Giant Thigh Lover - Meh, it's not that it takes balls to post criticism, it's just interesting seeing the absolutely STUPID things people will say JUST because you talked badly about the game you play. Not everything is going to be peachy, and I think we as UFS players can all agree that the 2008 season was the absolute worst season ever, and that this game is having a hard time shaking off that bad blood. It doesn't make matters better when Hata and Horvath are brimming with overconfidence. This game isn't in as bad a state as it used to be, but Horvath can't just come in here and say, "No bans or erratas for the month", because that just means, "Great, yet another month goes by of problematic cards that makes this game boring and unfun to play against the majority of today's decks." To deny this game a gigantic banned and errata'd list simply makes you look cocky, and when it comes to balancing cards, they simply are not getting the point. This game started with overcosting, which was obviously a bad thing, and now its problem is undercosting.

failed2k - You admit that she has a high difficulty curve...then you're ignoring my point, because THAT is my point right there. ANY deck that runs attacks that deal over 30 damage or so can win a game, that much is obvious. It's not THAT Seong Mi-Na can or cannot win, it's that she does not win easily, which is my whole point. As I said, even if you're packing 4 Tag Along, 4 Aquakinesis, and 4 Bigger They Are, you need to draw it. You need to draw it, and it needs to go unnegated. Then, you need to draw into things that matter (which, duh, could be said about any card draw). Unless you're using Defender's Form (and something tells me you aren't), then the incentive to run Seong Mi-Na is in the character and the character alone. I realize you've done extremely well with her, and that certainly luck is a factor every game (Hell better luck could've lead me to a possible victory in my regional against MegaGeese), but the fact that there are other characters out there with bigger, better abilities, with a built-in handsize worth mentioning, it's just hard to justify running her.

DrUnK3n_PaNdA - Here's the problem with the constant argument I hear of "Oh, they can just draw into an attack." Um...if I'm playing Feline Spike, I don't WANT to draw anything UNLESS IT'S DRAWING YET ANOTHER FELINE SPIKE! If I play Feline, you BRT it, I don't want it to be replaced by a foundation (whith statistics say it will), or a different attack. I want it being replaced by yet another Feline Spike. Hence the problem. The odds of revealing the same attack are absolutely slim to none, ESPECIALLY when you only run 2-3 copies of said card in the first place. Drawing 1 card isn't a justification because if I COULD kill you with Feline, yet your BRT prevents me from doing so, congrats, you've just saved your ass from losing an entire match at the cost of just horizontal-ing a card. That's not right, not at all, especially when you encorporate the many mad uses of BRT (hacking blocks? Wow, Penetrating Lunge anybody?)

MarcoPulleaux said:

Doesn't that that fall under your argument of 'build a versatile deck'? If your one and only win condition is Spike and you don't run cards to protect it getting through, it doesn't sound like a very versatile deck :-/

rC( ) said:

Welcome to one of the archetypes in the meta. Why bother running "poke" attacks when you can just roflstomp someone with a Spike? Yes there is the Flayer/Launcher/Breaker Evil and Fire decks running around, but much like ye ol' Swipe days, it's still mainly one big attack being relied upon to kill someone.

I agree with RC -- Shinji basically argued that, because decks run 3x Feline Spike as their only attacks, BRT is overpowered because it will almost always hit a foundation, thus completely destroying the hacked card and not replacing it in the hand.

To adress Shinji's point -- if they BRT your Feline Spike, then you should've had an answer to BRT before you tried to play it. The whole point of your 3x Spikes deck is to deal with all the threats to your FSpike with foundations. If you had decided to build a deck that dealt with problems by attacking, then you would have a better shot of hitting an attack on the BRT draw.

MarcoPulleaux said:

If that was a shot at my post then please point out what it was that was so stupid about it? I know UFS is not in good shape. I admit it all the time. I want bans and errata's just as much as the next guy. I hate Olcadon's, Bitter, and Spike etc etc. But the game is getting better there is no denying that.

As long as this next set gives Void, Life, Earth, Good, and to some exent Fire(Yeah it's doing OK but if you are not playing Astrid or Hilde then it still sucks) some big boosts then hopefully we will see an een more diverse meta. while no one can deny that 2008 was horrible no one can say that things are not looking better now.

Well there is a lot of answers to BRT on all of Feline's symbols. If you see a BRT you can wait until you're holding a Tag Along as well, then bait out the BRT with the Spike and Tag Along it back... or recur it some other way like Free Will. You can Chinese/Program down the BRTs when your opponent attacks, you can Clean Freak away the BRTs after they've been used. Off of Air you can run Inhuman Perception and cancel the response or you can spinta and eat the BRTs... or at least bait them out WITH the spinta. Off Good you can run Destiny. You could always run Olcadan's... few people have Controller of Souls right now since it was very, very unjustly made an Ultra-Rare. Almost every symbol has good answers to BRT these days. Just like any other popular card in the meta it's important to consider BRT (or Spike for that matter!) when making a deck and accompanying sideboard. I've sat on both sides of BRT at it's worst and while it's powerful, I never considered it imbalanced and it was never a card that generated an NPE for me.

MarcoPulleaux said:

Your POINT that you seem to be ignoring(or backing off of) even tho you made it, is that Seong-Mina cannot win a major event, you put it in fancy bold letters, at the very top of your post. You made lots of points throughout your explanation on why, some were true, others were not. MY point, is that she is completely capable on winning events, and has already basically proven that the potential is there to do so. She Is not "inferior" to donovan, but she is more difficult to build and play, that is where I agree on the difficulty curve to her. Being difficult to play does not make her worse, it makes her less popular and less successful in the hands of inferior players. Chars with "better abilities and bigger handsizes" is only half truth, there is chars with bigger handsizes and great abilities, this is fact, but Seong-Mina shouldn't play like any of those decks, a successfull seong-mina deck does things only she is capable of doing, and then protects those things to the best of her ability. As much as her handsize is a liability, her life is a severe obstacle to overcome for most decks to overcome and can buy her time till the game swings into her favor. She is just as capable deck as donovan or anyone else, maybe you can't see that, but her results speak for themself. Only a few decks win majors every year, maybe she won't win one, but she is capable of doing so.

rC( ) – Well, MY personal deck (Seong Mi-Na) DID run more than just Feline (it’s in the deckbuilding forum), and if you were stupid enough to only run Feline as your attack, then duh, you NEED to be backing that card up heavily. Still, whether you do or do not have your counters out is irrelevant; the card still boasts too much power at absolutely no drawback (my opponent drawing doesn’t count as a drawback because the reason WHY I used BRT against them overrides the fact that they draw. No point in them drawing if they DIE by my attack).

Sol Badguy – Oh no dude, it had nothing to do with you. I was mostly referring to the people who, as soon as you say, “Yeah, this game’s in a bad state because of X-reason”, people pounce you with OMFG KWIT CRYING U NEWB. THERE R ANSERRZ JUST LOOK @ THIS LIZT OF CARDS! And other such nonsense.

Failed – Point taken, but the one issue I’m still concerned with is Donovan. If you think she is better, than that is your opinion. I think Donovan is better, and that my point is, while Seong Mi-Na has the potential to do it, the difficulty to do so is higher with Mi-Na than a list of other characters who can win easier than she can.

MarcoPulleaux said:

I can see where you're coming from there, i have to agree with panda about the BRT issue

DrUnK3n_PaNdA said:

I've been playing with and against BRT since day one (of its release). I've never had an NPE with it..i mean, sure it's good but i've never been of the opinion that it is busted.

MarcoPulleaux said:

I've seen some VERY beastly decks off seong-mina, mostly one that ran 7 attacks I believe, and it just omnoms your staging area with spinta until it can get you where it wants you and kills you. It's one of the decks that scares me when i'm playing 6 hand sizers, i certainly don't think a 6HS character can really beat that without some severe built in draw like Alex. (And I like playing 6 handsizers when I can; Astrid is a big favorite of mine.)

Thats was probally the deck JB played at SCC I built it with some help fro Jeremy at POTM.

One of the builds, i've seen a few that did that, guitalex had a spinta seong mina a while back as well, shaneth ran her, that stuff.

Eithinis said:

Mi-Na is one of my favorite characters in UFS and my favorite in Soul Calibur. She's used and tops repeatedly for very good reason.

However, in an area with good decks such as Chun, Akuma, Donovan, Olexa, and the surprise decks like Kirk's Mignon, I don't think Seong Mi-Na will have as easy a time winning, which is the entire point behind me saying I don't think THAT she will win.

You know after rereading the OP, I feel like I have been mislead. The title of this post says REAL evidence, but really the majority of the information in this post is extrapolations of opinions. There is very little objectivity to most of this post, and the sample size of the events being used seems to be limited in scope.

Maybe I'm being to strict, but evidence != Opinions. To say Chun Li (as a for instance) is too powerful is good and swell and all, but there is no tangability to what was posted to support that. If you look at her win record I feel like shes not even preforming that well. when a tournament is comprised of 40 people and 5 are chun li, odds are one will top 8. But considering shes not winning these events says something.

In your post you also say things like BRT needs to go, bitter needs the axe, defender is fine, etc, without really explaining why except "it's too good". Not only is this not evidence, it's wholly opinion based. If you had given reasons backed up by at least empyrical evidence i would be inclined to agree more but you did not support your claims at all, all you said was I played in one regional and heres the evidence, these cards are broken and these are fine.

I'm not in the least saying your not entitled to your opinion on whatever cards, but dont frame your opinion as fact because it is not. I would wager to say that even if we were to delve deeper into your analysis and get some explinations as to why you have your stance on let's say bitter rivals that we would find a completley logic based counter argument could be made from someone like me who things bitter is not only fine as it is but rarely can be bothered to use it because there are other better cards.

If you want to show me evidence show me something like this. You want bitter to be banned, show me how many regionals and majors since its introduction into the game have been won by a deck using this card and what percentage that comprises of all events. You could even break it out further and show me what top 8 decks ran the card, percentages, statistics, how it stacked up against other card usage, so on and so forth.

Protoaddict said:

You mean like the Canadian Nationals 2009, where 3 Chun-Lis top 8d and two were diversified? Or are you going to dismiss that because the tournament was in Canada and thus not a real place?

Yes, it didn't win - However, two decks that had her in their sideboard did make it into finals (Although Olexa's deck only used her to faceroll certain particular characters so, honestly, Chun-Li WAS in there, just... not really used. He certainly didn't need to use it against me on that day, ugh.) That mean anything? Not really, just that she's far more present than most think. Also, I don't know about Mignon having Chun-Li, but IIRC it did - memory may be fuzzy and it doesn't take away from Kirk Polka's win either. It's more of a statistic than anything else.

EDIT: Not a "Ban Chun plox" argument more than the proof is there - I don't remember a character that was diversified two times in the same tournament in the history of UFS. I mean, EVER. BTW: 7 people played Chun-Li at that event - that means that a little bit less than half made top 8. Either the Chun-Li deck is too powerful (which, to be honest, it really isn't although it's close to said line much like other decks, but I didn't face one and my ENTIRE WEEKEND (report on my failings coming whenever I get René's photos and I can shoop) decided to honor my team's name in a real bad way except against Antigoth - I have more wins overall with Yi-Shan at that event than Remy, which is real frigging sad when you think about it) or people aren't getting used to being facerolled with Spikes on their turn which, honestly, would scare me more than anything related to Chun-Li at that point.

But yeah - the proof IS there. It's just that Shinji once again used it badly. All we can say at that point is that UFS is at a stagnating point in creativity because people use Chun-Li way too **** much. Is she too powerful? Not our call to make, but we can argue about it.

Homme Chapeau said:

Actually I would probably use that as my perfect example. Considering so many people ran chun li at the event, just statistically speaking you could safley say a few would get high enough rank to make top 8. If she was so dominant why was the chunners in the top 8 knocked out of the first round in the finals? Why isnt she winning regionals left and right? Im by no means saying shes not a great character, but to me ban talk requires more evidence. Ibuki was baned because she was winning every event she was played out on top of being the most popular character at these events. Yun seong was possibly the most popular tourney character ever, being present at every event i ever participated in while he was legal, but he wasent banned, mostly beause he simpily was not winning the events..

Protoaddict said:

Mike Lowe won Rochester. Pilot AND deck. Also read the edit.

1. Pretty sure that you're not the one calling the shots on bans, dood. That is - how is showing you statistical evidence going to do any good? You've already made up your mind, and don't seem the type to be particularly malleable.
2. Don't be obtuse. You know **** well that both of the decks that made it to the finals had Chun-Li in the sideboard. Two plus two equals four; don't act like it doesn't.

MegaGeese said:

If 2 of the 4 that made finals sandbagged they had to have some other character round one. If Chun li was so good why couldnt she beat the sandbaggers who were using the clearly inferior character in the first finals round? She would obviously be at an advantage if her character was that superior.

Statistics at least forms some sort of evidence. Opinion is not evidence and thats mostly what this thread was. The title of the thread said real evidence. Stats may not be the most accurate method but at least it constutes a method.

Protoaddict said:

If you think I did not list reasons

YOU

DID

NOT

READ

MY

ARTICLE

Also, I didn't choose the word "real" to mean fact, I chose it to bolster the fact that most people say things like "LOL WHAT TOURNIEZ HAS U WON?!", and I can't respond with an answer people care about.

Now that I've been to a regional (with forum-users that people know and trust), I feel that people will start to take my opinions with a little more salt.

But you know what? Since you were so polite to give me the chance, I'll give ya what ya asked for

Blood Runs True

#1 Undercosted

As is with most cards, the effect contained within is strong as Hell, WAY too strong for a 2/5+1-HIGH. As I've said repeatedly, R Commit is not a cost; it's a teenie disadvantage. A cost is discarding cards, momentum, committing foundations, your character, etc.BRT doesn't have that.

#2 The argument people always use is wrong

The argument people use to say the card is balanced is ALWAYS as such: "My opponent reveals (and draws) an attack but checks a foundation." OK, good for them...that low, low percentage that ever happens. Most decks run anywhere from 28 to 40 foundations, and these days, about 4 to 6 assets, 4 to 8 actions. From worst to best, that's 36 non-attacks (leaving 24 attacks) to 54 non-attacks (leaving 6 attacks). With a ratio like that, the odds of revealing an attack (of which is drawn) and EQUALLY checking a non-attack is a small percentage, much smaller than people make it appear. What's more, the card being BRT'd is almost NEVER replaced by the drawn card with an exact copy. As such, if I play Feline, and you BRT, the likelihood of drawing another Feline is slim to none. And don't say, "well ya shoulda prepared" BS, THERE SHOULDN'T BE A BROKEN CARD ACROSS MY TABLE! If you're going to make CCHax, they need to look like Challenges Only, Iori, and Ostracized, NOT Blood Runs True.

#3 Blocking? wtf's that?

Not only is the card used defensively, but from what I've witnessed, it's used even more OFFENSIVELY. The fact that it doesn't say "only playable during _____ turn" doesn't help. If I'm playing a block, statistically speaking, I'm gonna need a 4 or higher (almost every attack is 3 speed or more), and with BRT, statistically, the highest I CAN check is about a 2, and again, that's if I revealed an attack. Speed pumps NEED to be important, but with discard and CCHax around, speed pumps won't ever matter. What's more, blocking won't matter as much as it should.

Bitter Rivals

#1 Undercosted

Unlike BRT, which at least has the courtesy to commit itself for one-time use, Bitter Rivals does no such thing and bows to no man. As a free enhance, there's rarely a reason NOT to use the ability whenever possible, and as it is an E, you're gonna use it on every attack, pretty much. Don't say "it's a 3/4", because that means nothing.

