Restoring skill to the Pokemon TCG

[chase4787]

You miss my question. Why do you feel bad for playing it? Because it gives the player an edge? So you can do the same.

Just quit bro, they've got their absurd opinion set in stone.

If you don't take your games overly seriously, it won't affect the spirit of the game. Catcher is good because it eliminated some luck from the format, which will always be a good thing.

 

[baby mario]

Why should players feel bad for playing Pokemon Catcher? Cause it ruins of the Spirit of the Game.

More utter, utter nonsense.

You obviously have your own private definition of SOTG which is NOT the same as TPCI's. Pokemon Catcher is a legal card, printed and distributed by Pokemon. Playing it is FULLY COMPLIANT with TPCI's understanding of SOTG. Try calling a Judge next time someone uses Catcher, complain about your opponent's poor SOTG, and see what happens.

You want to make up your own code of conduct? Fine, just don't go around shoving it down everyone else's throat.

We play by the rules.

We play fair.

We use legal cards.

Implying that people who do those things are somehow 'sacrificing their honor' is not just ridiculous, it's terrible sportsmanship, the sourest of sour grapes, and pretty appalling SOTG on YOUR part.

If you don't want to play the game we are given, you should at least stop trying to insult the people that do.

 

[TheRolesWePlay]

Just quit bro, they've got their absurd opinion set in stone.

If you don't take your games overly seriously, it won't affect the spirit of the game. Catcher is good because it eliminated some luck from the format, which will always be a good thing.

True, but trying to explain why I think they're wrong is important, especially if I can convince someone otherwise...even if that is a 1 in 20,000,000 chance.

 

[Poke Trainer J]

See what I did there? Any card which you lose to can be placed into your argument. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point. For fun, try placing Pokemon Collector in there. How DARE my opponent even THINK to get three basics, even worse, on his or her FIRST TURN! That's way too strong, it should be banned. You can keep your format of sub-par cards, i'll keep my official (well-rounded, diverse, and full btw) format kthnx.

And as many others have said, keep up the good work, not having to worry about round one thanks to players with your mentality is great.

Okay so I went a bit too far, that last comment you made there was very insulting to me and I didn't come on here to make enemies and be made fun of. It wasn't my intention to insult anyone on here, so I apologize If I've offended anyone on these forums.

You obviously have your own private definition of SOTG which is NOT the same as TPCI's. Pokemon Catcher is a legal card, printed and distributed by Pokemon. Playing it is FULLY COMPLIANT with TPCI's understanding of SOTG. Try calling a Judge next time someone uses Catcher, complain about your opponent's poor SOTG, and see what happens.

You want to make up your own code of conduct? Fine, just don't go around shoving it down everyone else's throat.

I wasn't trying to be literal in regards to calling a Judge on someone using Catcher, I was trying to use that analogy to prove a point which has already failed and fallen on deaf ears. The card itself is perfectly legal to play and I don't really have my own code of conduct in regards to the card itself, I just don't think it's healthy for the format and I'm still entitled to my own opinion on that.

 

[Nintendan]

I have no problem with Catcher, I don't see why it gets a lot of hate. It removed flips after all.

But if we were talking about the Gears 3 Sawed-off...

 

[Scottistru]

One idea I had for improving skill in this game would be to change the rule on drawing at the start of the turn. When a player draws, they would be permited to put it on the bottom of their deck, and draw a replacement card. This would require skill in the sense of deciding whether to keep or dump something. One major problem with this is that it would make donks much easier to achieve, so a ruling would have to stop donks as well, or this rule would not apply to the first turn.
(Note: I haven't read this entire thread, so forgive me if someone already posted this)

 

[Ness]

You guys are getting too creative with these ideas. First of all, the simpler, the better. These complaints about Pokémon Catcher are unwarranted - we've survived in formats with cards that were much more imbalanced than Pokémon Catcher. (Uxie was worse for the game than Pokémon Catcher was, and Pokémon was still fun to play!)

The whole purpose of this thread was to focus on ways we actually can change the game to restore skill, and the conclusion I came to (and I think many would agree) is that it is a lot easier to change our tournament structure than it is to change the rules of the game. Afterall, the rule changes can only happen in Japan. We can't make our own rules to play by in the U.S.; it's an international game.

As I've already written, increasing Top Cut games to Best of 5 would definitely restore some skill into the game. There's two main issues facing this suggestion

1) Time constraints
As for time constraints, I made the suggestion that these Best of 5 matches should only occur at the two largest tournaments of the year: Nationals (perhaps only in country's with a large attendance base that can have multiple day Nationals) & Worlds. These are the tournaments where not only do we have more days to work with, but that players have more right to demand it. To ask for Best of 5 in something like a City Championship would be silly and impractical. But for tournaments held once a year that are designed to be large-scale, prestigious events, I believe players deserve a tournament structure that actually respects both the hard-working players and the game itself.

2) Swiss luck
The other trap we don't want to fall into is to make these Top Cut matches a skill-oriented Best of 5, but make getting into the Top Cut too luck-oriented. What's the point in having Best of 5 determine the better player if the swiss only sends a small portion of the players to The Top Cut, meaning many skilled players simply miss? We want to keep the Top Cut large enough to allow players with solid (but not flawless) records to make the Top Cut. Keeping this Top Cut large enough to not punish the dozens of solid players with minor bad luck while also keeping the tournament finishing at a reasonable hour is the challenge.

As it stands right now, I am trying to propose some hypothetical schedules based on estimated attendance & Top Cut size that would allow for:
1) Best of 5 in Top Cut
2) The Top Cut allowing (on average) most players who won 70%+ of their games.

Based on an estimate of 1024 players in Masters (a good Nationals estimate), my guess is this would be something like 12 rounds of swiss with a Top 64 cut.

 

[The Gorn]

If you don't like Catcher, play Vileplume.

 

[Crinus]

Right, cause basics never ruled the format in the good ol' days. *cough*haymaker*cough* *cough*sneasel*cough*

Yeah but Sneasel could be taken out much easier to, its not like Sneasel had 140 HP

as for Pokemon Catcher, remember gust of wind?

Gust of Wind was effective but it didnt ruin the day unless it was a game finisher.

Pokemon Catcher in todays meta seems so ridiculous why? Its because people are relying on 1-2 over powered pokemon in the deck to win the game for them and Pokemon Catcher is messing it up, Gust of Wind just like Pokemon Catcher makes people play honest and not try to rely on 1or 2 pokemon to win it. I got no problem with Pokemon Catcher as I do with the fact that outside of Zekrom and Reshiram rant that Trainers control the meta.

 

[CFOURCOLTSFAN]

jason i love the 1st idea, but the second one seems (at least at Nationals) to be less practical, this all people who won 70% or more got into top cut, granted it was only 9 rounds, but that seems to be enough to weed out horrendous luck. i would like more rounds(12) but the fact that it then cuts in to the amount of people who makes top cut seems to defeat purpose.
I think the best idea would be to just get rid of t 1 t/s/s and bring back the original rare candy rules and bring back cards like call energy and chatot. or, a more unlikely idea, bring back level x's. i mean last format i think was very skill based(MD-CoL) in that even in mirror you could gain an "edge" by going 1st by that in LuxChomp/SP mirror you got the 1st level x. they still got the 1st t/s/s but you could use call energy,etc. to make it less important. i think if that brought back something similar it would be fine. i think going 1st is the main problem in the game right now, as even if you play twins you are still far behind if they got a good start.

 

[vaporeon]

Right, cause basics never ruled the format in the good ol' days. *cough*haymaker*cough* *cough*sneasel*cough*

I'm not sure what was in haymaker but I'm sure it did not have Pokemon that can hit for 120 that were basic and I'm sure Gust of Wind was less detrimental to the format then Pokemon Catcher is now.

 

[Crinus]

haymaker like much of anything out of Neo depended on flipping coins most of the time.

 

[CFOURCOLTSFAN]

go first, one energy 50. ur turn was what it was IIRC.
which to be fair is kinda like reshi/zeky r today.

 

[baby mario]

I'm not sure what was in haymaker but I'm sure it did not have Pokemon that can hit for 120 that were basic

It didn't need to as HP and damage were lower all round then. The principle was still the same: Basic + cheap attack + PP + insane draw engine + Item Finder = quick wins.

and I'm sure Gust of Wind was less detrimental to the format then Pokemon Catcher is now.

What basis do you have for this statement, seriously? You aren't sure what was in Haymaker, but you can confidently assert that GoW wasn't as bad as Catcher? From what knowledge do you make this claim?

 

[NoPoke]

insanity or rather InSaNiTy http://ipgeek21.com/articles/reference/lurili/insanity_lurili.html and http://ipgeek21.com/articles/reference/lurili/insanityproject.html

---------- Post added 10/29/2011 at 08:21 PM ----------

more games is the key to uncovering play skill.
=================================

not so sure that best of five in the top cut would be a better option than double elimination best of three. The top seed at the end of swiss really shouldn't be dispatched by the bottom seed in the elimination just because of a bad matchup.

 

[Crinus]

It didn't need to as HP and damage were lower all round then. The principle was still the same: Basic + cheap attack + PP + insane draw engine + Item Finder = quick wins.



What basis do you have for this statement, seriously? You aren't sure what was in Haymaker, but you can confidently assert that GoW wasn't as bad as Catcher? From what knowledge do you make this claim?

I played in the days of Gust of Wind, their was also things like Energy Removal and Super Energy removal which probably needs to make its appearance back into the meta.

Like I said, Gust of Wind was only good as a good game closer, Pokemon Catcher today, same thing, Pokemon Catcher gets alot of flak I think because people face it and dont like it because they had something like a Reshiram or something in play and it got benched.

if nothing else, Gust of Wind/Pokemon Catcher puts some balance into the game.

Their is other things in this current meta people need to worry about more than Pokemon Catcher.

