Recommend
18 
 Thumb up
 Hide
186 Posts
[1]  Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [8] | 

Android: Netrunner» Forums » Strategy

Subject: [DECK] Gabriel Santiago - Pure Scumbag Tactics (Plugged In Winner, San Mateo) rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Seth M
msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
Alexfrog wrote:
Yeah, it would be really helpful if we had a good way to determine that. (Like, OCTGN having ELO based matchmaking or something). As is, we just have to speculate.

We can also not speculate.

Extrapolating conclusions from flawed data because 'well that's all the data we have!' is a menace in the scientific community, much less nerd stuff like this.
4 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Rockwell
United States
Lynnwood
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That makes sense, if you dont trust the OCTGN data at all, then you dont trust any conclusions drawn from it at all.


If you somewhat trust the OCTGN data, like me, then the conclusions are somewhat trustworthy. The data also generally aligns with my personal experiences, in most cases. I personally feel stronger when playing Andromeda than Gabe (or more accurately, I less often feel like my deck is putting me in a bad spot).

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Nelson
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Alexfrog wrote:
That makes sense, if you dont trust the OCTGN data at all, then you dont trust any conclusions drawn from it at all.


If you somewhat trust the OCTGN data, like me, then the conclusions are somewhat trustworthy. The data also generally aligns with my personal experiences, in most cases. I personally feel stronger when playing Andromeda than Gabe (or more accurately, I less often feel like my deck is putting me in a bad spot).


That's a bit misleading. I think you're trying to say, "If you believe we can draw certain conclusions from the OCTGN data" rather than "if you somewhat trust the OCTGN data".

The data is what it is, "trusting" it isn't really the point. No one thinks the data has been falsified. We are all just drawing different conclusions from said data.

Edit: I think that part of Martin's premise is that he believes that when you (the general "you" meaning most players) are playing Gabe and are in a bad spot, more often than not you are the one who put yourself in that spot, rather than the deck. I don't mean to put words in his mouth if this isn't true. What I do believe is that most players are making far more mistakes than they realize or are willing to admit, even in games they win. This is certainly true of me. In particular, people winning with a certain strategy are more resistant to trying other strategies that may take time to learn to execute properly, and may only increase your win rate by small percentages.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Presley
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Alexfraud wrote:
That makes sense, if you dont trust the OCTGN data at all, then you dont trust any conclusions drawn from it at all.


If you somewhat trust the OCTGN data, like me, then the conclusions are somewhat trustworthy. The data also generally aligns with my personal experiences, in most cases. I personally feel stronger when playing Andromeda than Gabe (or more accurately, I less often feel like my deck is putting me in a bad spot).


It is not a question of trust, it is a question of relevance. OCTGN data doesn't contribute to this conversation because it does not support your argument. Sometimes that data is relevant, but you can't throw it around blindly when it does not pertain to the discussion.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lluluien
United States
Missouri
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
hoobajoo wrote:
Alexfraud wrote:
That makes sense, if you dont trust the OCTGN data at all, then you dont trust any conclusions drawn from it at all.


If you somewhat trust the OCTGN data, like me, then the conclusions are somewhat trustworthy. The data also generally aligns with my personal experiences, in most cases. I personally feel stronger when playing Andromeda than Gabe (or more accurately, I less often feel like my deck is putting me in a bad spot).


It is not a question of trust, it is a question of relevance. OCTGN data doesn't contribute to this conversation because it does not support your argument. Sometimes that data is relevant, but you can't throw it around blindly when it does not pertain to the discussion.

I'm generally a proponent of the OCTGN data, but I have to agree that in the context of a deck which has as one of its central tenets "Don't make mistakes, and then this deck is strong", we can't draw any conclusions about the validity of that statement using the gross aggregate OCTGN data. How many players do we know that don't make mistakes? I'd hazard that the % is very low, and I'd guarantee that while I think I'm pretty damn good at this game, the % still doesn't include me
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew M
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
flag msg tools
admin
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
badge
513ers Assemble!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Remember - if you see something you want to react negatively to, flag it and forget it. DO NOT RESPOND. Responding only invites more in return, and you may end up dragging yourself down with other folks who have already been moderated.

Using the
icon serves two functions - first, if enough users flag a post then it will be collapsed from general view. Second, flagging posts helps bring them to the attention of the forum moderators.

Thanks!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Rockwell
United States
Lynnwood
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shango02 wrote:

The data is what it is, "trusting" it isn't really the point. No one thinks the data has been falsified. We are all just drawing different conclusions from said data.

Alright. I think that octgn winrate data has at least *some* relevance to high-skill play (not only to all play aggregated over all skill levels).

That is, if Identity X has winrate 55%, and Identity Y has winrate 45%, then that *probably* means that a high skill player will also achieve better results playing Identity X than they will with Y.


So I am saying that it *is* at least somewhat relevant.
If someone else finds it irrelevant, then I guess they have to rely more heavily on their personal experience.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
FirstName LastName
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Alexfrog wrote:

That is, if Identity X has winrate 55%, and Identity Y has winrate 45%, then that *probably* means that a high skill player will also achieve better results playing Identity X than they will with Y.

I don't think this follows.

In games like League of Legends or Street Fighter where you pick a character before playing, the concept of "skill cap" refers to how much the character amplifies the skill of the player. High skill-cap characters have abilities which require more skill to use well, but when used well are more powerful than other characters. In these games, you will see professionals play high skill-cap characters while novices can't figure out how to get them to perform.

I believe hoobajoo's claim is essentially that Gabe is higher skill-cap than Andromeda. As in, the power ranking is:

1. Expert Gabe
2. Expert Andromeda
3. Novice Andromeda
4. Novice Gabe

Since novices greatly outnumber experts, data showing that the general population is better as Andromeda than Gabe doesn't refute such a claim, it only confirms that 3 > 4.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Rockwell
United States
Lynnwood
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DrTall wrote:

I don't think this follows.

In games like League of Legends or Street Fighter where you pick a character before playing, the concept of "skill cap" refers to how much the character amplifies the skill of the player.


If you look at how much win rates of champions in league of legends vary over different skill levels (comparing Bronze at the low end to Diamond at the high end), they only tend to vary by a few percent. Even on the extremes, they remain pretty close to the win rate percents for the entire data set.


As a result, even if Gabe is higher skill cap, in order to be better than Andromeda at a high skill level, he has to be 'better enough' to overcome a significant gap.




Anyways, I dont think Gabe is higher skill cap than Andromeda. I think he is higher variance than Andromeda. As a result of his smaller handsize, he is a lot more subject to bad draws. But due to his potentially substantial economic boost from hitting HQ, when times are good, he more than makes up for it. He is more 'feast or famine'.

Too much of this feast or famine nature of his play comes simply from draw luck, in my opinion. (Not just draw luck for the Gabe player, but also whether the corp player drew the right things (enough ice, ice of types Gabe didnt get early breakers for, etc).




If people want to argue that Gabe is high skill cap and surpasses Andromeda at high skill play, where is the evidence?

Plugged in tour wins? Its an incredibly small sample size, but Andromeda has a lot more.

OCTGN data? I think its worth something, in that it shows that Gabe has a gap he needs to overcome. That is, it shows that one claiming 'Gabe is better at high skill levels" has a bit larger burden of proof. But some of you are disputing it entirely, so okay...we throw that out.

What is left? Your personal anecdote that you do better with the Gabe deck when you make no mistakes? How about my personal anecdote that I do better with Andromeda?


I agree that we have little evidence to use to weigh this claim. But the evidence we do have (like Plugged in Tour wins) points against that conclusion (that Gabe is better at the top level of play).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alejandro G.
United States
Hurst
Texas
flag msg tools
Sometimes you have to roll the hard six.
badge
I'm getting my men...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Please do not speak out against the hallowed OCTGN data here... it is forbidden.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
FirstName LastName
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Alexfrog wrote:
If you look at how much win rates of champions in league of legends vary over different skill levels (comparing Bronze at the low end to Diamond at the high end), they only tend to vary by a few percent. Even on the extremes, they remain pretty close to the win rate percents for the entire data set.

Uhh, citation needed?

Comparing http://www.lolking.net/charts?region=all&type=champion-winra... to http://lolmatches.com/championstats/last5/R (set Last 5 Versions, Ranked 5v5) I see:

Elise: 59% win vs 47%
Zed: 57% win vs 47%

These seem dramatic enough to me, and these particular champions showing this distortion doesn't surprise me. But obviously this is a different game. I only brought it up for the terminology, not to actually debate it.

Alexfrog wrote:
That is, it shows that one claiming 'Gabe is better at high skill levels" has a bit larger burden of proof. But some of you are disputing it entirely, so okay...we throw that out.

I disagree that the OCTGN data creates a "burden of proof" here. If you'll allow me to paraphrase your position as "Andromeda is consistently stronger than Gabe" then it would fall out like:

1. Expert Andromeda
2. Expert Gabe
3. Novice Andromeda
4. Novice Gabe

yes? (Please do correct me; not trying to straw man anybody here). Compared to "Gabe is higher skill-cap than Andromeda":

1. Expert Gabe
2. Expert Andromeda
3. Novice Andromeda
4. Novice Gabe

In both cases we see Novice Andromeda > Novice Gabe. These two claims are in agreement that Andromeda is stronger than Gabe for the majority of players. So to whatever extent that the OCTGN data supports one claim, it also supports the other claim.

I agree there is no good data source to rely on here. That doesn't mean we should misinterpret the data that is available.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drake Villareal
United States
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
I think this is the point where we declare the thread officially de-railed.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Rockwell
United States
Lynnwood
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DrTall wrote:
[
Uhh, citation needed?

Comparing http://www.lolking.net/charts?region=all&type=champion-winra... to http://lolmatches.com/championstats/last5/R (set Last 5 Versions, Ranked 5v5) I see:

Elise: 59% win vs 47%
Zed: 57% win vs 47%

For high skill, you used Challenger. Challenger is only 50 people, and the sample size is almost nonexistant. Use Diamond instead. Its top ~1% or so, but gives plenty of sample size. Most large variations you are going to see by doing this are going to be simply because the Challenger data size is extremely small and varies a ton.



So here is a good comparison:
Using just Lolking (not adding in error from comparing across different websites), under Charts. Monthly time frame, ranked solo queue.
http://www.lolking.net/charts?region=all&type=champion-winra...

Here are the winrate of the top champions across all games, and then their win rates in low skill (bronze) and high skill (diamond)

All games: Bronze: Diamond:
Janna 54.43 53.12 55.20
Rammus 54.05 54.47 54.50
Amumu 53.51 53.94 52.51
Wukong 53.18 54.08 ~51.5?
Fiddle 53.11 ~53.0? 53.34
Malzahar53.02 53.77 ~52.0?
Sona 52.91 53.38 52.19
Brand 52.74 53.03 ~52.0?
Jarvan 52.64 52.73 52.71
Corki 52.60 52.75 52.66


Numbers with a ? are because it doesnt show up in the top 15 list chart for one of those tiers, and I had to go into its daily data and estimate. Those estimates arent off by more than 1%.


For many champions there is almost no change.
For others ("High" or "Low" skill champs), they vary by up to 2%-2.5% or so.

The win rates across skill level tiers are very similar. They dont change that much.

Therefore, if a champion, overall, were to be at 58% win rate (like Andromeda), the chance that some 52% overall win rate champion (Gabriel), would be able to have higher win rate at high skill tiers is pretty minimal.



Of course, thats League of Legends.
Does Netrunner have a massively higher difference in win rates of IDs, across skill levels? Maybe it does. But League of Legends is an example of a game where that isnt true.



2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Rockwell
United States
Lynnwood
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
OddCrow19 wrote:
I think this is the point where we declare the thread officially de-railed.


Yeah, I agree.
We dont really have enough good data to defend the different claims being made, so we are all just pretty much cheerleading our favored IDs.


....

GO ANDROMEDA!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drake Villareal
United States
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Alexfrog wrote:
OddCrow19 wrote:
I think this is the point where we declare the thread officially de-railed.


Yeah, I agree.
We dont really have enough good data to defend the different claims being made, so we are all just pretty much cheerleading our favored IDs.


....

GO ANDROMEDA!

Exactly. I'd make the case for Andromeda as a strong ID, with her link, low-variance, wider attack opportunities, less telegraphing of strategies, ability to better use 1 or 2-ofs, superior mulligan to respond to corp/player, faster set up means less time digging against rush decks, harder to play around when compared to gabe (lock out of hq).

However, we're caught in a dangerous place between PEMN and FDAG. (personal experience means nothing and flawed data as gospel). It's a slippery slope, and I don't envy those attempting to scale it, but I think at the top of this mountain we find that good players carry their IDs as much as their IDs carry them.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth M
msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
OddCrow19 wrote:
I think this is the point where we declare the thread officially de-railed.


I'm pretty sure that moment was when somebody posted OCTGN stats about general ID differences apropos of nothing in a thread that had been up until then discussing one specific deck (perhaps because a single line in the OP was the direst offense to the sacred The Deckā„¢).

Much like a train it just continued to spew across the ground by sheer inertia after that.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Presley
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Alexfrog wrote:
OddCrow19 wrote:
I think this is the point where we declare the thread officially de-railed.


Yeah, I agree.
We dont really have enough good data to defend the different claims being made, so we are all just pretty much cheerleading our favored IDs.


....

GO ANDROMEDA!

I do think you are forwarding a false dichotomy between irrelevant statistics and "cheer leading", in an effort to de-legitimize the entire discussion. We can still have a reasoned argument and I am more than happy to explain this deck, why Gabe works best, and how it is more potent than play-it-safe Andromeda. We just can't expect to get anywhere falaciously using data points that have no bearing on the arguments at hand as a replacement for real ideas.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geoff Hollis
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
Avatar
hoobajoo wrote:
We can still have a reasoned argument and I am more than happy to explain this deck, why Gabe works best, and how it is more potent than play-it-safe Andromeda.

I've been wanting to jump into this discussion for awhile, because I find the deck interesting, worth discussing, and happen to agree with your statement of the skillcap of Gabe vs Andromeda. Though, I disagree with many (most?) of the specifics you present. However, haven't brought myself to do so because of comments like:

hoobajoo wrote:
Yes, it is difficult to pilot, but that is my core thesis: just be that good, and these problems evaporate.

Which results in an unassailable position; you think this deck has problems? You're just not good enough. It's great flamebait.

So, maybe you can assail your own position instead: given full deck knowledge, how do you build against this Gabe deck (besides playing the magical unicorn Jinteki deck, which probably competitive players won't play because it is too weak against the field).

After that, is there a second iteration of the Gabe deck, or possibly do different runner identities begin gaining value instead?

Also, WHY do you think Gabe has a higher performance ceiling than Andromeda? I don't think you ever addressed that. If you did, apologies.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Giovannetti
United States
Woodinville / Bothell Area
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
hoobajoo wrote:

Everything you bring up about this deck is either not a problem, or a minor problem, which you explode into huge ones. I don't have time to break everything down, and I'll come back to it, but good play negates all of these issues, which aren't major issues to begin with.

The thing is that Andy has no issues...

I keep hearing players say that Gabe is higher skill cap than Andy. I think this claim basically amounts too: Andy is superior, therefore in Gabe I find myself in worse situations more often. Then I need to outplay my opponent to get out of these situations.

Personally to me, this deck seems to have tons of flaws, and is *clearly* less consistent than a tuned Andy deck.

It essentially trades Sneakdoor for a worse economy and a less consistent rig.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Presley
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hollis wrote:
hoobajoo wrote:
We can still have a reasoned argument and I am more than happy to explain this deck, why Gabe works best, and how it is more potent than play-it-safe Andromeda.

I've been wanting to jump into this discussion for awhile, because I find the deck interesting, worth discussing, and happen to agree with your statement of the skillcap of Gabe vs Andromeda. Though, I disagree with many (most?) of the specifics you present. However, haven't brought myself to do so because of comments like:

hoobajoo wrote:
Yes, it is difficult to pilot, but that is my core thesis: just be that good, and these problems evaporate.

Which results in an unassailable position; you think this deck has problems? You're just not good enough. It's great flamebait.

My point was that the scenarios people kept criticizing the deck for were all the result of poor play, and I prefaced this deck with the caveat that it does not tolerate poor play. You can feel free to criticize my deck, but if your criticism is that it is hard to play well, then yeah. It is, but that's not a problem if you rise to the occasion. With that in mind, you raised some good points, so let me go into them.

hollis wrote:
So, maybe you can assail your own position instead: given full deck knowledge, how do you build against this Gabe deck (besides playing the magical unicorn Jinteki deck, which probably competitive players won't play because it is too weak against the field).

Yeah, anti-Gabe Jinteki deck is maybe not killed outright just by Deus X being a card in the meta, but it at least kneecaps it. The first way to build with this Gabe in mind is to be able to throw a cheap remote up to score out of. Agendas in HQ are just waiting to get pilfered, so the sooner you can get them on the table safely, the better. The second way is by using ICE to maximally interfere with running on centrals. It can often be better to just let me have a run on HQ or R&D for a few turns to hide the identity of an ETR ICE, so it can still effectively block events when they come up. Chimera and Grim are two very good cards against this deck. Grim is great central server protection, and is an excellent ICE to be second or third on a remote. Chimera is great sitting at the base of a remote, but it is also good for stopping event runs on centrals as well.

hollis wrote:
After that, is there a second iteration of the Gabe deck, or possibly do different runner identities begin gaining value instead?

A lot of the anti-PST ideas are just strong ideas for the corp in general. I do think bioroids, especially Ichi 1.0 and Viktor 2.0, make excellent central-server speed bumps, while not being too vulnerable to Shutdown, though some hard ETR is necessary to not just let Siphons and other events through. Most of the things corp could do to really meta hard against this have existing silver bullets in other decks that make them less reliable over all. E.g. Snare has Deus X, Caduceus is weak to 1 link runners who currently comprise a lot of the field, and bioroids can be run on click 1.

Generally I think it's best to focus on making your corp deck as strong and as fast as possible, with the ability to snowball advantages into further advantages. If you manage to shut Gabe out for a turn or two, you need to be able to capitalize on that super hard. NBN is the best at doing this with Astroscript and SanSan chaining agendas; Weyland is a close second in that department, but makes up for it by forcing Gabe to slow down a bit initially to play around SE.

hollis wrote:
Also, WHY do you think Gabe has a higher performance ceiling than Andromeda? I don't think you ever addressed that. If you did, apologies.

I touched upon it a bit, but it definitely deserves to be developed more. Two reasons stand out to me, beyond simply running one-of each breaker (which works well in Andromeda too). The first being the mulligan, and the second being card trashing. Andromeda will essentially always have a 'nuts' draw, giving you a lot of information, and typically extra economy or flexibility. Now Criminal doesn't really need this extra start, as their decks, especially this one, are very modular. They don't have a central engine card like ProCon or Magnum Opus that they need to draw turn 1, or the flounder without. But the flip side of that is the mulligan decision becomes a lot more difficult and more nuanced without a card to auto-mull for. Gabe has to evaluate his hand, look at the economy, options, attack angles, and whatever 2 and 1 ofs that might show up. And then keep in mind that the corp choosing to mull or not also changes things: the value of Sneakdoor (or the opportunity cost of a Sneakdoor-less hand) is less if the corp kept, for example, because it indicates there are few agendas right off in HQ. This is a lot harder of an evaluation to make for a 5 card hand than a 9 card.

Card trashing is more of a razor's edge with Gabe, because he doesn't get that turn 1 economic buffer that Andromeda typically opens with. For the most part the two decks install roughly the same cards, but Gabe has to manage his money more carefully, and the easiest way to lose it is making poor calls on trashing cards. There are some cards that are really important to trash as soon as you see them, like Melange, Jackson, or Adonis, but especially the 5-cost cards can present a difficult decision. If you waste money killing a Marked Accounts in R&D, and later you don't have the money to install Yog to respond to an Enigma stopping your HQ pressure, that represents a big tempo loss, and a bad trade on your part.

Gabe rewards this with massive Sneakdoor Beta synergy and a stronger ID across the game (Andromeda doesn't give you anything Gabe can't do) to promote aggression. It also makes it much easier to make runs on HQ cost-neutral, which puts a lot of heat on the corporation right from the start.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Presley
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SneakySly wrote:
hoobajoo wrote:

Everything you bring up about this deck is either not a problem, or a minor problem, which you explode into huge ones. I don't have time to break everything down, and I'll come back to it, but good play negates all of these issues, which aren't major issues to begin with.

The thing is that Andy has no issues...

I keep hearing players say that Gabe is higher skill cap than Andy. I think this claim basically amounts too: Andy is superior, therefore in Gabe I find myself in worse situations more often. Then I need to outplay my opponent to get out of these situations.

Personally to me, this deck seems to have tons of flaws, and is *clearly* less consistent than a tuned Andy deck.

It essentially trades Sneakdoor for a worse economy and a less consistent rig.


Being more forgiving of mistakes is not the same as the mistakes not mattering in the first place. You won't win a major tournament while not playing totally on-point, so you should run a deck that maximally rewards that. If you're not playing near-optimum to begin with, well then, you weren't going to go far no matter what deck you play.

Gabe has the stronger economy across the course of the game; Andy just gets to play more out the gate. Keep in mind that both decks use roughly the same event-driven economy and tools to rig up, but only one gets the bonus from the ID card.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Rockwell
United States
Lynnwood
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hoobajoo wrote:

I do think you are forwarding a false dichotomy between irrelevant statistics and "cheer leading", in an effort to de-legitimize the entire discussion. We can still have a reasoned argument and I am more than happy to explain this deck, why Gabe works best, and how it is more potent than play-it-safe Andromeda. We just can't expect to get anywhere falaciously using data points that have no bearing on the arguments at hand as a replacement for real ideas.

Its not an attempt to de-legitimize the discussion.

I honestly believe that the OCTGN data provides *some* evidence in support of Andromeda being better than Gabe across all skill levels, including high skill play.

If they were even on overall winrate, it would be a lot easier o make the claim "Gabe is better at high skill play". But since Andromeda's overall is higher, there is a higher bar to overcome.
Its not definitive by any means, its merely 'some' evidence.
You dont think it matters at all, apparently.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
wrathofmine
France
Argenteuil
France
flag msg tools
To talk a little about the thread.

Your initial post and comments hoobajoo made me realize why i was better Gabe player when I was novice (yes ) than now.

In fact, now that I'm experienced player, I try to anticipate all that can go wrong, and have 2 of each breakers, resiliency etc... when my first Gabe deck where all about agression and reckless.

I've tried to build a new deck like yours and it performs well... when you make no mistake.

BUT, that said, i've made some place for clone chips, to install parasites on the fly (or get back that breaker I admit blush) and it's real good.

All that to say your deck made me realize my crim decks where too cautious, and because of that, too slow, and my reckless beginners decks I made 6 monthes ago performed better. And thats exactly why I was poor shaper/anarch player at the beginning and now I'm better shaper/anarch than criminal.

Really interresting thoughts and vision of the game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Neuberg
United States
California
flag msg tools
Alexfrog wrote:


Its not an attempt to de-legitimize the discussion.

I honestly believe that the OCTGN data provides *some* evidence in support of Andromeda being better than Gabe across all skill levels, including high skill play.

If they were even on overall winrate, it would be a lot easier o make the claim "Gabe is better at high skill play". But since Andromeda's overall is higher, there is a higher bar to overcome.
Its not definitive by any means, its merely 'some' evidence.
You dont think it matters at all, apparently.

Can we please just talk about something other than the OCTGN data? At this point it seems like a huge distraction from the actual point, which is actual reasons why this Gabe deck can out-perform Andromeda. Hollis moved the conversation in a more productive direction, let's keep it going that way.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Giovannetti
United States
Woodinville / Bothell Area
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
hoobajoo wrote:


Being more forgiving of mistakes is not the same as the mistakes not mattering in the first place. You won't win a major tournament while not playing totally on-point, so you should run a deck that maximally rewards that. If you're not playing near-optimum to begin with, well then, you weren't going to go far no matter what deck you play.

Gabe has the stronger economy across the course of the game; Andy just gets to play more out the gate. Keep in mind that both decks use roughly the same event-driven economy and tools to rig up, but only one gets the bonus from the ID card.

1. You totally misread me. I said nothing about player mistakes at all.

2. The claim that Gabe's economy is stronger seems simply incorrect on it's face. The economy in this deck is visibly weaker than the best Andromeda decks. You run strictly less burst economy cards, less long term economy cards, and less desperado.

3. This deck also is simply less able to connect with it's siphons than Andromeda. No Crypsis and no breakers means you *will* have less consistent access to the breakers you need to siphon. Period.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
[1]  Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [8] |