Consistency over Creativity

[Umbykirb]

I think that the way to fix this is to limit people to tournaments in their own states EDIT: (obviously sans Regionals, Nationals, and Worlds). Then everybody has the same amount of tournaments, and getting a ride to a tournament would only be at tops a day commitment.

Really, I haven't been able to make any tournaments at all, and yesterday at league only five of the regulars were there. All the others traveled to HOUSTON (what!) for a cities.

All in all, I like the system, it just premotes only the best of the best of the best.

 

[dogma]

You don't get bored THAT easily, there's so much more about each match than just the decks you used and the ones you came up against.

Yeah, but would you really be happy for a year playing only one of two viable decks? What about for six months?

I don't think it'll turn out like that, what with the new sets coming out. But I think that's what people are getting at in this thread. It's not fun to play only one or two decks, or else lose. And once you play those same decks over and over, eventually you'll think so too.

 

[Strike]

Yeah, but would you really be happy for a year playing only one of two viable decks? What about for six months?

I don't think it'll turn out like that, what with the new sets coming out. But I think that's what people are getting at in this thread. It's not fun to play only one or two decks, or else lose. And once you play those same decks over and over, eventually you'll think so too.

You know, I did do that. I took one deck I really, really liked and worked on it for a year to make it the best I could for a year until it was the version I liked best. I never got bored with that deck (Old school Sponge) because my goal was to make the best version possible, not to mention I was incredibly comfortable with the deck.

Playing with one or two decks was not a problem for me in tournament play, I knew what I liked and went with it.

 

[DarthPika]

Yeah, but would you really be happy for a year playing only one of two viable decks? What about for six months?

I don't think it'll turn out like that, what with the new sets coming out. But I think that's what people are getting at in this thread. It's not fun to play only one or two decks, or else lose. And once you play those same decks over and over, eventually you'll think so too.

It's fun if you always win.

 

[dogma]

lol, maybe we play TCG's for very different reasons. Fair enough, if you guys like playing the same decks over and over, go for it!

 

[master of puppets]

You know, I did do that. I took one deck I really, really liked and worked on it for a year to make it the best I could for a year until it was the version I liked best. I never got bored with that deck (Old school Sponge) because my goal was to make the best version possible, not to mention I was incredibly comfortable with the deck.

Playing with one or two decks was not a problem for me in tournament play, I knew what I liked and went with it.

here here!
i did the same thing with my old metagross dragonite.
played it and practiced with it since the night of the delta species pre and played the deck until it was unmodified.
and every game was fun (especaily when id go on a streak of heads with agility like in states when i got 13 heads in a row!).

anyways.

I agree with prime. there isnt enough diversity.
i soppose if everyones playing the same deck then it should be easy to metagame right?
not entirely.
im playing banette right now which one hit ko's gallade (with 2 pluspower/lake boundry), gardivoir lv x, and has resistance to blissey.
but that deffinatly doesnt mean a for sure win.

i miss the days back when everyone was playing different stuff. even if they were all achtypes, theyre was still different things.
DX-on was the glory days.
sure everyone was playing holons poop engine, but at least there was a huge deck diversity.
metanite, flygod, flytech/R-gon, bandoom, ban-shiftry, flariados, super stantler, many other ones that i cant name off the top of my head, plus soooo many random red face paint decks that acctualy worked.

oh and gallade cant OH'KO every card in the format.
theres at least one card that it cant. it can take that mighty 180 and turn it to a measly 40.

 

[eriknance]

here here!
i did the same thing with my old metagross dragonite.
played it and practiced with it since the night of the delta species pre and played the deck until it was unmodified.
and every game was fun (especaily when id go on a streak of heads with agility like in states when i got 13 heads in a row!).

I did the same thing with MetaNite as well. I loved that deck, and I played the heck out of it because I knew its strengths. I used it all the way up to Worlds in 2006, and I never got bored with it. Right now, however, I feel sorry for the people who want to use a different strategy to win games. There's a great deal of depth to Gardy/Gallade/Absol, but a lot of the deck's purpose is still based on beating your opponent into the ground with Gallade.

i miss the days back when everyone was playing different stuff. even if they were all achtypes, theyre was still different things.
DX-on was the glory days.
sure everyone was playing holons poop engine, but at least there was a huge deck diversity.
metanite, flygod, flytech/R-gon, bandoom, ban-shiftry, flariados, super stantler, many other ones that i cant name off the top of my head, plus soooo many random red face paint decks that acctualy worked.

To go along with what I said above, I too miss the days where there were more strategic options to go with when it came to playing competitively. MetaNite's power was based off of energy manipulation and setup, R-gon was all about tech'ing, Bandoom was about trainer/stadium control and speed, Shiftry was an anti-power deck, Flariados was the special condition deck, Polistall hid behind fossils, Raieggs spread damage, and Absolution was just insanity. The only thing I didn't like was the Holon Engine, which made many decks much more powerful than other contenders.

Of course, I'll say what many people have said before. With the next set we will finally see some of these other strategies emerge, but my problem is that it's taken way too long for the format to finally shape up. Sure, a lot of people could care less about what's going on with the format right now because they aren't the ones playing. They'll be around for States or Regionals or whatnot, so hearing people bicker about things right now isn't exactly music to their ears (it just sounds like a truckload of sour grapes). But for many of those who are playing right now, there definitely seems to be a lack of clever strategies.

My replies are in bold.

 

[Strike]

lol, maybe we play TCG's for very different reasons. Fair enough, if you guys like playing the same decks over and over, go for it!

I know there's no subtle message you wanted to hint at with your post, but I have to ask, what different reasons are you thinking of for playing TCG's? Just asking for clarity's sake.

 

[Bohn]

man, its been a while i dont post on gym.

are we looking for something to guilt for this format?

IMO there's nothing wrong with the format. From the EX-series we have a wonderful trainer/supporter card-pool. Celio's just became a staple, mentor is still good, TVR is great, great ball is fine, castaway is outstanding. Some of you want to see it widely, but simply arent at all.
From the DP sets we have amazing trainers, but mainly the pokes are the focus here.
And you guys didnt have to face an illegit format like i had, the only place in the world playing LM. thank God LM is down from now and we turned to HP-SW.

Absol? yes, its a big problem. I agree with Lia at this point, luck factor get important, but there're still ways to "counter" and still win the tourney. Just go back some months ago, the game was "ruined" by T1 riolu donk, by T2 ape donk, by whatever you remember. Conclusion: absol can ruin your game, yes. But, there are VIABLE options to not being THAT ruined.

About the next sets: one thing i can say: new decks doesnt come alone only with the new set, mostly new strategies will bring older cards again.

Okay, should we guilt the format?! NO!

Its kinda a paradox, for one side people say that want to play new (rogue) strategies, on the other hand they say they cant becuz they would be bohwned by blissey/magmortar/gardellade/whatever. To play a rogue deck i use to playtest a LOT, at this point you must have a good partner/team to help you, and it can take weeks to do a few changes that might look stupid or innefective, but increases the good matchups ratio. Second: you must be pretty confident to play that rogue deck or new strategy. Most people who want to play rogue just dont think enought or even playtest against the metagame and start spreading sour grapes all over the gym. The problem is more focused on us, players then everything else.

Its all like investing your money: some prefer investing the money on safe options. Low risk, low returns.
But there are some people who love the stock exchange market, higher the risk, higher the results.

Battle Roads and Cities are the perfect events for safe options.
State/Regional, Nats and Worlds are the perfect events for risky, but WELL THOUGHT choices.

...
Allan

 

[dogma]

I know there's no subtle message you wanted to hint at with your post, but I have to ask, what different reasons are you thinking of for playing TCG's? Just asking for clarity's sake.

The thing with me is that I don't play TCG's to 'just' win. I like playing unusual combos and trying out wacky ideas.

I know most people hear are tourney players and would like to win win win, but that honestly isn't how I get maximum fun from the game. I would prefer to lose but play interestingly. That's why I wouldn't like the current Pokémon format (if I played in tournaments). Playing the same deck over and over I can live with, but against the same one or two opponents isn't really my idea of fun.

Hope that made some sense. I wasn't being sarcastic in that earlier post. If you want to play that way, then that's entirely up to you. And if you find it fun, then hey, you're in luck!

If the above made no sense (I didn't really explain it very well), then if you play M:TG (and you're familiar with the lingo), you can say that I'm a Johnny (likes to play creatively) whereas most people on the 'Gym are Spikes (they play to win).

 

[Rainbowgym]

I think I have a few of the best test-mates I can wish for and still Absol ruins to much.
I also want to win tournaments, but not with "netdecking" and "luck" based decks.
I want to win with a deck I created.

 

[Venjamin]

Sorry, Prime, but I'm going to have to cast my disagreeance with you. To a point, because in part, I have to blink and say 'hey, Blissey decks'.

I come from the Yuugiou world, primarily. I play a LOT of card games, but was never so thoroughly disgusted with any as I was Yuugiou, because we lost the ability to be creative. Know why? They started offering up meta in a box. Each set that comes out has two or three decktypes that are quite blatant, and only work with each other. It kills the game when that happens, creativitywise, and the players that don't particularly worry about creativity... won't care. They'll continue to play one of 3 - 4 decks that has proven itself, and as such, do well in the meta.

I don't see that happening here. I do see the fact that the cycles are happening and restricting us more quickly than they did before - sorry, but February is a bit too close for my tastes. But that's just me.

Anyways, back to the point at hand. In Kentucky, with about 50 players total, several newer and younger players, I've seen more creativity here than I have for any other game. People don't swarm to what's best like they do in other games. People play what they think is interesting, and often put their own spin on things, thus making a 'repeat' deck entirely different.

Even the players doing particularly well aren't consistently throwing the most uber deck ever just because it'll give them the win. They figure out what links work well, and work them into decks that shine fairly well. Perhaps it's different in your area, but I don't see a lack of creativity here. When I judged for Lexington CC's and was running through Deck Checks, I was blown away by the extent of ideas that were culminating there. I saw maybe two or three decks that could be considered similar, and even then they weren't really - there were variances that made them they're own deck.

While I do agree that the restrictions so quickly are hurting - as much as any straight jacket might - it's not causing irrepairable harm. It's not difficult to go rogue... it's difficult to make a rogue that works well enough to stand against most decks.

Besides, if you ever get to a stance where 'cookie cutting' becomes the meta, there are always decks that respond in kind. Absol / TGW didn't bother me in CC's 'cause I was running a Gardy variant with Milotic D and was capable of dropping roughly 3 Supporters a turn. Hand size didn't slow me down. Until I go to a swiss tournament and play the same deck five times in a row from different players, I can't say that the meta is in too hard a downward spiral. It might be a bit weakened considering the fact that the choice pool dwindles to three or four sets, but still, it's not enough to cause incredible controversy.

Yet.

 

[Prime]

No need to feel sorry Venjamin, disagreeing opinions are as welcome as agreeing opinions. That is what makes a good discussion. It's great to hear that KY has a good diverse metagame. I played in the KY battle roads last year, and it definitely entices me to return for another.

 

[Venjamin]

Uh oh! Were you with the group from Louisiana? Or... Arkansas...

or whereever the last BR group came from?

My memory for things like cards rocks, but I can't remember people, places, or names for the life of me. @_@

Anyways.

 

[TSDMage]

I agree mostly. There have been some REALLY broken cards lately, and the game is starting to become Yu-Gi-Oh! and that's not good...

 

[Venjamin]

It really... really isn't.

I'll disagree with that every time.

The last SJC [ Shonen Jump Championships ] I went to, I brought a demon deck, took the meta'd E-heroes down 3 times, got cheated out of my fourth win against another E-hero, and lost to a fifth e-hero deck. I'm sorry, but I have never played a round here against the same deck more than twice, and that's pushing it. People DON'T meta in Pokemon like they do in Yuugiou. We even have a forum where we always post variations on good decks here, and the ideas are genuinely good decks.

Pokemon is nothing like Yuugiou. Not yet, and hopefully not ever.

 

[Prime]

Yu-gi-oh is a different game than Pokemon. In YGO, you can get away with throwing in all the best traps and spells into every deck along with 1's of the best monsters. Every competitive deck is going to have one of a certain monster and 1s of certain traps and spells because the decks are that open. You couldn't pull that off with decks in Pokemon. To play Gallade, you can't just throw 3 gallade into the deck, you have to throw in 3 ralts and 2 kirlia and then 3-4 rare candy. To focus on any theme in pokemon decks, you have to allocate much larger portions of your deck to it than in YGO.

If everything was basic in Pokemon, you probably would end up with a YGO type format.

It doesn't make one game better than the other, but some people prefer this type of deck engine to the type of deck engine that YGO promotes.

 

[moza]

Sorry if archtypes start out as rogue decks and become popular because they are consistant.

Sorry if consistant decks win more then non-consistant decks.

Sorry if people want to win more then be creative.

My bad, I'll get right on it.

 

[Prime]

Moza: Did you read my post? I didn't say it was the player's fault for this happening. Everyone knows players are going to want to run decks that do better consistently. I said it was partially the tournament format's fault for focusing a lot of it's rewards only on players that do well consistently. And I also feel if we didn't see cards certain over-powered cards made, that there wouldn't be such a "play it or lose" aspect of this game. For many players, that is how the game is. They can try to do well with their own ideas, or old ideas, but they won't actually start doing well until they play one of the few big decks. Even decks that were very decent aren't even playable because of the outrageously powerful cards coming out recently.

 

[moza]

It's POP's fault for not running their system the way you would like it run? Do you have any suggestions?


And your point with the overpowered cards, i'm afraid, is scrub mentality(no offense, I could use newbie instead, but I don't mean offense).

omgzorz shi3k is teh brok0nz! u catn youse 'er no more!
^^^^
That is how a lot of "scrubs" saw shiek when in the hands of a good player, shiek was a Teir 1 character. But you know what? She has dropped because people have found a way to counter her effectivly. That is what will happen in pokemon, and always has happened.

Rocklock was "unbeatable", and then Milotic HL won worlds. It was countered!

Can you point out the card that exactly is "play it or lose"? I would like to know so I can counter it effectivly and win.

They can try to do well with their own ideas, or old ideas, but they won't actually start doing well until they play one of the few big decks. Even decks that were very decent aren't even playable because of the outrageously powerful cards coming out recently.

I respect those who use their own ideas, but it doesn't have to be a "big deck" to win something. I know a regular league person who ALWAYS uses his own decks, and recently got 2nd at a cities with VERY difficult competition, and would have beaten a certain famous player last year had the famous person not stalled to win.

Using your own idea's CAN win you tournaments, you just have to metagame effectivly.

Also, can you list some outrageously powerful cards coming out? I've been out of the game for a little bit and want a good deck to use