 

[baby mario]

Like I said, Gust of Wind was only good as a good game closer, Pokemon Catcher today, same thing, Pokemon Catcher gets alot of flak I think because people face it and dont like it because they had something like a Reshiram or something in play and it got benched.

if nothing else, Gust of Wind/Pokemon Catcher puts some balance into the game.

Their is other things in this current meta people need to worry about more than Pokemon Catcher.

Yep, people don't like Catcher because they lose to it and somehow think that's 'unfair'. It's just the reality of the game now: you can't just smash face with your active and treat your Bench as if it was immune.

 

[Crinus]

Yep, people don't like Catcher because they lose to it and somehow think that's 'unfair'. It's just the reality of the game now: you can't just smash face with your active and treat your Bench as if it was immune.

yeah exactly, you need proper bench management which is a common flaw in most peoples game.

 

[Otaku]

I feel I must echo Ness in reminding those still participating in this thread that the tournament structure, and even then only the highest levels, are where we can expect to effect real change.

I will go further by pointing out that instituting a Banned/Restricted list is always a mark against a game. Not because it is "admitting a mistake", but because it legitimizes making them and ignores the underlying problems. While it doesn't have to cause designers to get lazy, from what I've experienced it does: make something broken? Oh well we'll ban it later. Instead of focusing on what makes for an unfair, unfun format, you just end up wasting time banning the current problem, only for a new one to arise.

Yu-Gi-Oh is a poster child for this. The designers seem to intentionally release (or re-release and lower restrictions) on broken cards and lack a grasp of the actual "to play" costs in the game versus what does what. That game uses a Forbidden/Restricted list instead of set rotation. Having both is a lot for the average player to accept and cope with. "Should I buy this set? It's got a lot of good cards in it... in fact they might be too good. Do I want to buy a deck only to find out the key card that makes it worth running has or is about to get the axe?"

It gets even worse on the secondary market. It may or may not be that bad in Pokemon, since Pokemon card prices usually aren't quite as high or unstable as Yu-Gi-Oh, but unlike the situation players found themselves in with the early rotation this last year. There players whose "good cards" were known to be getting the axe in three months learned that they were getting the axe in two months (if they paid attention at all) and could try to unload them right before the biggest tournament of the year: who wants to lose due to their main deck getting lost or stolen? Better bring at least one spare of your main deck, let alone wanting extra decks in case of sudden metagame shifts.

Now imagine finding out the hot card defining the format, a card that has been out five months tops, and that you just got and worked to build a deck around... is getting the axe. Investors don't like uncertainty, and the only reason the Yu-Gi-Oh secondary market doesn't collapse is the game is so unbalanced that even the best players know they have to run certain cards or face an almost impossible battle to win, and the already high prices make buying a Yu-Gi-Oh pack like playing the lotto.

Getting back on point, at best banning cards will give us a temporarily healthy format... which might not even last one set, since of course TPC probably has the next set almost done by now, at least in terms of card effects. Set's appear designed in "blocks", and blocks probably overlap just to protect the release schedule as much as possible. That next new set probably ruins the balance, since it was designed for a now non-existent format, and you just cured the "symptoms" not the disease with your bans.

tl;dr: Banning cards is a last resort, it is too dependent on competent follow up decisions and sometimes banning a "broken" card makes something that remains not only broken, but worse than what was just axed. You treated the results, not the cause, and even if it was a good idea Ness is correct that TPCi just doesn't have that authority.

 

[ajwalker]

The way you say it, it almost sounds like every player should be disqualified for playing Pokemon Catcher in their decks at sanctioned events

I'd hate to see that.

As I've said, Catcher is a card most people don't have a problem with, I know I'm in the minority. However, I don't think it's the "end of Pokemon as we know it." I just wish more thought would have gone into the testing phase before it was released to see how it works when we have such high HP/high attack BASIC Pokemon and even more on the way with the EX's coming down the line in the Spring.

You used to have to get to a Stage 2 or LvX to deal the kind of damage that Zekrom and Reshiram dole out. And looking back at the Primes of just our current legal set, not to many of them could do that either with the exception of Magnezone Prime. Stage 2's still had a fighting chance.

Maybe because we were thrown such a curve from LvX's to Primes then to high HP/high attack basics?

Plus, there is something to be said about the skill to use S2's well, how they worked together, the patience needed, all the decisions and sacrifices you had to make before you could start walloping on your opponent. It feels almost as if TCPi is abandoning the slower, even more thought out, game with S2's for the speed game with the big, fast basics (and soon Ex's).

But I do agree with everyone else the 1st turn rule needs to be looked at again, there should be a change in how top cut/finals are played out with longer games (or differently formatted?) to help lower the luck factor.

Since it is a card game, and therefore, will always have an element of "luck", it shouldn't be the deciding factor because of the rules. "Luck" will find a way in regardless (as it does in many things in real life already) but doesn't need to be manufactured or "helped along" because of the way certain rules are.

I still love Pokemon though, and will continue to play it even if I don't agree with every little thing they do :thumb: