Sabledonk - math and analyzation

[Prime]

A 60% win percentage means that your opponent has a 40% win percentage. Always.

You're assuming:

1) the other player will be running sable-donk as well.

if they aren't running sableye:

2) that the other player will be able to setup magnificently in one turn

if the opponent cannot setup well in one turn, if they didn't start with a collector in their opening hand + draw for the turn, they will still get donked next turn.

If games come down to sabledonk vs. sabledonk, then the flip of the coin wins the game, not this 60/40 stuff. Other than that, sabledonk doesn't have to always go first to win, they just have to hope the opponent can't create an unwinable scenario leading into their second turn.

The way I see it:

Opp. Sableye start, searching for collector doesn't put the basics on your bench. You can still get benched and donked.

Spiritomb start -- well i don't need to continue here because that shuts down the whole sableye mess before it starts (i would think). Let's assume it's poke-body isn't working. The opp. evolves a basic to stage 1, but it's been shown that sabledonk can KO 3 80HP pokemon in the same turn (1 by forcing the opp. to pick it back up with seeker) and most stage 1s are 80HP, so I don't see an issue.

Rare candy is different going into Nationals. The opp. can't rare candy to a stage 2 to survive the donk going into the 2nd turn. They can't even rare candy into a stage 1 anymore (ever). BTS may change things. But the opponent has to spend resources getting the evolutions turn 1 instead of more basics (unless they can get both).

It'd be interesting to see quick ball, great ball, unown r, uxie being the new engine for all non-donk decks in hopes of filling the bench on the first turn.

 

[uuuufff]

For what it's worth, the "60%" chance of a donk that people are throwing around is probably generous to the Sabledonk deck... if the opponent runs 4 Spiritomb, 4 Sableye or both then your odds pretty much fall back down to 50%. I pretty much see every deck now either playing Sableye or Spiritomb which makes the odds for the Sabledonk deck even work. I'm pretty sure you'll only see players not confident with their skills playing the deck at a tournament.

 

[DarthPika]

^ That makes for a very sloppy deck though...

 

[Cyrus]

Regardless of the percentages, and regardless of "this deck can beat it" or "this deck can't beat it," don't most of us at least agree that it is a problem?! It's a problem when the only way to reliably get a second turn is to run max Spiritomb/run four Sableye of your own/get painfully lucky.

Ban Sableye, restrict Uxie to one, restrict Crobat G to one, and you'll instantly turn one of the most chaotic, horrid formats into one of the most enjoyable. The new set has SO much promise for turning a stale metagame around, but if we leave the carries-over in a dominant role, then things are going to get out of hand.

 

[sdrawkcab]

You dont even need to ban Sableye.....or limit crobat....

Just limit uxie and that would be it.

 

[the_sniper]

Never been a big fan of banning cards ( not that it's up to me lol) but in this case what Kettles said is true - at least for sableye! Not sure I like the restrictions on crobat but certainly on uxie. He is right, ban sableye, restrict uxie to 1 or 2 and all of the sudden problem solved!! The format has enough unbalanced cards without sableye taking things over the edge.

 

[sdrawkcab]

I dont see why banning sableye is nessisary if we are already limiting uxies to 1?

The deck can't do anything with only a single uxie.

 

[Kayle]

random thought that i wanted to put down somewhere, a gripes-about-format thread seemed good

i used to hear all the time that a rogue deck was one that actively countered metagame decks

the rogues these days would be game over and kgl - neither of which actively counter the metagame

why?

because the metagame is uncounterable

 

[XYZ_Sniper]

You guys are missing the most important point because you're stuck on the statistics. I'll say it again, this time without any distractions.

A 60% win percentage means that your opponent has a 40% win percentage. Always. That's a disadvantage. There are not supposed to be any disadvantages. That's the only reason you need to conclude that this deck is just plain wrong.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/luck

This one probably serves better as an example: b : the events or circumstances that operate for or against an individual

 

[Cyrus]

I dont see why banning sableye is nessisary if we are already limiting uxies to 1?

The deck can't do anything with only a single uxie.

That's where you're wrong: the deck _can_ function with only a single Uxie. I've seen some lists that already run only one of each in order to up their odds of that Sableye start.

Just like Sniper, I don't suggest bans/restrictions lightly: it makes me uncomfortable as a player to see the game regulated in an unnatural way; it's been a very rare thing in the history of the game; and in the time of POP, it's absolutely unprecedented. But for these next four months, it's the best solution.

Keep in mind: I suggest this even with the knowledge that Sableye as a deck is not necessarily the best in the format. But the negative impact it has on the format is huge, since it basically requires (not using that word lightly) everyone to run Sableye, Spiritomb, or both.

 

[Morten]

It might go with 1 uxie, but it will be a huge nerf. You will rely more on seeker and super scoop up for uxie so spiritomb can hurt more.

 

[fire spin]

P!P could errata sableye/uxie :

Making uxie's set up once per turn would help the format to an extent, preventing people from drawing a massive amount of their deck really early in the game, and may fix some of the donk problems. However it wouldn't fix the problem that sableye's body was meant for a format where going 1st was worse because you couldn't play trainers or supporters, so he has 2 strong attacks to make up for this. Sadly in the new format going first is always better thus sableye became even more strong, allowing multiple disruption supporters or an easy overconfident KO. So they could remove sableye from the format, or errata it to make it always go second.

 

[Blue Blur]

Just errata Sableye. Ban the body and replace the attack with a consistency boosting one in addition to Impersonate. Then, Sableye stays a great starter, retains it's value on the card sales market, and doesn't ruin the format.

If P!P does this I'm sure there'll be a lot of happy players.

 

[bullados]

An errata can not happen. Something like that would require input from Japan, and they in the past have shown a reluctance to change cards that obviously harm the metagame.

I believe that the only methods that TPCi would have to take Sabledonk out of the format are a Ban/Restrict list, or a Rotation.

The Ban/Restrict list is kind of a slippery slope, as has been mentioned in the past. It can be useful now. But the moment that it has been used, players will start lobbying for various different cards to be placed on the list, and you start growing a YGO-type format shifting. I'm personally not a fan of this option, but I recognize that it does exist and would welcome the change if it does happen.

The Rotation is what we normally have, and I personally believe that it's the best option that we've got. I've been an advocate of a pre-Worlds rotation for some time now, as I believe that it encourages good players that can think both creatively and strategically to find something new to play after a year of playing their Same Old Situation cards. This would be an excellent year to begin such a rotation style. Obviously, if you want to create a format that's completely new and foreign to the players, you'll have to rotate Platinum, at the very least, as it contains the most broken Trainer engine the game has seen since the Holon days. And this engine, as many others have posted, is not a good one for the game as it only helps out a small segment of the cards. I will not shed a tear when Plat is rotated. I like keeping Rising Rivals in the format because Bebe's Search is IMO a format balancing card, the type of card that allows for anything to happen at any time. It was the replacement for Celio's Network, which has been in the game pretty much since the beginning of the TPCi era. Yes, we have Communication right now. But IMO that's a poor replacement because it's too easy to lock that Trainer out and deny a game to a player. RR-on would also keep in the game several promising evolution cards that just could not get any limelight while the whole Speedy McDonkFest thing was going around. I personally would love to see a good Hippowdon deck built, or bringing back the old Flygons. Plus, with Lucario GL still in the format, everything basically has double weakness, which IMO is a fantastic balancing factor against dominant decks.

tl;dr: I would tend to favor a rotation over all other options, but I don't believe that simply staying pat is good for the game. Not at this time.

 

[Sandslash7]

You guys are missing the most important point because you're stuck on the statistics. I'll say it again, this time without any distractions.

A 60% win percentage means that your opponent has a 40% win percentage. Always. That's a disadvantage. There are not supposed to be any disadvantages. That's the only reason you need to conclude that this deck is just plain wrong.

There ARE ALREADY disadvantages. We don't need new rules and Sableye to have that. If you are playing Infernape/Delcatty vs Torterra swarm, there is a disadvantage there. You can't just say that we should have no disadvantages. Why do we have weaknesses/resistances? So that some Pokemon have advantages over others.

A Carte-Blanche advantage isn't something to strive for, but you can't make blanket statements either.

 

[toxictaipan]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/luck

This one probably serves better as an example: b : the events or circumstances that operate for or against an individual

And you're saying that particular definition doesn't apply to every single person, regardless of what deck they're playing? Seriously?

When someone says that you need to get luck to win, that means that you're at a disadvantage, and you probably won't win unless you get lucky. Statistically unfavorable. You have to get unusually fortunate. When you have a 60% win percentage, getting unusually fortunate is not something you have to do. It would be unusual for you to lose more matches than you win!



---------- Post added 04/24/2011 at 01:14 PM ----------

There ARE ALREADY disadvantages. We don't need new rules and Sableye to have that. If you are playing Infernape/Delcatty vs Torterra swarm, there is a disadvantage there. You can't just say that we should have no disadvantages. Why do we have weaknesses/resistances? So that some Pokemon have advantages over others.

A Carte-Blanche advantage isn't something to strive for, but you can't make blanket statements either.

There's a difference.

It's up to the player to chose/tech out his deck according to the meta-game. Making a proper meta-game choice is one of the skills involved in the game. It's not a guaranteed disadvantage.

As previously mentioned, you may be a skillful enough player (and/or have an awesome enough tech) to raise your base win percentage above the 40% disadvantage mark. Sabledonk does not allow this. When you sit down to play against Sabledonk, you have absolutely NO ability to change the outcome of the match. This is not a problem with any other deck. Not only are you at a disadvantage, but you are not given a chance to overcome your disadvantage either!

When you sit down and face Sableye, you WILL lose 60% of the time. You either start with what you have in your hand and get donked; start with Sabeleye yourself, in which case your match is then determined by a coinflip (CAN YOU FEEL THE EXCITEMENT!?); or hope you get lucky enough to start with Spiritomb to be able to reasonably counter Sableye.

Oh, and you have to nerf your deck by adding in 8 cards you normally could use for techs/consistency/whatever, too.

 

[gallade]

Regardless of the percentages, and regardless of "this deck can beat it" or "this deck can't beat it," don't most of us at least agree that it is a problem?! It's a problem when the only way to reliably get a second turn is to run max Spiritomb/run four Sableye of your own/get painfully lucky.

Ban Sableye, restrict Uxie to one, restrict Crobat G to one, and you'll instantly turn one of the most chaotic, horrid formats into one of the most enjoyable. The new set has SO much promise for turning a stale metagame around, but if we leave the carries-over in a dominant role, then things are going to get out of hand.

Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you (yes copy and paste is a good thing) I agree whole-heartedly with you.

 

[toxictaipan]

Also, I don't feel people are looking at the deck in the right context.

It doesn't really matter if Sabledonk goes on to win Nationals or not. Who actually cares what deck wins when the whole format is a crap shoot? The deck is a problem regardless of its achievements.

Every match matters! It only takes a donk or two to ruin your day. Donks are not fun and they go against every single thing the game is about. That's why this deck is a problem.

 

[Rambo1000]

when you've got kettler, mondak, and papa silvestro posting you know its bad... even against decks that just run 4 sableye most games i've played with the new b/w rules are decided by who goes first. uxie is overpowered when you can play supporters and go 1st... there needs to be some sort of advantage to going 2nd or a disadvantage to going 1st, like it's always been.

 

[the real crobat kid!]

im tired of any type of sp deck and we were getting to the point where it was a fun format but then sabledonk come in and messed it up. but... sabledonk is cheeper and there are ways around it so im not to worried. but i do want them to ban the card.