What does that pic prove

First of all that rating is in singles ANYONE can do that and that is because singles dosnt show us ur skill at all.. for all we know u can be using Burn/exodia/final countdown and winning if you get that rating in matches then i will admit your decent but for now ur a slifer nub e.e

I agree with most points presented here, but in his defence, you have to admit that Jason was using the single best deck of the format, whilst Twio was using Vampires. Broken deck vs. crappy deck.

all this has proven is you duel alot most of the people below you have better win/loss ratios and rating means nothing to skill

nah kira just suks so hes red k

Isint It Black Gold Saw Sylv? Lol

That was then, >_<, Its been back to Chaos for some time now. *sighs* Now if you'll excuse me.

Honestly, everyone is going about this wrong.

1. I don't support the no Meta rule and think it's utterly ridiculous.
2. Sylv, as an admin, you shouldn't say someone is bad, regardless. (Whether directly or indirectly)
3. Twio, we hired our testers for a reason. Asking us to go back on him is going to take something more than a screenshot.
4. Not "anyone" can get that rating on singles, because if they could, then all of you would be on there. Or am I wrong? and just SAYING anyone can get that, makes only an elite bunch be able to get it... think about what you say.
5. All in all, Twio needs to be retested if his tester used a deck that he wasn't allowed to, even if I do think that rule is ridiculous.

First I'd just like to say I don't have a problem with Jason as a tester. The problem with this format is that the testers have to choose between playing Dragons and wrecking almost everyone who they test, or not playing Dragons and getting wrecked because everyone who they are testing is using them.

Vampires are a pretty awful deck and the reason I went with them was for the originality section (which imo shouldn't exist if the testers are using meta). From memory I got 3/10 in originality, which leads me to believe that to score highly in originality, you must play a deck which you created yourself and which practically no-one has ever seen before.

I'm not asking for a retest, I'm just putting it out there that maybe some parts of the test need reworking.

Also to the person who was worrying about me playing Burn/ Exodia / Final Countdown, I actually play Bujins and have since reached 16th on the table. Considering that everyone else at that level is playing Dragon Rulers, Mermail, Evilswarm and Infernity, that's a pretty big achievement and I'd appreciate if you guys could refrain from making outlandish claims such as "anyone can do that".

Dragons arent too hard to kill and your playing bujins! ITS A CAKEWALK! All those you listed are easy to beat if you put your mind to it.

Also you dont need to play a deck no one has seen before, it means your deck is a basic deck of THAT archetype.

Also ANYONE can do it. you just need to know how

the real question is why would someone want to be anywhere but slifer....

Youre all retarded..

The Prez has spoken!! why would you guys try to leave the best dorm

I'm actually going to refrain from posting on this topic after this, because every point that anyone here is making is truly... I'll refrain from insults too :/

i think the originality score is ridiculous, because it punishes people for playing yugioh. most yugioh decks, being archetype based, arent "original". in fact, yugioh has almost never been a game where "original" decks did anything. goat control? goat control had 20+ staples. cant be very original when half your deck is already decided. there is basically no way to get full originality because everyone is biased against giving it for any deck theyve seen before ever. decks that are entirely original are likely nonfunctional, which hurts your score in other areas. it tells people "hey, maybe you want to get in a higher dorm, but you better not use the deck you actually like. weve seen it before."

i think thats an element of the test that needs to be removed entirely. your only considerations should be whether the build works and whether they can use it, not whether they were ~*~special~*~ and included cards that dont work just because its original.

Then its simple, create an original but good deck. Maybe a deck like Gadgets? Im sure that would be high originality and great to play with all the support for machine types.

I lied, I'm posting again, because I agree on Twio's last post with 100% of myself.

Seriously... we need to get rid of the originality thing. If everyone could come up with a deck that is 100% original, we wouldn't be seeing Rulers dominate everything. Let me know ANYONE in Obelisk who got there with an original deck. It's all part of some archetype, or some deck that has been used before. And Sylveraine, you don't just need the "basics" of a deck. When you know the basics of a deck you're likely to screw up with it even more than when you know nothing. Why? Because, you will have your heart set on that one move the entire time, or that one card, when there is a perfectly plausible move right in front of you. Like in an Evilswarm mirror, one Rescue Rabbit in hand, your opponent has an Ophion in hand. 95% of "basic" Evilswarm players will bring out Ophion, but who is smart enough to bring out Maestroke? Those who have no mindset about the deck and can be flexible, and those who know the ins and outs of their deck.

I can go into detail on how Dragon Rulers take more skill than any deck this format except for Mermails, but then again, I'd have the entire academy raging at me. So I'll just say this: of course any basic Ruler player can simply mow down the tier 3 and rogue decks, but only a good player can use them to the highest of their power, and beat the higher level decks. Why? The options. With a thousand and one options in front of you, most Dragon players don't see every option, and then most of THEM do not know which play is most optimal, ultimately leading in a waste of resources and to your own loss.

There is a reason certain decks are used, and others are not. I'd be willing to bet you if some guy tossed a random machine deck together, he'd get full originality, and near-zero everywhere else. There is a reason Dragon Ravine is used, Ophion is used, High Priestess is used, Dracossac is used. You think people are going to toss them out to be original?

75 OD to the first person who gives me the "tier 1 decks are not fun" speech, and I'll tell you why you are wrong in every aspect of what you say when I get home from practice.

~Acidik Burnz

Oh man let's do this Acidik

Well first in my opinion, is I do think they are quite fun to use in duels, I mean who does not love winning with easy to win decks. The point is that (Ex.) Dragon Rulers take about no skill to run. A low experienced duelist can learn the ins' and outs' of Dragon Rulers in like hm? About 20 mins by just watching how people play it and actually reading the card.

Sure, you probably see the skill gap between an experienced player and a skilled player. But any player who's running a Dragon Rulers is probably going to win against any original deck. Still the problem is that they usually have a great hand or good, I run Dragon Rulers Stardust Dragon/ Assault Mode, Honestly that takes like no skill to get out stardust assault mode, usually one turn, and then its game, skill? None. Or maybe even in a regular Dragon Rulers go into Big Eye or even Draccosack you're opponent is screwed, getting those XYZ out are not hard or take any skill what so ever. And stealing their monster is prob going to screw them over, or the Draccosack wall, same scenario, screwing them over. All you do is spam the field then next thing you know GG with no skill what so ever in that win; there was no tactical thinking in what to do, that how its just played now in the new formats of Yu-Gi-Oh.

~ Part One of Kandy's rant on how Tier 1 decks take no skill.

I don't so much think that originality scale needs to be removed, I just think maybe (if anything) it needs to be tweaked. I understand the view point from both parties here and see the reasoning. Original should be how separate the deck is compared to whats getting popular now and it should also be based off of what cards are used in it. Take the typical dragon rulers for example. Yea, if I was a tester, I'd slap a 0 on originality right there, BUT, if they actually used a strategy I haven't yet seen with rulers or add in cards that you see few to no people use, then give it a boost. (Ex: using Yamata Dragon in ruler deck. It's a dragon, it's 7, it's fire, it's in this modern day the definition of ruler but do you see ANYONE use it?)

It's hard to really say what i'm trying to get out here, but maybe the scale just needs to be reworked. We should make up a list for every format to refer to for testing. Typically like a tier list in the sense that the higher up on the tier list you are with your deck, the less originality you'll receive. However, like I said earlier, your score could change depending on the cards you decide to use and how they compare to the typical mainstream things everyone and their mother use in their decks. We just need a compromise on this.