Oh... and the reverse can be said where a team gets another team's decklist and techs their own decks to beat it... basically NTZing the other team's building/testing time and effort (see Prosak TR).

It's not just what you know... it's who you know... heh.

"better players"? The "better players" took a bad Crisis Doom decklist and turned it into a very good deck. 2+ weeks is plenty of time to test a deck when you have 3-4 people working on it.

As far as tech'ing against other people's leaks. If you don't want that to happen then don't leak your deck, it is as simple as that. This is especially true when tech'ing against your deck involves the addition of 1 character that anyone can splash in their deck (Sage, Supermanhunter, etc.).

I don't think the original builder of the Crisis doom decklist thought it was bad. A bad deck is a bad deck (channeling MJ here), regardless of who tunes it. Don't give FTN too much credit here, other people played Crisis Doom too so the deck idea must have been good.

I think you're still missing my point, as this thread is asking, how do you build/test decks. What I'm saying is that sometimes a team will miss stuff only to have one fall into their laps that their deckbuilders overlooked or dismissed. And because they usually have better players, they can usually do more with a decklist in weeks... or even days (Jebailey-Squad) then the people who came up with the original decklist. One good thing about last minute deckbuilding is it is prone to less tech-leakage and more tech-toolboxing.

Why do you insist on taking credit away from people (especially FTN) all the time? How many cards do you need to change in a deck until you make it your own? I mean when you change over 20 of the cards in the deck, I think you've made it your own. No? Obviously Crisis Doom was not an original idea, it was posted all over the internet as soon as the card came out. We just built a better version of it and had the most success w/ it. Who cares where the idea started? It's not like the original deck idea was "unique" in any way. The only unique things were taken out for better cards (expendable ally).

Ahh... so you are mad. That wasn't the intent... but you keep pointing out the parts in my posts that you disagree with rather than the point I am trying to make. And what other times have I taken credit away from people? Does it really feel like I'm picking on FTN "all the time"? You're the one who says it was a bad decklist... I think if anyone can be accused of taking away credit... it's not me.

My contention was that because of the number of people on certain teams, their access to more decklists is greater than smaller groups or individuals (even just due to sheer "barnage numbers"). And because they have better players (like FTN), they can take a decklist and tune it to become more playable in a shorter amount of time... even if they didn't build it. Now if you still think I'm taking credit away from FTN... that's your problem. But I also know from some of your better teammates that your deckbuilding/testing isn't the greatest system on earth. Or maybe they are lying to me to throw us off whatever you guys are doing. All I know is that whenever we ask about how FTN is doing with their testing, all I get is "nothing".

If you want to continue to argue for the sake of arguing, that's fine... this feels like DC Modern Indy all over again... but at least you're posting again on the boards which is a good thing.

I think there were 2 other Crisis-Doom decks that went 8-2 as well. So, it's not like it's "FTN's" deck. Anyway, you two will probably go around circles, so you should just stop, lol. I know Ryan helped out a bit tweaking Keith's version (which was the basis) early on, so I see why Erick would say what he says, but to be fair, FTN's version was a lot different (and better, too).

Oh... FTN's version was definitely better. I never said that they didn't improve it (in fact, I acknowleged that they did)... but I wouldn't say that the original was "bad" (although I kept telling Keith that the week before the PC... but what do I know... I'm stupid anyways).

What I AM saying is if not for the fortuity of Ryan seeing Keith play his build... FTN may (and I do say "may") not have run it.

Again... who you know is sometimes better than what you know.

First of all, I had written a pretty long post for this thread but then my internet died while it was posting and I didn't save it so now I'm mad. Here's a condensed version:

This is a really interesting thread topic, and I really wish someone who has actually seen success in this game as a deckbuilder would post their methodology, as it would really help everyone (especially myself) become better players. So far, DDH and chdb (as much as I hate agreeing with him) have summed up my beliefs.

By the way, everyone here who's posting about how to actually construct a deck, I don't think that's what the thread starter was looking for. This topic goes a lot deeper than drop ratios, supporting plot twists and team selection based on thematics. He's looking for methodology/metagaming, not basic deck construction.

Finally, lol@the Dalton/erick drama :)

Well... I'm not a successful player but I've watched good players build and test... it's basically one of two methods:

1. Come up with something new.
2. Tech something established.

The rest of this is pretty obvious but I'll go over it since I have some time to kill:

Patrick prefers number 1 so that's usually the way they go.

A. The guys usually come up with lots of ideas and "fishbowl" them (Billy's term for "goldfish").
B. If it seems viable, they play a few games against known meta decks, if it wins... it gets tweaked, if it loses, it still gets tweaked.
C. If after tweaking, it loses, it gets trashed.
D. If it beats the meta, it gets played against other ideas to see how it does against unknowns.
E. If during step D, one of these other ideas does well, that one gets tweaked and becomes one of the test decks.
F. Usually... steps B-E will separate the crap from the nuts and then the deck(s) get fine tuned (I say decks because sometimes there is more than just one deck that the guys agree upon)
G. Leaks from other teams or assumed decklists get thrown into the gauntlet and tested against
H. Barring any last minute problems, small tweaks are made as tech and that's it.

It should be noted that F-H are probably done in the last few days or hours leading up to the PC. The key to making this better than others is in the players... not just the decks. If you have a good group who can see lots of interactions and test well (this is whole other topic, there is such thing as bad playtesting and good playtesting), you should be okay for Day 2.

hehe, supermanhunter ftw.

Not mad, just sensing an MO out of you that is somewhat tiresome. Admittedly I never saw the original decklist, just the one Ryan posted for us (which was likely slightly different than what Keith had built). I have no problem sharing credit w/ Keith though, he's a great guy, I just don't think the original build was very good.

Well maybe if our testing is so bad then these people should find other decks to play? Cause continually top 2'ing w/ "bad decks" must be a strain.

We're certainly not as dedicated or proficient as TDC, but I think we've managed to come up w/ some decent decks for a while.

Uhh... missing the point again.

Did I say FTN had a "bad deck"? You're MO of putting words in my mouth is somewhat tiresome. If you don't want to agree with what I'm saying, that's fine... but don't twist my words around.

Here -- you said it yourself:
That's what I meant by "not the best system in the world", since you admit that TDC's is better. But none of that was to mean that FTN is a bad team or they play bad decks... it was meant to show that even the best deckbuilding/playtesting group can fall into decks that they didn't come up with themselves... so in that point, the deckbuilding aspect is sometimes useless because a "stolen" or "leaked" or "barn-donated" decklist ends up being the team deck.

This is the reason VS is the best game out there. Chicken Fights like this MAKE the META.

The Life of Tech/Playtesting:

1. People talk a lot of nonsense on the threads *attempting to throw off the meta*

2. About a month before PC there is a silent hush over all and any tech viable in the upcoming tournament.

3. PC

4. Sh!t talking. (but only REPEATED FOR EMPHASIS ONLY on the threads.)

...but in ericks case we talk #### everytime I see you. Your the best erik

I'm sure that Tim would have a better analysis of this topic than I would. Still, I can give you a limited insight into our playtesting process.

Before every PC, we build and play about 20 different decks. Usually, these are mock-ups of established decks in the metagame. For archetypes from sets that haven't been widely played (ex. Infinite Crisis teams prior to PC San Francisco), we lightly play decks of our own design. This gives us a basic idea of what decks can effectively compete in the metagame. This is our initial basis for our playtesting gauntlet.

After that, we look at what decks and ideas have favorable matchups in our gauntlet. If it is an established deck, we use decklists that have seen success in past events for our own playtesting. For builds from newer sets that have not had any tournament exposure (ex. Checkmate/VU at PCSF), we develop our own decklists for playtesting. In either case, we playtest these decks against our gauntlet to see where the strengths and weaknesses lie.

In addition to learning the key strategies and cards for winning specific matchups, the playtesting reveals where we might have problems. If the problem is against a deck that we don't feel will have much representation, we may just accept that we have a poor matchup. However, in matchups that we anticipate we will see quite often, we will look at cards that might aid us in those matchups. One good example is my team's addition of Magical Lobotomy to our Good Guys build for the mirror match PC Indy. That card turned a 50/50 matchup into a heavily favorable matchup for us (on either initiative).

We try to finalize the card choices for our decks well before the PC. This allows all of us the chance to play the deck in the final (or at least close to final) form. Since any changes to the deck will affect how it will perform, it is important to playtest with the version that will most closely resemble the version that you play at the PC.

I guess all of this rambling can be summarized by saying that you should play your deck against everything. If it has a good mathup, move on. If it has a bad matchup, make changes to make it better. Regardless of what you do, PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE!