Guest posts by wittyname6

1

General Discussion / Re: Skill?

« on: June 11, 2011, 10:56:09 pm »

Marvaddin, the 5% was referring to how often skill might change the outcome in a pvp match. Vs. the AI skill isn't relevant because the AI sucks. Otherwise it sounds like we are saying the same thing. But I feel match ups and luck make much more of a difference.

LongDono, to who?

Essence, as I said before, I'm not complaining. Otherwise I feel we are saying the same thing.

I don't know what anybody else is saying, and I don't think you were speaking to me but I would still like some clarification. What is RPS and LD? Is it role play skill?

Also, have we all reached a consensus?

2

General Discussion / Re: Skill?

« on: June 11, 2011, 03:37:53 am »

YawnChainHow, I don't know whether you read the preceding posts or not but while discussing it with Chromatophore we hypothesized that it changed the game by around 5%.

kevkev, I never thought about a thread summary, but that's actually an amazingly good idea. However, if you are trying to summarize what was said I don't find it accurate.

3

General Discussion / Re: Skill?

« on: June 11, 2011, 01:15:41 am »

Really? I suppose I didn't look at it properly.

4

General Discussion / Re: Skill?

« on: June 11, 2011, 12:14:34 am »

But you were saying if we were using mirror decks. Thus control of any kind couldn't be used.
What you say is true, but I think it would only be that extra 5%.

5

General Discussion / Re: spins?

« on: June 11, 2011, 12:07:30 am »

Oh yeah, I forgot. Thanks.

6

General Discussion / Re: Skill?

« on: June 11, 2011, 12:05:57 am »

Yes, I am familiar with the trainer.
Your first point about the dragons agrees with what I was saying about some decks taking no skill.

I had a look at some of those competitive decks, at least two of them take 0 skill. Scrambled shriekers and nightmares of the past.

While some of them might take skill the AI isn't an optimal test opponent namely because it's stupid. Unless it's a reasonable person playing against a stupid one, I still feel the 55% win theory stands. I'd be readily convinced given pvp examples though, as long as they aren't handpicked.

7

General Discussion / Re: Skill?

« on: June 10, 2011, 11:59:01 pm »

It's good nobody is saying no luck is involved, I'm only saying that skill isn't a big enough factor to allow the winner to come on top the majority of the time, like in chess.

I see we are in agreement. You might've misunderstood what I was saying. But what I meant to say was that skill is involved a little bit, and I have been saying that if you look in previous posts. I think your 55% theory is in tandem with the amount I was suggesting before. It makes a little difference, but counters and luck are more prominent.

Does this mean I'm forgiven for what I wrote several years ago?

8

General Discussion / Re: Skill?

« on: June 10, 2011, 11:53:17 pm »

RootRanger, I don't know what (a) BL is but if it's a tournament or something, is it possible I could spectate instead of participate? I would also like the questions I asked before answered.

Chromatophore, I suggested any two decks, me vs. any player, a reasonable amount of times. After a certain number of times playing, we would switch decks.
My skill level is probably low, The master of (element) probably has a high skill level, or one of the top 50.

The only further thing that leaves doubt in my mind is that, the master of darkness posted, unless I'm mistaken, and agreed with me somewhat. I would look at his post but I can't find it when I scroll down.

9

General Discussion / Re: Skill?

« on: June 10, 2011, 11:47:27 pm »

Ah, sorry, didn't see those 3 new posts.

RootRanger, I don't understand why you are insulting me. I just said "I bow down to your superior experience" and then asked some questions to try to get a better understanding of what you are saying. I wasn't trying to counter your argument. Have I offended you somehow? I'm sorry if I seem rude or mean, my social skills aren't amazing.

Chromatophore, let's forget the chess analogy, I still have counter arguments, but it's probably best not to pursue it. As I said before, I am relatively inexperienced and it seemed to me that all the best decks could be found on the forum or wiki. I doubt that all the best decks in the game take large amounts of skill, and luck isn't involved at all though. But if I'm told that it does, I'm willing to believe it given I can see it for myself.

LongDono, I completely agree with everything you're saying except that C, while it does have some effect, isn't always majorly game changing. Sometimes, but not consistently. RootRanger says otherwise, and I'm willing to listen. What you are saying is just about what I was trying to say in the OP. I'm not taking a committing to any opinion yet, until I see, firsthand, what RootRanger is trying to say. Otherwise you and I are in agreement. But I do think elements has a lot of good card ideas.

 

10

General Discussion / Re: Skill?

« on: June 10, 2011, 11:35:16 pm »

I don't mean to be making anyone angry, and I definitely can be convinced. A valid test proving me wrong would completely change my mind, and I wouldn't have any problem with that. RootRanger has already made some excellent points that are making me reconsider. I wasn't being stupid or unreasonable given the information I had, but RootRanger provided new information, and that is precisely why I started this thread. I didn't come to complain. I'm trying not to be arrogant and think I know everything about this game. I came here, not to get proven wrong, but to see if there was something I haven't missed.

The only thing is that RootRanger has been convincing, and you have not. However, I would still like to see it for myself.

11

General Discussion / Re: Skill?

« on: June 10, 2011, 11:23:31 pm »

Keep in mind I might have a new perspective.

12

General Discussion / Re: Skill?

« on: June 10, 2011, 11:10:12 pm »

Chromatophore, If you are saying the deck is analogous to the opening and execution is analogous to middlegame I would like to point out that openings are far more flexible than a deck because you can decide a different move to make at any time and respond to your opponent. Middlegame is infinitely more complex than playing elements, and that is why I think it's a bad analogy. Sorry if I'm still doing something wrong.

Camoninja, I think we are saying the same thing.

RootRanger, I bow down yo your superior experience. However, there are still questions I would like to ask. What about top 50 decks? It's easy to guess the strategy of say, the life rush I've been seeing recently. I still don't understand any of your acronyms. What about situational counters? Is it true that all good decks in the entire game are purely skill based. What about luck? Are you saying that luck doesn't interfere with the game at all. My offer to test this still stands, except this time I'll use a deck I though up myself, and you can use any deck you'd like, but neither of us will know the others deck. If you accept I'd like to try out three decks and they won't all be rushes.

ColorlessGreen, I don't have enough experience to say your are wrong, but I can still offer to test.

Also, aren't the decks you're suggesting I look at ones I can find on the internet.


It seems to me there are 2 different ideas of skill. Deck and playing. For clarity let's try to separate these when discussing.
My offer of a test still stands.