Palatinus' OverPower Forum

The thing that always sways me toward AnyHero cards over a Battlesite is the top 3 notion.
OD+BY+BQ > top3 of any Battlesite (at least IMO)

Also, Onslaught, when I hear you say,

Quote from: Onslaught on April 08, 2013, 03:24:10 PM
... Any Hero decks firmly in the "consistent/resilient" style of play. ...

it seems to me that you're saying Battlesites are HighRisk/HighReward. I don't even disagree with you on that point. I'm not sure anyone else does. The real question presented here (I think) is whether or not the High Reward is enough to overcome the High Risk. So far, in 77 games of research, it is not.

I mean, if Any Hero decks are "firmly in the 'consistent/resilient' style of play." then doesn't that mean more data will only further prove them to be more consistent and more resilient? Isn't that enough to say that they are going to fare better than the Battlesite decks over time?

Quotesiberian strength and HQs are negatable.  dow is not.  advantage dow.

Being able to negate the card advantage OPDs from a site isn't really that big of an advantage, since the battlesite deck has  the flexibility with 3 activators to choose the appropriate time to use a venture winning card. Unless you are playing one of the very specific lineups that is specifically made to cater to the strength of Any Heroes, your negate character is going to die pretty quickly. Similarly, battlesites have far more ways to clear out a negate to punch through something like an HQ. Any Heroes don't have the luxury of effects like an AI or GA. On top of all that, Any Heroes have less negate density. If you have an negate character + negate on a site, you have roughly 6-7 negates available to you at any given time, and a double negate turn is not uncommon. If you have a negate character + Bastion, you only have 4 negates, and a double negate turn is rare. So if I bet 4 for the win and you negate my battlesite OPD, the odds are extremely high that the Inventive Genius or Keeyah or whatever is going to resolve.

Quotealso, nice try downplaying dow by telling of it's disadvantages at the end of the game.  even if it is drawn on hand 7 (which should be the last before power pack), it should give an advantage

How many games actually go to hand 7? You're playing wrong if that happens a lot. And if Any Heroes went 7 turns without drawing DoW against a battlesite deck, the game should already be over since you have a bunch of narrow attacks/blocks going against exotic effects generating massive card advantage like LOs, GAs, and a variety of "get off me" effects like CDs, CNs, AHs, etc. Also, the aforementioned issue of your negate character dying without battlesite defense to protect it is all but guaranteed in a 7 (or even 5 or 6) turn game. Even a fully optimized Any Hero deck like X-Man/Spawn/Scarlet/Spider-Woman cannot keep a negater alive for 7 turns.

And lol at the thought of playing 13 activators outside of very specialized situations.

so what?

anys best 2 cards are non-negate-able

lol right back at you slick.  thinking that if a game goes to hand 7, or if you build a big site, you're 'playing it wrong'.  it's that kind of decade-plus old thinking that illustrates how you haven't been able to evolve your game (which wasn't that impressive to begin with btw).  you've shown before an irrational ability to embrace change, so i shouldn't be surprised

also, lol at pulling made up stats out of your ass.  3.5 hands/game...oh really? 

you can do better than that, troll

If by "made up stats out of your ass" you mean the aggregated average of all tournament reports that I have saved since 1999 post X-Men release, sure. Sorry that you play vs people who go to time every round, but normal competitive games have the critical turn around turn 3 and the end game on turn 4. Anyway, notice the tone of your posts? Besides your lack of understanding of basic statistics, all of your "points" boil down to addressing me directly. This is indicative of someone arguing from an uninformed position. Meanwhile I'm presenting objective data with very light qualitative analysis. If you think the existing playerbase of 50 people or so (if that) is "evolving" play beyond what it used to be, you should talk to some more of the people from your playgroup that also played back in the day. See if they think your tournaments are comparable to what the environment used to be like.

A big battlesite is objectively terrible unless you have a deck that maximizes it (of which there are very few). If a game goes to hand 7, you aren't venturing enough or you have a really bizarre matchup (like Any Hero vs Any Hero where both teams have multiple 8 stats hoping to drag the game to the power pack). These should be rare occurrences.

QuoteOD+BY+BQ > top3 of any Battlesite (at least IMO)

DoW is a house, but Leech is only marginally useful and WHW is a mediocre card. In theory, Webhead is amazing. But generally, it is too action intensive to play out the way you want it to. If you are going second, it is really hard to do something telegraphed like WHW for an HQ. If they open with a teamwork, and then you Webhead, then they play an ally or something like a JW or (worst case scenario) another teamwork, then you try to play what you got back with Webhead and it is negated, you have just spent 2 turns to have 2 actions resulting in no pressure on the opponent and a net trade of 1 card of yours for one card of theirs. Meanwhile they have used their two turns to have 4 to 6 actions, and it is their turn AGAIN after the negate. Getting action advantage is a key component of creating card advantage and venture advantage at the same time (they concede to keep characters alive). Or, depending on the matchup you may use your action advantage to land a bunch of hits, defend their next action and then concede, getting you ahead in the KO race. Either way, you lose so much tempo by playing Webhead unless it is getting back a defensive card (which is not really that impressive).

QuoteSo far, in 77 games of research, it is not.

I mean, if Any Hero decks are "firmly in the 'consistent/resilient' style of play." then doesn't that mean more data will only further prove them to be more consistent and more resilient? Isn't that enough to say that they are going to fare better than the Battlesite decks over time?

77 games of research from a handful of tournaments with less than 20 people who are playing admittedly suboptimal decks. The verdict on battlesites vs. Any Heroes was determined 13 years ago. If people want to self-aggrandize their newer theories about the game (that were probably already discussed and dismissed a decade ago) by thinking that old results don't matter, then I don't know what to tell you. I'll stick with the well established consensus from past tournaments, at least until there is another active playerbase of 2000+ people with tournaments happening across the nation, with high incentive to play decks that win (cash prizes, ratings system, etc).

Now if you want to continue discussing the apparent advantage of Any Heroes in the 2013 Canadian tournament environment, that's fine. It's a perfectly valid area of discussion since you should always be planning your deck based on what you predict you are going to play against. But at the same time, be careful not to let temporal proximity get in the way of the larger trend. Otherwise, you end up thinking max 6 lineups and Kingpin decks are representative of a competitive metagame.

And just for the record, does any of this mean that I don't think Any Heroes are playable, or fun, etc? Of course not, there are perfectly valid Any Hero decks and they create an extremely interesting dichotomy between resiliency vs. the higher powered battlesites. But the playerbase of the past proved a long time ago that Battlesites are overall stronger.

Quote from: Onslaught on April 09, 2013, 02:24:33 AM

QuoteOD+BY+BQ > top3 of any Battlesite (at least IMO)

DoW is a house, but Leech is only marginally useful and WHW is a mediocre card. In theory, Webhead is amazing. But generally, it is too action intensive to play out the way you want it to. If you are going second, it is really hard to do something telegraphed like WHW for an HQ. If they open with a teamwork, and then you Webhead, then they play an ally or something like a JW or (worst case scenario) another teamwork, then you try to play what you got back with Webhead and it is negated, you have just spent 2 turns to have 2 actions resulting in no pressure on the opponent and a net trade of 1 card of yours for one card of theirs. Meanwhile they have used their two turns to have 4 to 6 actions, and it is their turn AGAIN after the negate. Getting action advantage is a key component of creating card advantage and venture advantage at the same time (they concede to keep characters alive). Or, depending on the matchup you may use your action advantage to land a bunch of hits, defend their next action and then concede, getting you ahead in the KO race. Either way, you lose so much tempo by playing Webhead unless it is getting back a defensive card (which is not really that impressive).

Well, I feel like that's a bit of an overreaction. It's a worst-case-scenario that isn't necessarily likely. Also, I don't know anyone who would try to play the BQ at the top of the hand to pull an HQ - not unless they had insurance. I agree that it's hard to get Power Leech to land against a Battlesite team, but it is a must-block card. So, knowing it's almost certainly going to be blocked allows it to be used as a negate/avoid flushing card.

So, even acknowledging that the BQ is hard to maximize, and knowing that BY vs Battlesite is much less useful than BY vs Any Hero, I still contend that the OD/BQ/BY combo is better than any 3 offensive cards from a Battlesite.

Having said that, there is no question, whatsoever, that a Battlesite affords MUCH better defense.

Like I said, though, this seems to be a case of consistency vs High Risk/Reward. Over a long period (or a lot of data), it would stand to reason that the consistent deck would work out better...

Quote from: Onslaught on April 09, 2013, 02:24:33 AM

QuoteSo far, in 77 games of research, it is not.

I mean, if Any Hero decks are "firmly in the 'consistent/resilient' style of play." then doesn't that mean more data will only further prove them to be more consistent and more resilient? Isn't that enough to say that they are going to fare better than the Battlesite decks over time?

77 games of research from a handful of tournaments with less than 20 people who are playing admittedly suboptimal decks. The verdict on battlesites vs. Any Heroes was determined 13 years ago. If people want to self-aggrandize their newer theories about the game (that were probably already discussed and dismissed a decade ago) by thinking that old results don't matter, then I don't know what to tell you. I'll stick with the well established consensus from past tournaments, at least until there is another active playerbase of 2000+ people with tournaments happening across the nation, with high incentive to play decks that win (cash prizes, ratings system, etc).

Isn't it possible that people were more attracted to the High Risk/Reward decks because they saw the "quick win" potential? It is certainly true that the more prolific deck type is going to win tournaments more often. This prevalence would also explain the "3.5 turn" average game length.

I do appreciate your perspective on this, though. I am certainly not trying to say that 77 games is conclusive; I'm just pointing out that something being popular doesn't mean that it is conclusively better, even when there's money on the line. Look at sports betting odds. Bad teams get good odds all the time because Vegas knows that people will be betting on teams that aren't necessarily that good 

I just got caught up on this season of Game of Thrones, so I made some house banners to rep each side:

ok.  lets discuss your data.  oh...right; you didn't provide any.  you just crapped all over mine while making rather large erroneus assumptions/interpretations of what the data actually was.  all you provieded was irrelevant drivel and hid behind fictional aggregates (but hiding is what you do best of course, being an established coward)

as far as the game not adapting, i guess i was 'playing wrong' with my puppet master deck designed to go to power pack.  you know, the one that beat you, and the field en route to winning the largest online tourney?

the book is out honey.  you're a below-average player afraid of change who bullies new players to pump up your ego

nice posters Onslaught 

Quote from: breadmaster on April 09, 2013, 03:22:11 PM... my puppet master deck designed to go to power pack.   ...

aka, the deck that used my own strategy against me with my Highlander Muir Island team 

Quote from: breadmaster on April 09, 2013, 03:22:11 PM
ok.  lets discuss your data.  oh...right; you didn't provide any.  you just crapped all over mine while making rather large erroneus assumptions/interpretations of what the data actually was.  all you provieded was irrelevant drivel and hid behind fictional aggregates (but hiding is what you do best of course, being an established coward)

Actually we compiled this data a long time ago when it was readily available, it's a lot harder to find tournament reports from those days now but I'd be glad to crunch the numbers on anything found through archive.org on sites that have reports. I've been as transparent as possible in presenting the historical perspective of Any Heroes vs Battlesites, and the majority of your responses are things like "well SLICK I don't care about the past" and resorting to things like "clown" and "coward." It just weakens your position further when you have nothing to stand on besides things directed at the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.

Quoteas far as the game not adapting, i guess i was 'playing wrong' with my puppet master deck designed to go to power pack.  you know, the one that beat you, and the field en route to winning the largest online tourney?

Actually the largest online tourney was held by Alex L Smith in 2000, using IRC and AIM instead of an infuriating iteration of OP Online. Also, wasnt 1/2 of the top 4 DQed due to time constraints and you beat a max six deck in the finals? Anyway, regardless of whether I'm the best or worst player in the world, the presentation of facts has nothing to do with the presenter. Battlesites have been historically proven to be the more successful choice, and that isn't simply my opinion - it's fact.

Quotethe book is out honey.  you're a below-average player afraid of change who bullies new players to pump up your ego

You seem pretty riled up about a long dead card game based on comic book characters. I hope East and West get a chance to play each other in a tournament some time, I'd love to see you call me honey to my face tough guy.

- DRDEATH25

Quote from: Onslaught on April 09, 2013, 04:44:33 PM
... Actually we compiled this data a long time ago when it was readily available, it's a lot harder to find tournament reports from those days now but I'd be glad to crunch the numbers on anything found through archive.org on sites that have reports. ...

so, can you pull the head-to-head results of Anys vs Battlesites (even just for the few tourneys you already mentioned)? are there even any records available that are that detailed?

that would seem to be the the best choice.  assuming we can trust him not to mangle the information as badly as he did in this topic

hey look, it's lucky pierre.  showing up to stroke his master.  all we need is overtime to show up, and we can get all 3 members of the overpower human centipede

I am just giving play by play, i didn't post my end of the argument at all, so why would you think i am 'stroking' onslaught?

cause that's what you do.  follow mr. mediocre around like a lost puppy, and troll nic

i just like to troll canada and ncann. i dont think me agreeing with onslaught has anything to do with anything else, other than onslaught seems to make alot more sense than the noobs in canada.