Random debate

I'm debating someone on another forum, and I'll give you the gist of it so you can see how terribad this person is.

Him: (I'm paraphrasing here.) "Your obviously wrong, and your idea is bad. Me and my couple dozen friends on another forum say so. Also, my idea that I just thought of is obviously better than yours, so you should just shut up and take it."

Me: (Paraphrasing again.) "Oh yeah, because you and a dozen friends are obviously superior to 17+ years of R&D, two multi-million dollar companies, and a few hundred thousand players who all say that I'm right."

Him and another guy: "Yes, you summed it up nicely."

Uhm whats the subject of this debate and wtf is wrong with this guy?

You say, Alright. Let's analyze this. The type of reasoning we're both using is Induction. It's based on two things. Sample size, and sample bias. The reasoning is stronger the larger the sample size and the smaller the bias, and conversely weaker the lower your sample size is and stronger the bias is. You have a low sample size, around a few dozen. You have a huge bias in that it's all based around a particular friend group with little diversity presumably. I, on the other hand am basing this on a much larger sample size that's a few orders of magnitude higher. I also have a less biased group than yours because it's not all from one group. I therefore have a stronger reasoning than you do. Granted, you might be right, but probably not. Ball's in your court now. Counter?

He'll either say something like "FUCK YOU N00B" or just say "Whatever". If he says the latter you won. If he says the former then just stop. Arguing with stupid people is very difficult. Also what is this argument about? Lol

Feel free to quote that.

I'll seriously consider flat-out quoting that. Also, he is actually winning this argument. (He's convincing more people to join his side than I am, and I need a vast majority to win whereas he only needs a tie.)

We are arguing about WC3CG.(Warcraft 3 Card Game, it's a map.) I think it needs a side-decking system to help balance out the top-tier decks, and I'm backing this up by the fact that all of the most successful TCG in the world use the exact side-decking system that I am suggesting. He says we should use some other crappy imbalanced method that he just made up off the top of his head and is backing up his argument with the fact that a Yu-Gi-Oh! DS game with matches and side-decking fails because everyone does single duels instead of matches so the game is still imbalanced, and that trying to advance our higher level play won't help bring in new players.

Don't know enough about the game to comment. Do be open though Dragon, just because he thought it off the top of his head doesn't mean it's a bad idea. It could be revolutionary and be used in actual TCG's. Though, I don't much know about it so I can't say if it will. Just saying .

Well, I'll be open to his idea, but I needed his support first. I said that at the start, that we had to be unanimous in demanding SOMETHING, whether or not we agreed on what. He finally consented and gave me that support, so now I'll hear him out.

when you get pro, side-decking is the way to go.

tell him that person A's deck will fail against person B's deck, no matter what (because B has the counter for A's race or w/e) but if person A had a sidedeck then A wouldn't auto-lose.

he's probably both arrogant (stubborn, too, disregarding what you're saying) and lazy. (too lazy to implement a side deck... and ive seen WC3CD side-decking shouldn't be that hard other than adding some extra code to the save codes)


by what it sounds, he's a n00b, lol

if he disregards what you say + jay.j says + what i say, then jay.j is right-- no point in arguing with nubs like him.

Spoiler:

side-decking is only good in tourny-style games, like i would suggest a tourny-mode. that way a player could add counter-cards to their deck between matches. otherwise, the opponent you want to optimize your deck toward may go play someone else instead.

You mostly summed up the last 2 pages of debate. Did you go to the forum and read the thread or something?

Also, he suggested his own version of side-decking, but it sounds really broken to me.

Card Games are easy, IMO.

Then you should join the community. Someone estimated that we only have 17 active and skilled players, and I estimate that we only have ~100 other random people that host it.

Here's the forum address: WC3CG Forum


Also, although TCGs may be easy, you kinda failed at YGO. When I dueled you, you weren't very good at all. (50 card Dinosaur deck for the lose.)

For one, I don't play Card Games anymore. I was too damn good at them.

My neighbors were like "hey, let's play Yu-Gi-Oh" like... 3 years ago. And I was like aight w/e I'll go get a deck at the store. So I go and buy this little dinosaur deck and learned the rules real quick. Within 3 days, I was kicking their asses, both 1v1 and 2v2 and FFA 4-mans/3-mans. Truly, I was amazing.

Then, the next year, they come back with a ton of new cards. They've got these new cards, which are quite stronger. I still destroy them, but they get a few wins here and there.

Next year, I do alright.

Last summer, I'm still using the same deck, only to find that their cards are like wtfroflpwnageurface rigged compared to my shitty one.

The way to win card games is to stay up-to-date, which is how they make their money. Considering that, there's no deck that ever remains powerful for a good length of time. That's why I sucked... both in the Yu-Gi-Oh game we played a while ago, and in the TCG new version we played.

Remember how I handed you your own ass with my deck in the older version of WC3CG when we played?

Yes, I had a rigged deck like that back then too. But as you said, you need to stay up-to-date to be any good. If I recall, we didn't have time to duel after I rebuilt my old rigged deck. (It was something along the lines of "I draw 12 cards, summon 20+ monsters, and then destroy everything you've got. Btw, this is turn 2.")


Anyway, WC3CG is alot more balanced now. There are at least 10 decks that can compete with other in tier 1. The biggest problem is that it's a bit of a rock-paper-scissors where you almost always have a match-up where you auto-lose no matter what. That is why I'm suggesting that they add side-decking so that you don't have to have an auto-lose match-up.

Do you know how hard it would be to code an efficient side-decking system in that game?

If I were in the creators shoes, I wouldn't want to do it for the life of me. I seriously don't blame him...

Unless he's using a very efficient decking system, which I think he is... then it would be different...

40 cards --> save code

+15 cards --> more save code

=55cards of save code






edit: and no, dragon, i didnt read the thread before posting xD

Yeah, it shouldn't be too hard. You basically need a second "deck", and then options to move cards between your decks. Coding matches instead of duels shouldn't be too hard, have people select their deckmaster, remove their card chooser, start a countdown timer for how long they have to side. At the end of the time or when they both hit ready start the next round. Run a check after the second round to see if either player won twice. For the saving, just put in something to let the code distinguish between main and side-deck cards, maybe a simple symbol used to break it up that isn't used elsewhere.


It really shouldn't be THAT hard.

Do you know how the game is coded, DHeart?

No, but it just seems like basic GUI stuff. Nothing in it is that impressive.