Any pro-ish player though can still be an average player. They're going to 10x the events and 10x the experience than most of the other people there, if they didn't do *somewhat* well then it'd be an obvious indication that they are mediocre at best.
The fact she does well with a combo deck that is difficult for most people to recognize while having said 10x experience and 10x number of opportunities to win in a big tournament doesn't mean a lot IMO. When I was watching her in person (admittedly, I didn't know who she was in either case) she seems like an average player who happens to know the ins/outs of her deck well. The example of her punting I saw was Wish->Intuition (3-4 spells) Wish->Intuition(oh sh*t moment when she digs through the sideboard and grabs garbage.) In another case she had nearly 300 mana (2 Seattles ago) and couldn't find a way to kill her opponent (someone who knows they can't win shouldn't eat up 20-30 minutes building mana only to find that out.) These are the only two times I've seen her play (and both in person.)
Average players do things everyone does; like punt repeatedly on dumb mistakes. When you respond with the inevitable "Everybody punts" you'll only verify my statement of "the average player punts." She has loads of experience and loads of opportunities on a combo deck that can be difficult for the average player to recognize. Getting free Game-1s against a majority of opponents means you're a coin flip away on any given MU; and she has (again) 10x the opportunity than most other players.
If you roll a D20 enough times, you will get a 20; maybe even several. Doesn't make you above average until you're doing something other people couldn't do in the same scenario. I don't think she's a bad player, but for multiple people to decry another person for thinking she's average based only on anecdotes when the anecdotes available to someone online are only when she's doing well is a bias'd and badly formed argument.
Outside of picking the right deck for the right meta, and piloting it correctly, luck factors in quite a bit. High Tide is not the right deck for this meta, but she pilots it well and occasionally will get lucky. So I think his point with the D20 analogy is that by playing enough over time the probability of her getting lucky increases and she'll eventually top 8. Because the deck certainly isn't getting any better and pilot skill can only take you so far.
You've literally said nothing that makes sense. Comparing playskill and placing is nothing like rolling a D20 enough times to hit 20.
It does make sense from a statistical standpoint. If you're an average player, then you still have some probability of placing, even if it's small (consider higher skill meaning higher probability of winning matches, if that helps). Play in enough events, and you'll place every now and then through sheer force of numbers, like how the average 1d20 roll is 10.5 so that's what your rolls will average out to, but you'll also get a number of 1s (scrubbing right out) and 20s (placing) in the process.
How does it? A high degree of skill directly correlates to a higher chance of winning a given match, which means they'll place more consistently than someone of more average skill.
Feline is a good player. She pilots a tough and not amazing deck. I disagree with her choice to play counterbalance, but she is pretty consistent with the deck so she definitely knows the deck better than I
I already know I'm not that great and stuff. If forgetting things means I'm not then I never will be. I forget stuff all the time and no matter how hard I try it still happens every tournament, if you have any advice on how to "not forget something" then please let me know your secret because I absolutely suck at remembering every last detail, every moment, of every game, of every match, 100% of the time.
As far as the feature matches go, I actually ask them to not feature me if they can because I don't like the pressure of the camera's & audience on me like that, I feel a lot more comfortable just being one of the regulars out in the field playing magic like everyone else.
Getting free Game-1s against a majority of opponents means you're a coin flip away on any given MU; and she has (again) 10x the opportunity than most other players.
If you think High Tide has anywhere near a one hundred per cent win rate against the majority of decks, you haven't got a clue about High Tide, or the Legacy meta in general. Maybe you are not in the best position to judge a players skill having seen them play this deck you clearly don't understand - especially having seen her play all of twice!
In another case she had nearly 300 mana (2 Seattles ago) and couldn't find a way to kill her opponent (someone who knows they can't win shouldn't eat up 20-30 minutes building mana only to find that out.)
Sometimes with High Tide it takes along time to "fizzle", and you can't help but accumulate mana in the meanwhile. On the other hand, I've seen less experienced players scoop to High Tide when it looks like I'm going to win - maybe that was her only out and she took the long shot? Or it could be she was trying to run out the clock? None of this indicates less than expert play.
Average players do things everyone does; like punt repeatedly on dumb mistakes. When you respond with the inevitable "Everybody punts" you'll only verify my statement of "the average player punts."
Every player makes mistakes - from expert to novice (exerts make fewer). One of the things that makes High Tide so difficult is that it requires long stretches of (near) perfect concentration and often goes to time (no breaks). It's mentally taxing and fatiguing, and players will make more mistakes with this deck than with something like Thresh or Jund (or just about any other deck). Personally I won't touch High Tide if the event goes more than four rounds and/or if I've been up over fifteen hours (coming off a back-shift).
