Go Back   Pojo.com Forums > Yu-Gi-Oh! > Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG Article Archive
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-09-2009, 01:44 PM   #1
+Quack.
BRING IT
 
+Quack.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,025
iTrader: 23 (100%)
Default New Article by Kevin Tewart - Theories are clearly flawed.

So obviously I make a pretty bold statement when I say Mr. Tewart, king of Yu-Gi-Oh! research, is wrong. Who ever may be claiming these ideas are a good way to make the forbidden list, they are sadly mistaken.

I'm going to keep this as short as possible, so how about we go to the evidence against the evidence, shall we?

EXHIBIT A:
Quote:
Whenever a new Forbidden & Limited Cards List is introduced, people usually expect to see a lot of different Decks, as players try new things. But as the tournament season moves forward, some people expect that more players will shift to the successful Decks, and stop experimenting.
Now this is a correct statement, but if it is so true, why are you giving us Shonen Jump deck list information from jumps at the beginning of the format or even BEFORE the September 1st format began.

EXHIBIT B:
Quote:
Columbus SHONEN JUMP Championship (November)
23% – Blackwings
11% – Lightsworn
10% – Chaos
8% – Destiny Heroes + Zombies
8% – Twilight
40% – Other

Austin SHONEN JUMP Championship (October)
19% – Blackwings
14% – Lightsworn
11% – Chaos
9% – Gladiator Beasts
7% – Destiny Heroes + Zombies
40% – Other

Orlando SHONEN JUMP Championship (September)
20% – Gladiator Beasts
19% – Lightsworn
10% – Blackwings
8% – Chaos
5% – TeleDAD
38% – Other

Indianapolis SHONEN JUMP Championship (August)
21% – Blackwings
19% – Lightsworn
14% – Gladiator Beasts
13% – Synchro Cat
10% – Black Salvo
23% – Other
Please play close attention to the Other category. Have you noticed it has stayed the same since the format has begun? If anything, a correct statement based off this data would be saying decks towards the end of the format are more diverse than decks at the beginning.

Take a look at SJC Indy in August. Every deck listed has at least a 10% representation in the format. But now look at SJC Orlando, less than one month after the format started. There are only 3 decks with more than 10% representation in the format, would you look at that!

Saying that Chaos and Tele-Dad even count as main decks in the format is just a scheme trying to make the theory look good. Not to mention, do you remember when Kevin came onto Pojo and said how Twilight was not Lightsworn? Well then why does it seem that it is grouped into the same category? The only answer to stick with Kevin's words would be to put Twilight into the Other category, but for some reason it seems a little weird that TeleDAD at 5% would be more than Twilight...

Now say you go by all of these numbers like they were discussed in this article. Going by Blackwings being the most played deck of the format, you would think it is the most dominant deck, despite "only" having about 20% at each event, right? Well we all know that is obviously wrong.

Next up, I would like to mention how the "bandwagon effect" and these numbers are a direct contradiction of each other, purpose wise. Apparently if the bandwagon effect means that people will be playing decks that are widely winning events, then shouldn't something like Twilight be the best, as it has won the past 2 jumps? It is clear that Twilight actually got a representation in the percent group, but how accurate is that when you are only bringing up twilight once? Is the percent of the deck being played really smaller than 5%? I mean TeleDAD was good enough to include, even though it hasn't even come close to winning any event at all.


Decks are not getting attention, even though they are winning...

Have you noticed that it seems pointless collecting this data, then realizing the decks that are being played most are not even winning, and barely topping? At the last SJC (Columbus), Blackwing was the most played deck, yet the farthest it got was 4th place, and I believe only 2 of them actually made it to the top 16. Now doesn't that sound as if you should not pay attention to the most played decks at all at this point? Of course it is important to look at these numbers from time to time to make sure the winning deck is not also the most used deck, but at this point the interpretation of this data is reliant on knowing what decks have been most successful at past Shonen Jump Championships.


Paying attention to new sets

Ever think of why Zombies were suddenly played so much at SJC Columbus? Well the reason is obvious, BRIONAC! This powerhouse synchro is clearly making zombies one of the top decks now, unlike before the release of Hidden Arsenal.

But wait a second, didn't you just say that there is a more variety of decks at the beginning of the format because people were experimenting? Well people experimented at SJC Columbus, and they were successful. If Konami left Brionac at 3, there would be some cause for concern that they are not necessarily looking at Japan's metagame, the metagame that is a few months into the future from ours. What I am concerned about is a lack of correct analysis on how Absolute Powerforce and other upcoming sets will affect our state of the game. With this set coming out very close to the ban list change, do you plan on either A, looking at the Japan metagame at this point, or B, not look at it and risk having a Brionac/Zombie incident again. Now it is uncertain what will exactly go on at SJC LA (the next Jump), but I am pretty convinced that Zombies will be taking or placing even stronger than they did at SJC Columbus.


tl;dr: Read the above.




****DISCLAIMER: I did not read this through once, I am typing this as I go through the articles. Please do not jump as soon as you see something that looks wrong, because I am sure I meant otherwise. Please point it out and I will address it to show what I actually wanted to say.****
__________________
BRING IT
+Quack. is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 01:54 PM   #2
Zoomer3989
Ferroequinologist
 
Zoomer3989's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 8,812
iTrader: 133 (99%)
Default

What exactly is your thesis / the purpose of this response? It is somewhat unclear after having read it. Are you generally trying to explain why Konami's standards of analysis are flawed?


/acting like a teacher.
__________________
http://www.pojo.biz/board/showthread.php?t=964406

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mage Master View Post
So, are you open to any sort of argument against your beliefs or can I just lock this because it isn't going anywhere?

Let me know.
Zoomer3989 is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 01:56 PM   #3
+Quack.
BRING IT
 
+Quack.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,025
iTrader: 23 (100%)
Default

Can you read? I am not writing an essay...

The title of the thread is: New Article by Kevin Tewart: THEORIES ARE CLEARLY FLAWED.

I am saying the theories discussed in the article are flawed. The content below the first few lines explains what is flawed and how.
__________________
BRING IT
+Quack. is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 02:16 PM   #4
ssj_duelist
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 28,314
iTrader: 33 (100%)
Default

Statistics and deck attandances should NOT be used to determin the banlist. The winning decks should.

Twlight IS ******* LS. No debate.

Also to Kevin; Heavy, BLS and Solemn are not more broken than DAD and JD. Seriously WTF.
ssj_duelist is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 02:22 PM   #5
+Quack.
BRING IT
 
+Quack.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,025
iTrader: 23 (100%)
Default

He proved it himself that LS is Twilight in his statistics, unless Twilight was represented at less than 5% at each jump except the last one some how.
__________________
BRING IT
+Quack. is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 02:27 PM   #6
Dark Marik 07
Mind Control Master
 
Dark Marik 07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ohio- Akron
Posts: 8,451
iTrader: 273 (100%)
Default

woot i was one of the 64.4 people playing Zombies at SJC Columbus lol

Additional Comment:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj_duelist View Post
Statistics and deck attandances should NOT be used to determin the banlist. The winning decks should.

Twlight IS ******* LS. No debate.

Also to Kevin; Heavy, BLS and Solemn are not more broken than DAD and JD. Seriously WTF.
i honestly believe Judgment Dragon > Black Luster Solider, BLS is just more splash-able.
__________________

Last edited by Dark Marik 07 : 12-09-2009 at 02:27 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Dark Marik 07 is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 02:27 PM   #7
Yussa Tampon
4$hl3y T1$d4l3
 
Yussa Tampon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SE Bakalakadaka St Age: 12
Posts: 19,148
iTrader: 17 (100%)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Marik 07 View Post
woot i was one of the 64.4 people playing Zombies at SJC Columbus lol
I was 0.69 of a people playing Zombies at SJC Columbus.
__________________
Be nice to nurses
We choose your catheter size
We choose your needle size
We choose your diaper size
Yussa Tampon is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 02:28 PM   #8
Mark Howard
DFTBA ( ・へ・)
 
Mark Howard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 14,049
iTrader: 0
Default

"Twilight" decks are listed under Chaos.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverwish View Post
If you wanna look pro, you gotta play like you're a drunk lumberjack. Put your deck sideways, upside-down, diagonal, in the field card zone, outside the mat, on the opponent's mat, HEY! That's what the pros do, man!
Mark Howard is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 02:28 PM   #9
DmageW
It's Over for You!
 
