Ban Mewtwo EX?

[TheDarkTwins]

I think people don't understand what broken really is. There is a difference between broken, and insanely good.

Mewtwo Ex is BROKEN. Why is this the case? A broken card gets splashed into every deck, and if you don't have it, you lose. There are rare cases where a card is broken, but isn't bannable. Holon Transceiver was one card that comes to mind.

You have an issue when you have people going out of their way to put it in their deck. There is a reason why they rotated early last year. There is a reason WoTC banned Sneasel and Slowking (yes, I know the translation was wrong). When a card becomes too powerful, you have an issue.

Rayquaza Ex isn't broken. You can't play a card that has a RL attack in a deck that isn't going to use that energy. It's not going into every deck, where Mewtwo is. With the exception of Durant, I'm not sure if one deck that won a States didn't contain Mewtwo, that's an issue.

Drew

 

[Ken_the_Turtle]

I think people don't understand what broken really is. There is a difference between broken, and insanely good.

Mewtwo Ex is BROKEN. Why is this the case? A broken card gets splashed into every deck, and if you don't have it, you lose.

With the exception of Durant, I'm not sure if one deck that won a States didn't contain Mewtwo, that's an issue.

Drew

Tetrakion won a states without mewtwo.

Also by this logic, Collector needs to be banned, as does communication and junk arm, level balls, dual balls, N, juniper, PONT.... you get the point

 

[Mystery Thing]

Tetrakion won a states without mewtwo.

Also by this logic, Collector needs to be banned, as does communication and junk arm, level balls, dual balls, N, juniper, PONT.... you get the point

Cards to help support your deck are completely different from an attacker. It's apples vs oranges.

 

[TheRolesWePlay]

I think people don't understand what broken really is. There is a difference between broken, and insanely good.

Mewtwo Ex is BROKEN. Why is this the case? A broken card gets splashed into every deck, and if you don't have it, you lose. There are rare cases where a card is broken, but isn't bannable. Holon Transceiver was one card that comes to mind.

You have an issue when you have people going out of their way to put it in their deck. There is a reason why they rotated early last year. There is a reason WoTC banned Sneasel and Slowking (yes, I know the translation was wrong). When a card becomes too powerful, you have an issue.

Rayquaza Ex isn't broken. You can't play a card that has a RL attack in a deck that isn't going to use that energy. It's not going into every deck, where Mewtwo is. With the exception of Durant, I'm not sure if one deck that won a States didn't contain Mewtwo, that's an issue.

Drew

Mewtwo isn't as needed as you may think. Using a Mewtwo to counter a Mewtwo is indeed one of the best ways to beat it, but it is by no means the only way, which is what everyone else seems to think. It's just a normal EX with 170 HP, it may be good and techable, but it is in no way mandatory to use.

The problem with Mewtwo isn't the card, but the attitude people have towards it and the current state of the game. Mewtwo is good, and I do recommend playing it, as it helps in early and late game, but it isn't as broken as most people make it out to be. It isn't the second coming of GG.

 

[Otaku]

Is there anything really wrong with a quick, basic focused, aggressive format though, Otaku?

Yes. If the choice is between having a single stage dominate or having a well balanced game where all Stages are useful, I most definitely would choose to have all Stages balanced.

Basic Pokemon dominating made the game less fun in 1999, and it still does now.

 

[psychup2034]

Basic Pokemon dominating made the game less fun in 1999, and it still does now.

As early as 1999, people were complaining that the legendary Pokemon weren't very playable. (Movie Promo Mewtwo and Fossil Articuno were exceptions.)

Now that we have a format with powerful legendaries (Celebi, Tornadus, Mewtwo, Zekrom, Thundurus, Terrakion, Landorus, etc.), people are complaining that we don't have powerful evolutions.

In 2 years when evolution decks are dominant once again, people will complain that we don't have enough strong legendary Pokemon and viable basic attackers.

This game is cyclical. Sometimes evolution decks will be better sometimes basic decks will be better. Regardless of where we are in the cycle, there's one thing that's for sure: there will always be people who complain.

 

[bullados]

Why is it so difficult to have Basics, Stage 1s, and Stage 2s that are ALL viable in their own way?

 

[QD4U]

I'd rather have a format where stage 2 decks are tier 1 and basics are underpowered (ie legendaries in general before BW) than the one we have now. But I do agree a balanced format where both stage 1, stage 2 and basic decks are all viable would be the best.

 

[baby mario]

So, last format (pre BW), we had Basic decks (SP), Stage 1s (Gyarados), and Stage 2s (Gengar) all being top tier viable decks.

I guess if I look back at that time there shouldn't be any complaints then?

 

[TheDarkTwins]

Tetrakion won a states without mewtwo.

Also by this logic, Collector needs to be banned, as does communication and junk arm, level balls, dual balls, N, juniper, PONT.... you get the point

Yeah, that's ONE deck, out of around 50 states, minus Durant winners. That's an issue.

Cards to help support your deck are completely different from an attacker. It's apples vs oranges.

Exactly, support cards benefit everyone evenly, and make decks that might not have been viable playable, which is always nice.

Drew

 

[bullados]

Yeah, that's ONE deck, out of around 50 states, minus Durant winners. That's an issue.



Exactly, support cards benefit everyone evenly, and make decks that might not have been viable playable, which is always nice.

Drew

Well, sort of. There's a difference between Holon Transceiver being one of the best Trainers ever, and Cyrus's Initiative being one of the worst Supporters ever. If good Support cards benefit everybody evenly, then they're a good type of broken. Cyrus was a terrible type of broken.

 

[NoPoke]

Broken cards damage the environment. Mewtwo is defining our current environment but is not the format breaker. Our current format being one of OHKOs. The format breaking cards are Catcher and to a lesser extent double colorless energy.

The trouble with catcher is that for all it does damage the environment it is an improvement upon Reversal in that it at least takes away some luck. IMO both Catcher and Reversal are inherently bad cards to have in a OHKO format.

 

[bullados]

DCE... You mean the card that defined the previous format in a way no card had ever defined a format since Holon Transceiver?

 

[Otaku]

So, last format (pre BW), we had Basic decks (SP), Stage 1s (Gyarados), and Stage 2s (Gengar) all being top tier viable decks.

I guess if I look back at that time there shouldn't be any complaints then?

Except it the "viable" cards were all unbalanced in their own right. That's is why there is the emphasis on balance; having five Pokemon out of the hundred or so examples of that stage be viable is pretty bad.

Note: addressing points across the board, not just responding to baby_mario.

We don't want a cycle of broken cards, varying by Stage. We don't want a few broken examples of each Stage. We want a balanced format where any card that isn't remotely viable is an obvious failure and not 90% of the set.

Yes, there we always be people complaining. No one denies that; but that doesn't automatically mean any complaint is frivolous and unfounded.

 

[baby mario]

Except it the "viable" cards were all unbalanced in their own right. That's is why there is the emphasis on balance; having five Pokemon out of the hundred or so examples of that stage be viable is pretty bad.

Point I was making (in a pretty obscure way probably) is that having viable cards from each Stage doesn't automatically mean a format where everyone is happy. There were always endless threads about how SP should be banned, how Fainting Spell and Take Out were ridiculous, or how Luxray X was too expensive.

Personally, I couldn't care less about every Stage being viable, I don't mind how much HP Pokemon have or how much damage they can do. I certainly don't insist on a format where every set contains 50 equally good cards and where I can play my favourite Pokemon (Houndoom, obviously) and be at no disadvantage because of my choice.

What I do want is a format that rewards skill, and I don't see Mewtwo as a barrier to that at all. I don't see a lack of deck variety as a problem either: mirror matches are very often the ones where knowledge, skill and list quality will win out (as opposed to Type advantage and lucky pairings). My main issue with what we have now is the first turn rules which hand such a huge advantage to the player who wins the coin flip.

 

[TheDarkTwins]

Broken cards damage the environment. Mewtwo is defining our current environment but is not the format breaker. Our current format being one of OHKOs. The format breaking cards are Catcher and to a lesser extent double colorless energy.

The trouble with catcher is that for all it does damage the environment it is an improvement upon Reversal in that it at least takes away some luck. IMO both Catcher and Reversal are inherently bad cards to have in a OHKO format.

I have less of an issue with DCE and Catcher. I don't think that Mewtwo Ex should be banned. I think that the weakness to itself prevents this from happening. I think that Gardevoir/Gallade was by far more broken then Mewtwo Ex is, and they stayed legal. It's very good, and broken, but not bannable broken. I think there is a difference and I know it sounded like I wanted it banned, but to be honest, I think that Mewtwo isn't in that area yet, as the card has only been out for a couple months, and I'm sure there are counters that can be used, and that will be released in the future. They have done it better in the past. Lets give it a few sets.

Drew

 

[Raen]

What I do want is a format that rewards skill, and I don't see Mewtwo as a barrier to that at all. I don't see a lack of deck variety as a problem either: mirror matches are very often the ones where knowledge, skill and list quality will win out (as opposed to Type advantage and lucky pairings). My main issue with what we have now is the first turn rules which hand such a huge advantage to the player who wins the coin flip.

Bravo, I agree with this statement very much! All I am ever concerned with in a format is player skill and how important it is to winning.

I'm pretty happy with our format for that reason; player skill is very important. It is far, FAR better than Nationals/Worlds/Battle Roads where skill was almost irrelevant.

And as baby mario pointed out, the ONLY problem I have with our format is the first turn advantage, which is the only real skill-removing factor in the game at the moment. Change that, and I'm as happy as ever.

 

[Otaku]

Bravo, I agree with this statement very much! All I am ever concerned with in a format is player skill and how important it is to winning.

I'm pretty happy with our format for that reason; player skill is very important. It is far, FAR better than Nationals/Worlds/Battle Roads where skill was almost irrelevant.

And as baby mario pointed out, the ONLY problem I have with our format is the first turn advantage, which is the only real skill-removing factor in the game at the moment. Change that, and I'm as happy as ever.

That's not good enough. :lol:

You may be willing to accept less, but I am not. I believe you have also subscribed to a faulty premise: the more a format is dominated by "power" cards, the less skill it has than the optimum format.

So what do I mean by that? I realize that an "ideal" format is just that: ideal. It isn't impossible, but it is highly improbable to have a format where all cards are on even footing. That does not mean you stop caring about having as many balanced cards make up the format as possible.

The more a format is dominated by power cards, the fewer cards are viable. The fewer cards are viable, the less options you have while deck building, and the less overall skill it takes. Does it take skill to trick out an archetype with clever tech? Certainly! The difference is in degree of skill: when you know you're dealing with two or three decks, it is much easier to build your deck than it would be for the same player trying to prepare a deck in a format that is quite open, with a half dozen distint top decks, a half dozen decks that are almost as good making up the next tear, and about a dozen that can still win provided the players are as competent as their opponents and said player legitimately plays better!:thumb:

 

[baby mario]

The more a format is dominated by power cards, the fewer cards are viable. The fewer cards are viable, the less options you have while deck building, and the less overall skill it takes. Does it take skill to trick out an archetype with clever tech? Certainly! The difference is in degree of skill: when you know you're dealing with two or three decks, it is much easier to build your deck than it would be for the same player trying to prepare a deck in a format that is quite open, with a half dozen distint top decks, a half dozen decks that are almost as good making up the next tear, and about a dozen that can still win provided the players are as competent as their opponents and said player legitimately plays better!:thumb:

This itself is a partial view.

It's just not realistic to expect players to build a deck which can cope with half a dozen other tier 1 decks, another 6 good decks, and a dozen other playable options. In fact if a deck COULD be built to do that, it would automatically become BDIF and your ideal format would degenerate into that deck and something that was designed to counter it. (In fact that's what happens now, only the process is very compressed and usually happens during playtesting, so you don't get to see it play out in tournaments).

Failing that, games would be decided by pairings. In a format that varied, you could run into a couple of poor match ups early and have no chance of progressing. Alternatively, you could sail through to top cut, meeting only those decks which yours has a positive match up against. This is especially true with the return to x2 Weakness.

It's impossible to metagame (a legit Pokemon skill) in the format you have described.

 

[Raen]

I have to agree with baby mario here. As strange as it sounds, there is such a thing as a format that is TOO diverse. Diversity in decks is a good thing to a point, but if it goes to far, tournaments become all about matchups and nothing else. While you have a point Otaku about teching against a versatile field being very skill oriented, that is only one skill; deckbuilding. In-game play is as important, if not more important, to me than deckbuilding skill.

Of course, both would be nice. But I would prefer a format like ours with 2 or 3 major decks that have fairly even matchups, than a format where there are 10+ decks that are good and everythign comes down to what you get paired against in swiss/top cut, ie. luck of the draw.

It would be nice to find the median here, of course, where there are 5 or so good decks, but that's a pretty difficult feat to accomplish. I don't think we give the card developers enough credit here. Making a wide range of powerful cards that are all balanced is very, very difficult.