I wrote a really long post but ended up not really liking it. I've trimmed off most of the areas that weren't really relevant and made the TL;DR at the beginning.
IN SHORT: You don't seem to understand a lot about how the game works and have made unfounded statements and opinions based on those misunderstandings. Stage 2s are actually pretty viable right now, they just aren't viable attackers, and I'm not sure why you would make that qualification. Or any qualification, for that matter.
Additionally, I am baffled that you would say a format is fun to play and very skill based, but would also say it is designed badly. I do not think you know a whole lot about how designing games works, and I don't know why you have any authority to say the game is designed poorly or lazily, OR how that translates to it being a "bad format".
Okay, I think you and I have different idea's about what "viable" is. So, lets define what I consider viable, and what a few other people have said about it... Viable doesn't mean a bench sitter. I want to actually
play with my cards, instead of just spending a ton of resources to put them on the bench and hope they don't get catchered. Remember before you respond to this, I am merely defining MY definition of viable. Yours may be different, and you are entirely entitled to that opinion.
First, before I continue, if this is going to turn into an "I'm right your wrong" discussion, as your comments are starting to sound, then I'm going to step away from it. If you want to continue to discuss the different points with legitimate respect for the others opinion, and have a civil conversation, then I'm game, but as soon as this starts turning into a contest to see who can say the most irrational things out of frustration, I'm out.
As a consumer, I have every right to have whatever opinion I want on the game. I also, as a human being, have every single right to express said opinion
ESPECIALLY on an internet forum, which by definition is a place to express and discuss idea's.
Now that this is out of the way, I've been around TCG's for a very long time, and for a few projects in college, and then with some friends who were working on (and eventually published) their own games, I understand quite a bit
more about game design then you seem to think. You have not once brought up a valid reason as to why my opinion on game design are flawed, so saying things like this fail to promote civility in discussion. Unfounded arguments are just that, unfounded.
A poorly designed format differs from TCG to TCG. In Pokemon, my personal opinion is that a well balanced format, where stage 2's and basics both have their advantages, is a well designed series of sets. As a player who's focal point is on competitive play, the more skill the better. As a consumer, and someone who can look at a format objectively, I see a format that is dominated by one set of cards. To me, that is poor design. Poor design however does not dictate enjoyment of a format from a competitive stand point. At least for me. I very much can have the opinion that this is a fun format while simultaneously having the opinion that the cards that make up the format are lazily designed.
Here's an example of where I both agree with you and disagree with you. It's frustrating how linear the game is right now. All EX pokemon have the same general premise: attach energy, do damage.
But the simplification of "they're all the same card" is definitely not founded. They are different types, as you noted, and where once that might not have mattered so much, in the current game, it absolutely makes a massive difference. Terrakion NVI would be "eh" if it didn't land type advantage on Darkrai. In turn, Shaymin would be a massive gimmick if it didn't land type advantage on Keldeo and Terrakion. Tornadus' Colorless typing lends it massive splashability, and its great attacking power is impressive, but it doesn't have any clear advantages due to the same thing - its typing.
Small, key differences like HP, attack damage amounts, and the compatibility of attacks with acceleration like DCE, Dynamotor and Dark Patch set cards apart right now. Ignoring those differences just because the cards all have the same basic idea hints at tunnel vision. Whether the style with which different decks take prizes differs or not, the fact is, the cards are pretty varied in their own intricate and detailed ways. Certainly enough that it matters which one you choose.
When the only counter play in the format is which basic you want to play to exploit the weakness you expect to see the most of, there is a problem. For example:
Darkrai running the format in your area? Landoros
Landoros running the format? Keldeo
Keldeo running the format? Mewtwo EX or Grass type (Shaymin, Virizion, etc.)
Mewtwo EX running the format? Sigilyph/Mewtwo EX/Darkrai EX
What do all these statements have in common? They are all big basic pokemon that attach energy and attack. They all also have a weakness that is exploited easily in this format by other big basic pokemon. All of those big basic pokemon that can exploit said weakness can be played as techs in
any deck in the format... outside of Blastoise EX.
I think you are trying to hard to separate the cards. Instead of looking at the differences in the cards, why not tell me the differences in how said cards play out a given game? What is the difference right now between how Mewtwo EX plays out a game and Keldeo EX? Does Keldeo EX have some special advantage I don't know about? It even has the most diversity of any EX in the format right now because it has Rush In! Yet, it still only serves on purpose. Get charged up as soon as possible and attack for as much as possible. This is the most basic underlying concept of all of these cards. They are all designed
exactly the same. To hit hard and fast with minimal set up required. What type they are is irrelevant from a design stand point.
Okay, I disagree with everything about this. Firstly I just described how the cards are pretty different in their own ways, but to be fair, they are not different in terms of "I do X damage for Y energy". However, if you think the "only choice" you have to make in this format is which attackers you want to run, I find it hard to believe you know much about the game on a competitive level. Please re-examine the format and come back to this.
This isn't an argument, it's a finger point. Therefore, it's not worth responding too outside of this: What is the most important decision you can make going into a tournament right now? Is it what engine you want to play, or is it what techs you want access to in order to attack the predicted metagame. I'm going to guess the engine you use doesn't matter much as long as you are able to take advantage of the weakness in the format.
Haha okay hold on.
1. It does matter because it devalues your argument and your opinion. I don't mean to say that we should ignore your point of view, but when discussing how good a format is or isn't, it usually helps to have played in several different formats so you have a lot to compare against. How can you say this is the "worst ever" if you've only ever played in this one???
You seem to forget that I've never once said this is the worst format ever. I also don't believe that my credentials vs. yours actually matter with what we are talking about. This conversation isn't actually about whether or not this is the worst format ever... It hasn't been for a while. Regardless of thread title, the discussion has evolved into whether or not this format is 1) Healthy and 2) Well designed.
2. You don't know very much about Empoleon, do you?
a. Empoleon's lesser HP
literally doesn't matter. It is still a 2HKO at best for most attackers in the format. Show me an EX Pokemon that you see frequently doing 140 damage in one attack. There isn't one.
b.
Empoleon actually does more damage than most EX Pokemon, if conditions are right. It has the best energy-to-damage ratio in the game right now. It's better even than Rayquaza EX.
c. Empoleon requires 4 cards to do damage: the three evolution stages (or a Candy) and an Energy.
Darkrai requires the same number of cards to do damage, and it requires MORE cards (Dark Patch) in order to do it in 2 turns, where Empoleon can feasibly do damage in two turns without additional help.
d. If Attack Command is ever doing less than 50 damage, something has gone terribly wrong. You should have 4-5 basics in play pretty much at all times. Your opponent can try to weaken you to 70-80, but by doing so, they limit their own options and their own setup, and make themselves N weak. Only a few decks can actually safely do this. (I will ignore your bizarre "15 cards is so many to have in play!!1!" point, which just shows me you've never actually played Empoleon and taken it seriously as a competitive option.)
All of this, plus Empoleon is the only Pokemon right now with built-in draw, giving it access to tech cards that most other decks could only dream of.
This definitely isn't a "what's-the-best-deck-out-there" debate, but I felt a need to clarify that Empoleon is more than capable of playing with the big boys.
Empoleon has less than 2 cities top cuts as of 12/24. That's not even wins, it's top cuts. I would say it's capability in the format is pretty nil.
Now, let me talk about Empoleon as a card.
140 HP is low. It's not often relevant, but relevant sometimes is still relevant. Considering for 1 card you can get 170 HP in Rayquaza EX and it takes 3 cards in order to get 140HP on Empoleon, it seems your investment is already not paying off.
Now, lets look at maximum damage. Empoleon can do a max of 120 Damage. All for one energy. However, it will probably never do the full 120, as any competent player will play around this. So, you'll probably have 2-3 pokemon on the field at once. That's 30. Then they'll have a full suite, so that's 90 damage for one energy. How many cards though does it take to do 90 damage? Well, for starters, it takes 3 cards just to put Empoleon on the field. Then, it takes an additional 5 cards to get 70 damage (since your opponent has to have at least one pokemon, but for the sake of this argument, we're going with 3). We're at 8 cards. Now one energy, and voila, 9 cards for 90 damage. That's 10 damage a card. Yes, it's 90 damage for 1 energy, and that's great. However, it takes almost 1/6th of your deck. Including your six prizes, you are actually 1/4th of the way through your deck, just to do 90 damage. Now, lets look at Raqyuaza EX.
One card to get it on the field. 3 Energy to do 120 damage. No other requirements. We're at 4 cards. That's 30 damage a card. We still have 50 cards left in our deck too (counter the prizes).
So, while you say that Empoleon is competitive with the EX's, and you used Rayquaza EX as your arguing point, I see here that it takes less than half the cards to do more damage with Rayquaza EX as it does with Empoleon. This is NOT a non-factor.
You ARE aware that Darkrai/Hydreigon is probably the most powerful and all-around stable deck in the format, right? Last I heard it was 2nd in most wins ever (losing out to the growing-in-popularity Landorus/Mewtwo) and before that it was first, in contention with Keldeo/Blastoise which has a similar premise and similar problems with space.
The stage 2s DO give you an insane reward for the extra energy you're required to get out. Underestimating how stupidly powerful Deluge and Dark Trance are does not do your argument any favors, it just makes you look like you don't really know this format all that well.
Darkrai/Hydreigon 6 wins/38 top cuts. That puts it tied for 5th in wins and puts it in 3rd for top cuts over all. This is taken from Sixprizes.com where they compiled this information. Link found:
http://www.sixprizes.com/2012/12/21/the-decline-of-darkrai-a-closer-look-at-the-evolving-format/
There are two stage 2's, 3 if you count Empoleon, but I feel that argument is getting bleak, that are competitive right now. That would be Blastoise, as an engine, and Hydreigon as an "engine".
Actually, I'll give you Empoleon. It is the ONLY stage 2 right now that both has an Engine, the draw, and an attack that is the focal point of the deck. If you look at the number of stage 2's that are competitive vs the number of basics, you'll find the numbers are
incredibly lopsided in favor of basics.
Firstly, the format is balanced. Just not between Basics and stage 2s. Let's be clear.
That is your opinion and you are trying to pass it off as fact.
Regarding your whole thing about Basic Pokemon having a natural advantage, what do you think of
this card? Do you think this guy was playable at the time of his release? To give you an idea of the metagame around this card, stage 2s at this time did 80-90 damage or so at best, making him a 2hko for pretty much everything. They did 80 damage for 1 or 2 energy, but had no acceleration. 150 damage OHKO'd literally everything worth playing. The only things that survived were like, Dusknoir Lv. X (which I don't think anyone played seriously) and Wailord.
So... I'm leading you on here. This card was never played. When it was included in a Luxchomp article as surprise energy acceleration, people chuckled a little, and the idea was never considered again. Why, though? It has all the advantages you describe in a functional sense: it's 2hko'd by most attackers in a format where things were often 2hko'd or 1hko'd. It had superior damage, it was unique in possessing energy acceleration, and it was a Basic. You could play it in a Lightning or Fire deck (which did exist here and there, but were kind of rare) and try to accelerate energy onto it late game for a surprise 150. That sounds awesome, right? But it never happened. This card was just understood to be bad.
It has the Basics' natural advantages of needing less cards to attack, it had functional HP, and it had higher damage than anything else out there. It's not an EX that gives up two prizes for being KO'd. It has built in energy acceleration. According to what you just said, there are no reasons not to play this card over the Stage 2s that existed at the time (I believe the big decks that were emerging were
this and
this, but I'm sure I'm forgetting most of that format, it was IMMEDIATELY before I started playing competitively). So why was it so bad?
Your understanding of this format and the way the game works aren't convincing to me.
First, that card is awful. I wouldn't play that card with 180 HP. It takes 4 energy to attack, and they are incredibly specific energy. Second, the "acceleration" built into the card is
completely random. You can't just pick a random card and say, "is this card good?" just because it's 1) A basic and 2) does a lot of damage. Not every card is going to be good, and never once have I, or anyone else, said that every card
needs to be good. If you quote me saying that, then I will concede every point and drop this discussion.
Now you are attacking me, without actually knowing anything about me. I am anonymousI on the internet. I very well could be the defending world champion and you would be none the wiser. Making statements based on your assumptions invalidate any argument made with those as their base.
But didn't you just say that the competitive crowd doesn't drive Pokemon's sales? So do we really matter that much?
However, if you are going to support competitive play, and give out prizes in large events and world championships and the like, creating a game that isn't balanced around the competitive play will absolutely be bad for the game. If they stopped creating an environment that people wanted to play competitively, how long do you think Pokemon TCG would last? Not long as people would have nowhere to jump. They would buy some cards, mess around and collect them for a bit then move along. This is why Baseball cards are failing these days. Collectors drive sales, but if there is no value to the cards, which the secondary market
is driven by competitive play, then collectors can just buy complete sets online for 60 bucks and call it a day.
I kind of think this level of the discussion has certainly left the realm of "is the format good or bad". We got into this because I brought up the idea that stage 2s are weak right now by design, and you are trying to say that that is a symptom of the game being unhealthy. The fact that we have to get into PCL's heads to make some judgment on this - that we have to delve into territory that is irrelevant - kind of speaks to the irrelevance of your point, in my mind.
On the contra-ire. I think discussing design in any card game is important. Understanding the fundamentals behind card design will help you when you go to start play testing. Understanding patterns in design will help you in undiscovered formats because you will have a starting point that other players who cannot recognize design patters, will not. Take the Garchomp deck that was hyped at the beginning of the BW format. Did it pan out? No, but if you looked at design pattern, and understood where certain design space fell in the realm of playability, you could have quickly recognized that the big basics are actually more efficient and more consistent than multiple evolution based decks. However, if you feel that this is irrelevant, I will think no less of you if you choose to no longer discuss design. Again though, saying something is irrelevant is an opinion and not a fact.
Yeah, you don't really know a lot about how Pokemon works, do you. I mean... they print sets of 10 good Pokemon and 90 terrible Pokemon pretty much constantly, for one thing - but they have to make the 90 Pokemon interesting at least, but still not making them good (despite being interesting, unusual, and thus possibly having unforeseen potential). That's what I meant by that. And that's difficult to do without a lot of thought and planning, which you seemed to disagree with by saying that the design was "lazy".
Again, you are making assumptions based on your own personal beliefs. You are taking what
you believe to be true, counting it as fact, and comparing that to what I believe to be true. This gives you the sense of knowledge over me that you can't actually know is true or false. My argument isn't that this series is any better or worse than previous. We are here and now, and so we are talking about the design for here and now. Whether in every previous set there was one playable card is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about what poor design actually is. 10 out of 100 is pretty bad. That means only 10% of the cards are actually "playable." That's pretty bad actually, as far as TCG's go. In Magic, which is more popular and World of Warcraft, which is less popular, and the two other TCG's I'm most recently familiar with, greater than 10% of cards are playable in every set. In magic, we're talking closer to 25-35% of every set. In WoW we're talking around 20-25% pretty consistently.
But I'll bite, and answer the point you were TRYING to make.
Format-relevant Pokemon EX:
- Ho-Oh
- Darkrai
- Mewtwo
- Landorus
- Keldeo
- Tornadus
- ...Cresselia?
- S... shaymin, still, maybe?
Format-relevant non-Pokemon EX:
- Tornadus EPO
- Bouffalant DRX
- Rayquaza DRV
- Terrakion NVI
- Virizion NVI (debatable)
- Sigilyph DRX
- Hydreigon DRX
- Klinklang BW
- Blastoise BCR
- Meloetta BCR
- Sableye DEX
- Empoleon DEX
So... yeah. 8-ish really good Pokemon EX. 10+ good-to-really-good non Pokemon-EX. At least 4 viable-to-good Stage 2s.
The argument isn't really about EX vs. Non-EX. It's Basic vs. Evolution. So, that would be 16 basics vs. 4 Stage 2's. 80% of the format relevant pokemon are basic. Here is where opinions differ though. You believe that the format is balanced around each individual card. I believe that a format should be balanced around individual cards, and then beyond that basics vs. evolutions. Both of our opinions differ though, so, if I was trying to argue a point with someone who believed the game should be balanced the same way I did, then this would prove my point. However, since you believe in balance around individual cards only, then you are correct in the statement that yes indeed the game is balanced the way you see fit.
Wait, wait, but Hydreigon and Blastoise make up some of the best archetypes out there right now, Klinklang won Nats and is returning in force, the stage 2s coming up in Plasma are some of the most threatening I've seen in a while, and Empoleon is a strong deck all by itself. So what's the problem???
Upcoming sets are not part of the current discussion. I think Magnezone is sweet and will be very powerful in the upcoming format. That is not this format though. Klinklang is not returning in force based on statistics (which are actual facts), Empoleon has been discussed, but also is not a relevant part of the metagame, Hydreigon is only important until you get to top cut, then it falls off quickly, and Blastoise is the exception. Blastoise actually only has to be in play one turn to do all it's damage. Hydreigon has to stay in play to continue to be important. Regardless, this again, is not what we are discussing. Both are relevant as far as being engines. They don't attack unless absolutely necessary, and they are the exceptions to the rule in this format.
Energy manipulation is a core concept of the TCG to anyone who looks closely at it from a competitive standpoint. It has been there since day 1 as at least one other person has already said, and it has never gone away. Energy is such an important mechanic that being able to control and modify your energy has always been equally important. Whether it's Dynamotor and Dark Patch giving you multiple attachments, or cards like Scramble Energy and Double Rainbow Energy mitigating high attack costs, there has pretty much always been some form of manipulation.
Within the rules of the game, energy manipulation is not guaranteed. It exists because the designers decide that they believe it to be important enough. You actually made an example that had no acceleration/manipulation in a particular format. So, your point is actually wrong. Manipulation/Acceleration is privilege, not a rule.
Again. Your point of view on this makes me wonder how much experience you really have in this game.
Again, you resort to petty insults instead of legitimate arguments. Let me be clear. Anyone who has played any card game, and spent any time discussing, reading, or trying to understand design space and how it fits into TCG's, who also had a basic understanding of the rules, would be able to have valid opinions on design balance. The credentials you are seeking are not actual requirements to understand design theory for games. I've personally spent many years reading forums and participating in panels and discussing design theory with many, many people who are more qualified than either of us. I actually applied for an internship at WotC and was a finalist in a design search contest that very much a public event.
I don't think you know much about design. I also don't know where design came into the conversation. I also don't like that you wouldn't give credit to PCL for designing a fun game just because you have a predetermination about what they should be doing with said game. None of those things are things I like or agree with.
I don't think you know what you are talking about, and you yet again discredit yourself by using
insults as arguments. This discussion is not about crucifying PCL or saying that they have a terrible game, and have gone as far as to say
MULTIPLE times that I enjoy said format, so you saying such is coming off as completely disgruntled and somewhat desperate. Also, what you like or don't like regarding how I feel about PCL is 1) none of my business and 2) not relevant to the conversation. My "predetermination" of what I believe they should be doing with the game is just as valid as any other consumer who cares about the direction their game or hobby is taking.
-------------------
I want to separate this from the rest of the reply, because I feel what I'm about to say is the
most important.
I want to start by reiterating that if you are going to continue to throw insults and insinuations into your arguments, then I will walk away from this. It is not healthy discussion anymore, and some of your replies have started tiptoeing the line of insulting and condescending.
Next, I want to explain where I see the conversation, so that if you believe that the discussion should head in a different direction we can just end it right here. The discussion is
not about where this format ranks in comparison to other formats. I didn't jump into the conversation except to make a point about the original format, and then again when the discussion changed from best/worst ever into what is right/wrong wit the format. This in turn leads to design theory being a key component to the discussion, as you cannot identify what is wrong in a format without first understanding the design that went into the format. Understanding the shortfalls of design (which I want to emphasize is
not easy to prevent. WotC has an entire division who's sole job is playing Magic a year or more in advance to catch problem cards. I do not know if PCL has a similar department) is important when determining why people do or do not like a format as well as the over all health of the format. Add tournament data to that information, which can only be determined by discussion, and you suddenly paint a pretty clear picture as to what really is going on in the format.
Once you get a clear picture of what is going on with the format, you can start to dissect it, and then in turn begin to piece it back together and "solve" the problems in the format. One thing leads to another and suddenly you have a pretty good idea what is going on with any given format which will make you more apt to selecting the correct deck for the given metagame and increasing your results.
You say you feel like this discussion is pointless, but you aren't looking at the bigger picture. This discussion is important because it helps more players than just you and I at understanding where different camps believe the format, and all future formats, will head. This information is incredibly valuable to a number of people, but if you feel like it's "irrelevant," then I see no further reason to continue this discussion.
After saying all of that, I hope that civility will find it's way back into the discussion and it can continue, if not then happy holidays.
