Guest posts by Nume

145

Duo-Decks / Re: Inception

« on: November 05, 2010, 02:22:53 am »

Lol I just faced some type of stall deck in t50... here is the result :
(http://imageplay.net/)

Edit:
And this is what happens when I face a farm deck in t50... the photon was from the oracle and I rewound it once to free hand space, which is why its in the middle rather than in pet spot .
(http://imageplay.net/)
Notice 47 earth towers, with 444 earth quanta... with no rewinding to give extras . Where's some stone skins when I need em?

146

Duo-Decks / Re: Inception

« on: November 05, 2010, 01:15:54 am »

Looks sweet, but 2 eternities in a deck that is like 90% reliant on drawing one early seems kinda risky.  I'd probably add a third to be safe.

Not necessarily. You can use rewinds to get you by til you draw an eternity. Yes, you could run into the issue of having a card you really need to get many of drawn early and not be able to keep it there, but generally thats not too much of an issue.

147

Rainbow Decks / Re: (1.24) CC? Why bother?

« on: November 04, 2010, 10:23:20 pm »

Yeah my only complaint on your stats is you skipped a LOT of winnable games, so of course your win percentage will be lower than others who dont skip any. EP and Graviton especially are quite winnable with this deck and should not be skipped imo.

148

Duo-Decks / Re: Inception

« on: November 04, 2010, 10:14:17 pm »

Heh this style has been done before, but I like how yours looks balanced and the name/explanation are awesome . Also, this is one of my favorite styles of decks. Just to clarify for people who dont understand how you can get inf steals/novas/etc that are not creature cards using this, the idea is to wait till you get whatever card you need from mindgate, use them all, then rewind a creature. Your next turn that card will still be their top card so you can keep drawing it, as long as they have/play creatures. To draw inf creatures, do the same thing except use the rewind before the mindgates.

149

War Archive / Re: Event Cards (removed from the event)

« on: November 04, 2010, 10:02:46 pm »

Nonetheless, to summarize I will return to the point: the primary issue is not with people's interpretations of how good or bad the event card is/was. The primary issue is the presumption that as a group of players, one's immediate visceral interpretations on event cards trump the necessity to uphold the social contract mentioned above. Simply put, the players are in no position to decide whether a rule is acceptable within the confines of the event, because they didn't make the rules of the event, and they don't have authority over design of the event. Yes, a player can definitely decide if something is acceptable to him personally, or to his team, or to every single player for that matter if they all agree ... but that does not give them the right to enforce change over the event anyway. As I've said before: if someone offers to sell you a car but only if you buy a house, you can say "That's unacceptable to me" and walk away. But you can't say "That's an unacceptable condition" and force him to sell you the car but not the house. You'd be making two mistakes: 1) It's not your place to do that because you don't have that authority; and 2) You are treating your own interpretation of the situation as "right" without allowing for an intelligent discussion on the matter.

First in response to the bolded section, yet again I say we did the first thing you said, and noone said we had the "right to enforce change over the event". We just did as you said in the first sentence in that we decided it was not acceptable and not to use it, personally, ourselves. As far as the car/house example, that doesnt apply because a part of the contract was that they had to buy both. That would be the same as if the event card said everyone HAD to use upgraded light cards and we didnt. Again, this was not the case, so the example is moot.

150

War Archive / Re: Event Cards (removed from the event)

« on: November 04, 2010, 08:48:54 am »

When it comes to customers, the reality is, if they don't like it, they can stop paying and go elsewhere. The payment they are making is voluntary and based on their own expectations. As long as I am not broadcasting expectations to the contrary -- like that I say I sell apples when I sell oranges -- they have no legal or ethical right to be upset if they don't like what they get.

You just said that people are free to do what you accuse everyone of doing so wrongly. Also, NOONE has tried to dictate the rules. Thats probably the most irritating thing everyone keeps saying. We never said "You have to change this! bwaarg!" All anyone said was that we dont think its fair, so we (as in us, ourselves) are not going to use it. We never threatened anyone or tried to dictate the rules. We could have just said we're not going to participate to make it what you are saying in the above quote, but I dont think any of us wanted that because it would still be a fun event, and one worth spending our time, even if we had to go againt upgraded decks using unupgraded decks. There was no obligation to change the rules. Scaredgirl changed them to try to calm the community and prevent drama, but that doesnt mean we forced it.

The community did not choose one of the options of the event card. The community chose to abandon the event card. It does not matter what the event card said; it matters that the community decided to abandon it. You cannot abandon a rule -- that's the same thing as breaking it.

In the United States, sometimes people make donations to charities. When an American citizen makes a donation of $1000 to certain charities, there is a law that says he is allowed to pay $1000 less dollars in taxes. Obviously donating to charity is an option, so if someone just pays the $1000 tax, that's fine.

Now: let's say an influential US citizen doesn't like the law. Well, he doesn't have to donate anything. He can make that choice. However, he ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT make a public speech about how he and all the employees in his company are not going to donate in such a way as to encourage other people in similar positions to also not donate.

Try to understand:

1) Sometimes the government provides choices.

2) It is legal to make whatever choice you want.

3) It is illegal to stop the government from offering that same choice to everyone else.

4) Because of #3, it is illegal to create a situation where everyone is living in a context where there is no choice. The government has the authority to offer a choice -- so it is the government's "right" to have a society where everyone has the choices that they offer.

What this community did is the same thing as #4. Not #3, but #4.

