Deck Discussion #7: Speedrill

[BlackstarBatty]

And I believe this thread has run its course. Arguing about which country is better, which division is better, and why young players suck is not where this thread was meant to go. Beedrill lost his stinger, and died....like this thread.

 

[TruTruSky]

I am sure if you faced any top 32 seniors, you would most likely lose unless you are really good at the game ( by your shear ignorance probably not)

Top 32 seniors isn't THAT good. I'm not being arrogant, but it's silly to say that I would lose to them, since I know as a fact that I wouldn't. I'm sure many of them would put up a good fight, but to say that I would out right lose to them is just stupid. I would say that the best senior players can go even with the best master players.

For the last time, I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST SENIORS. I just said NOT to use them as an example for how good/bad a deck is JUST because masters provides a much better example.

If you have nothing against seniors, why do you keep putting down the majority of the division? Apparently, less than 1% are able to stand up to you. (32 is about 1/100th of seniors in the US) Although they are the best senior players in the country, you say it's a fact can't go even with a Masters division player. And you keep talking about your 'Senior friends'. Who's to say they aren't people like Curran Hill? (Whom I know)[/quote]

 

[afstandopleren]

angry and annoying paragraphs with quotes and stuff

How about you just don't respond. That would be a lot better then opening a Pandora's box. They weren't going to agree with you and you knew it (I hope you did). The people that wrote everything you quoted, have a reason for writing what they wrote, which you didn't seem to really get as you were indeed ignoring the valid points made. Mind you, there are limits to people's patience.

 

[DarthPika]

If you have nothing against seniors, why do you keep putting down the majority of the division? Apparently, less than 1% are able to stand up to you. (32 is about 1/100th of seniors in the US) Although they are the best senior players in the country, you say it's a fact can't go even with a Masters division player. And you keep talking about your 'Senior friends'. Who's to say they aren't people like Curran Hill? (Whom I know)

[/quote]

Just a FYI, but Curran Hill plays on the level of a good player in the master dev. Consider how many good masters there are and you have the reason why I use the master dev when saying anything about a deck.

I really don't see why people are trying to argue that Beedrill is higher than tier 2. It's not a bad deck, it's just not the best. :/ Lets move on with our lives and argue another deck to death!

 

[Ka$h Money]

@ Darth Pika, How can you say masters is the best division?
Please see my reply above.

Your telling me a child from 8-14 who wins his/her event is not as good as a masters winner?

Probably not. Keep in mind, this also has to do with how your brain develops. A 17yr old usually is smarter than a 13 yr old. This isn't saying that the 13yr old wont be as smart as the 17yr old one day. Just that his brain isn't as developed yet.

There are divisions for a reason and that is to make the game fair considering age and brain capability. If you got a good player in Seniors and got a good player in masters, if they were roughly the same, imagine how good the senior player would be when he reached masters?

FYI I played against the previous years senior nats champ and won. He was quite a good player. Sadly, seniors is lacking in players of his skill.

I am not asking you if you can beat a good senior, I am saying that they are probably better than you are, if you got top 128 and a senior came say top 16 or 32 then I suppose they would be better than you. Don't say to me that masters are better, they are not. You telling me that say for example 1000 attended masters and 100 attended seniors and only ten percent are good doesn't mean that masters are instantly better since they win on shear number. You would obviously know that numbers aren't everything.

You type without thinking and it is annoying how you are being prejudice towards younger players.

I have nothing against younger players. I just said NOT to use their age dev as an example of how good/bad a deck is.

No comment...

They are very good some of them considering their ages and this shows true skill if they can play at a high level at a young age.


Key word there. "Some of them". Yes, some of them are good, most of them not so much. I'll stress this again, this isn't saying that they will always be bad players, just that they need to "grow up" a little more.

The same goes for Masters, not all of them are good.

I am sure if you faced any top 32 seniors, you would most likely lose unless you are really good at the game ( by your shear ignorance probably not)


Top 32 seniors isn't THAT good. I'm not being arrogant, but it's silly to say that I would lose to them, since I know as a fact that I wouldn't. I'm sure many of them would put up a good fight, but to say that I would out right lose to them is just stupid. I would say that the best senior players can go even with the best master players.

For the last time, I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST SENIORS. I just said NOT to use them as an example for how good/bad a deck is JUST because masters provides a much better example.

I am confused, first I said that a top senior is close to a masters winner and then you say no and then just now you say they are equal?

Also if we are going according to your luck theory surely you can and most likely lose to them?

Also a senior is fully capable of building and using a good deck. Some of them are hardcore players and are intelligent enough to understand the 'Masters' way of deck building.

I am just saying you can't consider someone young to be incapable of doing something. For example a 6 year old got an O level in chemistry (A*) can you do that at that age?

 

[Lou Cypher]

DP, just in case you were wondering, I got so angry because you quoted my post and then came the "scrub/low-player nationals" thing. This indicates it was aimed at me, hence my pretty rough response.

I did not intend to really go that far, I let myself go a bit. For that I apologize.

It is pretty annoying with you that you seem to be everywhere big annoying arguments pop up with a lot of back and forth.

 

[TruTruSky]

If you have nothing against seniors, why do you keep putting down the majority of the division? Apparently, less than 1% are able to stand up to you. (32 is about 1/100th of seniors in the US) Although they are the best senior players in the country, you say it's a fact can't go even with a Masters division player. And you keep talking about your 'Senior friends'. Who's to say they aren't people like Curran Hill? (Whom I know)

Just a FYI, but Curran Hill plays on the level of a good player in the master dev. Consider how many good masters there are and you have the reason why I use the master dev when saying anything about a deck.

I really don't see why people are trying to argue that Beedrill is higher than tier 2. It's not a bad deck, it's just not the best. :/ Lets move on with our lives and argue another deck to death!

Way to dodge the question. I know who Curran Hill is. I play him constantly at tournaments and am 2 in NC only to him for seniors.

If you have nothing against seniors, why do you keep putting down the majority of the division? Apparently, less than 1% are able to stand up to you. (32 is about 1/100th of seniors in the US) Although they are the best senior players in the country, you say it's a fact can't go even with a Masters division player. And you keep talking about your 'Senior friends'. Who's to say they aren't people like Curran Hill?

 

[Celebi23]

I don't ignore valid points. I ignore people who don't use logical arguments.

Darth Pika, how can you call my points illogical? That's obviously what's going on here. Considering you ignored my past two posts. Yet I actually give numbers and facts that you find so important. Then you reply to others who didn't use actual numbers or explain why the numbers you use don't make sense (no offense to anyone). Could you at least explain why my points are not logical or your other reason for ignoring both of my posts?

 

[DarthPika]

DP, just in case you were wondering, I got so angry because you quoted my post and then came the "scrub/low-player nationals" thing. This indicates it was aimed at me, hence my pretty rough response.

I did not intend to really go that far, I let myself go a bit. For that I apologize.

It is pretty annoying with you that you seem to be everywhere big annoying arguments pop up with a lot of back and forth.

Apology accepted. It wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed more or less at those who DO try and use that kind of argument. Believe me... I've had more than one random kid try and use his 20 something person nats as the base of his argument.

Sorry, I like big annoying arguments.

Way to dodge the question. I know who Curran Hill is. I play him constantly at tournaments and am 2 in NC only to him for seniors.

If you have nothing against seniors, why do you keep putting down the majority of the division? Apparently, less than 1% are able to stand up to you. (32 is about 1/100th of seniors in the US) Although they are the best senior players in the country, you say it's a fact can't go even with a Masters division player. And you keep talking about your 'Senior friends'. Who's to say they aren't people like Curran Hill?

It depends on the master player. For the record this is going to sound really arrogant, and I know it. Why do I think that I'll beat most seniors? Because I put a lot of effort into making my self a good player. TBH most of my losses are due to plain old bad luck. When I'm at the top of my game, and really have the time to completely dedicate my self to it I'm actually a pretty good player. I pride myself in almost never misplaying and being able to figure out complex answers to situations that other players may not see. I think a lot of it is just comes naturally as I've always been good at puzzles and strategy games, but I also put a LOT of work in to get to where I am. Did you actually think that I could win a states 9-0 in one of the tougher areas of the country if I was a bad player? Once again, I know as a fact that this sounds arrogant as heck, but you keep asking that question. On top of all that, I'm also hyper critical of others.

Darth Pika, how can you call my points illogical? That's obviously what's going on here. Considering you ignored my past two posts. Yet I actually give numbers and facts that you find so important. Then you reply to others who didn't use actual numbers or explain why the numbers you use don't make sense (no offense to anyone). Could you at least explain why my points are not logical or your other reason for ignoring both of my posts?

Give me good examples from the master dev of how beedrill is as good as you say. Jimmy Ballard LOST with Beedrill, and I hardly think that anyone who knows anything about pokemon would call him a bad player. The deck just gets screwed randomly either by your own crappy luck or by someone ruining what may have been an amazing start. I did a heck of a lot of testing with that deck, but my Gengar and Legos builds consistently beat it. Gengar was easier then Legos by a ton, but it still has the slight advantage.

 

[Seth1789110]

It depends on the master player. For the record this is going to sound really arrogant, and I know it. Why do I think that I'll beat most seniors? Because I put a lot of effort into making my self a good player. TBH most of my losses are due to plain old bad luck. When I'm at the top of my game, and really have the time to completely dedicate my self to it I'm actually a pretty good player. I pride myself in almost never misplaying and being able to figure out complex answers to situations that other players may not see. I think a lot of it is just comes naturally as I've always been good at puzzles and strategy games, but I also put a LOT of work in to get to where I am. Did you actually think that I could win a states 9-0 in one of the tougher areas of the country if I was a bad player? Once again, I know as a fact that this sounds arrogant as heck, but you keep asking that question. On top of all that, I'm also hyper critical of others. Toungue

If you knew it was arrogant, why did you post it? Your gunna get heat from it. First off, your post isn't arrogant. You are making yourself seem PERFECT in any way known to man. You are the best player in the world evidently, as thats basically what that post sounds like. You could go 9-0 in a tough area, with LUCK. Its your LUCK that got ya there, not your skill. Pokemon is majorly luck, strategy/skill second to that. To give you an example of a player who did fairly well with speedrill in masters: You guessed it, Lou Cypher. From his nationals report, it sounded like he did a pretty good job with it. But o wait, he isn't from the US, so he isnt that good. You could probably beat him because US is the best country of players in the world. And I am pretty sure your never misplaying statement is a lie. EVERYONE MISPLAYS. Its just a fact of life, and the game. You cant always run a perfect game. Heck, when I play myself I occasionally misplay, but that must be because I am a senior, not a master. It just amazes me that you think your the best of the best, when thats a total lie. I bet the guy who won masters in the US NATIONALS even misplayed a couple of times. If he did, and you didnt misplay, shouldn't you have won? Yeah, thats what I thought.

 

[gyrasion]

It depends on the master player. For the record this is going to sound really arrogant, and I know it. Why do I think that I'll beat most seniors? Because I put a lot of effort into making my self a good player. TBH most of my losses are due to plain old bad luck. When I'm at the top of my game, and really have the time to completely dedicate my self to it I'm actually a pretty good player. I pride myself in almost never misplaying and being able to figure out complex answers to situations that other players may not see. I think a lot of it is just comes naturally as I've always been good at puzzles and strategy games, but I also put a LOT of work in to get to where I am. Did you actually think that I could win a states 9-0 in one of the tougher areas of the country if I was a bad player? Once again, I know as a fact that this sounds arrogant as heck, but you keep asking that question. On top of all that, I'm also hyper critical of others. Toungue

If you knew it was arrogant, why did you post it? Your gunna get heat from it. First off, your post isn't arrogant. You are making yourself seem PERFECT in any way known to man. You are the best player in the world evidently, as thats basically what that post sounds like. You could go 9-0 in a tough area, with LUCK. Its your LUCK that got ya there, not your skill. Pokemon is majorly luck, strategy/skill second to that. To give you an example of a player who did fairly well with speedrill in masters: You guessed it, Lou Cypher. From his nationals report, it sounded like he did a pretty good job with it. But o wait, he isn't from the US, so he isnt that good. You could probably beat him because US is the best country of players in the world. And I am pretty sure your never misplaying statement is a lie. EVERYONE MISPLAYS. Its just a fact of life, and the game. You cant always run a perfect game. Heck, when I play myself I occasionally misplay, but that must be because I am a senior, not a master. It just amazes me that you think your the best of the best, when thats a total lie. I bet the guy who won masters in the US NATIONALS even misplayed a couple of times. If he did, and you didnt misplay, shouldn't you have won? Yeah, thats what I thought.

lololol.
pokemon is majorly skill and luck is second.
by your extremly faulty logic i can go to nats with a starter deck and win as long as im lucky and draw everything i need with no playtesting .
he wasnt making himself sound perfect.
he clearly said rarely misplays not never.
you just take everything he says make him sound like an awful cocky dbag.
you really need to just chill out your not even arguning baout beedrill anymore your just making him look like a complete dbag.

 

[Celebi23]

I think Seth was talking as if he was Darth Pika. Because he was saying how much luck it takes to win a major tournament.

Also Darth Pika, I don't know how well Jimmy Ballard did, but if he lost in Top 128 or Top 64, it could have been by bad luck. After all, like you were saying, one bad start can lose you Nationals.

Also, how many GOOD Masters would you say used Beedrill? And how many good masters used SP's or Gengar. I'll take a wild guess and say that Beedrill had a lot less people playing it. Therefore, Gengar and the SP's that you're saying did so well have a much better chance of winning. I actually said this in one of my previous posts.

 

[DarthPika]

It depends on the master player. For the record this is going to sound really arrogant, and I know it. Why do I think that I'll beat most seniors? Because I put a lot of effort into making my self a good player. TBH most of my losses are due to plain old bad luck. When I'm at the top of my game, and really have the time to completely dedicate my self to it I'm actually a pretty good player. I pride myself in almost never misplaying and being able to figure out complex answers to situations that other players may not see. I think a lot of it is just comes naturally as I've always been good at puzzles and strategy games, but I also put a LOT of work in to get to where I am. Did you actually think that I could win a states 9-0 in one of the tougher areas of the country if I was a bad player? Once again, I know as a fact that this sounds arrogant as heck, but you keep asking that question. On top of all that, I'm also hyper critical of others. Toungue

If you knew it was arrogant, why did you post it? Your gunna get heat from it. First off, your post isn't arrogant. You are making yourself seem PERFECT in any way known to man. You are the best player in the world evidently, as thats basically what that post sounds like. You could go 9-0 in a tough area, with LUCK. Its your LUCK that got ya there, not your skill. Pokemon is majorly luck, strategy/skill second to that. To give you an example of a player who did fairly well with speedrill in masters: You guessed it, Lou Cypher. From his nationals report, it sounded like he did a pretty good job with it. But o wait, he isn't from the US, so he isnt that good. You could probably beat him because US is the best country of players in the world. And I am pretty sure your never misplaying statement is a lie. EVERYONE MISPLAYS. Its just a fact of life, and the game. You cant always run a perfect game. Heck, when I play myself I occasionally misplay, but that must be because I am a senior, not a master. It just amazes me that you think your the best of the best, when thats a total lie. I bet the guy who won masters in the US NATIONALS even misplayed a couple of times. If he did, and you didnt misplay, shouldn't you have won? Yeah, thats what I thought.

You obviously haven't read a thing I've posted. I don't think I'm the best of the best. I'm not even going to respond to your post anymore. You obviously have no clue what your talking about. Yes, it does take a great deal of luck to win a large tourney. Yes, Pooka got lucky, yes I got lucky back at states, heck, even Ness got lucky. Skill only gets you so far.

To Celebi -

Did you ever stop to think that most masters didn't use beedrill because it's not good enough to win?

Also, even in seniors it didn't win, so I don't see why we're still having this argument.

---

lololol.
pokemon is majorly skill and luck is second.
by your extremly faulty logic I can go to nats with a starter deck and win as long as im lucky and draw everything I need with no playtesting .
he wasnt making himself sound perfect.
he clearly said rarely misplays not never.
you just take everything he says make him sound like an awful cocky dbag.
you really need to just chill out your not even arguning baout beedrill anymore your just making him look like a complete dbag.

Thank you for actually understanding my post. It's nice to know that some people on these forums actually know what they're talking about. >_>