Ways to Approach the Game

[Donezator]

Playing a game is not fun when its stale and repetitive.

This shows that you are being really stubborn and that you really are giving the impression that you want everyone to think like you. Without saying 'I think' or 'My opinion is' makes it sound like a fact, as you put 'Play a game IS NOT fun when it's stale are repetitive'. Not only this, but you didn't back what up what you said with any proof, making what you put a complete false statement. Why is that game stale and repetitive? Because you've played/saw a lot of Luxchomp, Gengar etc.? Using the same decks doesn't make a format stale. Last season, some of my most memorable and best games were mirror matches as the game came a lot less down to one deck having the upper hand on another, but really down to the players skill to play the right cards at the right time to win the game.

Donezator

 

[vaporeon]

I expect people to play what gives them a good chance at winning. I'm not taking about growth as a play but as a whole in the Pokemon community. Sure good players are going to try new things but at the end of the day, when high level events come around, what are these people going to play? They will more the likely play meta, proving that if you want to win, play meta, because it gives them a better chance at winning.

---------- Post added 06/17/2011 at 02:16 PM ----------

This shows that you are being really stubborn and that you really are giving the impression that you want everyone to think like you. Without saying 'I think' or 'My opinion is' makes it sound like a fact, as you put 'Play a game IS NOT fun when it's stale are repetitive'. Not only this, but you didn't back what up what you said with any proof, making what you put a complete false statement. Why is that game stale and repetitive? Because you've played/saw a lot of Luxchomp, Gengar etc.? Using the same decks doesn't make a format stale. Last season, some of my most memorable and best games were mirror matches as the game came a lot less down to one deck having the upper hand on another, but really down to the players skill to play the right cards at the right time to win the game.

Donezator

Mirror matches also come down to a lot of luck and hoping your opponent misplays. Yeah last format was bad but it was still stale and repetitive and nothing you say will change that. Maybe you were playing Luxchomp or Gengar and because of that, you'll defend that. Thats fine, but a large group of people were getting tired of that. I'm just as stubborn as any other person posting here trying to protect their self interest.

This whole this is a little one sided. Just about everyone posting here plays meta so you don't want to try to understand me. I don't play meta but I can and I'm speaking as a rogue player playing in the metagame. I'm going to say something and you'll counter and I'll counter what you say. The bad thing is that we can't agree on a common issue but, what can I say. I'm just one rogue player living in a metagames world.

 

[espeon200]

But is something meta because of netdeckers, or is something meta because it's a good combo? The thing about netdecking is that it follows good players putting together good lists (without preconceived ideas). For example, you would probably consider Reshiboar a meta deck now. It's what I'm currently playing. I didn't decide to play it because I saw someone's list and decided to copy it. I've always wanted to be able to play Ninetails HGSS because it's a powerful draw engine and when I saw Rehiram and Emboar released I could see instant synergy between them. But am I a netdecker because I'm playing an obvious combo that lots of other people have also latched onto including those who are just copying a list online.

Not all cards are created equal. Some will inevitably be better than others. Some will be overlooked when they shouldn't be, and others will be seen as powerful until someone finds an easy counter to them. The true mark of a great deckbuilder (which I am not claiming to be) is that he or she is always willing to try what other people are doing and see how it affects the entire game. It's a process of refining a deck until it is playable at its peak condition.

Also, something that I don't think has been discussed a lot in this thread is the fact that there are deck builders and deck players (I think someone earlier said in Magic they're called "Pilots"). Deckbuilding and playing skill are not the same thing. A good player should have both, but even someone who doesn't can enjoy playing the game. To say that a person has to be both is IMHO a selfish way of looking at the game. Anyway, that's just my two cents.

 

[Donezator]

This whole this is a little one sided. Just about everyone posting here plays meta so you don't want to try to understand me. I don't play meta but I can and I'm speaking as a rogue player playing in the metagame. I'm going to say something and you'll counter and I'll counter what you say. The bad thing is that we can't agree on a common issue but, what can I say. I'm just one rogue player living in a metagames world.

Not necessarily, I have ran both varieties of deck in my time of playing the game and have experienced both ways of approaching the game. I agree that there is nothing wrong with playing such 'rogue' decks and having fun playing that way. What I'm saying is, I don't think the way that you're trying to get your message across is going to convince people of your viewpoint. Like I said before, taking a step back and appreciating others own viewpoints is crucial and you can't just counter and counter argue all the time. I appreciate what you're saying about the situation being one sided, but it's not as if everyone here is completely ignoring what you say. They are just purely giving there own views against it, like you yourself are doing.

 

[vaporeon]

Like its been said before. The card pool is kind of small from whats good so ideas are going to clash. I'm playing Donphan right now because its fits my play style. It's too early to say whats meta of not because people are still testing what can work. Reshiboar stands a high chance at becoming meta but whos to say it will. Emboar will be meta for sure alongs with Mag Prime. It wouls also be nice to see more people who can build decks and play them though.

 

[Victory Bell]

But am I a netdecker because I'm playing an obvious combo that lots of other people have also latched onto including those who are just copying a list online.

For this very reason I wish people would stop throwing around words like "net decker" just like I wish people would stop saying rogue when the proper term would be "bad/fun deck". Not directed at anyone in particular.

But is something meta because of netdeckers, or is something meta because it's a good combo?

Both. If fifty noobs from the internet go to nats with Swanna/Kyogre it's a meta deck because it's in the metagame. If fifty noobs go to nats with Magneboar it is considered a meta deck also because it's in the metagame. It's certianly not a good combo but it would be considered a percentage of the metagame thus a meta deck in that particular tournament imo. Good combos often turn into meta decks just because these obviously good cards are just fundamentally good. I probably just tried to answer a rhetorical question. Whatever.

 

[tomoyosfan1]

I expect people to play what gives them a good chance at winning. I'm not taking about growth as a play but as a whole in the Pokemon community. Sure good players are going to try new things but at the end of the day, when high level events come around, what are these people going to play? They will more the likely play meta, proving that if you want to win, play meta, because it gives them a better chance at winning.

This is where you're wrong. There have been many examples of some of the best players playing rogue unknown decks at events and doing very well. In 2005, Jeremy Maron won Worlds with Queendom, a completely unknown deck. US Nats 2006 was won by Raieggs. Add that to deck like Destiny, Mynx, Ambush, and even some unnoticed decks like Jimmy Ballard's eeveelution deck that placed 2nd at Worlds 2006, and the Ferench Gyarados decks from 2009. Do the great players play meta at big events? Sure, but there have been plenty of examples of them saving a new combination for a big events like Nats or Worlds.

 

[vaporeon]

Not necessarily, I have ran both varieties of deck in my time of playing the game and have experienced both ways of approaching the game. I agree that there is nothing wrong with playing such 'rogue' decks and having fun playing that way. What I'm saying is, I don't think the way that you're trying to get your message across is going to convince people of your viewpoint. Like I said before, taking a step back and appreciating others own viewpoints is crucial and you can't just counter and counter argue all the time. I appreciate what you're saying about the situation being one sided, but it's not as if everyone here is completely ignoring what you say. They are just purely giving there own views against it, like you yourself are doing.

And this is why we can't agree on something. Meta players are going to speak as meta player and rogue players are going to speak as rogue players. I do see what others are talking about but it's still because they defend meta because they play meta. To them, they say what is he talking about, I play to win and will do what ever it takes to win. I'm just reading in between the lines here. It's hard to try to share my views on it because they don't stand a chance against other people. Maybe if there were more rogue players here against meta players, we could get somewhere but its just me against the rest of the gym for the most part.

---------- Post added 06/17/2011 at 02:44 PM ----------

This is where you're wrong. There have been many examples of some of the best players playing rogue unknown decks at events and doing very well. In 2005, Jeremy Maron won Worlds with Queendom, a completely unknown deck. US Nats 2006 was won by Raieggs. Add that to deck like Destiny, Mynx, Ambush, and even some unnoticed decks like Jimmy Ballard's eeveelution deck that placed 2nd at Worlds 2006, and the Ferench Gyarados decks from 2009. Do the great players play meta at big events? Sure, but there have been plenty of examples of them saving a new combination for a big events like Nats or Worlds.

Thats what I'll like to see more of. Sure it happens but the thing is that most people don't try to look for those combos, rather then whats already in from of them. It takes people like that to make others say there are other options out there.

 

[baby mario]

This is why people say you are narrow minded.

You have the who player base divided up into meta and rogue. You treat them like they are two different species.

It's nonsense.

There are just players and decks.

 

[vaporeon]

Thats how it is. You have meta players and rogue players. Has nothing to do with being narrow minded.

 

[Master Entei]

Meta players are going to speak as meta player and rogue players are going to speak as rogue players.

How do players who play both meta and rogue speak?

I myself usually just stick to metagame decks nowadays, as I don't have the time to test so many different decks to come up with a rogue good enough to get me anywhere.

From a competetive point of view, meta is played because it is better than other decks, and rogue is played because it has the element of surprise on its side. They usually somehow counter the meta decks that are up right then.
But if everyone played rogue, rogue decks wouldn't have anything to counter. They would also lose some of the surprise, since decks would be geared towards having good matchups against everything.Since this is impossible, they would just try to fulfill their main strategies best as they can. Then, when someone comes up with a deck that has the best main strategy, it would consistently win. The guy with the best deck would just continue winning until everyone started countering that deck. Now, if everyone had a different counters, most of them would be bad (maybe two people would come up with a deck that worked right), and the guy with the best deck would still continue winning. The only difference is that now he loses to those two guys that had the good counter decks.
If any more people would want in to that circle of winners, they would have to come up with a deck that wins against all of those three people. That probably wouldn't be possible, so the three guys would always see themselves in top cut, and the area's metagame would look like this: Tier 1: Guy with original best deck Tier 2: Guys with counter decks that are good Tier 3: everything else. I wouldn't call that healthy either.

tl;dr A metagame that only has rogue decks is impossible.

 

[baby mario]

Thats how it is. You have meta players and rogue players. Has nothing to do with being narrow minded.

Ironically, that is your most narrow minded statement so far.

 

[vaporeon]

Ironically, that is your most narrow minded statement so far.

How do you see it? I just don't understand how you don't see that.

 

[ExoByte]

its has nothing to do with being narrow minded. Please explain what growth it offers to the game other then play this and win.

The ability to share decks, ideas, and feedback across the internet, along with the ability to get a deck in the hands of 100x as many people than without it, has done more for the advancement of strategy, metagame, and play concepts in TCGs apart from their creation.

 

[baby mario]

How do you see it? I just don't understand how you don't see that.

There are players and there are decks.

As a player, I can choose to netdeck, tweak a meta deck, or play something I've come up with. My only limit is that I will only play what is good. Seriously, why would I play a bad deck? That's no fun.

You can put yourself in to a neat little box if it helps. That way you can see yourself as the honourable rogue player who is misunderstood by all the uncreative netdeckers.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, there are just players and decks.

 

[vaporeon]

There are players and there are decks.

As a player, I can choose to netdeck, tweak a meta deck, or play something I've come up with. My only limit is that I will only play what is good. Seriously, why would I play a bad deck? That's no fun.

You can put yourself in to a neat little box if it helps. That way you can see yourself as the honourable rogue player who is misunderstood by all the uncreative netdeckers.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, there are just players and decks.

So just meta players and rogue players with a long explanation behind it.

---------- Post added 06/17/2011 at 03:43 PM ----------

The ability to share decks, ideas, and feedback across the internet, along with the ability to get a deck in the hands of 100x as many people than without it, has done more for the advancement of strategy, metagame, and play concepts in TCGs apart from their creation.

I don't have anything to say about this. Quite sad really.

 

[Master Entei]

So just meta players and rogue players with a long explanation behind it.

You didn't really answer my question: What about players who play both? Are there metarogue players?

I'm pretty sure almost all top players also play rogue, but don't take them to the big tournaments because they are worse than their meta decks.

 

[vaporeon]

You didn't really answer my question: What about players who play both? Are there metarogue players?

I'm pretty sure almost all top players also play rogue, but don't take them to the big tournaments because they are worse than their meta decks.

I don't count those because when big events come around, what are they going to play? You ether play meta or rogue.

 

[baby mario]

*sigh*

No. You must be trying so very hard not to understand.

There are players.

They are free to choose. I can play rogue whenever I like. If I come up with a good rogue I will play it. There is nothing to stop me. I wasn't born a meta player and it isn't against my religion to play rogue. The only thing I won't play are bad decks.

You on the other hand seem to enjoy living in a deckbuilding prison you made for yourself. That's fine. Just don't go imposing it on other people.

 

[vaporeon]

*sigh*

No. You must be trying so very hard not to understand.

There are players.

They are free to choose. I can play rogue whenever I like. If I come up with a good rogue I will play it. There is nothing to stop me. I wasn't born a meta player and it isn't against my religion to play rogue. The only thing I won't play are bad decks.

You on the other hand seem to enjoy living in a deckbuilding prison you made for yourself. That's fine. Just don't go imposing it on other people.

I'm not trying to but what would you play at nationals or worlds. Sure you have the chose to play what you want but you will play what gives you the best chance at winning.