic LV2 + Dust strategy are about equally effective at stopping burn. I do see my strategy as fitting in more naturally with how I think the goat deck should be played when played at its best (aggressively generating runaway lock scenarios, whittling away resources methodically instead of temporarily(?) shutting them down). If you don't have experience without using Royal Decree, I can totally see why you would think you can't get by without Royal Decree. But you can.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

greenkappa is pretty cool against alt-win matchups

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jazz said:

Their list is hyper linked in the OP. It's also the one currently on format library.

 

Oh, I see. Looks like my build with triple Solemn. I usually don't like Solemn outside of Mask of Darkness and alternate win condition decks but it might be playable here. Snatch is a curious choice though. I've found the card quite lackluster when you can't tribute or flip the monster face down. Worst case scenario, they bring out TER or use Scapegoat and you're stuck with a snatched monster that can't deal damage. What's your reasoning for playing it?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Ynusgridorh said:

Oh, I see. Looks like my build with triple Solemn. I usually don't like Solemn outside of Mask of Darkness and alternate win condition decks but it might be playable here. Snatch is a curious choice though. I've found the card quite lackluster when you can't tribute or flip the monster face down. Worst case scenario, they bring out TER or use Scapegoat and you're stuck with a snatched monster that can't deal damage. What's your reasoning for playing it?

 

Well it's not my build, but I think it's just such a good card is the reason. I am aware that the synergy is reduced compared to other decks in the format, but you have to ask yourself whether you can find 40 cards that work better. Hold it for Tribe/Airknight/Sorcerer/BLS/game and you don't need to tribute those off or flip them face down. Some builds also main Mobius. Almost all of them side Mobius.

 

I can tell you from experience that triple solemn makes the deck work like nothing else. I think triple solemn is more important than triple Dustshoot. Solemn thwarts counter attacks and ensures game pushes. I think Solemn is almost as important in an aggro deck in this format as it is in an alt-win deck like Burn or Last Turn. The only real drawback to running solemn in an aggro deck is sometimes you lose a game to Ring of Destruction, but that's not enough of a reason not to play 3 copies of the card. It works similarly to how it works with Perovic's Chaos Recruiter build.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On August 19, 2016 at 2:12 PM, ACP said:

You've made the classic mistake of siding a lot of cards that are ok against everything but not gamebreaking against anything.

 

On August 19, 2016 at 3:37 PM, mark said:

I don't think it's format dependent: it's true from a mathematical point of view.

 

One final rant on these claims from page 1:

 

They are absolute theoretical bullshit unless we have hard data. Nobody has data on this. Any numbers you assign to 'effectiveness of card X against matchup A' are pulled completely out of your ass. As said before, we don't have any data on metagame composition either.

 

This entire thread is about anecdotal experiences and personal analysis. That's what the OP is. It's my personal experience and analysis of playing with my side deck in this format. I didn't say this is 'the best side deck ever'. I actually said it's 'quite possibly imperfect'. The OP was meant to provide insight and spark discussion about how to side in the format. Take it for what it is, and try not to go down this rabbit hole of proving that my side deck is garbage without any hard numbers or even the anecdotal evidence that you've tried these cards yourself.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we're saying is true from a theoretical point of view assuming that you have the ability to quantify how good each card is in each matchup (which is a pretty reasonable assumption to make). Siding cards that are very good vs only a few decks (i) is better EV than siding cards that are only slightly good vs a lot of decks (ii). You can mathematically proof it. Obviously even better would be siding cards that are very good vs a lot of decks (iii), but that's usually not an option.

 

The main disagreement is that you think that your sidedeck satisfies condition (iii), the theoretically best option, whereas mark and I think that it satisfies condition (ii), the worst option.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You list these conditions out as if there is no gray area in between, when there is actually a spectrum ranging from an effectiveness value of 0 to 1 for each card. You can't calculate Expected Values and make comparisons unless you have decent estimates of those constants and then decent estimates of the Matchup frequencies.

 

You're intuiting and assuming numbers based on your own personal experiences just as I am. That's perfectly sufficient for a vigorous, speculative debate, but you cannot claim to have proven anything.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No math to back this up but I always try to hard-counter a few number of decks since, let's face it, a bunch of decks out there don't even deserve to be sided against. If my side happens to be usable against them, even better but if it isn't, I don't care much. I'd rather turn one 40-50% matchup into a 60% matchup than improve any number of 60% matchups.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read my last post again.

 

33 minutes ago, Jazz said:

You list these conditions out as if there is no gray area in between, when there is actually a spectrum ranging from an effectiveness value of 0 to 1 for each card.

As I said in my above post, this is assuming that you can quantify how good each card is in each matchup.

33 minutes ago, Jazz said:

You can't calculate Expected Values and make comparisons unless you have decent estimates of those constants and then decent estimates of the Matchup frequencies.

This is nonsense. If you don't know how good your cards and you don't know what the metagame looks like, then how did you make any of your deckbuilding decisions. By guessing? Clearly this is not the case. 

33 minutes ago, Jazz said:

You're intuiting and assuming numbers based on your own personal experiences just as I am. That's perfectly sufficient for a vigorous, speculative debate, but you cannot claim to have proven anything.

No, I have not assumed any numbers. Where did I offer up any numbers on any part of your deck or meta? I am simply trying to argue that sidedeck choices that do not significantly affect your matchups are wasted sidedecking slots. That is all. This is in contrast to your statement in the OP that "we sought versatility above all else. Cards that specifically countered a single matchup, even if more effective than another option, had no business in our side deck." This is a highly illogical sidedecking philosophy that was stated without any supporting evidence. I have already provided theoretical counterexamples that demonstrate the flaw in that philosophy.

On 8/19/2016 at 3:38 PM, ACP said:

a sidedeck card that improves your matchup by 10% against one specific deck that is only 3% of the field is better expected value than a card that improves your matchup by 1% against a bunch of decks that compose 25% of the field

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's perfectly possible for versatile cards to have a higher Expect Value overall than narrowly applied cards when most of the anti-meta decks in this format make their bones by creating dead cards in the matchup versus Goat. If those cards work well enough (a statistical unknown) and cover additional matchups well enough (another statistical unknown), we get a higher overall Expected Value from siding those cards.

 

Your percentages are 'made up' just as mine are. I'm not arguing with the conclusion, or with how Expected Values are calculated, I'm arguing with the percentages you're assuming. You can't apply a mathematical argument to the real world without any of the corresponding relevant statistics.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ACP said:

Siding cards that are very good vs only a few decks (i) is better EV than siding cards that are only slightly good vs a lot of decks (ii).

 

While this is generally true, I think it's important to take into account the quality of the decks as well. For instance, since Chaos is a better deck than Monarch, it's better to side Dustshoot to gain a small edge over both decks than to side Mask of Restrict (assuming your deck can run it) to completely screw over Monarch. I would go as far as saying this statement would remain true even if, for some reason, Monarch became more popular than Chaos. It's not really about how much you can counter a few decks or how many decks you can counter; it's about how much you can counter the best decks. That's why all of us are siding a bunch of stuff for Burn even though nobody plays it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Jazz said:

It's perfectly possible for versatile cards to have a higher Expect Value overall than narrowly applied cards when most of the anti-meta decks in this format make their bones by creating dead cards in the matchup versus Goat. If those cards work well enough (a statistical unknown) and cover additional matchups well enough (another statistical unknown), we get a higher overall Expected Value from siding those cards.

 

Your percentages are 'made up' just as mine are. I'm not arguing with the conclusion, or with how Expected Values are calculated, I'm arguing with the percentages you're assuming. You can't apply a mathematical argument to the real world without any of the corresponding relevant statistics.

In the OP you said that you went out of your way to play less impactful and more versatile cards. That was what I took issue with. If that's not really what you did, and you actually tried to play cards that were both very impactful and versatile, then yes, it just comes down to an opinion. For example, I think that D.D. Assailant will do very little to swing the Zoo matchup in your favor, but you have the right to disagree.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ynusgridorh said:

While this is generally true, I think it's important to take into account the quality of the decks as well. For instance, since Chaos is a better deck than Monarch, it's better to side Dustshoot to gain a small edge over both decks than to side Mask of Darkness (assuming your deck can run it) to completely screw over Monarch. I would go as far as saying this statement would remain true even if, for some reason, Monarch became more popular than Chaos. It's not really about how hard you can counter a few decks or how many decks you can counter; it's about how much you can counter the best decks. That's why all of us are siding a bunch of stuff for Burn even though nobody plays it.

How "good" they are is irrelevant. I would argue that Monarch is a far better deck in Goats than Thunder Dragon Chaos (mainly because I think Thunder Dragon Chaos is absolute trash), but my opinion on the matter means nothing in terms of how I should side. If Chaos is 10% of the field, and Monarch is 1% of the field, then we're going to by focused a lot more on how to improve how matchup against Chaos. A card that improves our matchup against just Chaos by 12% would be more valuable than a card that improves our Chaos and Monarch matchups by 10%.

 

If literally no one plays burn, then you shouldn't side for it. That makes no sense. It's a wasted slot. But people do play burn, and is it a deck that can easily be thwarted by the sidedeck, which is why we side cards for burn.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ACP said:

In the OP you said that you went out of your way to play less impactful and more versatile cards. That was what I took issue with. If that's not really what you did, and you actually tried to play cards that were both very impactful and versatile, then yes, it just comes down to an opinion. For example, I think that D.D. Assailant will do very little to swing the Zoo matchup in your favor, but you have the right to disagree.

 

I mean, I still believe that to be the case, otherwise I wouldn't have written it. I think versatility goes a longer way in this format than you do. Intuitively I don't think this is a lower than expected value approach compared to the approach of using specialist cards in this format. This is an inferred, personal conclusion, just as your approach to side decking in goat format is your own inferred conclusion. It comes down to personal perception of a card's effectiveness value, the way you use your side deck, and the matchups you care about. It's perfectly reasonable to take a different approach, there's probably more than one way to skin this cat, but this is mine.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Allen that Thunder Dragon Chaos/Chaos Turbo is a crappy deck. I'd estimate my win rate without side decking the way I described in the OP to be about 65%. But with my approach I think I can greatly improve my win rate to almost 90%. So even though I think it's a much worse deck than Zoo, the fact that I estimate it to be such a large portion of the metagame (at least 3x that of Zoo) and that I can gain such a large increase in win percentage on it, means that I want to devote resources to it and side for it the way that I do.

 

Now if I was playing in a new incarnation of the DGZ Goat Format warring, I would expect more Burn, because @Gojira did so well with it last time we played. So I'd probably alter my side deck to include more anti-Burn cards.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Jazz said:

 

I mean, I still believe that to be the case, otherwise I wouldn't have written it. I think versatility goes a longer way in this format than you do. Intuitively I don't think this is a lower than expected value approach compared to the approach of using specialist cards in this format. This is an inferred, personal conclusion, just as your approach to side decking in goat format is your own inferred conclusion. It comes down to personal perception of a card's effectiveness value, the way you use your side deck, and the matchups you care about. It's perfectly reasonable to take a different approach, there's probably more than one way to skin this cat, but this is mine.

 

I'm not one to advocate for violence against animals, just math. Like your maindeck, your sidedeck should be constructed to maximize your chances of winning a match. There is nothing special about goat format, as our goal is still to win matches. The goat metagame is pretty similar in composition to other metagames in the history of Yugioh: There's a best deck, a few tier 2 decks, and rogue decks. Versatility for the sake of versatility accomplishes nothing. We should prioritize based on which matchups we can potentially improve the most, and how likely that we are to actually play against each particular matchup.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, ACP said:

How "good" they are is irrelevant. I would argue that Monarch is a far better deck in Goats than Thunder Dragon Chaos (mainly because I think Thunder Dragon Chaos is absolute trash), but my opinion on the matter means nothing in terms of how I should side. If Chaos is 10% of the field, and Monarch is 1% of the field, then we're going to by focused a lot more on how to improve how matchup against Chaos. A card that improves our matchup against just Chaos by 12% would be more valuable than a card that improves our Chaos and Monarch matchups by 10%.

 

If literally no one plays burn, then you shouldn't side for it. That makes no sense. It's a wasted slot. But people do play burn, and is it a deck that can easily be thwarted by the sidedeck, which is why we side cards for burn.

 

I think a Thunder Dragon Chaos deck that maxes on Metamorphosis (e.g. http://imgur.com/xT6cXOa) is better than any version of Monarch you can build in Goat but that's another debate.

 

My point is: assuming Chaos is much, much better than Monarch, if Chaos was 10% of the field and Monarch was 3% of the field (instead of 1%), I would still pick a card that improves our matchup against just Chaos by 12% over a card that improves our Chaos and Monarch matchups by 10%.

 

Of course I didn't mean that literally no one plays Burn. What I meant was that we dedicate at least a third of our side deck to counter it not because of how popular the deck is but only because of how dangerous it is. Chaos Turbo is super popular right now but I don't think people are worried about it so obviously how good a deck is isn't completely irrelevant.

 

12 minutes ago, ACP said:

I'm not one to advocate for violence against animals

 

LOL.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

versatility qua versatility would be nice if we were actually literally going into the first sjc of goat format, but in a format where you already know everything you're playing against idk why u wouldnt just go deep af on all the hate u need

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Ynusgridorh said:

 

I think a Thunder Dragon Chaos deck that maxes on Metamorphosis (e.g. http://imgur.com/xT6cXOa) is better than any version of Monarch you can build in Goat but that's another debate.

 

My point is: assuming Chaos is much, much better than Monarch, if Chaos was 10% of the field and Monarch was 3% of the field (instead of 1%), I would still pick a card that improves our matchup against just Chaos by 12% over a card that improves our Chaos and Monarch matchups by 10%.

 

Of course I didn't mean that literally no one plays Burn. What I meant was that we dedicate at least a third of our side deck to counter it not because of how popular the deck is but only because of how dangerous it is. Chaos Turbo is super popular right now but I don't think people are worried about it so obviously how good a deck is isn't completely irrelevant.

 

 

LOL.

The reason that I'm not really siding against Chaos has nothing to do with how good it is. It's the fact that there's not really a lot of cards that you can side against it that help that much. I do like the Creature Swap plan, but only if they don't play Goats. I do like the Dekoichi plan, but only if they run 3 Dekoichis. It's too list dependent. The only card that's really good against all builds of Chaos is Kycoo, which frankly I'm not sure if it's good enough to be worth it.

 

With burn on the other hand, we can sometimes take a matchup that we might be only 30% to win (if we didn't side at all) and instead turn it into one that we're 70% to win. In other words, there's a lot more reward in siding for this kind of matchup.

 

Your assertion that we should only side for decks that are "good" is both not backed by any reasoning and even has some pretty problematic logical consequences

Premise 1: We should side against decks that occupy a significant portion of the metagame and can be effectively countered via a sidedeck (because it makes our sidedeck cards high EV)

Premise 2: Decks that be easily countered from the sidedeck are worse than decks that cannot be easily countered from the sidedeck (obvious).

Restatement of premise 2: Decks that can be easily countered from the sidedeck are bad relative to their uncounterable counterparts.

Premise 1 + premise 2 implication: We should sidedeck against "bad" decks that occupy a significant portion of the metagame

Premise 3 (your permise): Sidedecking against good decks is better than siding against bad decks. This reaches a conclusion the opposite of the implication.

 

This is why it was quite uncommon to sidedeck much against X-Sabers in 2010. While X-Sabers were the "best deck", they were the best deck in large part due to the fact there were no sidedeck cards that effectively countered them. You could maybe play sidedeck cards that increased your matchup by a few percentage points, but you were just better off using that space to hard-counter a deck like Infernities instead.

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.