Elements the Game Forum - Free Online Fantasy Card Game

Elements the Game => Battle Results => War Archive => War => Events and Competitions => Round 4 => Topic started by: TheCrazyMango on November 17, 2010, 10:45:47 pm

Title: (darkness) 9270984 2-1 (life) ratchetspyro94
Post by: TheCrazyMango on November 17, 2010, 10:45:47 pm
first off, i would like to thank the haxxor shields.
Code: [Select]
5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5ul 5ul 5ul 5ul 5ul 5um 5um 5um 5um 5um 5um 5uo 5uo 5uo 5up 5up 5up 5uq 5uq 5us 5usits my "annoying haxxor monodark.
game 1. ratchet outrushed me, simple as that
game 2. i had 5 hp and he had 8 creatures. dusk shield blocked all but 1. i win with 2hp
game 3. dusk shield again. i had 3 dragons and ended with 12 hp
ggs ratchet they were really close
Title: Re: (darkness) 9270984 2-1 (life) ratchetspyro94
Post by: ratchetspyro94 on November 17, 2010, 10:48:27 pm
That 2nd game 3 damage was just BS.... -_- This is why I dont like haxxor shield it screwed us out of a 2-0 win for  :life  :'(

Code: [Select]
5bs 5bs 5bs 5bs 5bs 5bu 5bu 5bu 5bu 5bu 5bu 5c0 5c0 5c0 5c0 5c0 5c0 5c2 5c2 5c2 5c2 5c2 5c2 5de 5de 5de 5de 5de 5de 5de
gg 927
Title: Re: (darkness) 9270984 2-1 (life) ratchetspyro94
Post by: MrBlonde on November 17, 2010, 10:49:50 pm
game 2. i had 5 hp and he had 8 creatures. dusk shield blocked all but 1. i win with 2hp
Wow... that's just messed up. Blocking 7/8 is pretty sick.
Title: Re: (darkness) 9270984 2-1 (life) ratchetspyro94
Post by: TheCrazyMango on November 17, 2010, 10:50:47 pm
game 2. i had 5 hp and he had 8 creatures. dusk shield blocked all but 1. i win with 2hp
Wow... that's just messed up. Blocking 7/8 is pretty sick.
yea it was messed up. it was also the third different dusk that i played. i guess third times the charm....
Title: Re: (darkness) 9270984 2-1 (life) ratchetspyro94
Post by: Kuroaitou on November 17, 2010, 10:51:42 pm
That is absurd. O-o 7/8 attacks blocked? :o

Sorry about that ratchet, but Darkness needed this win. :) Good games, and fantastic playing 927!
Title: Re: (darkness) 9270984 2-1 (life) ratchetspyro94
Post by: ratchetspyro94 on November 17, 2010, 10:52:39 pm
That is absurd. O-o 7/8 attacks blocked? :o

Sorry about that ratchet, but Darkness needed this win. :) Good games, and fantastic playing 927!
Right..... -_-... :))
Title: Re: (darkness) 9270984 2-1 (life) ratchetspyro94
Post by: Legit on November 17, 2010, 11:07:01 pm
And Earth complains about the RNG...
Title: Re: (darkness) 9270984 2-1 (life) ratchetspyro94
Post by: wizelsnarf on November 17, 2010, 11:26:25 pm
clearly rng wants life to lose.

Whatevs Life is completely unlucky this round.
Title: Re: (darkness) 9270984 2-1 (life) ratchetspyro94
Post by: TimerClock14 on November 17, 2010, 11:39:26 pm
Yay! it looks like we have a RNG-hate-list buddy!
Title: Re: (darkness) 9270984 2-1 (life) ratchetspyro94
Post by: TheCrazyMango on November 17, 2010, 11:47:42 pm
but ratchet, remember how bad my dusk was until then?? i was blocking like 1 or 2 out of 8 for most of the round
Title: Re: (darkness) 9270984 2-1 (life) ratchetspyro94
Post by: ratchetspyro94 on November 17, 2010, 11:52:53 pm
but ratchet, remember how bad my dusk was until then?? i was blocking like 1 or 2 out of 8 for most of the round
Im not the one hating but the shield is kind of annoying.
Title: Re: (darkness) 9270984 2-1 (life) ratchetspyro94
Post by: willng3 on November 17, 2010, 11:56:25 pm
Regardless of any improbabilities which occurred here, :darkness won fair and square; congratulations are in order to both them and 9270984.  Good try Ratchet, it's unfortunate but these situations are to be expected.
Title: Re: (darkness) 9270984 2-1 (life) ratchetspyro94
Post by: TheCrazyMango on November 18, 2010, 12:02:34 am
Regardless of any improbabilities which occurred here, :darkness won fair and square; congratulations are in order to both them and 9270984.  Good try Ratchet, it's unfortunate but these situations are to be expected.
thank yoou willing3. ratchets deck was a good deck, and it was really close for the last two games
Title: Re: (darkness) 9270984 2-1 (life) ratchetspyro94
Post by: wizelsnarf on November 18, 2010, 12:09:34 am
I am not trying to take away from your win.

Obviously the decks were evenly matched as you played 3 times.

Whether it was luck or whether your deck was indeed better, you guys won.

It just hurts so much more when Life has been losing a lot and we have all these close losses.
Title: Re: (darkness) 9270984 2-1 (life) ratchetspyro94
Post by: QuantumT on November 18, 2010, 01:12:15 am
I am not trying to take away from your win.

Obviously the decks were evenly matched as you played 3 times.

Whether it was luck or whether your deck was indeed better, you guys won.

It just hurts so much more when Life has been losing a lot and we have all these close losses.
I can understand the sentiment. It's one thing when you have no chance, but when you get so close it's painful.
Title: Re: (darkness) 9270984 2-1 (life) ratchetspyro94
Post by: ratchetspyro94 on November 18, 2010, 01:16:14 am
Yeeeep and those games were fun and aggrivating but mostly fun. And yet are decks were both monos.  ;D
Title: Re: (darkness) 9270984 2-1 (life) ratchetspyro94
Post by: kobisjeruk on November 18, 2010, 05:02:44 am
Regardless of any improbabilities which occurred here, :darkness won fair and square; congratulations are in order to both them and 9270984.  Good try Ratchet, it's unfortunate but these situations are to be expected.
longcat is long
good sportsmanship is good
Title: Re: (darkness) 9270984 2-1 (life) ratchetspyro94
Post by: Boingo on November 18, 2010, 06:39:09 am
Just a conjecture, but is this a case where adrenaline is better than more creatures in a mono life deck?  Wondering if more attacks helps with haxxor shield problem.

On a different note, good to see monodecks are still being played.  I barely remembered what they looked like at this point in the War.
Title: Re: (darkness) 9270984 2-1 (life) ratchetspyro94
Post by: kobisjeruk on November 18, 2010, 07:59:03 am
Just a conjecture, but is this a case where adrenaline is better than more creatures in a mono life deck?  Wondering if more attacks helps with haxxor shield problem.

On a different note, good to see monodecks are still being played.  I barely remembered what they looked like at this point in the War.
nay
i believe they didnt go with adrenaline approach due to our own counter to adrenaline in R1 - :darkness vs :life
we lost the match but it left quite a mark
credit for this deck goes to our rookie, we let him decide what he wanted to play and we, as team help him tweak the deck to meet PvP standard
looking back, the only time he lost a match with a deck not by his choice was last round using a deck i suggested (oopsie! :s)
Title: Re: (darkness) 9270984 2-1 (life) ratchetspyro94
Post by: TheCrazyMango on November 18, 2010, 07:50:57 pm
Just a conjecture, but is this a case where adrenaline is better than more creatures in a mono life deck?  Wondering if more attacks helps with haxxor shield problem.

On a different note, good to see monodecks are still being played.  I barely remembered what they looked like at this point in the War.
nay
i believe they didnt go with adrenaline approach due to our own counter to adrenaline in R1 - :darkness vs :life
we lost the match but it left quite a mark
credit for this deck goes to our rookie, we let him decide what he wanted to play and we, as team help him tweak the deck to meet PvP standard
looking back, the only time he lost a match with a deck not by his choice was last round using a deck i suggested (oopsie! :s)
[/quote
kobis mrblonde himself said that my deck would win 8 out of 10 times against his deck. your deck was really good though i just didnt draw enough pends.
Title: Re: (darkness) 9270984 2-1 (life) ratchetspyro94
Post by: MrBlonde on November 18, 2010, 08:03:05 pm
kobis mrblonde himself said that my deck would win 8 out of 10 times against his deck. your deck was really good though i just didnt draw enough pends.
Agreed. Kobi's deck should have beat mine. And i think i said 7 out of 10 (not that it really matters).
blarg: