I really don't understand where you get this conclusion from Lysandre's. Also being able to run 4 of cards in a 60 card deck still technically means you have less access to the cards than you would a 3-of in a 40 card deck, so your yugioh comparison STILL fails.
Also, "going many years without a rotation"? Rotation was skipped one single time, when DP1 through Great Encounters got to stay an extra year. The resulting format that grew too big ended up breaking the game severely and forced PCL to do a special pre-worlds deep rotation to get rid of all the crazy.
I made the Yugioh comparison because in yugioh, powerful cards are restricted instead of being the max (3 per deck). Yugioh also doesn't have the sheer draw power Pokemon has. The fact you "can" most of your deck in one turn in Pokemon tips the 3 card, 40 deck comparison to Yugioh. In Pokemon, you start with a 47 card deck in most cases with a 7 card hand. My Yugioh deck is 46 cards for example just because of its build but only 1 card in the deck allows me to draw versus the at least 9 cards in Pokemon that let you draw for 6 plus.
A lot of cards are too powerful in Pokemon. Laser, hammers, max potions, ace specs, over powered Pokemon, etc and other than the ace specs, you can play 4 of all of them and most decks now are completely over dominate. LTC is a good bad because of all the other powerful cards you can recycle.
Also allowing the BW sets to exist so long into the XY sets warped what XY could have been and as a result, we still have powerful pokemon and trainer. The rotation BW did have was made useless because most of the cards were reprinted and still exist in the format.
Tagrineth said:
For the most part people can still play their favourite pokemon, just not the exact same cards. Gotta adapt regardless. Even with a "slower" rotation you gotta let go of your past loves eventually. If anything, a "slower" rotation will give people even more time to become attached to their pet decks and make rotation even MORE annoying.
Thats the thing though, people "can't" let go and this is proven by the LTC ban. A lot of cards that existed early BW "still" exist in the format today through massive reprints. The only game changing cards not reprinted were Klingklang BW, Sableye and Dark Patch BUT they still exist in expanded. Darkrai EX (The same one) is still around. Mewto EX is still around and its been years. The rotation failed to do what is was supposed to do and if they want to reprint everything to make popular cards around, just kill off rotation and make a yugioh style format.
Tagrineth said:
Also the balance in the BW sets is just fine. Other than the rare occasional anomaly - for example it definitely looks like PCL's playtesters overlooked the Seismitoad + Hammers + LTC interaction - this format has been more or less exactly how PCL wanted it to be. For example for all the whining and crying I can remember seeing about Mewtwo EX, it's patently obvious that PCL intended for the format to be centered around Mewtwo EX, they decided it would be Mewtwo's time to shine and so it was. Numerous cards were released that could deal with Mewtwo EX in various ways, especially via attacks that threw away a lot of energy or were just really cost efficient, which prevented people from actually building explicitly Mewtwo-CENTRIC decks, but still ensured that the card would be basically everywhere.
This is the problem though. BW was not balanced. It might have been the most unbalanced format out there and will end with constant Item lock. Mewtwo EX turned the format into a format where you needed it to be competitive or you lost, since most Pokemon did not have the health to deal with it. It was so bad they had to make a new rule not allowing the player going first from attack. It also created Pokemon that can do massive damage for very little energy, which is also imbalanced. BW did nothing good for the game but make pretty cards.
Tagrineth said:
I... I really don't get you. So first you say
The only action for LTC was ban because not only are Trainers powerful but so are Pokemon.
But then you say I don't think LTC is completely unhealthy followed by printing a card that completely recycles a deck is never a good idea.
Also, VS seeker is a healthy card for the format followed by we could put things like VS seeker to 1 per deck.
So which is it? Is LTC healthy or is it never a good idea? And why should we attempt to keep a card that is "never a good idea" where the "only action is ban" by limiting a "healthy card" like VS Seeker to 1?
Whats hard to understand? LTC was banned because of all the powerful cards that exist. Most of these cards exist through BW and expanded. Without things like hammers, lasers and these other common cards, LTC becomes less powerful, because you cant recycle laser, you cant recycle hammer and these other cards. Its not as bad for the game in a XY On format since a lot of the problematic cards will be gone BUT extended is still a thing. If extended will stick around, which is something I don’t want, then I see nothing wrong with the LTC ban.
A card at one per deck can be healthy for the format but completely bad at 4. VS Seeker is one of those card. Imagine if players could have 4 ace specs in their deck without the 1 per deck rule? It would be chaos. 4 Shaymin EX per deck is not a good idea so why not limit it to 1 or 2 per deck? The new Ray EX’s as well. Toad wont be as much of a problem at 1 per deck but is overpowered at 4.
By rule of any game, you don’t want to make a resource that recycles all resources. Its just bad design. If the game wants to keep it, then a limit on the card is the next best thing. Putting a card at one per deck is almost as good as a ban unless the card would still be completely unhealthy at 1.
Tagrineth said:
Okay first of all your idea for LTC text makes no sense at all. What does it do when you play it? You designed a Supporter that you never actually want to PLAY because its effect triggers from the discard pile but when you play it it goes to the Lost Zone? Because that's what it reads like. Also that would be a horrible errata because it doesn't look anything like the original effect at all. At that point you just design a new card.
You play the card for no effect at all, since you’re allowed to do so. Whats wrong with playing a card for no effect? Many players do all the time. You can play it, if you cant discard it through another card effect. It wont go the the lost zone if you play it because you cant activate the effect. My wording on the card is extremely basic just for concept but would read more like “
If this card is in your discard pile and you would lose the game due to having 0 cards in your deck at the start of your turn, you don’t lose the game and continue the game as normal. If you activate this card effect from your discard pile, place this card into the Lost Zone”
I think this is what the card should have been in the first place, a way to prevent a loss from decking. Rather than ban the card, which a lot of players are against for some reason, change the effect of it and I feel the effect is still in the spirit of the card and reprint the card so all copies are useable, Its not the first time a cards effect has been completely change, making It a new card all together.
Tagrineth said:
The DISCARD PILE should be able to prevent abuse of powerful cards. Pokemon has historically not had that much strong discard pile recursion. Usually you have to 'pay' for good discard recursion in some way - either by throwing away more resources (Item Finder/Junk Arm/Dowsing Machine), by using an attack that doesn't deal damage (Sableye's Junk Hunt, I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of...), or by playing an inefficient card and giving up stronger effects (Plasma Triad).
I agree with you on that, it “should” be able to prevent abuse but it doesn’t. The history of the game has discard pile abuse so TCGs invented “removed from play” as a way to make the abuse of powerful cards even harder. Cost in Pokemon is almost free. When has anyone had a hard time paying the “cost” of Ultra Ball, Junk Arm and related cards? Cost is just as meaningless as the discard pile is at preventing abuse.
The return of the Lost Zone, as well as disruption cards for it (similar to Soul Release in Yugioh) can be made to “Lost Zone” cards in the discard pile.
Tagrineth said:
Also the very concept of the Lost Zone gets undermined over time because eventually there will be ways to manipulate or retrieve cards in the Lost Zone. Using Yugioh as an example of why the Lost Zone is a good mechanic is horrid. A lot of the most abusive Yugioh decks historically have been ones that abuse the RFG mechanic pretty hard and there was at one point an entire archetype that was basically good because it could counter RFG shenanigans (Gravekeepers)
This is why I like the LTC ban because for the first time in a long time, the designers are looking at the game and removing problematic cards. LTC would not be my first pick but Im not against it. The Lost Zone in Pokemon can be better and act as a place that cards can go. RFG in yugioh is just a second dicard pile but doesn’t have to be that way in Pokemon and can be a really good tool for players. You can keep cards in Night Match out of reach, reducing damage output or keep from getting blown up by G Booster.
Tagrineth said:
...so why do you suggest erratas if you feel it's worse than banning it? You make no sense here.
I’m not suggesting an errata. A ban on a card is almost better but when you are changing a card effect because its broken it just bad for the game and rewards bad card design. LTC was printed as intended and does not meet what an errata is supposed to be. This is just a hard nerf for the card, but would allow it to still do what the card was designed to do.