Anyway, you've seen her only twice, but you're assuming that one slip-up was representative of her play at large?
It does make sense from a statistical standpoint. If you're an average player, then you still have some probability of placing, even if it's small (consider higher skill meaning higher probability of winning matches, if that helps). Play in enough events, and you'll place every now and then through sheer force of numbers...
Sure, getting into the top sixteen in a 320 person event (arbitrary but realistic number) is about 1/20. Making top eight is only 1/40. Getting first in a major event is a fraction-of-a-percent chance.
Feline has placed in several major events in the last eight months alone. That's something like a 1/5 success rate IF she played in every single open since October (she has probably missed at least a few). Sheer force of numbers does not account for such astonishing triumph. The odds that this is an average player with an averagely positioned deck can be assessed at a very low order of probability.
...because the deck certainly isn't getting any better and pilot skill can only take you so far.
Again, very unlikely to get those kind of results by luck alone. Either the deck is actually better than people think, or Feline is incredibly skilled (probably a bit of both).
And who says the deck isn't getting better? When a deck falls out of favour, it tends to stagnate. Without top quality players testing and tweaking the deck, it doesn't develop. Fortunately, Feline has been doing just that!
Feline is a good player. She pilots a tough and not amazing deck. I disagree with her choice to play counterbalance, but she is pretty consistent with the deck so she definitely knows the deck better than I
I'm personally fascinated by her choice to play Counterbalance! High Tide doesn't see much play, and (I suspect) fewer people still are playing Felines latest version. It makes me wonder what it would take for High Tide to be tier one.
More players running with the counter-top package (and/or her other personal touches)?
More highly skilled pilots playing the deck and contributing to its development?
Food for thought - without Feline (almost) single-handedly keeping this deck relevant, it would probably not be considered tier 1.5 (or tier 2, however we currently rank it). The deck wouldn't be any weaker or less well positioned, but with just one fewer skilled pilot, nobody would know just how viable the deck really is. So what if we had many skilled pilots playing High Tide? What if we had loads of average players pushing it (like Jund, Thresh, and other more popular archetypes)? The deck would clearly see more top finishes, and appear to be much stronger than it currently seems to be. Maybe we are underestimating the deck?
I say keep featuring Feline! Maybe the deck will catch on a little and have a chance to prove itself.
I wasn't referring to Feline specifically. I was simply explaining the concept of how any average player will place eventually if they go to enough events, even though it will be less frequent than a more skilled player.
Yes, I understand that. However, an average player will not place (and outright win) with the frequency that Feline has shown unless they are the luckiest person in the world or have made a deal with the devil. So the concept doesn't in anyway apply to Feline and her success with High Tide. That's what I'm saying.
It seems kind of lame to me for people to make comments about how so and so sucks, in a thread that person is reading.
Anyways, High Tide isn't the best positioned deck but it is reasonably competitive if you're good with it. I'm glad when SCG shows it, the worst part of when they cover it is that Mathias Hunt is the only one that can really keep up with every single play that's going on.
If you've never played a deck like High Tide which is just a combo deck that has a million steps in every game you probably don't realize it but it's very difficult to play these types of decks quickly and accurately for 9+ rounds. If you want to be successful doing such you must know the deck very well because you're not only trying to play fast but you're trying to deal with your opponents interaction as well. Doing that with an impressive win rate is much harder than it appears because you simply don't have the time to plan out lines, you don't really get the ability to tank you just have to know what you're doing instantly.
Second, I claim that she's pretty average on the basis that she has TONS more experience and TONS more chances than other people, so if she were as good as the people in here claim she is she'd place more IMO. Merely citing that she places occasionally doesn't mean anything; statistical variance can account for that.
Third, I was defending against the flaming of someone in here who had a valid point. I couldn't care less about Feline's amount of skill (which is immeasurable anyway), but rather argument form; of which the people arguing she's quite skilled are used anecdotal evidence and ignoring statistical chance * opportunity one player has over the others you're comparing to.
Fourth, High Tide is a Storm deck; and storm decks *do* get free wins G1; it's half the reason you play combo. Her deck isn't obvious when you see it fetching basics (It could be S&T, Reanimator that drew bad fetches, maybe even ANT, a brew, or something else), she has basics so she doesn't get wasted out, she has Counters so (just like ANT/Reanimator) can defend her combo, she goes off between T3 and T4 which is faster than all fair decks. I would wager it's Crimhead who has no idea about legacy if he somehow thinks Storm doesn't get free G1 wins a lot of the time (especially in the early rounds of a tournament where you're more likely to face inexperienced/ill-prepared opponents.)
