Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Current State of the game… As seen by Jimmy Ballard

Well I like 2/3 as an option because that one is completely up to POP.

Of the others. I don't believe that changing the details of what can or can't be played first turn will help.

Multiple starting pokemon: Not too hard to incorporate this but it is a game change. You setup as normal. Then each player gets a free "Call" attack. The fine detail would be if the free Call takes place before or after the coin flip.

Losing when benched. I've never liked this rule for its early game impact. The early game donk problem seems to be particularly serious at the moment. Changing the benched rule so that players have to have an active pokemon at the end of their turn would go a long way to increasing table time for players without a massive change to the character of the game.

Optional Mulligan: As much as I might like to se this I don't think it would have much impact on the frequency of T1 donks.

---------------

I don't mind donks. I don't mind quick wins. But when players spend so little time at the table actually playing because of how the format and tournament structure interact, they I personally don't find that attractive as either TO or occasional player. It bugs me as a TO because players who have finished their match are much more likely to disrupt other games than those who are still playing. It bugs me as a parent because so much time is spent sitting around waiting for the next round. It bugs me as an infrequent player because I want to use my whole deck and not just the top card.
 
I agree with almost everything you said. The cards printed latley are being too much powerful. I understand that PUI(or whoever makes the cards) is trying to make the game intresting by introducing new ideas and concepts, but they should test them before getting thme released!

In the past there were cards such as Celio's that let you search your deck for any pokemon, but excluding pokemon ex, which usually people would focus their decks on. Now we have Bebe's which lets you get anything you want, for the cost of 1 card in your hand. To get a pokemon ex you had to either use PETM or pokeball, or maybe some other specific power, or of course by drawing him.

Then when Pidgeot was released, which his power lets you search for 1 single card each turn, people complaing on how good he was going to be. But then suitable counters were released for him. Battle Frontier was released. It was a stadium that stopped :)colorless) and :)dark:) pokemon from using powers.

So my Point is to release cards with new and intresting mechanics, but make them balanced! Make them counterable and difficult to set up. I mean don't release cards without any weakness and without counters.

And the counters for those cards make them specifically counter them, and not counter every other card in the metagame. I'm gonna use BF example again. It stopped (C) and (D) pokemon from using powers, but it never stopped :)water:) or :)metal:) or :)lightning) pokemon from using powers. Also it was a stadium which could be easily destroyed.

And I don't think that they should change any of the rules. They are perfectly balanced. They just need to print more blalaced pokemon.
 
If anything, I think Dialga G Lv.X is too powerful, stopping Poke-Bodies (SO essential for many decks), with hardly a counter (new Shiftry, Dusknoir DP)
 
As always, you bring points up that many people don't have the courage to present IMO. While I disagree on some points,I must say I agree on others.

For example, your consideration for win conditions:I agree

Quote:
You win the game if any one or more of these things occur:
• You collect all of your Prize cards (collect Prize cards as your opponent’s Pokémon are Knocked Out).
• Your opponent does not have an active Pokemon at the end of their turn.
• Your opponent is out of cards in his or her deck, when he or she goes to draw a card at the beginning of the turn.

This is how we do things in playtesting and one of the reasons I do not play online,gives you a much better feel for your deck's ability to come back against a T1 whatever deck with them having a good start,rather than oh that was fun (sarcasm),let's shuffle up for game 2! I also feel that a player deserves a chance to play their Rose for 2 pokes;nothing is worse then getting T1'd when you actually had a play.. As a result I have to agree completely on this point Jimmy. I'm also willing to go as far and say that there are players out there who after getting T1'd if allowed to play their search COULD come back and win even more then 50% of the time; not many but we know most of them personally.

While the 3 Pokemon to start the game,seems nice,I can't agree on this one. What happens is a heavy majority plays AMU at that point and starts with Uxie,Azelf (MT),and Mesprit (MT),thus putting the opponent at a HUGE disadvantage or be faced with a dull field of mirror matches.

Thanks for making everyone think though,I hope to see you at Nats/Worlds.

-Brent
 
I think a lot of us are looking at this the wrong way. Yes donking is annyoing, and possibly a problem in the current format. Many of the solutions being offered make sense, and then someone shoots it down with a scenario where the donk still happens. We will never eliminate donking from the game, and we shouldn't have to because its jut another strategy. There's always going to be some scenario in which a player could donk or gain an unfair advantage no matter what rules change, because cards change as well. I think if we're looking for a solution, we have to look for the best, not the perfect.
 
On the Opening coin flip, i have this as a suggestion: In chess tournaments, if your white[first] the first round, your usually black[second] the next round, the white the next round and so on. i think it should be this way for pokemon.
 
I think that the intent is not to ELIMINATE donking but rather to reduce it's impact in OP events.

While I still think that best 2/3 in swiss is the way to go, I also find Jimmy's final suggestion to be interesting too. Not having an active pokemon at the end of your turn stikes me as an easy fix ... but one that would have to come from Japan.
 
to solve this, why dont we not allow attacking in general t1. so player one goes first (still cant play supporter), player two goes (can still play a supporter, but cant attack), then player one goes again whereby the attacking can commence.

thats my 2 cents
 
MY FAVORITE TWO SUGGESTIONS:

(easiest and most realistic from the standpoint of implementation)


  • BEST TWO OUT OF THREE (within 40 mins)
  • OPTIONAL MULLIGAN

Best 2 of 3 games = USE SLIPS to record and initial battle record so the administrative end of things are on point though! :thumb:

Optional Mulligan = There are NO guarantees BUT the goal here is to allow players to play.

Concerning the "BENCH AT END OF TURN SUGGESTION" (which I like)

Vandy says it best

I also find Jimmy's final suggestion to be interesting too. Not having an active pokemon at the end of your turn stikes me as an easy fix ... but one that would have to come from Japan.
Click to expand...
+++++++++++++++

EVERYTHING HAS BEEN SAID... which leaves MEGA-QUOTTING my choice method of response... lol

PokePop said:
There's another alternative that wouldn't require a game rule change at all, merely a tournament rule change, which POP has direct control of.
That would be to switch to a best 2/3 swiss format like they use in Europe.
The rounds could be either 45 or even kept to 40 minutes.
If one long game is played, great. It was a true match.
If the first game is a quick donk, then a second game gives the donked player a shot at evening it up and winning the match.
Click to expand...

AND ...

Scizor said:
^ Or we could just allow an optional mulligan to 6 cards, like Magic: The Gathering does.
Click to expand...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

THESE OPINIONS ARE WORTH NOTING :

NoPoke said:
Well I like 2/3 as an option because that one is completely up to POP.

Of the others. I don't believe that changing the details of what can or can't be played first turn will help.

Multiple starting pokemon: Not too hard to incorporate this but it is a game change. You setup as normal. Then each player gets a free "Call" attack. The fine detail would be if the free Call takes place before or after the coin flip.

Losing when benched. I've never liked this rule for its early game impact. The early game donk problem seems to be particularly serious at the moment. Changing the benched rule so that players have to have an active pokemon at the end of their turn would go a long way to increasing table time for players without a massive change to the character of the game.

Optional Mulligan: As much as I might like to se this I don't think it would have much impact on the frequency of T1 donks.

---------------

I don't mind donks. I don't mind quick wins. But when players spend so little time at the table actually playing because of how the format and tournament structure interact, they I personally don't find that attractive as either TO or occasional player. It bugs me as a TO because players who have finished their match are much more likely to disrupt other games than those who are still playing. It bugs me as a parent because so much time is spent sitting around waiting for the next round. It bugs me as an infrequent player because I want to use my whole deck and not just the top card.
Click to expand...