DmageW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Where da hood at?
Posts: 5,742
iTrader: 86 (97%)
Default

inb4kevintewartistakingrevengeonyugiohafterbeingfi redfromupperdeckseveralyearsago.
DmageW is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 02:29 PM   #10
ssj_duelist
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 28,314
iTrader: 33 (100%)
Default

inb4modsflocktodefendkonami
ssj_duelist is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 02:43 PM   #11
xXMechachuXx
-o-o-JudgeMan-o-o-
 
xXMechachuXx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lodi, CA
Posts: 943
iTrader: 5 (100%)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DmageW View Post
inb4kevintewartistakingrevengeonyugiohafterbeingfi redfromupperdeckseveralyearsago.
well, we did get dark rabbit and shine castle as a rares in the last set. That was a nice little zing to the yugioh competitive player community.

Last edited by xXMechachuXx : 12-09-2009 at 03:51 PM.
xXMechachuXx is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 03:07 PM   #12
LIGHTWARRIORG
Desbear
 
LIGHTWARRIORG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,109
iTrader: 9 (100%)
Default

Actually Quack, a vast majority of what you say here is flawed. Let's count the ways.

1. You imply that the Forbidden List is based entirely on statistics. That would be a foolish statement to even think or believe let alone put to paper and claim as truth. If that was the case, there's no way that Card of Safe Return would have been Forbidden in September, and One for One would have been the last thing on anyone's mind.

2. You flat out say that the information is presented in a misleading manner, going so far as to claim that the article is intentionally misrepresenting the information to make "the theory look good." Here are some real facts: Twilight was never grouped in with Lightsworn. It doesn't appear in the Top 5 Decks for Indy, Orlando, or Austin because not enough people played it for it to make up more of the field than any of the specific Decks listed. No one ever said Chaos or TeleDAD were main Decks in the format, though I would personally argue that Chaos is. The article says that Chaos and TeleDAD were among the top 5 most played Decks at that event. Quit lying to people.

3. You're intentionally misrepresenting what the section on the bandwagon effect is saying. The segment outlining the potential catastrophic consequences of the bandwagon effect assumes a very significant change in the legal card pool and its potential implications. Your statement ignores this and claims that Kevin is saying that the bandwagon effect is happening right now, even though right beneath that section in the "Trends" section the very first sentence is "Fortunately, there's no indication of any bandwagon effect currently in place." I'm not sure "(you) meant otherwise". I am sure you're intentionally trying to make Konami R&D look foolish. Why? I have no idea.

4. The assertion that we should not even pay attention to the most played Decks is obviously absurd, but for the sake of providing a poper refutation: We should, and do, pay attention to every single Deck that gets played regardless of whether or not it wins. This is important information for far more than deciding what the Forbidden List will be or what to reprint or whether or not a format is "healthy." Ignoring the most played Decks would be negligent.

5. It is true that the most experimentation occurs at the start of the format. The fact that we are still seeing experimentation in Columbus, based off new introductions to the card pool, means that good cards are being released and players are trying them out. This is excellent from a competitive, casual, and business standpoint. We like releasing good, playable cards. We really honestly do.

So Quack, keeping in mind that your diatribe against Kevin and the article he wrote is factually inaccurate and intentionally misleading, what do you have to say for yourself?
LIGHTWARRIORG is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 03:30 PM   #13
uncsteve53
Pojo Veteran
 
uncsteve53's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North Carolina
Age: 30
Posts: 4,300
iTrader: 53 (98%)
Default

Yeah, I think we all agree Kevin is incompetent and the game got a lot better after he got canned.

Why he got hired by Konami, I'll never understand.
uncsteve53 is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 03:59 PM   #14
Blackstream
I DRINK FIRE WATER
 
Blackstream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 505
iTrader: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncsteve53 View Post
Yeah, I think we all agree Kevin is incompetent and the game got a lot better after he got canned.

Why he got hired by Konami, I'll never understand.
So "we all" means "roughly half of pojo" now?

I for one do not find Kevin to be incompetent. In fact, I feel that the article being discussed here is the best article written for the strategy site so far. Kevin used factual data to support his points and draw neat, logical conclusions. It was easy to follow his train of thought and he provided to the reader a look into the thought processes of R&D

The main problem I have with Quack's response to the article is his interpretation of the deck statistics. For instance, he says that:
Quote:
Saying that Chaos and Tele-Dad even count as main decks in the format is just a scheme trying to make the theory look good.
No one is counting decks as "main decks" or "non-main decks" based on oppinion of relevancy to top8's.
The decks not included in the Other section are those which were played by a percentage of the tournament attendees, numbering 5% or greater.

These numbers are facts, not a scheme to make things look good.
Although conspiracy theories are fun and all, I'd advise against them, as they tend to skew one's view of reality away from an accurate one.
__________________

Blackstream is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 04:01 PM   #15
Bonjwa
Pojo Veteran
 
Bonjwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 12,101
iTrader: 200 (100%)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncsteve53 View Post
Yeah, I think we all agree Kevin is incompetent and the game got a lot better after he got canned.

Why he got hired by Konami, I'll never understand.
I don't know how he can be allowed to go on with his rants about things like heavy storm on dgz and the ban list.
__________________
0275-8340-7377
In game name is Saiko
Trainer Shiny Value: 190

XY Thread http://www.pojo.biz/board/showthread.php?t=1159976
Bonjwa is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 04:59 PM   #16
Never4ever
Faaip De Oaid
 
Never4ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 3,540
iTrader: 1 (100%)
Default

I was going to say something mean & condescending, belittling you kids for being childish & ignorant. But you know what? Screw it. Kids will be kids and Pojo will be Pojo.

The OP puts forward a decent article, but people are still just bashing Tewarts article for the sake of needing to be better than the man. It's almost like the lot of you tykes are just envious of his position. Everyone who bashed the article has skimmed it, taking bits they did not like & attacking the author, rather than actually presenting anything more than their very flawed opinion as fact.

Children, face facts. Yu-Gi-Oh isn't the game you want it to be, it never will be. No amount of childish antics will change that. And thank god you guys aren't in charge. None of you are knowledgable in the game, none have actually done anything note worthy and not one of you anti-Upper Deck / Konami / Establishment individuals have presented a half-way decent point.

Just more ranting & raving from silly kids.

Additional Comment:

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIGHTWARRIORG View Post
Actually Quack, a vast majority of what you say here is flawed. Let's count the ways.


So Quack, keeping in mind that your diatribe against Kevin and the article he wrote is factually inaccurate and intentionally misleading, what do you have to say for yourself?
At first I was like "FINALLY, ONE OF THESE CHILDREN UNDERSTAND~!!" Then I realized that you too were an adult :-/

Last edited by Never4ever : 12-09-2009 at 04:59 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Never4ever is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 06:00 PM   #17
+Quack.
BRING IT
 
+Quack.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,025
iTrader: 23 (100%)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIGHTWARRIORG View Post
Actually Quack, a vast majority of what you say here is flawed. Let's count the ways.

1. You imply that the Forbidden List is based entirely on statistics. That would be a foolish statement to even think or believe let alone put to paper and claim as truth. If that was the case, there's no way that Card of Safe Return would have been Forbidden in September, and One for One would have been the last thing on anyone's mind.

2. You flat out say that the information is presented in a misleading manner, going so far as to claim that the article is intentionally misrepresenting the information to make "the theory look good." Here are some real facts: Twilight was never grouped in with Lightsworn. It doesn't appear in the Top 5 Decks for Indy, Orlando, or Austin because not enough people played it for it to make up more of the field than any of the specific Decks listed. No one ever said Chaos or TeleDAD were main Decks in the format, though I would personally argue that Chaos is. The article says that Chaos and TeleDAD were among the top 5 most played Decks at that event. Quit lying to people.

3. You're intentionally misrepresenting what the section on the bandwagon effect is saying. The segment outlining the potential catastrophic consequences of the bandwagon effect assumes a very significantial implications. Your statement ignores this and claims that Kevin is saying that the bandwagon effect is happening right now, even though right beneath that section in the "Trends" section the very first sentence is "Fortunately, there's no int change in the legal card pool and its potendication of any bandwagon effect currently in place." I'm not sure "(you) meant otherwise". I am sure you're intentionally trying to make Konami R&D look foolish. Why? I have no idea.

4. The assertion that we should not even pay attention to the most played Decks is obviously absurd, but for the sake of providing a poper refutation: We should, and do, pay attention to every single Deck that gets played regardless of whether or not it wins. This is important information for far more than deciding what the Forbidden List will be or what to reprint or whether or not a format is "healthy." Ignoring the most played Decks would be negligent.

5. It is true that the most experimentation occurs at the start of the format. The fact that we are still seeing experimentation in Columbus, based off new introductions to the card pool, means that good cards are being released and players are trying them out. This is excellent from a competitive, casual, and business standpoint. We like releasing good, playable cards. We really honestly do.

So Quack, keeping in mind that your diatribe against Kevin and the article he wrote is factually inaccurate and intentionally misleading, what do you have to say for yourself?
Heh, you act like everything you just said is quotes from the bible or something.

1. Kevin comes on here all the time and brags about how much data Konami has and uses to make different decisions. Of course it is not the only thing that determines it, it is a major part (now at least, I think we can all agree that when UDE had little to no influence on the ban list, this game was better off).

2. According to the article, the top decks of the format would be the most played. And I'm not lying to anyone, stop being so hostile and go back to your failure company that is UDE. If anything, all of you have done the bandwagon effect: trying to stay with Yu-Gi-Oh! for employment because you have nothing better to do with yourself. Many times I put question marks stating that I do not know whether Twilight was grouped in or not, but it seems kind of odd that Twilight randomly gets 8% influence after not even appearing at the jump it won. Somehow I think it had to have gotten a little more than 5%, unless it was omitted even though it had more than 5%, for sake of argument.

3.
Quote:
he segment outlining the potential catastrophic consequences of the bandwagon effect assumes a very significantial implications.
What? Use real words and I will reply to this one...

4. I am saying, according to these theories, it seems that you are paying more attention to the most played deck, even though it is the one that is not winning.

5. I hope you didn't think I meant Stardust Overdrive was being experimented with by people that actually expected to do good LOL. I meant only Hidden Arsenal, and although that is a good thing, the article makes it seem like the beginning of the format is where things are kind of crazy when determining a top deck. When in reality the top deck(s) could constantly change due to new cards coming out mid-format.


What I am actually trying to say in all of this is that you can not simply write an article or explanation about the ban list and expect everyone to understand. There are a TON of exceptions and differences that go on in each list. This article was begging to start ****, this should have been expected.


To everyone talking about main decks and percentage representations: If the decks could be put with a percentage, I consider them one of the main decks at that time. GBs were one of the main decks at a point, although they failed miserably. But that can be compared to BWs now, they are barely doing anything, yet people are still massively playing them.


Also, stop bashing Kevin please. This will get locked...
__________________
BRING IT
+Quack. is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 06:15 PM   #18
Anteres
Black_and_White
 
Anteres's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: High Contrast
Age: 21
Posts: 1,437
iTrader: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by +Quack. View Post
3.

What? Use real words and I will reply to this one...
i may just be some schmuck who's jumping in, but what the hell happened here? epilepsy?
Anteres is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 06:18 PM   #19
+Quack.
BRING IT
 
+Quack.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,025
iTrader: 23 (100%)
Default

I hope you aren't referring to my post, because try actually reading this

he segment outlining the potential catastrophic consequences of the bandwagon effect assumes a very significantial implications.

He edited his post or something... I'll respond to 3 later.
__________________
BRING IT
+Quack. is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 06:19 PM   #20
Blackstream
I DRINK FIRE WATER
 
Blackstream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 505
iTrader: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anteres View Post
i may just be some schmuck who's jumping in, but what the hell happened here? epilepsy?
Quack saw that lightwarriorg said "significantial" and therefore refused to respond.
o.O
__________________

Blackstream is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 06:20 PM   #21
+Quack.
BRING IT
 
+Quack.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,025
iTrader: 23 (100%)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackstream View Post
Quack saw that lightwarriorg said "significantial" and therefore refused to respond.
o.O
try to decipher what this means

the segment outlining the potential catastrophic consequences of the bandwagon effect assumes a very significantial implications.
__________________
BRING IT
+Quack. is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 06:26 PM   #22
Blackstream
I DRINK FIRE WATER
 
Blackstream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 505
iTrader: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by +Quack. View Post
try to decipher what this means

the segment outlining the potential catastrophic consequences of the bandwagon effect assumes a very significantial implications.
you can tell he meant to say that it assumes very significant implications.

the human mind is capable of deriving the correct meaning from a phrase, even without it being in the correct grammatical syntax.

However, this subtopic is leading into a tangent, so lets end it here.

Quack, I would like you to clarify something as I am unsure of your view on a certain point.

In your original post, you said "Saying that Chaos and Tele-Dad even count as main decks in the format is just a scheme trying to make the theory look good."

Later you then wrote "If the decks could be put with a percentage, I consider them one of the main decks at that time."

Obviously the data shows that Chaos and tele-dad had a significant percentage of players backing up the decks at certain sjcs. So are you saying that Kevin's data is an outright lie?
Do percentages not define main decks?
I'm confused here...
__________________

Blackstream is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 06:46 PM   #23
backpackboogie32
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Somewhere DUH!!!!!!!!!!!
Posts: 126
iTrader: 4 (100%)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackstream View Post
you can tell he meant to say that it assumes very significant implications.

the human mind is capable of deriving the correct meaning from a phrase, even without it being in the correct grammatical syntax.

However, this subtopic is leading into a tangent, so lets end it here.

Quack, I would like you to clarify something as I am unsure of your view on a certain point.

In your original post, you said "Saying that Chaos and Tele-Dad even count as main decks in the format is just a scheme trying to make the theory look good."

Later you then wrote "If the decks could be put with a percentage, I consider them one of the main decks at that time."

Obviously the data shows that Chaos and tele-dad had a significant percentage of players backing up the decks at certain sjcs. So are you saying that Kevin's data is an outright lie?
Do percentages not define main decks?
I'm confused here...
In order to sum this up, I can only explain it like this, a hatred so deep-rooted was released with this post, a loyal UDE brown-noser cannot accept the fact that Konami is Baws now!!!
backpackboogie32 is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 07:12 PM   #24
purity_reloaded
Den Mother Of YGO
 
purity_reloaded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: purity's home for wayward boys
Posts: 8,176
iTrader: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by +Quack. View Post

2. According to the article, the top decks of the format would be the most played. And I'm not lying to anyone, stop being so hostile and go back to your failure company that is UDE. If anything, all of you have done the bandwagon effect: trying to stay with Yu-Gi-Oh! for employment because you have nothing better to do with yourself.
........what?
__________________
Sometimes the internet says it for me
purity_reloaded is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 07:24 PM   #25
+Quack.
BRING IT
 
+Quack.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,025
iTrader: 23 (100%)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackstream View Post
you can tell he meant to say that it assumes very significant implications.

the human mind is capable of deriving the correct meaning from a phrase, even without it being in the correct grammatical syntax.

However, this subtopic is leading into a tangent, so lets end it here.

Quack, I would like you to clarify something as I am unsure of your view on a certain point.

In your original post, you said "Saying that Chaos and Tele-Dad even count as main decks in the format is just a scheme trying to make the theory look good."

Later you then wrote "If the decks could be put with a percentage, I consider them one of the main decks at that time."

Obviously the data shows that Chaos and tele-dad had a significant percentage of players backing up the decks at certain sjcs. So are you saying that Kevin's data is an outright lie?
Do percentages not define main decks?
I'm confused here...
When I say I consider them top decks of the format, I mean I consider that Kevin/Konami considers them top decks. According to their theories, decks that are strongly represented at events are decks that should be looked at. I feel that a lot of the decks put in those percentage categories should have been omitted altogether, as they either did not place at all in the event, or were not played enough (like the TeleDAD instance).

I am saying in Konami's eyes that the percentages define main decks, because according to them, the top decks are the ones that are played most (or at least what I got from that article).

I am not calling Kevin a liar, but I am questioning how twilight was represented at past events, yet was not even included in one of the percent categories. I question that twilight was less than 5% at any given event listed with the exception of Columbus. I am saying 5% because that is the lowest percent for any given category. So it was either Twilight was represented around that percentage, or TeleDAD's 5% category was just put there to make a point about the diversity of a format at any given time.
__________________
BRING IT
+Quack. is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

 
Advertisements


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.