Another analogy that might be easier to understand:

If at your school you are allowed to vote for Mr. Smith or Mrs. Sanders as teacher of the week, then no one can argue if you vote for one person or the other. But if a group of "cool kids" decide that everyone should choose Mr. Smith, then if they intentionally create a situation where everyone is influenced to choose Mr. Smith -- like if they make a public announcement that that's what they are doing because of this and that reason that would be uncool to argue with -- then they have done something wrong. Why? Because they have taken away the authority of the school to enforce a decision-making process on the school's terms. It makes no difference if the cool kids are actually threatening to beat people up if they vote the wrong way or if they don't. The METHOD USED to change people's votes is irrelevant; the act of changing the context of choice-making is what matters.

So, in fact yes, dictating the rules is exactly what the community was trying to do. Well, in real life it is illegal when it comes to government statutes and it is grounds to get you fired if you do it inside of an organization. And these things are so basic and obvious to those of us who know about managing choices for people that it's actually difficult to explain. It just seems obvious.

I know it's the same for you: It just seems so obvious that you didn't break any rules. You made a choice that you were given and it seems ridiculous for someone to say you broke rules. What you are not seeing is that the rule you're breaking is not a written rule, but it is a basic rule of engagement, a basic understanding between participant and organizer: and those rules are just as important if not MORE important than rules within the event. If you break a rule in the event you can receive a penalty -- but if you become a person who refuses to uphold the basic relationship of organizer and participant, you make the event impossible.

That is the problem and that is why you see the posts ScaredGirl and I have made.

I hope this clears things up a bit.

First of all, as quantumt said, most of your examples arent actually illegal, and happen regularly, so I dont really see what you're getting at. Secondly, Mrblonde did nothing to get people to join. He even told us as a team "No need to let anyone know that we are boycotting these cards. No need to tell people, 'wow and we won even without using this event card' or 'we only lost because we didn't use the event card'". He just made one post to let people know we were doing it, and were perfectly happy to move on from there with nothing changing. I wont deny that we hoped it would change, because like I said we thought it was unfair, but we never went around trying to get people to join us so we could dictate our own rules because we're just so great and everything.

151

Trio & Quartet / Re: Nhan1st Trio Killer

« on: November 04, 2010, 07:34:46 am »

Basically the reason it does that is people used to abuse it, so now dive is made so that whenever its used, the wyrm returns to the attack it shows on the tooltip as base attack (this increases with buffs but not with the dive effect). A wyrm that has 7 attack, dived to 14, then tu'd, still has 7 as its base attack, so even though the dive doubles the 14, it still reverts to the base 7 afterwords. This also had the unintended effect of making wyrms/pegasii that are anti mattered be restorable to positive attack by diving (the turn after the dive is used).

152

War Archive / Re: Event Cards (removed from the event)

« on: November 04, 2010, 07:20:25 am »

When it comes to customers, the reality is, if they don't like it, they can stop paying and go elsewhere. The payment they are making is voluntary and based on their own expectations. As long as I am not broadcasting expectations to the contrary -- like that I say I sell apples when I sell oranges -- they have no legal or ethical right to be upset if they don't like what they get.

You just said that people are free to do what you accuse everyone of doing so wrongly. Also, NOONE has tried to dictate the rules. Thats probably the most irritating thing everyone keeps saying. We never said "You have to change this! bwaarg!" All anyone said was that we dont think its fair, so we (as in us, ourselves) are not going to use it. We never threatened anyone or tried to dictate the rules. We could have just said we're not going to participate to make it what you are saying in the above quote, but I dont think any of us wanted that because it would still be a fun event, and one worth spending our time, even if we had to go againt upgraded decks using unupgraded decks. There was no obligation to change the rules. Scaredgirl changed them to try to calm the community and prevent drama, but that doesnt mean we forced it.

153

Rainbow Decks / Re: (1.24) CC? Why bother?

« on: November 04, 2010, 07:01:51 am »

I dont remember who first made it, but yeah it wasnt me . I started using it soon after the patch with chimera hit, but I remember someone posted the idea of using chimera and ls for em first.

Edit: Since i had time, I looked back to see. I guess I actually was the first to post the idea of using ls+chimera, at http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,9545.msg146212.html#msg146212 , but $$$man posted the first deck code using it at http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,9545.msg150173.html#msg150173 , 2 pages later. I dont think I used it before that so yeah that was probably the first actual using of it .

154

Round 2 / Re: (entropy) vagman13 2 - 0 (death) Nume

« on: November 03, 2010, 06:36:27 pm »

My deck was:

Code: [Select]

4vj 4vj 4vj 4vj 4vj 52g 52g 52g 52g 52q 52q 52r 52t 52t 52t 542 542 542 542 542 590 590 590 590 590 590 593 593 593 5ogNot much to add. I had a really tough time getting earthquakes both games. The first one they came in last 10 cards, 2nd game first was about halfway through and I was able to break the one shield like he said. I got him to around 20 hp, but then he played a pandemonium which killed or rewound everything I had out except the burrowed AM'd shrieker and 2 unevolved graboids , then next turn he played dissipation shield and I couldnt power through that time.

155

Rainbow Decks / Re: (1.24) CC? Why bother?

« on: November 03, 2010, 04:19:31 am »

Err why is that posted here? First of all, neptunes really easy with this deck... and secondly, that isnt even this deck that you're using .

156

Duo-Decks / Re: Fire Rush EM? Lolwut? And also, a legit deck with Damselfly. Yes it's possible!

« on: November 03, 2010, 04:17:54 am »

Lol nice, a true pillarless deck with no cremations or novas of any kind .