Scipio said:
3 Pokemon to start with? Here, I'll just pick these 3 Weedles and you can imagine the rest...
Click to expand...

ouch ... point taken.

vanderbilt_grad said:
I think that the intent is not to ELIMINATE donking but rather to reduce it's impact in OP events.

While I still think that best 2/3 in swiss is the way to go, I also find Jimmy's final suggestion to be interesting too. Not having an active pokemon at the end of your turn stikes me as an easy fix ... but one that would have to come from Japan.
Click to expand...

Thank you. SO Well stated and so succinct!

kirwin3180 said:
to solve this, why dont we not allow attacking in general t1. so player one goes first (still cant play supporter), player two goes (can still play a supporter, but cant attack), then player one goes again whereby the attacking can commence.

thats my 2 cents
Click to expand...

At first, I was like "YES! That's the solution!" and then I thought about most attacks that are done T1. Think of the number of setup attacks that are required to get some decks going. Not every attack is designed to do damage. So, this would be too gamechanging... IMO.
 
Last edited:
I'm looking forward to seeing what kind of stats you come up with on the games "won by a coin flip." It's never fun being on the bad side of a donk deck.

I would fully support the implementation of a 2 out of 3 style, so that all hope is not lost if you get a horrible hand and can just scoop and move on.
 
OK...

I dont have much time today... But there are some things I want to address....

First, NEVER once did I mention DONK! Not once. Quite frankly I could care less about the Donks factor. It is such a stupid term to use for this game. I am not happy the discussion took a turn in this direction. But welcome to the gym....

Second, I do not consider offering up suggestions to fix an obvious problem with the game as whining. Please take your silly comments to the other threads if you cant offer up a better suggestion.

Lastly, I appreciate all those who are taking what we are discussing seriously and helping contribute.

More details later,
Jimmy
 
ShopCCNC said:
OK...

I am not happy the discussion took a turn in this direction. But welcome to the gym....

Second, I do not consider offering up suggestions to fix an obvious problem with the game as whining.

More details later,
Jimmy
Click to expand...


There's no turn in any Direction Jimmy; there's enough of us focused.
The PURPOSE of your post is not lost.

FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW...

The purpsose of the suggested change is. . .

TO ALLOW PLAYERS TO PLAY!

It's not even about win / loss.
Turn1 wins happen. Bad draws happen. Whiffs happen.

OK .. get ready... it's MY TURN TO SOAPBOX.. .

People...

STOP focusing on WIN and LOSS.

It's SO not about that. Ok?

Instead, consider the entire "short" match as a lost opportunity to EXPERIENCE fellowship and enjoyment of the game.

An entire FORMAT that is FOCUSED on ENDING the game IMMEDIATELY cuts against the grain of what Pokemon is about. Spirit of the Game [DEL]encourages [/DEL] DAMANDS that we place an emphasis on fellowship and enjoyment.

Winning is NOT your goal when you sit down, it's a side-effect of enjoyment.

Some of you may not understand how NOT winning can be just as enjoyable as winning.
That's because you've equated 'success' with winning the match.
In reality, you being a participant is your success. Enjoy yourself.
We're supposed to be interested in the PROCESS of fellowship and playing... not winning.
Pokemon should be an opportunity to experience fun and fellowship, not simply a means to an end.

I remember Jimmy noting (after a CC i think) that he played about 7 turns in 5 rounds ?

There's the heart of the CONCERN.
Note: Do not confuse 'concern' with 'argument.' We could care less about your wins and loses. There's just a concern about the direction that the format COULD go in regards to overall experience.

He is NOT telling you that a Machamp deck is bad, for example. If you win with Machamp, good for you man. You ARE supposed to play to win and you won. HOWEVER, if I sit down for a FEW WEEKS and build a GOOD DECK, then it should see more than SEVEN TURNS. Where is the fun in that? Where is the fellowship in sitting down, shaking hands, flipping a coin, and leaving the table??

Pokemon is NOT that game guys. We're supposed to sit and play a little. Laugh a little. Exhange cleverness and interesting little plays. The game should be long enough to be .. interesting.

I read an ENTIRE event report once that was something like this:

R1 - Donk
R2 - see T1
R3 - Whiffed T1 but got him T2.
R4 - Slow set up but opponent couldn't evovlve anything. Got my champ... gg
R5 - Saw me flip over Machop and he scooped.

Top Cut

Match 1 & 2 - Donk

So.. I won. Got nothing from packs. bla bla...

There's something a little OFF about the SPIRIT of that experience.
I was, actually, sad for that person.
They had an opportunity to ENJOY themselves, and played a total of about 11 turns in 5 hours???

I can't really help people with a super-Terminator mentality to appreciate the PROCESS of a gameplay and how your opporutnity to just.. EXPERIENCE is denied in a day as described above.

So.. go ahead and win. But, consider the GOAL here. The super-short games don't really benefit you or your opponent in the long run.
 
Last edited:
doing best 2/3 doesnt do anything, dont you guys get it....look at what slimey grimey said...if game 1 is a donk, game 2 maybe the deck sets up and wins...then you have what 5 minutes left for game 3...and whoops who do you think is gonna win on time? :/
 
I agree with Jimmy on this issue, there is a problem with too many T1 wins.

My son came up with this idea and I think it would be easy to implement and while not eliminate all T1 win possibilities it would reduce them to an acceptable level.

The change would be to allow the second player to only play supporters on turn 1. Eliminate stadiums trainers, TMs, and Tools from turn 1. This would allow the second player a chance to fill his bench with a Roseanne's or other Supporter, but stop the rare candy or BTS FTW!

The first player would then have a chance to play their Roseanne's on T2 and the game is now back to a strategy game.

I haven't looked at the new set in detail, but I believe this would change would reduce the number of T1 wins and give each player an opportunity to have an equal chance in the game.
 
No single TM in Modified format has the ability to KO a Pokemon, not even the new SP TM can do that T1.
Also, TM-TS-1 Would help you prevent Macheap Donks.
 
I think you guys blow this whole thing out of proportion. So there's a little more luck this year, so what? You want more skill? Then the same players are winning Nationals and Worlds almost every year.

I think the problem honestly stems from imbalanced cards more than rules flaws. Rare Candy is responsible for most turn 2 knockouts. Not saying Rare Candy should be banned, but maybe base set's Pokemon Breeder had the right idea by not letting you evolve a Pokemon if it "could not evolve anyway."
 
Rogue Archetype said:
MY FAVORITE TWO SUGGESTIONS:

(easiest and most realistic from the standpoint of implementation)


  • BEST TWO OUT OF THREE (within 40 mins)
  • OPTIONAL MULLIGAN

Best 2 of 3 games = USE SLIPS to record and initial battle record so the administrative end of things are on point though! :thumb:

Optional Mulligan = There are NO guarantees BUT the goal here is to allow players to play.
.
Click to expand...


This is what I like.

I would change the optional Mulligan that you have implied, to a more defined Mulligan and a Mulligan that doesn't change things. I would say both players are allowed 1 Mulligan, and they still draw 7 cards. The reason I believe this should happen is if you lower the player to JUST drawing 6 Cards, then what are you really saving?. You will have less of chance to get the cards you want in your hand to prevent a donk. Also, if we did just draw 6 cards, that can actually play into the hands of Uxie and other various cards given the right deck.

I say when everyone sits down for their match, EVERYONE sets up, judges should give atleast 2-3 minutes instead of "ready-set-go." I also agree with best 2 out of 3 Match with a time of 50 minutes. If the second game were to be called on time, the only way the game would count is if all prizes were to be taken.

Also, to ariadosman, a lot of the "top" players are playing donk decks. That tells us it's too good to pass up, am I right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top