#2 Bitter Rivals - the incentive to take away all incentives

Bitter Rivals kills the dreams of so many cards, decktypes, etc. Just ask anybody who invested their time and money in Father Bulls or Lu Chen, and I'm sure they could tell you. There's plenty to explain here, so I hope you're still reading, since I apparently "didn't explain why." First off, it changes zones. Back in the day, changing zones used to be fricken amazing, even more so if it was your opponent's attack. However, Bitter Rivals takes away that feeling reward or accomplishment you might get from a card like, say, Light on One's Feet. Much like how all of Tira's attacks were promised to deal damage because of her "free" abilities, Bitter Rivals sees to it that:

A: More often than not, you will be ABLE to block your opponent's attacks (partial or complete, they're blocked)
B: Your attacks will go through
B 2.0: Your attacks will be unblockable due to being a zone (low or high) your opponent cannot legally block.

That's the first part. The second, and arguably better part, is the discard. Bitter Rivals discards at a "safer" rate than Ways of Punishment, for Rivals completely LOLZ at all that lovely anti-discard we just got. While TWOP is busy getting boned by Seal of Cessation or Soul Wave, Bitter Rivals is LOLing its way through any No Memories, Chester's Backing, Cessations, and all your anti-discard. Ever since the only "safe" keywords became Punch, Kick, and Weapon, the strength, popularity, and REACH of Bitter Rivals became simply unparalleled, hitting not just the usual, but Unique and Terrain as well. It's capable of discarding too many popular cards, and can turn a hand of 4 attacks to 2 (or less). Oh, and those 2 attacks are subject to just be blocked anyways.

There. Explained.

MegaGeese said:

Actually considering I just spent 4 days at an anime convention my mind is completely freaking fried at the moment so I can be as obtuse as I want to.

Which probably means you AREN'T talking to me. But if you are then yes I am being very obtuse even though I don't even remember what that means.

Also, Air is stagnant.

Just a few notes in this thread from the peanut gallery

Andrew Olexa finished 2nd overall in Swiss, and 2nd overall in the tournament. Yes, he had Chun-Li in his sideboard. He did not use her until the top 4 & top 8 matchups.

That to me says that while chunners was a tool in the deck for certain specific matchups, by no means was the deck built as Chun-Li, and that he just ran Olexa to dodge diversity, would be miles from the truth.

Kirk, Jeremy, and I spoke about this at the Can Nats - Kirk's deck was Mignon. We knew people were going to start saying "It was a sandbag chun-li deck!" That statement absolutely and totally does a disservice to Kirk's deck, and what it was designed to do. His deck was designed to attack, and counter attack. If his opponent didn't attack, and instead just chose to "wall of foundation, leading to Kill Turn/Lock of Doom", then he would board to Chun-Li to disrupt that strategy, and start attacking the opponent on their turn.

In both instances, they were solid decks, with solid strategies, and merely used the Chun-Li card as a tool as opposed to a crutch to make the deck function.

It's smart deck building, and both players really impressed me with their explanations of how Chunners fit into their sideboard. I only pray that I've done a glimmer of justice to their points in my very quick synopsis.

~~~

Sitting at a table with Matt Kohls, Jonathan Herr, Jeremy Ray, Kirk Polka, Andrew Olexa, and a few others, and hear an almost universal comment of "how risky it is to use Blood Runs True" underlies something. We have a few folks beating the drum of personal agenda about BRT.

I mean seriously, when I'm sitting at a table with arguably the best players in the world, and the group consensus is that BRT is a risky proposition, (for it's controller) How disproportionate is this card truly?

I saw cards like Willful and Destiny frequently represented in deck lists. I've been running Ayame's Scarf in decks lately, and have 0 problems drawing into it, or getting it onto the table. And before someone stands up and goes "ZOMG! It's a SR!!!!" 1) The first two cards listed are commons. 2) Ayame's is sitting in so many peoples trade binders, including mine, and people just can't be bothered to trade for it. The card is available, readily so, and people just can't be bothered with it. If it was so hard to pick up, people would be lining up to trade it off me, much like Ira Sprinta's and other such cards when they hit my possession.

Personally, 90% of the time when I'm playing someone, even a good player, I'm able to bait them to use their BRT on the "wrong" card. Player need to learn how to adapt to cards in the environment. Any game is like that. Even Chess, and Checkers, if you go headlong with your own strategy, and pay no heed to what your opponent is doing, and what their strategy is, you are likely to loose.

And to say "It's foolish to main deck those cards just in case you run into BRT." I call shenangins on anyone who tries to say that. Forethough, The Anti K', BRT, Akuma, + a few other hax cards are all rampant in the format. Those cards should be main deck material.

~~~

Bitter Rivals

So far in the current environment I've played in Can Nats, Path of the Master, and the Keycon Regional. I've yet to have bitter rivals be a problem for me personally, and did not cause me any challenges in playing any of my games. I've discovered especially that when you're running Keywords, if you can find room to run WIll for the Fight (Which I main decked, and will continue to main deck in ANY deck that I can run it), any opponent who had bitter rivals tended to stop using Bitter Rivals, or would simply change zones. 90% of the time, Bitter Rivals was just another foundation to commit.

Those are my observations in playing through a number of events. When you're talking about "Helping block attacks" I was finding Tira's Contract was more of a pain in the ass to deal with then was Bitter Rivals.

~~~

Anyhow, those are my observations.

I had something else to add, but it's off topic, and better served for another post.

Well, your options are all well thought-out and have credible background, so I can't really knock you on any points.

We simply disagree, mostly on Blood Runs True. I feel it succeeds MUCH more than it backfires, and that even if it "backfires", under most circumstances, people will check a 3, which will likely lead to failure.

But, again, your observations are good ones, so it's just agree to disagree here.

Protoaddict said:

I said "finals", as in "final match". That is, Kirk and Andrew. Remind me again, though...when was it that I said anything about sandbagging? However, point of fact: if the two guys facing each other in the final round of a major tournament (character card major) are using the same card in their sideboard, is it SUCH a leap to say that it's something good? And, if said card is a character, that it is obviously very strong if they have such confidence in its ability to perform at such an important time? And I'd appreciate words not being put in my mouth, thank you.

My point being that no matter what is put forth as evidence, you're never going to change your mind. Ever. Even if we're looking at Phoenix Wright proving his client innocent beyond any possible doubt, you're still going to think they're guilty.

But to stop this statistics nonsense - Talbain. Goodbye.

Antigoth said:

Brian has the right idea here. Andrew and Kirk didn't run their decks as some obvious method to dodge diversity; Chun-Li was, plain and simple, a tool that they had sitting in their sideboard, to be used when needed. Could not have worded it better myself, to be honest.

I really don't have anything else to say on the matter, since Brian's basically put all of my thoughts on the matter into words already.

MarcoPulleaux said:

What? you contradict yourself in your own statement. Furthermore since when is R Commit NOT a cost. Committing a single foundation has lost and won me games countless times.

MarcoPulleaux said:

A cards difficutly to control ratio means almost EVERYTHING to most decks. The fact that you would discout it on such a level is mind numbing to me. It is a balancing factor, as a matter of fact the most promonent and important balance in the game. pure and simple 3/4 is a bad spread when most other foundations in the game with useable abilities that will also win you games come in around 2/5. The fact that attacks also only range from 1-3 in the current block with the exception of high tide is also the reason its a 3 difficutly and the reason the difficulty is important.

As for me being too set in my opinions on this subject, I have been convinced before on a cards validity on these forums, and been convinced when a card needed to be banned (Talbain). It's been done with forum threads that are more indepth than someone posting that they attended a regional and heres what I think now. Discussions have taken place around every ban for the most part.

And please do not do me this disservice of accusing me of not reading your post as this is is yet another accusatory statement. If I didnt read your post why would I read this thread in the first place. I disagree with a lot of what you say and talk to thoes speicifc points in my post. One would have had to have read your post to make thoes points. You say that I didnt get get your sarcasm in the title of your post, but i would venture to guess many people here did not get that sarcasm either. Internet web forums are not inherently strong sarcastic mediums and unless your someone like Hatman who does nothing put post sardonic remarks it will not translate. It also has very littl eplace in a discussion where you are trying to give yourself a level of credibility.