COCLCG said:

I didn't see you addressing the _polite_ and legitimate criticism on the deck at all. How do you deal (or intend to deal if it hasn't happened to you yet) with the kind of deck Konx has been describing?

what you may call _polite_ i would call _condescending_

'trying to build a competative deck' - pfffff    (which is what started it all)

what i'm inferring is that all his suggestions and 'critisisms' were based on what is obviously his own playstyle and what he believes the most important cards are.

if you actually built the deck and played it a couple of times in that vein, then yes, you'd see it sucked and had flaws. re-adjust the way its played and become accustomed to the required playstyle and he might have answered some of his own questions, and found that although his version didn't work, maybe this one just might.

for example:

the initiate : who says its just to get an extra domain. in fact, 50% of the time it isnt sacrificed. what it does is give the 2 cost department an arcane boost, can back up shadow sorceress against MoM for the ability trigger, with the POSSIBILITY of an extra domain should cursed skull and bells and ya-te-veo all pop up simultaneously. that's the kind of 'blahblahblah' you're asking about.

the 4:3 domain inference: are you kidding me ?? who goes to a 4:3 domain just for 1 card ?? as stated, the scavenger is a resource card, Y'golonac a 'if the games going on too long' card.

the only problems he mentioned were corrupted midwife AND all the sacrifice tools getting taken out, which still leaves you with recurring single glimpses and twilight gating many angled things (yes, there are around 5 or 6 different engines happening that ALL have to be stopped - and speak to the dead facilitates the ones that are working - which throws the gathering at the stones 'suggestion' in the trash), and rush decks, which i have faced. sure, they get the first story or 2, but once you're sac'ing 2 - 3 characters a turn which starts happening very quickly, they just can't handle the now even numbers and the terror / combat ratio.

BUT, so that some may indulge their desires to downplay and make assumptions about whats hot and whats not, the deck HAS been beaten, but it still remains a hard thing to do and is definately, dare i say, competative.

COCLCG said:

Regarding the 'competitive' discussion: Konx has participated quite successfully in a couple of tournaments with a large number of players. I've played against him (although so far only in non-competitve games) and I know he's a very competent player who quickly grasps an opponent's strategy and a deck's weaknesses.

I'm not saying he's right about your deck and since you've used it in a large number of games I believe you it's working well enough. Have you played it in any tournaments, though?

When I tested my last tournament deck I was playing against players in my area and won about 90% of the time (in over 30 games). I still didn't make more than 9th place in the European Championship. It's simply not the same thing.

Every deck can be improved upon, so I was just wondering why you so blatantly ignore good general advice instead of adressing it and saying 'Yeah, I took that into consideration and when it happens I do 'X'. Allowing the opponent to win the first two stories, strikes me as an extremely risky approach, particularly since in a tournament there is a time limit, so an early lead might easily result in a win for your opponent if you cannot finish the game in time!

yep. understood. its all a regrettable situation where ( aware of it or not ), his post rang of exactly that:

i've done ok in some tournaments and this is what you should do because that's what i'd do, and calling certain choices blatant mistakes without an inkling of the decks playstyle, which he obviously didn't grasp on this occasion.

i have no doubt that he may be a very good player, and placing in tournaments is certainly an achievement, but i've also played in a few tournaments and am current australian champion, and although i'm sure i've not played the entire country's pool of players, i'm still yet to be beaten at the table, and have a fairly good record against the international community on lackey. at the moment im playing 3 - 4 hrs every night on lackey and every thursday with a group of 6 - 10 people, so i'd argue that i'd probably be up there playing the most cthulhu in the world at the moment.

so unfortunately when someone generalises, and advice sways towards criticism and deck changing to be competative, as well as being told how i need to play my own deck even down to the resourcing i'll need, i get a little…. well….. annoyed at the, for lack of a better word, audacity.

i know i should just shrug and let things be, but in the moment i just feel the need to point out some adjustments that need to be made for posts to be less demeaning. perhaps its just me or the monkey on my back, but i do apologise to konx and the community for the tendency to lash out at other egos because of my own.

as a further note, of course i'm not happy to go 2 stories down. as always, depending on the draw, it can crush rushes from turn 2 or so, but, if it does go 2 stories down i'm still not too phased as eventually the destruction becomes a little too much. its not like a cthulhu deck which is far slower, and has probably more destructive potential than one as well. i've never actually faced a rush where i've lost more than 1 story, but for arguments sake, and because i know it will happen eventually, i'll just deal with it when it does the best i can, and if i lose then so be it. no deck is infallible, and luck of the draw determines a lot of games, so poking at another persons deck weakness which is inevitable just seems pointless and confronting. post any deck and someone will be able to say "what about this?", and there won't be an answer for it, so i just dont see the reason why you would.

actually, in hindsight, i have to snigger that konx suggested all the changes, and then later says his design of a deck with the same interactions didnt work - thats pretty funny konx, you gotta agree.

COCLCG said:

I was trying to stay out of the conversation, as promised, but I just want to clarify this, since it was clearly misunderstood what I was trying to say (my bad, of course. Writing on a forum in a language that is not my native language is pretty difficult sometimes).

I did NOT suggest any change. I was saying _my_opinion_ on some aspects of the deck (mainly: the fact that it tends to be slow). If some playtest suggestions have been read as "change this card, it will work better" my apology. Any "card suggestion", on a forum like this, should be read (in my opinion and for my experience) like "did you try to play this card? if so, why didn't that work out?". Next time, I'll rephrase as a question to avoid any confusion (in other forums about card games I'm use to talk in the "positive" way, not in the "questioning" way)

My deck did not work exactly for this reason (slow). When I playtest new decks ideas, I tend, first of all, to playtest against other of my decks, especially those decks that I used in tournament and with which I placed well ("well" means at least top3, and I tend to consider as real test only tournament with more than 10 people, better if with different people than my usual playgroup). If the new deck cannot beat in a regular way the old deck, it's not worth trying it more, in my opinion. Maybe, the idea is good, it is just waiting for new cards being printed to make it better. Analyzing this one, I just see the same thing. Now, if this works fine for you, I'm happy with that. As I said, I was just expressing my opinion.

About the second post that was just about Y'Golonac: I made my point expressing why I wouldn't play less than 3 copies of the card. If you don't agree, no problem of course. Your explanation (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you have 2 Y'golo because it's not your main concern to put it into play, it's just the "cherry on top of the cake" or "a weapon for long games". As I don't play any card which is just a "plus", when I build my decks, I failed to see this reason behind the choice of playing 2 y'golonac. Again, my apology.

I skip the rest, as I don't want to enter in other details (explanation on obvious interaction, how to play some obvious cards, etc…)

Hope this clarify better…if not, I really don't know how to write it more clear :)

Konx

PS: re-reading the post, I think I've used the expression "in my opinion" a bit too much. In my opinion :P

i suppose its just the language barrier then, or perhaps my interpretation of english comes from having studied the language and knowing the truth and meaning behind english words which others overlook, which makes me react differently to them.

opinion is a VERY strong word in the english language. opinions start holy wars and cause people to commit acts of terrorism and the like. to have an opinion is to have a belief that your idea about a subject is right, and thats ok, to have opinions. when you EXPRESS those opinions ( 'in my opinion' ) you are saying this is what is right about the subject as far as i am concerned, therefore any differing opinion must be wrong. people voicing opposite opinions over subjects usually devolve into arguments or even active aggression.

it is also a very egotistical and arrogant word. look up collins dictionary and you will see:

1. personal belief or judgement 2. judgement given by an expert

and well, the word judgement is a VERY VERY strong word in the english language, and the self connotation of expert a sign of pride and arrogance. but i realise now this is not your native language, so hopefully you better understand the strength behind 'giving your opinion' now.

if i had to rank them, i'd probably go something like:

SUGGESTION : ADVICE : OPINION : CONDEMNATION

so perhaps, as a suggestion,  that might be a start for toning down the ( mistakenly ) confrontational nature of your replies. no more OPINIONS!! :P

COCLCG said:

Good to know. In Italian, the direct translation of "opinion" is much less of a problem and it is used in a positive way. Problem solved, I'll try to change my use of the word ^^

Konx

haha. easy to do. just say 'i suggest'.

i do apologise konx. i am a righteous bugger, far too opinionated and self righteous in my own right and quick to lash out at those who appear to be 'big noting' themselves ( though i now realise that this was mistaken ). i will try and take some of my own advice and investigate further into posts before i react so strongly. it's just my nature and we are who we are, and all i can do is try and fix up the messes i create.

sorry again and feel free to 'suggest' in the future and i'll not take it personally ( i'll just probably not pay attention - haha ).

COCLCG said:

In my opinion you're overracting to the point of being a poster-child case of a paranoid and you seem to be intent on picking the least favourable interpretation possible to confirm your world-view. 

Now with less hyperbole: I actually looked it up in the online collins dictionary and this is what I see:

noun

1.judgment or belief not founded on certainty or proof
2. the prevailing or popular feeling or view ⇒ "public opinion"
3. evaluation, impression, or estimation of the value or worth of a person or thing
4. an evaluation or judgment given by an expert ⇒ "a medical opinion"
5. the advice given by a barrister or counsel on a case submitted to him or her for a view on the legal points involved

6. See a matter of opinion

7. See be of the opinion that

So there are seven different 'uses' for the word, yet you insist the 'only correct interpretation' is the one you stated ('a very egotistical and arrogant word'). This way lies madness! Particularly in an internet forum requented by people worldwide, only a minority being native English speakers and where it can be hard to catch nuances. No wonder you're flying into a rage all the time ^^

(if I look in my prefered dictionary (www.leo.org) I find no less than 10 different translations into German, i.e. my native language)

Anyway, this easily explains why I'm seeing politeness where you're seeing an offense.

um. im not seeing your point.

1 ) Judgement founded on what you believe to be right ( though not founded with proof )

2 ) DOES NOT APPLY ( out of context )

3 ) even worse than any of my descriptions, this one is an active attack on a person based on your beliefs so thanks for that one.

4 ) presuming you're an expert = arrogant

5 ) DOES NOT APPLY ( out of context )

6 ) not a description but a referral to another related topic

7 ) not a description but a referral to another related topic

so that only leaves my 2 'interpretations', and the bonus one you included which strengthens and verifies my explanations.

[ADMIN: Edited for content. Please keep all discourse civil, especially when you disagree.]

Any pure text communication is flawed in that it does not express emotions etc. You have to assume the tone some remarks are made in and its often easy to missjudge.

And about this "opinion" word. How would you describe "thats what I think". I always used IMO acronym for that, and it does contain opinion inside. My opinion, not an expert opinion, not a scientifict fact, my opinion, it might be wrong, if you have enough humility you see you can be wrong.

Im not a native speaker so I might be totally wrong on this, but are you sure your opinion on word opinion is not biased to match this discussion. In my language there is an expression "experts opinion" that means a judgjement by expert, but other than that opinion = what someone thinks. IMO is used to weaken an argument, not to make it stronger. General statements are stronger as they are universal, someones opinion is what he thinks is true, but he might still be wrong.

quote:

"are you on drugs ?? ( or perhaps its that mind eater sucking out any rational thoughts from your brain )."

you shure you want to talk with people on how they express their thoughts…

As a native English speaker all my life (American though, not Australian as COCLCG), the word "opinion" doesn't carry any special meaning over here.  It just means "that's what I think about something".  Not offensive, not strong, and no hidden implications.

I think the latter is what he's actually stuck on.  He's imagining someone saying "in my opinion" in a smug voice, as if the speaker wishes to hint that his opinion is BETTER than everyone else's opinion.  He started off on the wrong foot already when he stumbled on the word competitive and the mistook Konx's claim to be a good player as if it were a personal challenge.  In that frame of mind, he went on to inject sarcasm that was not actually intended.  It's a mistake, whether caused by paranoia or just being in the wrong mood when he read it.

Just about everyone here is at least a pretty good player.  This is not a highly populated forum.  We wouldn't be here if we weren't really into the game, so it's a pretty safe assumption that anyone whose name you recognize as having been around for a while knows what they're doing.  Suggestions from anyone you know here should be treated with respect, and it's really not necessary to try to compare who has more imaginary tournament points or whatever.  Ideas should stand on their own merits, not on whether you think you outrank the person who said it.

dboeren said:

I agree with that entire post. An opinion is just that, someone's opinion. There are no nefarious implications. It's just an opinion, of which everyone is entitled to have. If you post your deck list here then expect discussion as that is the entire point of public fora. To discuss a topic. So I would not worry one iota about how you are communicating, Konx.

COCLCG said:

And this is where communication breaks down. You made opinions and disagreed about a definition in a manner that could be discussed, then you just had to go an add this, as if the ad hominem somehow adds more validity to your assertion.

Just do without the instigatory (not a real word, but it should be as it perfectly reflects the inflammatory) remarks, and then you are suddenly a contributing member whose views are valued. Your entire argument crumbles when such tactics are used, and for no point. The very same thing you accuse others of doing in this thread.

Note, there is nothing hostile in my tone, nor in the way I have expressed myself. I am just expressing an opinion in a manner that can be debated. The only reason why I am adding my remark is to give my viewpoint and to help others understand. So please keep that in mind..