Fifth, I match your anecdotal evidence with my own; watching her punt in the mid-tourny matches the only times I've seen her.
Face it, if you're good at the game and have a decent deck, you'll generally get as far as she does. If you went to 20 big tournies a year, I would expect you to top as well. The experience she has + the opportunity she has means comparing her to an average player and saying "she has more Top8s!!!" is completely biasing the argument in her favor.
Fourth, High Tide is a Storm deck; and storm decks *do* get free wins G1; it's half the reason you play combo. Her deck isn't obvious when you see it fetching basics (It could be S&T, Reanimator that drew bad fetches, maybe even ANT, a brew, or something else), she has basics so she doesn't get wasted out, she has Counters so (just like ANT/Reanimator) can defend her combo, she goes off between T3 and T4 which is faster than all fair decks. I would wager it's Crimhead who has no idea about legacy if he somehow thinks Storm doesn't get free G1 wins a lot of the time (especially in the early rounds of a tournament where you're more likely to face inexperienced/ill-prepared opponents.)
This claim invalidates basically any argument that you could be making. In a format dominated by decks with Force of Will, where Miracles and D&T are commonly played, and even one of your better matchups can curve out with Thoughtseize, Hymn, into Lili, Storm isn't an auto-win in many matchups. Maybe Belcher comes down to whether your opponent has FoW in their opening seven, but for other Storm decks attempting to combo off on turn 3 or 4, it's an incredibly skill intensive back and forth of whether you're clear to go off or not.
@Feline: You're the only person on the circuit it seems who consistently plays Storm combo. By all means, continue being awesome.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
One of these day I have to get myself organizized.
Second, I claim that she's pretty average on the basis that she has TONS more experience and TONS more chances than other people, so if she were as good as the people in here claim she is she'd place more IMO. Merely citing that she places occasionally doesn't mean anything; statistical variance can account for that.
Third, I was defending against the flaming of someone in here who had a valid point. I couldn't care less about Feline's amount of skill (which is immeasurable anyway), but rather argument form; of which the people arguing she's quite skilled are used anecdotal evidence and ignoring statistical chance * opportunity one player has over the others you're comparing to.
Fourth, High Tide is a Storm deck; and storm decks *do* get free wins G1; it's half the reason you play combo. Her deck isn't obvious when you see it fetching basics (It could be S&T, Reanimator that drew bad fetches, maybe even ANT, a brew, or something else), she has basics so she doesn't get wasted out, she has Counters so (just like ANT/Reanimator) can defend her combo, she goes off between T3 and T4 which is faster than all fair decks. I would wager it's Crimhead who has no idea about legacy if he somehow thinks Storm doesn't get free G1 wins a lot of the time (especially in the early rounds of a tournament where you're more likely to face inexperienced/ill-prepared opponents.)
Fifth, I match your anecdotal evidence with my own; watching her punt in the mid-tourny matches the only times I've seen her.
Face it, if you're good at the game and have a decent deck, you'll generally get as far as she does. If you went to 20 big tournies a year, I would expect you to top as well. The experience she has + the opportunity she has means comparing her to an average player and saying "she has more Top8s!!!" is completely biasing the argument in her favor.
L2Argue; please.
You should read Ari's Article, "Storm Then and Now." Storm can get free wins, but the game has caught up to this deck enough that you aren't running into nearly as many bye matches. Furthermore, I don't think the "High Tide is a Storm deck and those decks get free wins" comparison is appropriate since High Tide does not have those types of bye matches; it wants to wait as long as possible to go off instead of taking the first available opportunity since the deck can't utilize the methods that Ritual based decks have for getting free wins--it has to hit at least three lands to have a chance of going off, and all of the protection is reactive so you need to devote extra resources to protecting the combo as you go off because you don't get to see your opponent's hand and laugh at them like you can do when you play Duress or Probe (And this isn't even factoring in that your best card is a literally random D7 for both you and your opponent). Also, given her recent popularity, I'm surprised that you would assume she has the element of surprise against her opponents by playing a less popular deck. She certainly has been featured enough times that I would be guessing that anyone who sees her name knows that "Island, go" can only mean one thing.
I know nothing about Feline's actual ability and I have never seen her play, but I find it strange that someone would conclude that she is merely average despite her successes. I personally don't think that average players would have the kind of success you're claiming any decent player with any decent deck should be enjoying period...and I would add that I don't know what the mark of an above-average player is if it is not being capable of enjoying some success despite the fact you're basically jamming your pet deck through a hostile metagame at every one of these events. I recall Colin Chilbert saying as a more experienced High Tide player that the deck has been horribly positioned in the metagame for a while now and the last time he placed with the deck, the only reason he played it was because he sold all of his cards, couldn't borrow a deck, the only thing he owned was all of the pimped out High Tide cards that no one would buy so he scraped the deck together from that. Your notion that any decent player with any decent deck should be doing this well doesn't factor in that her deck actually is (situationally) not good. Maybe if she wanted to play something better positioned, she'd be doing whatever it is you think she needs to be doing to prove she's an above-average player, but I personally don't think that success is the only metric of how good a player is because I think you can be a good player but awful at winning tournaments because you're a bad metagamer.
I would wager it's Crimhead who has no idea about legacy if he somehow thinks Storm doesn't get free G1 wins a lot of the time...
You kind of backed off on your original assertion there. But you're still wrong - High Tide doesn't get a lot of easy wins game one. What actual matches do you think this applies to, pray tell?
Incidentally I actually play High Tide (in a well developed meta), and have been for a couple years. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I'm not so tragically incompetent that I'm missing free wins hand over fist. Usually every game is a battle. Have you ever played High Tide?
Again, my main point is that the argument of anecdotal evidence of *feature matches* is bias and the lack of num_SCGs_attended:num_placings creates a short-sighted view of what's going on. Again, it's not unrealistic to see that she has 10x opportunities, and again; I'm not saying she's bad.
If you *really* want to continue this discussion; I've plopped why I think the meta is not that bad below. I didn't look at stats; just at my experience in portland vs. what people (including me) thought it would look like:
I still feel like half of any given SCG is built out of randoms and people who are mediocre, I don't see how me saying you'll get halfway through the tourny on "byes" is all that unlikely. If she faced the same set of opponents I did at the SCG I think she would've done rather well;
-Dredge (similar clock, no G1 disruption that should hit. She'd go off (or attempt to) before Therapy #2 happens; or at least keep up protection for #2
-Cloudpost (little disruption, slower game plan)
-Reanimator (It's a maybe, depending on her disruption/protection)
-Sneakshow (Similar clock, they both pack counters)
-Storm (Probably a loss)
-Oops (Coin flip based on her available disruption)
-BUG Delver (Loss? This is one of those MUs my detractors are pointing at I believe)
-Burn (Similar clock, no disruption; probably a win?)
I feel like the meta-game people are pointing to (and others saying that the NW isn't a combo meta) is very different IME. I realize High Tide is T2; but it has no telltale signs for non-black decks other than fetching double-island or something. If you got a Mom->Revoker->Crusader D&T hand, you're screwed. If you got a Goyf, Pierce, Daze hand on delver, it's probably not going to work IMO. If you're against other combo, at least you have Force and such so there's back and forth.
I realize that storm in general has declined substantially, but this more grindy meta encourages a slew of grave decks (because of the lack of hate/KotR) and IMO dismissing the kinds of wins you could get on High Tide when people are getting ready for D&T/Miracles/BUG grinds is short-sighted. It's true that a blind-thalia will screw up the deck reasonably, but it's only a Snap away from recovering and there may be good chance they go SFM first or go for a land-port.
Again, it's not unrealistic to see that she has 10x opportunities, and again; I'm not saying she's bad.
You are saying you think Feline competes in ten times as many events as other players who have seen a comparable amount of top finishes? What are you basing this on?
No, 10x the events (that are big enough for Top8s, receive coverage, etc..) the average player does. I'm not comparing her relative experience to other pro-players. I'm suggesting that the comparison of Num_toppings:num_big_events vs. the average player is probably similar. Have you missed this point Teia Rabishu (sp) also pointed out? It's logical that someone goes to a boatload of events will see a (relative) boatload more toppings than players who are unfamous and only top8 every 3-4 years (because they only see 6-8 chances to do so.) She sees that many chances in a few months (I'd imagine.)
For instance, I've been to a mere 3 SCGs; if she got a similar record to me (she did) and I see her punt and I know she has huge amounts of extra experience, what can I derive *except* the conclusion that I have? Nothing I've seen nor evidence you've provided is remotely convincing me of anything other than statistical likelihood; which is the only reason I'm defending the original poster that everyone was flaming.
I'm suggesting that the comparison of Num_toppings:num_big_events vs. the average player is probably similar. Have you missed this point Teia Rabishu (sp) also pointed out? It's logical that someone goes to a boatload of events will see a (relative) boatload more toppings than players who are unfamous and only top8 every 3-4 years (because they only see 6-8 chances to do so.) She sees that many chances in a few months (I'd imagine.)
Looking at the High Tide thread on The Source, half of the decks you said you faced are bad matchups if they aren't actually coin-flips. Despite the deck not having any telltale signs that it is what it is normally, I would contend that "You are paired against someone named Feline Longmore at a big Legacy event" probably gives away information to enough of her opponents to be a disadvantage.
The main point I actually disagree with you on is that I believe merely average players wouldn't be seeing the single elimination rounds of 200-300 person events with any regularity whatsoever, if at all. I think you're overestimating the abilities of an average player while also downplaying the amount of fortune you need as an above-average player in order to beat out any number of the other players in the room with any skill who are also in the running for a top 8 (in matches, tiebreakers, etc). Feline fails to make her own luck by playing a deck that more experienced players wouldn't go near right now if they could help it, and her continually playing the same deck takes away any element of surprise she has. Basically, I think we just have a difference of opinion here because I don't think that it's likely that a normal player would be getting more than one Top 8 at one of these things unless he or she had insane amounts of luck.
No, 10x the events (that are big enough for Top8s, receive coverage, etc..) the average player does. I'm not comparing her relative experience to other pro-players.
So this argument basically applies to any pro players - all of whom play more than non-pros?
Also, you mention experience as though it is somehow less relevant than raw talent. Practice and experience are part of what makes an expert as good as they are and distinguishes them from the average player.
I wasn't referring to Feline specifically. I was simply explaining the concept of how any average player will place eventually if they go to enough events, even though it will be less frequent than a more skilled player.
No, but since you ask you must have missed where I replied to it already! Teia validated the theoretical soundness of the "force of numbers" argument. I pointed out how that argument doesn't apply to the actual numbers in Feline's case.
It's logical that someone goes to a boatload of events will see a (relative) boatload more toppings than players who are unfamous and only top8 every 3-4 years (because they only see 6-8 chances to do so.) She sees that many chances in a few months (I'd imagine.)
If a player can top eight once out of 6-8 chances, they are doing far better than the average! Where did you study stats?
I count four top sixteens for Feline in the last six months (plus at least one top thirty-two).
Considering that many more than eighty players attend each event, and that she (almost) surely has missed more than one such Open, her results show far more success than the average competitor. This is rock solid statistical reasoning. Next time check your math.
For instance, I've been to a mere 3 SCGs; if she got a similar record to me (she did) and I see her punt and I know she has huge amounts of extra experience, what can I derive *except* the conclusion that I have?
Sure, if you base your analysis on just those three events where she (apparently) did as poorly as you and made a single play error, I suppose you could come up with the skewed conclusions that you have. This particular fallacy is called cherry picking. Being so fond of stats, I'm sure you've heard of it.
If you go by the whole data (as I've provided), you'll reach a different, more valid conclusion. I've only looked back six months. If you look further back she's also got some actual first!
Afterall it is all personal opinion - if you ask me Chris Van Meter is not a very good legacy player either despite being close to the top of the leader board. I often see him taking in my opinion questionable lines of play, maybe his playstyle is just different.
Or maybe he knows something you don't?
Also, a player's skill level is not your opinion - it is your assessment. Unlike opinion, an assessment can be just plain wrong, and is subject to scrutiny.
The fact she does well with a combo deck that is difficult for most people to recognize while having said 10x experience and 10x number of opportunities to win in a big tournament doesn't mean a lot IMO. When I was watching her in person (admittedly, I didn't know who she was in either case) she seems like an average player who happens to know the ins/outs of her deck well. The example of her punting I saw was Wish->Intuition (3-4 spells) Wish->Intuition(oh sh*t moment when she digs through the sideboard and grabs garbage.) In another case she had nearly 300 mana (2 Seattles ago) and couldn't find a way to kill her opponent (someone who knows they can't win shouldn't eat up 20-30 minutes building mana only to find that out.) These are the only two times I've seen her play (and both in person.)
Average players do things everyone does; like punt repeatedly on dumb mistakes. When you respond with the inevitable "Everybody punts" you'll only verify my statement of "the average player punts." She has loads of experience and loads of opportunities on a combo deck that can be difficult for the average player to recognize. Getting free Game-1s against a majority of opponents means you're a coin flip away on any given MU; and she has (again) 10x the opportunity than most other players.
If you roll a D20 enough times, you will get a 20; maybe even several. Doesn't make you above average until you're doing something other people couldn't do in the same scenario. I don't think she's a bad player, but for multiple people to decry another person for thinking she's average based only on anecdotes when the anecdotes available to someone online are only when she's doing well is a bias'd and badly formed argument.
Look, Fetch, Draw, Look
Draw
Fetch
Look
RGoblinsR
RWerewolf StompyR
URU/R DelverRU
RGBelcherGR
BThe GateB
GBLoam PoxBG
WGBNic FitBGW
UHigh TideU
UMerfolkU
UFaerieNinjaStillU
WBUAffinityUBW
GSquirrelsG
UWGSliversGWU
It does make sense from a statistical standpoint. If you're an average player, then you still have some probability of placing, even if it's small (consider higher skill meaning higher probability of winning matches, if that helps). Play in enough events, and you'll place every now and then through sheer force of numbers, like how the average 1d20 roll is 10.5 so that's what your rolls will average out to, but you'll also get a number of 1s (scrubbing right out) and 20s (placing) in the process.
As far as the feature matches go, I actually ask them to not feature me if they can because I don't like the pressure of the camera's & audience on me like that, I feel a lot more comfortable just being one of the regulars out in the field playing magic like everyone else.
If you think High Tide has anywhere near a one hundred per cent win rate against the majority of decks, you haven't got a clue about High Tide, or the Legacy meta in general. Maybe you are not in the best position to judge a players skill having seen them play this deck you clearly don't understand - especially having seen her play all of twice!
Sometimes with High Tide it takes along time to "fizzle", and you can't help but accumulate mana in the meanwhile. On the other hand, I've seen less experienced players scoop to High Tide when it looks like I'm going to win - maybe that was her only out and she took the long shot? Or it could be she was trying to run out the clock? None of this indicates less than expert play.
Every player makes mistakes - from expert to novice (exerts make fewer). One of the things that makes High Tide so difficult is that it requires long stretches of (near) perfect concentration and often goes to time (no breaks). It's mentally taxing and fatiguing, and players will make more mistakes with this deck than with something like Thresh or Jund (or just about any other deck). Personally I won't touch High Tide if the event goes more than four rounds and/or if I've been up over fifteen hours (coming off a back-shift).
Anyway, you've seen her only twice, but you're assuming that one slip-up was representative of her play at large?
Sure, getting into the top sixteen in a 320 person event (arbitrary but realistic number) is about 1/20. Making top eight is only 1/40. Getting first in a major event is a fraction-of-a-percent chance.
Feline has placed in several major events in the last eight months alone. That's something like a 1/5 success rate IF she played in every single open since October (she has probably missed at least a few). Sheer force of numbers does not account for such astonishing triumph. The odds that this is an average player with an averagely positioned deck can be assessed at a very low order of probability.
Again, very unlikely to get those kind of results by luck alone. Either the deck is actually better than people think, or Feline is incredibly skilled (probably a bit of both).
And who says the deck isn't getting better? When a deck falls out of favour, it tends to stagnate. Without top quality players testing and tweaking the deck, it doesn't develop. Fortunately, Feline has been doing just that!
I'm personally fascinated by her choice to play Counterbalance! High Tide doesn't see much play, and (I suspect) fewer people still are playing Felines latest version. It makes me wonder what it would take for High Tide to be tier one.
Food for thought - without Feline (almost) single-handedly keeping this deck relevant, it would probably not be considered tier 1.5 (or tier 2, however we currently rank it). The deck wouldn't be any weaker or less well positioned, but with just one fewer skilled pilot, nobody would know just how viable the deck really is. So what if we had many skilled pilots playing High Tide? What if we had loads of average players pushing it (like Jund, Thresh, and other more popular archetypes)? The deck would clearly see more top finishes, and appear to be much stronger than it currently seems to be. Maybe we are underestimating the deck?
I say keep featuring Feline! Maybe the deck will catch on a little and have a chance to prove itself.
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
Anyways, High Tide isn't the best positioned deck but it is reasonably competitive if you're good with it. I'm glad when SCG shows it, the worst part of when they cover it is that Mathias Hunt is the only one that can really keep up with every single play that's going on.
If you've never played a deck like High Tide which is just a combo deck that has a million steps in every game you probably don't realize it but it's very difficult to play these types of decks quickly and accurately for 9+ rounds. If you want to be successful doing such you must know the deck very well because you're not only trying to play fast but you're trying to deal with your opponents interaction as well. Doing that with an impressive win rate is much harder than it appears because you simply don't have the time to plan out lines, you don't really get the ability to tank you just have to know what you're doing instantly.
Second, I claim that she's pretty average on the basis that she has TONS more experience and TONS more chances than other people, so if she were as good as the people in here claim she is she'd place more IMO. Merely citing that she places occasionally doesn't mean anything; statistical variance can account for that.
Third, I was defending against the flaming of someone in here who had a valid point. I couldn't care less about Feline's amount of skill (which is immeasurable anyway), but rather argument form; of which the people arguing she's quite skilled are used anecdotal evidence and ignoring statistical chance * opportunity one player has over the others you're comparing to.
Fourth, High Tide is a Storm deck; and storm decks *do* get free wins G1; it's half the reason you play combo. Her deck isn't obvious when you see it fetching basics (It could be S&T, Reanimator that drew bad fetches, maybe even ANT, a brew, or something else), she has basics so she doesn't get wasted out, she has Counters so (just like ANT/Reanimator) can defend her combo, she goes off between T3 and T4 which is faster than all fair decks. I would wager it's Crimhead who has no idea about legacy if he somehow thinks Storm doesn't get free G1 wins a lot of the time (especially in the early rounds of a tournament where you're more likely to face inexperienced/ill-prepared opponents.)
Fifth, I match your anecdotal evidence with my own; watching her punt in the mid-tourny matches the only times I've seen her.
Face it, if you're good at the game and have a decent deck, you'll generally get as far as she does. If you went to 20 big tournies a year, I would expect you to top as well. The experience she has + the opportunity she has means comparing her to an average player and saying "she has more Top8s!!!" is completely biasing the argument in her favor.
L2Argue; please.
Look, Fetch, Draw, Look
Draw
Fetch
Look
@Feline: You're the only person on the circuit it seems who consistently plays Storm combo. By all means, continue being awesome.
You should read Ari's Article, "Storm Then and Now." Storm can get free wins, but the game has caught up to this deck enough that you aren't running into nearly as many bye matches. Furthermore, I don't think the "High Tide is a Storm deck and those decks get free wins" comparison is appropriate since High Tide does not have those types of bye matches; it wants to wait as long as possible to go off instead of taking the first available opportunity since the deck can't utilize the methods that Ritual based decks have for getting free wins--it has to hit at least three lands to have a chance of going off, and all of the protection is reactive so you need to devote extra resources to protecting the combo as you go off because you don't get to see your opponent's hand and laugh at them like you can do when you play Duress or Probe (And this isn't even factoring in that your best card is a literally random D7 for both you and your opponent). Also, given her recent popularity, I'm surprised that you would assume she has the element of surprise against her opponents by playing a less popular deck. She certainly has been featured enough times that I would be guessing that anyone who sees her name knows that "Island, go" can only mean one thing.
I know nothing about Feline's actual ability and I have never seen her play, but I find it strange that someone would conclude that she is merely average despite her successes. I personally don't think that average players would have the kind of success you're claiming any decent player with any decent deck should be enjoying period...and I would add that I don't know what the mark of an above-average player is if it is not being capable of enjoying some success despite the fact you're basically jamming your pet deck through a hostile metagame at every one of these events. I recall Colin Chilbert saying as a more experienced High Tide player that the deck has been horribly positioned in the metagame for a while now and the last time he placed with the deck, the only reason he played it was because he sold all of his cards, couldn't borrow a deck, the only thing he owned was all of the pimped out High Tide cards that no one would buy so he scraped the deck together from that. Your notion that any decent player with any decent deck should be doing this well doesn't factor in that her deck actually is (situationally) not good. Maybe if she wanted to play something better positioned, she'd be doing whatever it is you think she needs to be doing to prove she's an above-average player, but I personally don't think that success is the only metric of how good a player is because I think you can be a good player but awful at winning tournaments because you're a bad metagamer.
You kind of backed off on your original assertion there. But you're still wrong - High Tide doesn't get a lot of easy wins game one. What actual matches do you think this applies to, pray tell?
Incidentally I actually play High Tide (in a well developed meta), and have been for a couple years. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I'm not so tragically incompetent that I'm missing free wins hand over fist. Usually every game is a battle. Have you ever played High Tide?
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
If you *really* want to continue this discussion; I've plopped why I think the meta is not that bad below. I didn't look at stats; just at my experience in portland vs. what people (including me) thought it would look like:
I still feel like half of any given SCG is built out of randoms and people who are mediocre, I don't see how me saying you'll get halfway through the tourny on "byes" is all that unlikely. If she faced the same set of opponents I did at the SCG I think she would've done rather well;
-Dredge (similar clock, no G1 disruption that should hit. She'd go off (or attempt to) before Therapy #2 happens; or at least keep up protection for #2
-Cloudpost (little disruption, slower game plan)
-Reanimator (It's a maybe, depending on her disruption/protection)
-Sneakshow (Similar clock, they both pack counters)
-Storm (Probably a loss)
-Oops (Coin flip based on her available disruption)
-BUG Delver (Loss? This is one of those MUs my detractors are pointing at I believe)
-Burn (Similar clock, no disruption; probably a win?)
I feel like the meta-game people are pointing to (and others saying that the NW isn't a combo meta) is very different IME. I realize High Tide is T2; but it has no telltale signs for non-black decks other than fetching double-island or something. If you got a Mom->Revoker->Crusader D&T hand, you're screwed. If you got a Goyf, Pierce, Daze hand on delver, it's probably not going to work IMO. If you're against other combo, at least you have Force and such so there's back and forth.
I realize that storm in general has declined substantially, but this more grindy meta encourages a slew of grave decks (because of the lack of hate/KotR) and IMO dismissing the kinds of wins you could get on High Tide when people are getting ready for D&T/Miracles/BUG grinds is short-sighted. It's true that a blind-thalia will screw up the deck reasonably, but it's only a Snap away from recovering and there may be good chance they go SFM first or go for a land-port.
Look, Fetch, Draw, Look
Draw
Fetch
Look
You are saying you think Feline competes in ten times as many events as other players who have seen a comparable amount of top finishes? What are you basing this on?
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
For instance, I've been to a mere 3 SCGs; if she got a similar record to me (she did) and I see her punt and I know she has huge amounts of extra experience, what can I derive *except* the conclusion that I have? Nothing I've seen nor evidence you've provided is remotely convincing me of anything other than statistical likelihood; which is the only reason I'm defending the original poster that everyone was flaming.
Look, Fetch, Draw, Look
Draw
Fetch
Look
The main point I actually disagree with you on is that I believe merely average players wouldn't be seeing the single elimination rounds of 200-300 person events with any regularity whatsoever, if at all. I think you're overestimating the abilities of an average player while also downplaying the amount of fortune you need as an above-average player in order to beat out any number of the other players in the room with any skill who are also in the running for a top 8 (in matches, tiebreakers, etc). Feline fails to make her own luck by playing a deck that more experienced players wouldn't go near right now if they could help it, and her continually playing the same deck takes away any element of surprise she has. Basically, I think we just have a difference of opinion here because I don't think that it's likely that a normal player would be getting more than one Top 8 at one of these things unless he or she had insane amounts of luck.
So this argument basically applies to any pro players - all of whom play more than non-pros?
Also, you mention experience as though it is somehow less relevant than raw talent. Practice and experience are part of what makes an expert as good as they are and distinguishes them from the average player.
No, but since you ask you must have missed where I replied to it already! Teia validated the theoretical soundness of the "force of numbers" argument. I pointed out how that argument doesn't apply to the actual numbers in Feline's case.
http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&start_date=6/1/2014&end_date=06/01/2014&event_ID=20
=3&start_date=04/20/2014&end_date=04/20/2014&start=1&finish=16]http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&t[C1]=3&start_date=04/20/2014&end_date=04/20/2014&start=1&finish=16
http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&start_date=02/08/2014&end_date=02/09/2014&event_ID=20
That's four out of twenty-one tournaments IF she attended every single event! Assuming she missed one, that's one top16 per every five events. That would be exactly average if the events had 80 players each - that's how math works!
Sure, if you base your analysis on just those three events where she (apparently) did as poorly as you and made a single play error, I suppose you could come up with the skewed conclusions that you have. This particular fallacy is called cherry picking. Being so fond of stats, I'm sure you've heard of it.
If you go by the whole data (as I've provided), you'll reach a different, more valid conclusion. I've only looked back six months. If you look further back she's also got some actual first!
Or maybe he knows something you don't?
Also, a player's skill level is not your opinion - it is your assessment. Unlike opinion, an assessment can be just plain wrong, and is subject to scrutiny.
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats