trainerjeff
New Member
if most people are using them in a deck, why would you put one in your deck? that opens up 1-4 spots in your deck. if you need to use it on your first turn, just pick to go second everytime
Tropical Beach is good for the game...however the price tag is not.
- Thread starter Jaeger
- Start date
- Status
Articjedi
Active Member
Part of me wonders of the growth and appeal of the game is adversely affected by inaccessibility to cards due to the perceived unfairness. You can say "that's life" all you want but you have to remember that perception is everything. If one of the attributes of a particular card game is, "you need to pay for x number of really hard to find cards to be competitive," then the game isn't appealing and people don't buy in, and in the long run you'll have no one to play with because everyone else will have moved on to more affordable accessible games. We're not in a vacuum here, pokemon needs to compete with other card games and having 800-1200 dollar cards isn't a good message to send to prospective players.
Otaku
Active Member
We also have the buzz generated by a new generation, and have to wonder how long it takes for a bad decision to really show up. So many variables to keep track of: even with Regional attendance (or any event attendance) on the rise, do what of the ratio of customers who participate in OP versus those that don't? Overall player base could shrink but improved OP (or other factors) might mean a greater percentage of those remaining players show up for events.
Even if more people are playing and... what about customer turn over? I've seen more than one TCG that thrives eating up new players, chewing them up, and spitting them back out only to move onto the next generation. Especially "kid appeal" games.
For every evolution based deck, going first is so, so, so much better, especially since they can't really attack first turn. Even for non-evolution deck, getting the first Energy attachment is huge. You're limiting your options greatly. Plus, if your opponent does not play Tropical Beach down on turn 1 (they can't find it or they do not play it), you are even more screwed.
This has been my reasoning so far. Granted that a) I'm "new" (haven't played in like 7-8 years) to the game and b) I could afford Beach pretty easily as my hobby money / fun money in just one month is enough to buy one beach and I'd have left over money still. I'm against Beach out of money principle primarily (I am not willing to spend that much on a piece of card board). But I also see your points. If my opponent has Beach, great, I can use it myself. Thanks! If he doesn't, that is great too!
I plan to run Battle City or Virbank as my Stadiums of choice (the former in the Blastoise deck I'm doing at the moment). In fact, I consider Virbank a superior card to Beach by miles, as it won't help every opponent unlike Beach or Battle City.
Otaku
Active Member
Thanks for reminding me about question.
Tropical Beach first turn can be a serious advantage; you can't attack anyway (according to the new rules) so the only "cost" to playing it is that it has to be your Stadium for that turn. Most decks are fairly efficient, but even if your entire hand is dead, you'll be able to draw at least one card (breaking even). From there, the better your open (in terms of cards you can use up) the better the draw - if you can drop your hand to zero through worthwhile plays, that is seven new cards to your hand (+6 cards worth of advantage)!
Now please remember:
- This is before factoring in your Supporter for the turn. You can use an opening Skyla to get this out and still draw at least one card. You can play out your entire hand, play a Professor Juniper to draw seven cards, play that new hand out, and then end the turn with another seven cards. Unless your opponent plays Pokémon that KO themselves, you'll start the next turn with a six card hand at worst (N will only reduce your hand size by 1).
- Your opponent has to give up an attack to use it. As you have recently returned, let me emphasize how brutally fast this game has been for the last two or three formats. Competitive decks until now have often taken a Prize the very first turn of the game... which means the player going second still has an excellent shot of taking an early Prize or setting up something else to be KOed next turn. You'll have to do the same from here on out, but you managed to get the first one for free.
- You can play more than one Stadium. There have been formats where players would run well over four Stadiums, because they were using more than one specific Stadium; as an example from back in the day. Nothing says that person dropping an opening Tropical Beach doesn't also have Virbank City Gym in his or her deck (or another useful Stadium).
On its own Virbank City Gym does nothing. You need something else to Poison your opponent. Right now we have a handy Item to do just that (with a 50% chance of Sleep as a bonus), but we also just got a Pokémon-EX that prevents Special Conditions for anything of your Pokémon with a (G) Energy attached to them, and for most of the last format and continuing onto this one, we've had multiple great retreat cost reducers or flat out alternatives.
Even if Virbank City Gym actually is better (I'll have to mull that over) overall, it requires a deck that can make use of it. This creates a bit of an issue for your argument. Yes, any deck can benefit from Tropical Beach, but outside of that first turn it has a significant cost to use it. The fewer decks that are capable of using Virbank City Gym, the less useful it is in general. The more decks that are capable of using Virbank City Gym... can still use yours against you.
I would hope not. Having been around at the time and witnessing the disruption at events from well meaning players with entirely foreign decks and a binder full of translations, I believe I know why they were limited to 6 and then none and it had nothing to do with TPCi sales.
losjackal
Technical Administrator
You're bringing up all possible kinds of potentially valid points, but they center on fear, uncertainty, and doubt. So without proof or evidence of a trend, it's hard for people in charge to advocate for a change to the status quo.
The situation we have with Tropical Beach is temporary for this year (presuming they allow it to rotate). If attendance is up, Organized Play wouldn't appear to be broken. If you have some other measure or indicator that something should be done about it, please suggest.
Otaku
Active Member
You acknowledge my points are valid but describe them with negative terminology; this gives me (perhaps mistakenly) the impression that you are trying to color the analysis and spin them in a negative light. Please remember that your own proof is circumstantial. I know it has become a cliché thing to say, but "Correlation does not equal causation."
The situation with Tropical Beach is not temporary because the "situation" is something that has been happening for some time and that until we see evidence to the contrary, will continue to happen. The situation with Tropical Beach is the symptom; releasing cards in an extremely restricted amount and manner is the disease.
Organized Play consists of many "pieces" and itself is a part of the larger whole, the Pokémon Trading Card Game. Strengths in one area can offset weakness in another. I could just as easily argue that "Because there are voices of dissatisfaction and dissent, it would appear the game is broken" and have the same intellectual standing, because we are not discussing the only measure of a game system's efficacy: we are not even discussing "fun factor" but mere participation and I know I've participated in many things I did not find "fun" at the time or only due to external factors.
As for this exact situation, I don't need to repeat past suggestions. You may not like or disagree with them, and the above was a matter of debating the underlying points behind some of the suggestions, but they have been made. I am curious, if reports that Tropical Beach has been Banned from use at some of the higher Level Japanese events, does that affect your stance? Should this be true it makes me more favorable to banning it here, however the shift is marginal and I am aware that our tournament structure differs from theirs and in ways with which I am not entirely familiar.
losjackal
Technical Administrator
I didn't totally acknowledge them, I said they were potentially valid points. I presumed you recognized the term fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD). It's a type of argument that appeals to fear in an attempt to persuade people to a certain idea. In your post, you introduce these questions which we simply aren't equipped to answer:
- Is the increase in attendance due to the buzz generated by a new generation?
- How long does it take for a bad decision to really show up?
- What is the ratio of customers who participate in OP versus those that don't?
- What about customer turn over?
You suggest those as questions why we shouldn't be content with OP attendance being higher. And by extension, we shouldn't be happy about keeping the status quo with regards to Tropical Beach.
If someone can make a measurable prediction about what is going to happen if things are kept the way the are, a prediction rooted in fact that would convince the managers of Organized Play to do something specific about it, that is what is needed now.
I would also caution the collective community to be careful what we ask for. Right now, I think the winds are blowing towards just outright prohibiting the use of it at tournaments, as they did in Japan at a lower-level tournament as you pointed out. No, this does not change my stance, because Tropical Beach is much rarer in Japan than it is here. I believe they did it simply because there are a very finite number of Japanese Beaches, and so many competitive players. That is the argument being made here, but I don't believe it's as much of a problem as it presents in Japan.
Otaku
Active Member
Let me rephrase then: You didn't completely ignore the statements or deny that they might be valid points.
Note: My attempts at correctly formatting the following quote as a single entity keep failing. My apologies.
If you can read my mind to know my intentions, then I shouldn't have to explain what I meant by "acknowledge". ;-) Less it be misconstrued, I made that jest because you assumed intent that was not there, and I will explain FUD does not apply in this situation. Always, always be careful when referencing types of arguments; it isn't as simple as it looks. I am not a skilled, trained debater and I realize I make many, many mistakes, but this wasn't one of them.
According to Wikiepdia (not the greatest source, I admit), "FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information." You made this assertion
in an earlier post, based on a single piece of data and ignored whether correlation meant causation. I then presented several factors you did not reference and do not appear to have considered in making your claim. These cast doubts on your assumption because you did not prove your assumption, which is an excellent reason to instill doubt over something. It is relevant because it is a facet of what we are debating; it wasn't some random fact introduced to distract. I never gave false information or information of a dubious nature, because I did not give information (data); I merely asked questions about your dubious claim.
If you believe the questions irrelevant, please explain why and without jumping to a conclusion that was not intended. That is why I included your earlier quote; I questioned your statement itself, and was not using it as justification for the suggested actions in Jaeger's original post.
No, I did not.
I asked those questions in response to your dubious claim. Had you made no such claim, I would have had no need to raise such questions.
I suggest we shouldn't be content with OP because of actions that have caused OP (the product) to fail short of the expectations of consumers that share my views. Those who don't share my views... don't share my views.
I've taken pains to explain the reasoning behind said views such as the idea that - while a TCG is going to have product only available through luck or money - that is a threshold at which the amount of luck or money required is no longer appropriate, and that we have long exceeded this threshold and are entering the point where it is clear mismanagement of the brand.
I see... so demonstrating the reasoning behind why a practice is damaging to the game is not good enough? Your same level of "proof" demands I conduct a scientific survey to verify that most people don't want to overpay for a product. I realize of course that some people want a "fair" deal, where they believe both parties are coming out ahead, while others have no such concern. Still others may only want to enrich themselves and which occasionally involves overpaying it external factors would make overpaying that ultimately enriching. These exceptions should not require such a level of explanation as they should be apparent based on common experience.
No, I can't "prove" that a significant part of the player pool will grow annoyed with a promo that has only been released in an extremely limited, selective fashion twice and is legal for general play and meets a unique need and commands a hefty price on the secondary market. I cannot demonstrate that the metagame has either proven or at least implies will provide a significant advantage.
I can prove, through simple reasoning, that there is always the risk that any card, no matter how bad, could someday become useful because of a simple human error or circumstances that do not yet exist, and I assert (but cannot scientifically prove) that while the designers could create unique cards available through no other means but as a hard to acquire promo with a limited supply that are almost impossible to make useful, the creation of such cards require so much effort that the practice may as well be abolished.
Being less of a problem is still "being a problem". You gave a reason why banning the card in Japan does not automatically make banning it here the best option, and I agree. What you did not do is prove that banning the card is an inappropriate action (and if that was not your goal, I apologize for reading something into your statement you did not intend).
Last edited:
I do agree about the price of the Beach, even when it was $120 a pop on Troll and Toad. I will say in defense of THAT price is it was a little easier to work with but not by much. Also, where's the link for Tropical Beach being only one per deck and are there any other cards on that list? That statement has me curious.
losjackal
Technical Administrator
Super-long reply! I appreciate your willingness to talk it through. In summary, you are using your points to question my claim, that with attendance being up, the health of the game seems fine. Indeed I am using attendance as the highest indicator of health. I don't have access to data to offer any further. So either TPCi is also content with attendance figures as a Key Performance Indicator (KPI), or indeed they are digging deeper to find more interesting metrics. Those deeper metrics will either support the positive indicator of attendance being up, or they might reveal an underlying problem. We don't know that either. All we can go on is what we know. So my reply back to you was, why should we be discontent using overall attendance as an indicator? If that isn't good enough, then the community ought to just stop trying to do TPCi's job for them by second-guessing their every move.
(I see you are further including an argument that no exclusive card should ever be playable. I think a healthy debate about that is outside the scope of this, because time is of the essence here. We are talking about potential outcomes to do something about Tropical Beach. Please start a new discussion thread if you wish to talk about that, it would be interesting.)
I personally don't think it's a problem, and indeed I'm not trying to prove that banning the card is inappropriate. I don't care if the card gets banned or not, because I just adapt to the rules. I see it as a 50/50 proposition, that there is no clear resolution that makes everyone happy, so either way there is some benefit and some loss. I don't have all the information, and experience, to make that judgement call.
The possible reasoning why is fine, but I'm saying that unless the potential damages can be quantified, it's hard to get an organization to change direction on an issue. Tropical Beach has not been a big deal for the past two years, the question is, what are the ramifications to justify spending resources to do something about it now?
(I see you are further including an argument that no exclusive card should ever be playable. I think a healthy debate about that is outside the scope of this, because time is of the essence here. We are talking about potential outcomes to do something about Tropical Beach. Please start a new discussion thread if you wish to talk about that, it would be interesting.)
Whether it's a problem or not is subjective. Organized Play, with what they know and we don't, might judge that everything is fine. And if something is indeed a problem, there are different severities. A severe problem should be dealt with. A minor problem might go unaddressed giving way to other work that needs to happen. Again, we don't know what they think of the situation.
I personally don't think it's a problem, and indeed I'm not trying to prove that banning the card is inappropriate. I don't care if the card gets banned or not, because I just adapt to the rules. I see it as a 50/50 proposition, that there is no clear resolution that makes everyone happy, so either way there is some benefit and some loss. I don't have all the information, and experience, to make that judgement call.
Otaku
Active Member
First, let me state that I appreciate your patience, losjackal, and that your last post did help clarify a few things. There are still many areas where I believe you have a dubious position, not just because it disagrees with my own. ;-)
The health of the game has to consider its present and its future; this is still a business. As such, if you absolutely had to choose a single metric to estimate (and it will always be an estimate) the health of the game, it would be profit, not the attendance numbers for organized play, which many (most?) customers do not utilize. Profit is what keeps the business alive; sometimes attendance directly affects profitability, but there are plausible circumstances where it will not, so we should focus on the underlying element of significance (profitability).
Furthermore, those responsibly partaking in the hobby that is Pokémon (or for whom it has become business as well) must consider the health of the game with their available data. Where data is lacking, assumptions must be made and conjecture engaged; such things must also be recorded as what they are and not mistaken for observed, verifiable data. It will be different for everybody, but for some of us if we believe the game is in trouble, we really shouldn't be investing (time, money, emotion, etc.) into it. While you are free to use a single metric of your choice to evaluate the game, I question insisting others accept it without question, or that they not contemplate the matter at all (which is what I am getting from the whole "attendance is up so this can't be a problem" argument you have mounted).
Speaking of quantification, Tropical Beach has been a significant issue since the advent of Deluge decks; the rule change has just further elevated it. Again, I maintain that this has always been and will remain a problem as long as "unique" cards are available through non-standard means and I base this upon my experience with the game - sometimes I don't identify problems until long after the fact, but there is very little troubling the Pokémon TCG that is "new"; either it was once a larger problem that was temporarily fixed (which includes "going away" due to issues like rotation), or it has remained "small" enough to escape major consideration.
That this is a problem is not subjective; the exact nature of the problem may not be what players believe it to be, but there is a problem. That problem might be that Tropical Beach and its current status requires further action... or the problem could be that no further action is required except to better inform the concerned player base. There are likely other options I have not considered, but I am hard pressed to find any way of classifying this as a "non-problem", even if it is "a small problem we can't avoid but don't need to react to"... it is still a problem.
This is a business relationship that can have significant emotional overtones. You are allowed to just go with whatever happens, but I am not a slave to this game. If they do something wrong, I'll let them know it. One of the frustrating things in the world of business... actually in life is getting timely feedback, so that when you're doing something that drives someone away, you can realize it and rectify it before actually driving them away. There is also the frustration on both sides when it turns out someone else had the same problem but never brought it up, so that the first party never had a chance to solve it sooner and prevent the second party from every being subject to it in the first place.
So in summary we ought use what information we have to evaluate the state of the game, paying careful attention to how things may unfold, because of how it will impact ourselves and others in the future. I believe that even if something isn't particularly a problem for you, because of future problems it may spawn it still needs to be addressed, and this includes problems that only exist in the minds of some customers, because you have to make sure it is something inherent to their character and not a different problem that has been misidentified, such as a problematic situation with transparency and communication being mistaken as incompetence towards managing game balance. Tropical Beach is a blatant wake-up call for all of this.
The health of the game has to consider its present and its future; this is still a business. As such, if you absolutely had to choose a single metric to estimate (and it will always be an estimate) the health of the game, it would be profit, not the attendance numbers for organized play, which many (most?) customers do not utilize. Profit is what keeps the business alive; sometimes attendance directly affects profitability, but there are plausible circumstances where it will not, so we should focus on the underlying element of significance (profitability).
Furthermore, those responsibly partaking in the hobby that is Pokémon (or for whom it has become business as well) must consider the health of the game with their available data. Where data is lacking, assumptions must be made and conjecture engaged; such things must also be recorded as what they are and not mistaken for observed, verifiable data. It will be different for everybody, but for some of us if we believe the game is in trouble, we really shouldn't be investing (time, money, emotion, etc.) into it. While you are free to use a single metric of your choice to evaluate the game, I question insisting others accept it without question, or that they not contemplate the matter at all (which is what I am getting from the whole "attendance is up so this can't be a problem" argument you have mounted).
Speaking of quantification, Tropical Beach has been a significant issue since the advent of Deluge decks; the rule change has just further elevated it. Again, I maintain that this has always been and will remain a problem as long as "unique" cards are available through non-standard means and I base this upon my experience with the game - sometimes I don't identify problems until long after the fact, but there is very little troubling the Pokémon TCG that is "new"; either it was once a larger problem that was temporarily fixed (which includes "going away" due to issues like rotation), or it has remained "small" enough to escape major consideration.
That this is a problem is not subjective; the exact nature of the problem may not be what players believe it to be, but there is a problem. That problem might be that Tropical Beach and its current status requires further action... or the problem could be that no further action is required except to better inform the concerned player base. There are likely other options I have not considered, but I am hard pressed to find any way of classifying this as a "non-problem", even if it is "a small problem we can't avoid but don't need to react to"... it is still a problem.
This is a business relationship that can have significant emotional overtones. You are allowed to just go with whatever happens, but I am not a slave to this game. If they do something wrong, I'll let them know it. One of the frustrating things in the world of business... actually in life is getting timely feedback, so that when you're doing something that drives someone away, you can realize it and rectify it before actually driving them away. There is also the frustration on both sides when it turns out someone else had the same problem but never brought it up, so that the first party never had a chance to solve it sooner and prevent the second party from every being subject to it in the first place.
So in summary we ought use what information we have to evaluate the state of the game, paying careful attention to how things may unfold, because of how it will impact ourselves and others in the future. I believe that even if something isn't particularly a problem for you, because of future problems it may spawn it still needs to be addressed, and this includes problems that only exist in the minds of some customers, because you have to make sure it is something inherent to their character and not a different problem that has been misidentified, such as a problematic situation with transparency and communication being mistaken as incompetence towards managing game balance. Tropical Beach is a blatant wake-up call for all of this.
Banning the card (or exempting it from the foreign-language rules), have another benefit-they require no printing of additional cards and can be implemented relatively quickly (you'd want some lead time so players/organizers could plan for it). One thing I worry about with the "wait and see" approach (other than the fact that I think we're well beyond the point where action is prudent) is those may be the only two options we're left with.
If they don't plan on reprinting the card, it should be gone by two rotations or one if they decide to make a significant cut at the end of this season. We'll have to wait and see but my prediction is a cut as massive as the one three years ago when they cut everything except for the HGSS sets.
losjackal
Technical Administrator
If the just let the natural cycle run its course, the 2012 Tropical Beach (BW50) is right on the borderline of where the cut would be. BW51 is a Plasma pokemon, which perfectly aligns with the likelihood that next year's set rotation will begin with Plasma Storm. 2011 Tropical Beach (BW28) would already be rotated if it weren't for the BW50 reprint of the same name.
Or, they could have next year's format begin with BW50 and it stays legal for another year.
Or, they could have next year's format begin with BW50 and it stays legal for another year.
Envoyofduels
New Member
Or they could rotate to X and Y on. ether way the B&W on format will still have it. So if that format is well supported beach isn't going to get cheap anytime soon
- Status