I'll have to agree as well, without a metagame there can be no rogue decks. On the same note I believe this format will have few rogue decks because the variety of competitive decks will be great and therefore a rogue in the concept of countering the meta game will be impossible. Say you end up having Zekrom, reshiram, Donphan, cinccino, Ttar, beartic, gothetelle, etc.. Countering the meta isn't exactly possible, there will be too much of a balance, at least that is what I'm hoping for, a variety of top performing decks so you can chose to use one that suits you.
Importance of decklist breeds netdeckers
- Thread starter Prime
- Start date
- Status
Aron Figaro
New Member
This kind of thing is why I advised Adam against starting UG in the first place; it creates a split in the pokemon community and invites questionable activity on BOTH sides of the fence. There shouldn't have been a fence in the first place, and while I support SixPrizes and consider it the most chill and constructive Pokemon forum online, all this Underground drama offends me. I mostly just stay away from it.
Since sp's were released the definition of a metagame counter has been temporarily changed. For those of us who have been around since, say, before plox, we know that you can create a rogue deck that is extremely successful (take Ness's mewtric, for example) without countering everything in the metagame. So essentially, I'm agreeing with and elaborating on your point, misnos. Although it may be extremely difficult to create a deck that will be a counter to the probable, upcoming metagame, I suspect that a variety of rogue decks will emerge and succeed at nats. This is due to the sharp change in the way the game is played with little time to react.
That being said, I look forward to seeing secret (rogue) decks at nats.
the OP edited the original posts empty themselves. only after that were the threads deleted, as the threads were useless then.
'mom
'mom
Son_of_Apollo
New Member
Some of the best players in the world don't make their own decklists
SuperWooper
New Member
That's a nice platitude, but it doesn't apply to TCGs. You don't need to have created your list from scratch in order to gain a thorough understanding of how to play it.
mewbreon
New Member
have you ever heard of a little film music composer by the name of john williams? perhaps youve heard of him... he wrote the music for star wars, jaws, harry potter, and just about every other movie you can possibly think of.
i have (and so have MANY professionals) analyzed his compositions. they are COMPLETE rip-offs of works from other composers such as gustov holst, igor stravinsky, william walton, and more.
do we care? no way.
why? becuase john williams is the best.
also, the comment you made about rogue being "what you like"... PIKACHU IS MY FAVURITE SO I PLAY HIM THIS SEESON!
no
I think this really bears repeating and is something a lot of people forget about and is something I touched on in a roundabout way in another post I made. In a lot of instances the decks aren't created by these people, they are effectively stealing ideas, putting them onto the internet and making money off of it. This is exponentially worse than what UndergroundInformant did. In the end all these people trying to stand on some moral high ground and bring law into it are fools.
Does the creator of Luxchomp get any compensation every time 6P posts a Luxchomp article (which is something like every second day isn't it?)
Having said that I agree with this, a formulaic, standard list is just that (and is what was posted). A list with an article attached that explains possible techs, changes, matchups and a how-to guide for the deck is a different kettle of fish. With just the list it's a case of no harm, no foul (if you can tell me of one negative consequence of UndergroundInformant's actions, I'll eat my hat).
To sorta keep this on topic with the OP; I couldn't give a toss about netdeckers, if they want to copy someone else's deck they can go for it but you never hear of a national/worlds champ that didn't make their own deck.
vaporeon
Moderator
About Pikachu, if you like him, you'll make him work. There is a HGSS pikachu that hits for 100. I'm sure you can make that work for you.
On the other thing. I see it like being told what to do. If you're always being told how to do something, how can you think for yourself when time is needed? It's like the new HGSS on format. People like me who can build decks that work. What are the netdeckers going to do. They are going to wait to see what wins and copy it. That I have a problem with.
I think of it as cheating. I hate it when people put hard work into a list then it gets copied by someone who can't play then wins with it. It takes legit wins from the people who would have earned them.
Can you explain to me where you are getting this idea from. I see it as, if you get outplayed you get outplayed and lose, none of that having to do with Netdecking.
vaporeon
Moderator
How would you feel knowing someone had the answers to this huge exam that would get you into the really high end school, that you have been studing months for and that person scored higher then you and you were passed up and he went on, and not you? It would piss you off right?
knowing all that hard work went to waste because someone cheated. That's how I see it and that's how I feel about it.
knowing all that hard work went to waste because someone cheated. That's how I see it and that's how I feel about it.
jjkkl
Front Page Article Editor
I understand your line of argument, but it's fallacious since it presupposes a single, crumbling crux: the onus of the dictate lies upon the fact that this person who has the answers has the capacity to cheat, whereas you do not.
If you've netdecked, then the chances of you being as good as someone who has experience in the deck itself is still likely a large enough margin for you to not have taken a significant number of wins anyhow, unless the metagame you're in is weak enough to allow that to happen. It's not like we're getting Random Player A all of a sudden cruisin' to the top of Nats or anything - experience still counts, and this is what creates the gap.
The issue of the argument sits upon the logic of 'I have worked hard for this, and this is cheapening my efforts', not 'this guy is profiting by siphoning from my work', which is the inference of your argument.
That said, in regards to my two cents: deal with it. Like, seriously, I refrain from netdecking when I can, and of course when I need to figure out a basic skeletal list quickly, I'll netdeck, but for the most part, I enjoy taking the time to figure out and work out the little kinks that come with building custom decks: it's fun, and if successful, rewarding. But, to complain about it is like complaining that the right politicians don't get in or that there's too much pollution in the air: you can't stamp it out, because free-riding creates a vortex of action failure since the incentive of the lowest and most rational common denominators of thought will still take advantage of this.
Therefore, really, netdecking isn't helped by complaining about it, or whining about it. If this is really an issue (which I'm convinced it's not), then we'd have stronger community-wide protocols for it, but netdecking is a gray area, and to belittle people who netdeck is to make a gray area black and white (hurhur pun). Was what UI doing wrong? Yes - the writers at SixPrizes were providing a service for a cost, and thus, they should be fairly compensated for the expectation of effort they put into it by the constraints of the contract they have signed when writing it.
But is this indicative of netdecking and the lolevulz of netdecking? No, not at all, and anyone saying that it's 'good' or 'bad' rather than 'ambiguous' and 'too vague to label' is really too elitist to get their head out of their mudkips or just isn't thinking about it deep enough.
"It is very sad, because by leaking THOSE lists, he/she has now hurt legit UG memebers' chances of seeing new, meta-breaking ideas get posted here. I certainly wouldn't blame the writers if they were weary of sharing new ideas, that's for sure. It's a very sad thing, yes sir." ~UG forums
So at the very least, it has caused distrust inside a tight-nit community, and it means Adam will no longer be able to provide a month's Underground access in exchange for writing quality articles. I have not once paid a single cent for underground, and yet i've been a user on the UG for several months now. Why? I write the "teacher series" for Six Prizes, as well as making quality content that people seem to want to read (or at the very least, Baby Mario is one of my fans, close enough). Now, people like myself will not get the same opportunity, because of the distrust every new member is now met with.
@Lotad, which deck list/idea are you referring to? I'd be happy to tell you what did/did not get told/shown about it.
mewbreon
New Member
**applause**
someone on the gym who actually knows how to have an intelligent argument.
feels like my philosophy class last year.... (good times)
now, back to internet speak:
@vaporeon: play to win, brah.
if you want to win, play good decks. if you want to continue to lose, but have "fun playing with your favorite pokemon", then please go ahead! thats perfectly fine!
we wont judge you. so you shouldnt judge us.
That's what we're trying to tell you, though. It only ruins the game for anyone who shares YOUR view. The rest of us are plenty comfortable running meta-game decks. Why? Because we could care less about being original, we like to WIN. And just like nobody will ever convince you that your view is wrong, we stand by ours. It's a sliding scale, really. There's a certain level of fun vs winning. And, with a few exceptions (see rogues that actually place well in MAJOR events) you either pick on or the other. For example, I fall somewhere a bit past the middle. I ran Yanmega/Magnezone last season. Yeah, it had been done, but it flew under the radar in most of the California meta game, and Vilegar players never saw it approaching. So while it was not entirely a brand new deck, i took a stock list, made my own improvements (adding a regi to fuel a discard/dump/draw engine) and made it fit my style. That, in the opinion of lots of players here that are not you, is about as far to the "fun" side as we're willing to go.
Now, anyone could make one of those "exception" decks. However, what you're saying here is that if you were to find a deck that beat 90% of the metagame, and played it and won, oh, let's say nats, that because so many people would copy it, you'd never run it for worlds? Because that's kind of exactly what "Sablock" was all about. It took nats, and then went to a good showing at worlds, even though people somewhat tried to emulate the success of it.
butlerforhire
New Member
What's the difference between a group of people paying to see "exclusive" elite deck articles and a group of people not paying but still seeing those same articles? Not much in terms of the essential shattering of the secrecy of information, which seems to be one of the big issues in this thread. In either scenario, information is being shared with people who did nothing to help generate it. The authors are essentially giving their readership tips on how to do better in the war that the author is also fighting; everyone is playing the same game here and there are no teams, so authors can and will get paired with their readers, especially at big events like Nationals. Why would anyone want to tutor his opponent? That is what an article inherently does: it tutors potential opponents. I am certainly not anti-article nor anti-tutoring, but it can't be ignored that at a fundamental level, any kind of sharing in this game is also "hurting" the sharers, regardless of how little the hurting may be. UG writers are agreeing to let themselves be "hurt" by a paying readership, but they don't know who composes it or how big it will get. For all an UG writer knows, all of Pokegym will sign up for UG tomorrow and then we will all be enhancing our arsenals for potential use against the authors come Nationals.
Underground has a members list in the triple digits, right? That means hundreds of people are seeing the "best" lists and the "best" analyses from the "best" players on a regular basis. Why is there a huge uproar when those digits expand out a bit further? The information is out regardless of the size of the audience-- 1, 10, 20, 2000. Secrets and audiences do not go together. The author of the article gave away the exclusivity of his knowledge, personal lists, etc. the moment he sent his work off for publication. If the author wasn't prepared for the entire world to potentially know something (because remember, everyone can sign up for UG), he shouldn't be writing articles about it.
The user who leaked the lists today may have violated SixPrizes' terms of service, which is of course bad, but terms of service aren't like copyrights or theft laws; they provide no real security from the unintended further dissemination of information that has already been authorized for select dissemination, and they don't allow for reparation. You can't take a list out of a UG-article-reader's head and set his mind back to the state it was in before he saw the list. You can't undo the intake of information, regardless of how it was obtained. You can't copyright a 60-card deck list nor can you copyright a combo like Magnezone + Regirock. Writers should be aware of this and be willing to accept any fate which befalls their original work once it leaves the sanctity of their brains/Microsoft Word apps.
Underground has a members list in the triple digits, right? That means hundreds of people are seeing the "best" lists and the "best" analyses from the "best" players on a regular basis. Why is there a huge uproar when those digits expand out a bit further? The information is out regardless of the size of the audience-- 1, 10, 20, 2000. Secrets and audiences do not go together. The author of the article gave away the exclusivity of his knowledge, personal lists, etc. the moment he sent his work off for publication. If the author wasn't prepared for the entire world to potentially know something (because remember, everyone can sign up for UG), he shouldn't be writing articles about it.
The user who leaked the lists today may have violated SixPrizes' terms of service, which is of course bad, but terms of service aren't like copyrights or theft laws; they provide no real security from the unintended further dissemination of information that has already been authorized for select dissemination, and they don't allow for reparation. You can't take a list out of a UG-article-reader's head and set his mind back to the state it was in before he saw the list. You can't undo the intake of information, regardless of how it was obtained. You can't copyright a 60-card deck list nor can you copyright a combo like Magnezone + Regirock. Writers should be aware of this and be willing to accept any fate which befalls their original work once it leaves the sanctity of their brains/Microsoft Word apps.
- Status