Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
6
... LastLast
  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    What I find funny, is that when presented with any opportunity to participate in a meaningful discussion, you would rather claim to be offended and work to derail anything I contribute with 'if you're going to be a jerk you shouldn't post here' nonsense. I don't care what your background is, what you think the thread is about, or how you feel talked down to.

    It's okay to not know much about something, especially when it's something you feel like you should be very familiar with. It's also okay to give people information they might not have, even when it contradicts personal experience. It's okay to be uninformed and it's okay for other people who know a lot more about something, to give you information to help you become more informed.

    What's not okay is pretending like there's a social justice issue for you to hop on top of so you can 'regain control' of whatever you think we're discussing here. If you want to discuss the things I've contributed, that would be great. Otherwise, I don't think I'm going to give you any more of my time.

    Same old BD...

    Also, because I try to be helpful instead of being a troll, here's a link to a deck idea playable in Modern that uses zero land.

    https://www.channelfireball.com/arti...ells-no-lands/
    Again, you're trying way too hard here.

    You can participate in the discussion at hand, or you can not. If you pick the third option of trying to talk down to everyone with some, "If you don't like it, then you must not get it!" nonsense, then expect someone to call you on it.

    You would think that with your willingness to write out a novel explaining, "Land goes in your deck and you draw cards!" you'd spend 10 seconds of that time actually addressing the conversation, but I guess that's too much to ask.

    (Also, "social justice"? Are we just throwing out fuckin' buzzwords now? Jesus, man...)

  2. #62
    Amount of lands is just another layer of complexity.

    To less experienced players, it seems like a simple matter of randomness in the vein of "oh you drew X more/less land than me so I lost". In reality, it's vastly more complicated, because Magic isn't just what deck you bring but also what you make out of the cards you have. Properly evaluating the situation based on available lands is part of this.

    Now, don't get me wrong: lands do their part in skewing percentages, to be sure, and there's situations in which no measure of skill will help you overcome a disadvantage based purely on luck of the draw. However, it is less influential on end results than you would expect as a naive observer. Skill plays a role even in these seemingly random mechanics - much like in HS you often quite literally flip coins, but how you make use of those effects is still a measure of skill despite their inherently random outcomes.

    Overall, the randomness factor inherent in draws is actually a positive thing in Magic, because it makes decks far less deterministic. Compare to Hearthstone, where certain matchups are virtually guaranteed to see every card in their deck, and you can literally afford to build combo decks around a sequence of multiple 1-ofs simply because you know you'll draw them eventually. That doesn't work in Magic, at least not the same way.

    If Magic was purely determined by skill and the superior player always won, it'd be way less fun for a lot of people. There's an appeal to chess-like games of skill, but many argue that it is precisely the randomness factors that make Magic so appealing, and give it such replay value. It is not without reason that one of the most popular descriptions of Magic is it being "a mix between Poker and Chess". Skill still confers the advantage in the long run, even if randomness screws it up every now and then (see LSV's Pro Tour final...).

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Amount of lands is just another layer of complexity.
    This. It's complexity that can have minor or major impacts on your game depending on how you handle it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega
    To less experienced players, it seems like a simple matter of randomness in the vein of "oh you drew X more/less land than me so I lost". In reality, it's vastly more complicated, because Magic isn't just what deck you bring but also what you make out of the cards you have. Properly evaluating the situation based on available lands is part of this.
    I think this is widely applicable to most games and probably a lot of things people tend to take issue with. When there is a segment of the populous who wholly enjoys something like MTG, without having to invoke anything they dislike, it can't possibly be the game itself that is problematic. Rather, the attitude and approach of the person taking issue. I know that it works that way with Wow. A lot of people would jump into that game now and be totally turned off by the sheer amount of stuff to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega
    Now, don't get me wrong: lands do their part in skewing percentages, to be sure, and there's situations in which no measure of skill will help you overcome a disadvantage based purely on luck of the draw. However, it is less influential on end results than you would expect as a naive observer. Skill plays a role even in these seemingly random mechanics - much like in HS you often quite literally flip coins, but how you make use of those effects is still a measure of skill despite their inherently random outcomes.

    Overall, the randomness factor inherent in draws is actually a positive thing in Magic, because it makes decks far less deterministic. Compare to Hearthstone, where certain matchups are virtually guaranteed to see every card in their deck, and you can literally afford to build combo decks around a sequence of multiple 1-ofs simply because you know you'll draw them eventually. That doesn't work in Magic, at least not the same way.

    If Magic was purely determined by skill and the superior player always won, it'd be way less fun for a lot of people. There's an appeal to chess-like games of skill, but many argue that it is precisely the randomness factors that make Magic so appealing, and give it such replay value. It is not without reason that one of the most popular descriptions of Magic is it being "a mix between Poker and Chess". Skill still confers the advantage in the long run, even if randomness screws it up every now and then (see LSV's Pro Tour final...).
    Magic is solely determined by skill. Because even with a bad RNG, you can make things work if you did a good enough job building your deck. There's a stark difference between a deck that does nothing because it got screwed out of useful cards for an entire game, and a deck that just gets a slow/odd start. Part of deckbuilding is the understanding there are tools there to help your deck work better, it's a matter of embracing different ideas that help your deck work better with those tools.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bovinity Divinity
    You can participate in the discussion at hand, or you can not.
    Trying too hard? You sound like my dad. It's clear you're not here to have a discussion.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    Magic is solely determined by skill. Because even with a bad RNG, you can make things work if you did a good enough job building your deck.
    I think you mean the right thing, but the way you are saying it is simply incorrect. Magic is not SOLELY determined by skill, not even close. Skill plays a much bigger role than many people realize, and skill and RNG are just two factors that play into the result and work with (and against) each other. In the long run, a skilled player will win more than a less-skilled player.

    But that doesn't mean that skill is the SOLE deciding factor. There are games that you will not win no matter how skilled you are. You mulligan to 4 and get stuck on 1 land, you could be FinKai himself and still get rolled by Rando Commando and his Pile-o'-Slivers. That isn't super relevant in the long run because it eventually evens out, but it's also not irrelevant in the statistic. Of course the given example is extreme, but RNG keeps results from skewing too far towards skill in very real, very demonstrable ways.

    Again: less RNG than people think, but still nowhere near "solely determined by skill".

    The poker analogy is useful here once again. Poker isn't SOLELY determined by skill; but skill will still give you a significant advantage in the long run.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    Magic is solely determined by skill. Because even with a bad RNG, you can make things work if you did a good enough job building your deck.
    This is not even remotely true.

    Long term results, sure. But each individual game is determined in very large part by RNG. There is no, "Making things work" when you get a bad draw or your opponent gets a godlike one, either you have the cards to pull it out or you don't.

    (Actually, even long term results are a bit of an issue in MtG/Hearthstone/etc. I don't think people are aware of just how the tournament scenes are structured to give the impression of "consistency" from players. There's a reason why you see that sort of stuff in these games and not other competitive genres.)
    Last edited by Bovinity Divinity; 2019-03-20 at 05:56 PM.

  6. #66
    Lol another “Hearthstone Killer” that failed.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by AryuFate View Post
    Lol another “Hearthstone Killer” that failed.
    You're acting like one of those spambots that post in random threads in quick succession so you can post links for your advertisement.
    Last edited by Calfredd; 2019-03-23 at 06:17 AM. Reason: spelling error
    Expansion leak claiming Legion is the last expansion
    Quote Originally Posted by golds
    NO it will be me laughing at how you doubted this....
    Quote Originally Posted by golds
    I was right

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Calfredd View Post
    You're acting like one of those spambots that post in random threads in quick succession so you can post links for your advertisement.
    I don't even understand the point of his post. It's doing pretty damn well.
    Just don't reply to me. Please. If you can help it.

  9. #69
    MtGA is a port of a 90’s TCG, meaning it wasn’t intended for computers or phones. Hearthstone’s rules were made with online gaming in mind, and it shows. Play MtG in person, or play Hearthstone on your computer/tablet/phone.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by AryuFate View Post
    Play MtG in person
    After watching all these cheat videos on youtube, I cannot believe people still play MtG in person.
    Unlike bridge or chess, MtG can get confusing, and people intentionally cheat.

    You cannot play Hearthstone in person, because it doesn't have a "reveal" rule.

    Lots of people hate land and block.
    MtG will never become a "hearthstone killer".

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by xenogear3 View Post
    After watching all these cheat videos on youtube, I cannot believe people still play MtG in person.
    Unlike bridge or chess, MtG can get confusing, and people intentionally cheat.

    You cannot play Hearthstone in person, because it doesn't have a "reveal" rule.

    Lots of people hate land and block.
    MtG will never become a "hearthstone killer".
    I play magic in person. Socially it's great, I play with a group of friends (all of whom are sensible) casually so cheating is never really a concern.

  12. #72
    The Lightbringer Twoddle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,306
    Quote Originally Posted by xenogear3 View Post
    Unlike bridge or chess, MtG can get confusing, and people intentionally cheat.
    Problem is we've come so far in technology it's quite possible to cheat in chess tournaments. In top bridge tournaments they have to put up barriers between the partners so they can't see each other. In chess, players have been caught using a hidden device strapped to their leg that taps the right move in code while their accomplice sits outside in the car analysing the game wirelessly transmitting the best move. In one tournament the arbiters even followed a guy to the toilet cause he'd previously been caught cheating analysing the game on his device.

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega
    I think you mean the right thing, but the way you are saying it is simply incorrect. Magic is not SOLELY determined by skill, not even close. Skill plays a much bigger role than many people realize, and skill and RNG are just two factors that play into the result and work with (and against) each other. In the long run, a skilled player will win more than a less-skilled player.

    But that doesn't mean that skill is the SOLE deciding factor. There are games that you will not win no matter how skilled you are. You mulligan to 4 and get stuck on 1 land, you could be FinKai himself and still get rolled by Rando Commando and his Pile-o'-Slivers. That isn't super relevant in the long run because it eventually evens out, but it's also not irrelevant in the statistic. Of course the given example is extreme, but RNG keeps results from skewing too far towards skill in very real, very demonstrable ways.

    Again: less RNG than people think, but still nowhere near "solely determined by skill".

    The poker analogy is useful here once again. Poker isn't SOLELY determined by skill; but skill will still give you a significant advantage in the long run.
    If we are talking about a specific instance of having clearly lost and attributing that single instance to the wrong combination of cards in hand/being drawn, as the cause of your loss, yes, that happens. But let me put it to you like this. Dust off your very first deck you ever built. Play it. Run it at least a dozen times. If you can't remember the whole deck, or don't remember any of it (I doubt that anyone would forget their first deck) build an approximation of something you do remember playing in your early days.

    The exercise here is simple enough. You'll play the deck and have an experience that seems familiar, but feels foreign. You will begin to ask yourself why you played this card or why you didn't just play the strat this way. Hell, you may even laugh at how bad the deck really was. But, I guarantee you if you played it seriously in a local setting, you would do a hell of a lot better than you did with it the first time you played it.

    Even your first few games with this deck now, will feel completely different. Like you've progressed so far and this deck is now in the hands of someone who can make it work.

    Now beat your friends with it. And laugh as you win with a pile of crap you would never build today.

    That's the skill I'm talking about. Attainable by any persistent and dedicated player, the ability to take even a bad deck and win with it. You probably wont top 8 with it, but it's a good show to do it with your local play group. The majority of the game happens before you've shuffled your deck for its first game...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bovinity Divinity View Post
    This is not even remotely true.

    Long term results, sure. But each individual game is determined in very large part by RNG. There is no, "Making things work" when you get a bad draw or your opponent gets a godlike one, either you have the cards to pull it out or you don't.

    (Actually, even long term results are a bit of an issue in MtG/Hearthstone/etc. I don't think people are aware of just how the tournament scenes are structured to give the impression of "consistency" from players. There's a reason why you see that sort of stuff in these games and not other competitive genres.)
    I'm talking about both the long and the short term. I speak from personal experience. There are deck ideas that just work. Ravager Affinity in type 2 before fifth dawn release, pre skull clamp ban? You build it, you play it with any degree of skill, it will perform even with bad draws and the only thing left standing in your way is your own skill level with said deck. You're talking to someone who used to spend dozens of hours building and play testing decks outside of the time I was actively playing in an event (just lumping all kinds of tournament formats into one). I'm not bragging or claiming to be some pro who knows everything. I carried the old school 7 deck deck box full of Standard decks, back when I played. All tier 1 or 2. Most rogue decks.

    But yes, there are combinations of cards that exist which will give you an absurdly high chance of winning even with a poor draw. It's not rocket surgery, as my dad used to say.

    Just Magic.

    Quote Originally Posted by AryuFate
    Lol another “Hearthstone Killer” that failed.
    I don't think that they were trying to kill hearthstone. Blizzard is doing a good enough job of that on their own.

    Quote Originally Posted by xenogear3
    After watching all these cheat videos on youtube, I cannot believe people still play MtG in person.
    Unlike bridge or chess, MtG can get confusing, and people intentionally cheat.

    You cannot play Hearthstone in person, because it doesn't have a "reveal" rule.

    Lots of people hate land and block.
    MtG will never become a "hearthstone killer".
    I cannot believe people oversimplify MTG gameplay into the one or two mechanics they don't like. I can't speak to how well MTG is doing, but the secondary market for it means that it really doesn't matter if Hasbro closes it's HQ tomorrow, taking WOTC with it, we can still enjoy MTG in our nuclear bunkers after AI rises and forces us underground. I can't say the same for Hearthstone, since it requires a litany of technology that will be obsolete before the last MTG card crumbles.

    I don't think it's important for MTG to try and compete with HS. Two entirely different platforms with different scopes of play. MTG is as complex and drawn out as you want it to be. It offers a more intimate play experience and has significantly more levels of play involved. It is literally the most complicated game ever created, I would love to see evidence otherwise.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    The exercise here is simple enough. You'll play the deck and have an experience that seems familiar, but feels foreign. You will begin to ask yourself why you played this card or why you didn't just play the strat this way. Hell, you may even laugh at how bad the deck really was. But, I guarantee you if you played it seriously in a local setting, you would do a hell of a lot better than you did with it the first time you played it.

    Even your first few games with this deck now, will feel completely different. Like you've progressed so far and this deck is now in the hands of someone who can make it work.

    Now beat your friends with it. And laugh as you win with a pile of crap you would never build today.

    That's the skill I'm talking about. Attainable by any persistent and dedicated player, the ability to take even a bad deck and win with it. You probably wont top 8 with it, but it's a good show to do it with your local play group. The majority of the game happens before you've shuffled your deck for its first game...
    I think the problem here is simply that you do not seem to be aware of the meaning of the word "solely".

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    MTG is as complex and drawn out as you want it to be. It offers a more intimate play experience and has significantly more levels of play involved. It is literally the most complicated game ever created, I would love to see evidence otherwise.
    You clearly haven't played L5R to take a true taste of complexity, when I play this game with friends we forfeit matches because the table is not big enough to fit everything into it. Also, mtg is not more complex than hearthstone. I'd say hearthstone has more complex spots and combat than mtg. I tell you this as a multiple legend player (many top 100s too) and as a top 8 finisher in many national mtg events. I only played arena in the beta where I reached gold (it was the top back then).

    The extra rulings of mtg make the game more annoying and not really complex. Hearthstone allows for more maneuvering thanks to the perfect mana curve & smaller deck and the games drag far more than mtg, on top of this the option to hit face or trade is one of the most complex ones which can make or break your games. Curving in mtg is usually clear compared to hearthstone where you may have a lot of options which can be very impactful depending on how you play them. Hearthstone deckbuilding is harder too because a single card can make a huge difference. There are times where 1 card literally carried me several rankings in HS while mtg is more of a high variance game where individual techs represent less of your winrate.

    Now back to this thread, I really think that MTG will fail online because the game is terrible in many ways because it's not made for online gaming. As someone who plays card games for over 15 years and absolutely loves them, I'd say that I hate MTG Arena. It was very frustrating being asked all the time about chaining something and the board looks pretty weird too, sometimes it's hard to see what lands the other guy has or read the card's text. Literally there were times where I was searching on the web in order to find a deck without instants into so I won't have to deal with this anymore. Other times I was wasting my lightning bolts on the opponent's face because I couldn't handle it anymore.

    Tabletop mtg doesn't have such problems, its flow is great and chaining stuff is not frustrating at all, you can just make a signal to the other guy to proceed with his next card, also if you don't know what a card does then you can take your time and read it. You will also rarely play with people who stall intentionally and waste your time and if you play with such people then you can call a judge to give them a warning which may DQ them. If the designers were smart then they would change the rulings so that mtg would fit better with online gaming. At this point it's not possible for mtg to compete with hs because hs is made for online gaming and doesn't have such annoying stuff. Make no mistake, I like mtg much more than HS and I would like to have fun online but it's simply not possible. Spectating is worse than hs too because of the angle. The only thing that mtg does better is the design and the theme. Hs is very cartoonish and lacks the dark fantasy element of mtg which I absolutely love. This is the reason I don't play hs anymore. I hate the way they made it.

    There are many mistakes that Blizzard does with HS but it doesn't look like MTG will capitalize on them. I was expecting a much better tournament organizing and online experience for mtg arena but this isn't happening.

    Someone said above about cheats and tabletop. This is indeed the reason why tabletop games can be very frustrating, you always have to be alerted about everything and notice what your opponent does, also follow all the neccessary steps to prevent cheats (proper deck shuffling etc.). Mtg is not even the king when it comes to cheating. Yugioh takes the no1 award on this department, it was almost like a tradition to cheat in this game. The other frustrating thing about tabletop is disagreement on the rulings. Luckily you have a judge for all this stuff, if you suspect a cheater then you can call one to monitor your games which will offer some relief from cheaters.
    Last edited by Aizen244; 2019-03-30 at 03:24 PM.

  16. #76
    MTG is a better game, obviously, but Wizards' insane ineptitude in their online MTG products is what holds it back. At this point it seems obvious they have no intent on releasing a phone client for Arena, or at least not in any reasonable timeframe, yet this should have been something developed before the client was even publicly playable, not a platform added years down the line. The client lacked basic features like a friends list or challenging them well after its "release". It still doesn't support non-16:9 resolutions, playing in a postage stamp sized window if you're not on exactly 16:9. The autotap mechanic for lands works just often enough that you get used to it, then fucks you over by tapping your shit all wrong at a critical moment. The client is barely functional.

    Now back to this thread, I really think that MTG will fail online because the game is terrible in many ways because it's not made for online gaming.
    This is a weird thing to say because without MTG Online, Wizards of the Coast would probably have gone out of business 10 years ago. It's obviously not making Hearthstone money but they were earning tens of millions of dollars a year off MTGO in an era when all other CCGs were niche products or dying on the vine. Online MTG can absolutely succeed. WOTC just has to want it to and devote the appropriate amount of resources and push the right platforms, which they are absolutely not doing.

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    I think the problem here is simply that you do not seem to be aware of the meaning of the word "solely".
    Well, I'd pick a different word, if I hadn't seen time and time again, skill beating bad draws and RNG. I've watched people win with cards that have been sitting dead in hand whole game. I've seen plays that have convinced me that RNG really doesn't exist, and yes, skill is the deciding factor in MTG...

    Quote Originally Posted by Aizen244
    You clearly haven't played L5R to take a true taste of complexity, when I play this game with friends we forfeit matches because the table is not big enough to fit everything into it.
    Legend of the 5 rings isn't very complex. That's like saying warhammer 40k is complex because your point count is high. In many ways, the mechanics that make MTG complex don't exist in L5R. For me, L5R is the monopoly of table top games.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aizen244
    Also, mtg is not more complex than hearthstone. I'd say hearthstone has more complex spots and combat than mtg. I tell you this as a multiple legend player (many top 100s too) and as a top 8 finisher in many national mtg events. I only played arena in the beta where I reached gold (it was the top back then).
    MTG arena isn't representative of MTG... except maybe as a barebones MTG experience. You get the feel of playing a deck and finishing a game, but you don't get the sheer magnitutde of the cardpool available to the tabletop version of the game. Even the online version, MTGO, is only playing with a portion of the entire card pool, and it's been out since the just before the modern cutoff. As of 1/14/2018 there are 19,989 unique cards in print of the live table top version... compared to maybe 1100 in L5R and 2400 in hearthstone.

    Complexity in MTG comes from not just card count or card types, it comes from the sheer number of other ways to strategize your play beyond just putting stuff on the board and attacking. MTG deck ideas number in the thousands themselves, with many being so blatantly overpowered, there is an official banned/restricted list for many of the formats. In fact, MTG is so complex you can build decks with strats that completely deviate from anything that resembles playing a typical game of MTG.

    The no-land deck I suggested before? Uses cards with alternate casting costs, there are enough of them to build a 60 card deck... so what is normally a completely un-viable strat can become a playable (even competitive) deck idea in the right environment. Add to that, the idea of many cards in MTG being designed specifically to bend the normal rules of the game, while other games struggle to keep things within a specific design space (playing it safe).

    This is why we haven't seen a 3rd card type added to hearthstone or any new classes. The designers have nailed the design space they are willing to work in, and aside from rehashes on all the same stuff we've already seen, you shouldn't expect anything new from hearthstone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aizen244
    Now back to this thread, I really think that MTG will fail online because the game is terrible in many ways because it's not made for online gaming. As someone who plays card games for over 15 years and absolutely loves them, I'd say that I hate MTG Arena. It was very frustrating being asked all the time about chaining something and the board looks pretty weird too, sometimes it's hard to see what lands the other guy has or read the card's text. Literally there were times where I was searching on the web in order to find a deck without instants into so I won't have to deal with this anymore. Other times I was wasting my lightning bolts on the opponent's face because I couldn't handle it anymore.
    Just to avoid confusion, there is a game called 'Magic the Gathering: Online' and a game called 'Mtg Arena.' They are not the same game, aren't competing for the same demographic of player, and Arena will lose traction and popularity simply because of how narrow an MTG experience it really is. What do I mean by that?

    For years, MTG video games have come out. For YEARS. I'm talking since the 90s, when the card game was still brand new and had less than 400 cards released, there have been attempts at MTG games. With every single version of the game, a developer attempts to capture the essence of playing MTG (flinging spells, outwitting your opponent, the excitement of customization and collection, ect) in the video game space. With every single attempt, we end up getting something that is more like a demo of MTG than an actual game like the cardboard version.

    It's been a disappointment, rather than a blessing, to have any video game version of MTG. Even MTGO, which has been online since early 2000s, is as close to paper MTG as any dev has ever come. It has a vast card pool that streches back almost to the very first sets of the game (power 9 and other really good cards printed before 7th edition are not available because of the negative effects they would have on the game, not just in terms of playing with them, but the detriment to the secondary market). Nothing, not even MTGO, comes close to paper MTG on a table top. MTG arena, and any version of digital MTG before it, is basically just a slice of MTG. One or two blocks with some current mechanics and block deck ideas to play with.

    Nowhere close to what is possible in the real game.

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    Well, I'd pick a different word, if I hadn't seen time and time again, skill beating bad draws and RNG. I've watched people win with cards that have been sitting dead in hand whole game. I've seen plays that have convinced me that RNG really doesn't exist, and yes, skill is the deciding factor in MTG...
    And have you also watched, oh, say the final game of the final Pro Tour?

    Again, I'm not saying skill isn't a factor - but to say MtG is SOLELY decided on skill is simply fallacious.

  19. #79
    Until HS implements declare blockers, it's going to remain a braindead mongo fest. The number of times I got a free kill at rank 5 with OTK Priest(only using 5 minions in the decks total) when tardo people playing odd pally/rogue or zoo ignored a velen on the board to go face is hilarious. They've been conditioned to play this way because they're typically rewarded. Hearthstone has next to no skill involved for most top decks.

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    And have you also watched, oh, say the final game of the final Pro Tour?

    Again, I'm not saying skill isn't a factor - but to say MtG is SOLELY decided on skill is simply fallacious.
    It's obvious that he's pretty extremely out of touch with reality on this topic for one reason or another. Probably just a rabid fan of the game.

    The fact is that the game is so high variance that the tournament scene essentially has to be rigged to give an illusion of greater consistency to prolific players, something you don't see in any other competitive genre that I'm aware of.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •