General Discussion, Game /Card Design, Marketing and why can't a Ban List be Adopted

[vaporeon]

These are just some of the things that have been on my mind lately. Talking with players at League, we have some pretty common thoughts about the direction of the game. I'm told by TO's and such that I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't have the time and money to play like others who can afford to travel to other events or states to play. I do wish I can do that but I can't but that does not mean I'm not apart of the game. I'm aware of my and other metas and see the damages the game is going through.

Take a look at the cards we have. We are now 5 sets into Black and White with another set coming in May. All the Heart Gold Soul Silver are still legal. That's not a problem but all the cards being released are not designed to works with those sets. The game has moved on to Black and White in all medias so why can't the card game? A large part of that is because of the players and I'll talk about that later.

What I want to get into for a bit is Game and Card Design. In terms of what the best set in the games History ways, (I personally say EX Hidden Legends and EX Unseen Forces) in terms of usefulness anyway. Look at the sets we have and I'll use BW Base as an example. Out of the whole 115 card set, there are what 8 to 10 playable cards and that's out of 115 cards. that's absurd. EP have 7 out of 98, NV has 9 to 12 useful card out of 101 and NEX has mainly the EX's and a few trainers. This is a problem. This is bad that a game does this. What I was talking about is bad game design. When I and perhaps other players by boxes, we only look for the EX's and Full Arts and other stuff is a plus then we throw the rest away and what I mean by throw away is putting in a bulk stack somewhere to sell it.

Its understandable that not every card in the set has to be playable but a large about of the set should be or we have problems we have now. Basic pokemon are too big and powerful and outclass everything. I think that Reshiram and Zekrom are responsible for the health of the format now. If their HP would have been 20 to 30 less with attacks doing 80 to 90 damage, the game would be better off. A lot of cards would be playable and I really like the new Luxray to be released. Cards should not be playable only through Mew Prime.

As for bad card design, Reshiram, Zekrom, Mewtwo EX and Eeletrik are prime examples of this. We were promised a slower game and when they nerfed Rare Candy, we though we were getting it then Reshiram and Zekrom messed things up. Back to the Pokemon. Zekrom, Mewtwo EX and Reshiram all attack with 2 random energy to do huge damage. This is a problem and proof of bad card design. Based on the rules we have, the player going first has no restrictions to what they can do. Now lets say you open with a Tynamo, which is not too uncommon and you opponents opens with Mewtwo EX and your opponent goes first. They attach a DCE and KO your active. You now have to respond to it.

Mewtwo wars are bad for the game for 1 reason and that's because it turns the game into luck of the draw and if you have the Mewtwo. The game does not need to come down to a Mewtwo sweep because a player ran out of Mewtwos. Reshiram and Zekrom are less of a problem because of the new EX Pokemon but its bad game design to fix a problem with another problem. Now, would Mewtwo EX be bad if we were released...say 5 sets into the EX series?

On to Eeletrik. Eeletrik would not be a big a problem if its ability worked for any energy type other then Lightning. I see Eeletrik as Pachirisu. It over favors 1 type of deck and makes it broken. When I played my friends Zekrom Eels deck, I was able to get 3 out every game then spam 120 to 150 damage attacks for the rest of the game or Mewtwo EX if needed. Now, if Eeletrik's ability worked for any energy type, it would be played in many decks, making a lot of deck playable in the same way Pidgeot from FRLG did. People would say it was broken but a deck with 10+ proven decks and X amount of good rogue decks are far better for the game then say the 3 we have now and have had for the last few formats. (yes I'm also including variants.) This is what I mean by bad card design.

Bad card design does not stop at over powered cards but it also extends itself into other cards. Why use Ho-Oh Legend when you could just use Reshiram or say Braviary when you could use Tornadus and they are from the same set. It's bad game and card design to make overpowerd cards in a set and then make the rest useless. Reason is Pokemon is Pokemon and people play Pokemon because of their favorites. The cards need to reflect this. A person who loves Simisear would never be able to play in competitively because basics with 180 HP out class it. More then 2 to 4 percent of a set should be playable.

Not only is the game full of design flaws but those flaws allow decks like Durant and Terrakion. The reason these decks are allowed to work is because they can run 12+ more trainers then any normal deck can. This makes a unfair card advantage and if you watch videos of these decks winning, it's only because of that card advantage but bad card design is also to blame for this. This would not have happened in any other format.

Now, marketing is also a issue with how the game is right now. At States, it was ether you play Mewtwo EX or you lose. Sure there were other deck that did not need it but in almost every game, if you could not respond to a Mewtwo, more then likely you lost. What does marketing have to do with this, well everything. Just recently they released 3 tins. Each of them having each of the non full art versions of the EX dragons, Reshiram, Zekrom and Kyurem. This is cool and all but one of those tins should have been a Mewtwo EX tin. it would have dropped Mewtwos price to well, under 17 bucks. The dragons are good and all but for the game, Mewtwo would have been better. They messed up with the Mewtwo EX Box and a tin would have been a nice 'sorry for the mistake' gift.

I do think that the company does not directly profit from Mewtwo EX being (at the time) 80 to 90 bucks. Think about it, they did this with Yanmega Prime. it went from 80 to like 10 almost overnight. The second or even third market should not have as much control over a cards price(Troll and Toad) as they do. If a card becomes over priced(Uxie LV.X, Luxray LV.X, Mewtwo EX, Darkrai EX???) then they should be released in tins/blister/whatever. A player should not have to worry about breaking the bank just to get 2-4 cards because if they do, the game turns to yugioh. On that same note, Commons and Uncommons should not be going for almost 15 bucks, almost twice as much if you want it foil. There are way they can fix this but they choose not to and that's not good to their players.

My last point here is 'Why can't there be a ban list'. its simple and its the players. The players of Pokemon have this vague idea that it would ruin the game. Why would it? Who here use to play yugioh when it was rumored that a ban list would come into effect/ how many of you said your would quit? I know I said I would. How many of you still played when it was released? I did. What am I getting at? Well, a ban list is suppose to do one thing, and that's to restore balance and maybe skill to the game. As a player myself, I see things that need to change, just like most of you. Would adding a ban list fix anything. It could, it might not.

The one this the players need to learn to do is try new things that could be better for the game. It's easy to say they game does not need a ban list but its hard for those people to explain why. Banning Mewtwo EX would be better for the game since its proven then can't errata cards effectively without messing something up. Even if they could errata Mewtwo EX X-Ball attack to [P][C] or [P][C][C], it would almost fix the Mewtwo problem.

Bans exist for that reason alone. So when things like Junk Arm become over powered, they can step in and fix it. Even if they just limit it. Now the one thing for players to remember is a ban list is not a list you add to everyday. its based on data from winning deck and a list chosen just about every 6 or so months or once every new tournament cycle. It's an idea worth exploring and the reason why it can't take off the ground is because the players are unwilling to try something new. I mean, the players did beg for a HGSS rotation so the next huge tournament would not get messed up.

This is just up for Discussion. Try to keep flaming down and such and talk about why you oppose this or why you're for it. Everyone has something different to say. Stay open minded.

[StormFront]

Banning cards isn't a good idea as it can be fixed by making direct counter cards. Aside, you're going to get a lot of angry/upset players who may have spent $150+ on a playset of Luxray or MewtwoEX.

[QD4U]

As much as I want Catcher and Mootwo to never see play again, I don't think a ban list is the right way to go about it. I'd rather see cards that counter certain cards. Someone else mentioned this, so I'll just pretty much repeat what he said. A card that works like Power Spray, you can only play it during your opponents turn, and there is some sort of catch to the card, like forcing you to discard 2 cards in order to play it. Something like that would be really nice to see. As an added bonus it'd also make the game a lot more interactive since you have the option to actually do stuff on your opponents turn, rather than just watch your opponent play and wait for your turn to begin.

[Ace-]

Originally Posted by vaporeon

What I want to get into for a bit is Game and Card Design. In terms of what the best set in the games History ways, (I personally say EX Hidden Legends and EX Unseen Forces) in terms of usefulness anyway. Look at the sets we have and I'll use BW Base as an example. Out of the whole 115 card set, there are what 8 to 10 playable cards and that's out of 115 cards. that's absurd. EP have 7 out of 98, NV has 9 to 12 useful card out of 101 and NEX has mainly the EX's and a few trainers. This is a problem. This is bad that a game does this. What I was talking about is bad game design. When I and perhaps other players by boxes, we only look for the EX's and Full Arts and other stuff is a plus then we throw the rest away and what I mean by throw away is putting in a bulk stack somewhere to sell it.

actually there are some more cards which look playable if we have old rc and a balanced 1st turn rule.
Probably some cards become more playable if we have a BW-on format. Also cards from older sets become playable with future sets because those cards get a support they really need (e.g. gyarados sf becomes more playable with platinum because of BTS and Rescue.) or their worst matchups get nerfed somehow (e.g. you play a metal deck, but fire decks are dominant . in the next set there are many strong water pokemon which hits these fire hard so your metal deck might be competitive.

Originally Posted by vaporeon

Bad card design does not stop at over powered cards but it also extends itself into other cards. Why use Ho-Oh Legend when you could just use Reshiram or say Braviary when you could use Tornadus and they are from the same set. It's bad game and card design to make overpowerd cards in a set and then make the rest useless. Reason is Pokemon is Pokemon and people play Pokemon because of their favorites. The cards need to reflect this. A person who loves Simisear would never be able to play in competitively because basics with 180 HP out class it. More then 2 to 4 percent of a set should be playable.

many old cards are outclassed by new cards (many cards from the first ex era are outclassed by dp, because dp cards do more damage, have better weakness and resistance etc.). its not something new. i think many people are upset/arent used to it yet because it was a huge power creep after hs on and i think Pokemon Japan (or whoever designs/makes the cards) missed a little power creep after dppt.

besides if ho oh legend is way stronger than reshiram or tornadus, it would be expensive. Then we might see legends which cost a lot money-> same problem "strong cards cost too much money" as we have now.

I still see your point and i agree with you but i think people should also think about what might happen.

Originally Posted by vaporeon

I do think that the company does not directly profit from Mewtwo EX being (at the time) 80 to 90 bucks. Think about it, they did this with Yanmega Prime. it went from 80 to like 10 almost overnight. The second or even third market should not have as much control over a cards price(Troll and Toad) as they do. If a card becomes over priced(Uxie LV.X, Luxray LV.X, Mewtwo EX, Darkrai EX???) then they should be released in tins/blister/whatever. A player should not have to worry about breaking the bank just to get 2-4 cards because if they do, the game turns to yugioh. On that same note, Commons and Uncommons should not be going for almost 15 bucks, almost twice as much if you want it foil. There are way they can fix this but they choose not to and that's not good to their players.

i agree with you but the company doesnt control the prices. people are willing to pay those prices which i think is dumb.

i think the company doesnt have to make special boxes, tins, etc. it should be enough if the company makes better pull ratios and theme decks (like catcher in some theme decks.

Originally Posted by vaporeon

My last point here is 'Why can't there be a ban list'. its simple and its the players. The players of Pokemon have this vague idea that it would ruin the game. Why would it? Who here use to play yugioh when it was rumored that a ban list would come into effect/ how many of you said your would quit? I know I said I would. How many of you still played when it was released? I did. What am I getting at? Well, a ban list is suppose to do one thing, and that's to restore balance and maybe skill to the game. As a player myself, I see things that need to change, just like most of you. Would adding a ban list fix anything. It could, it might not.

The one this the players need to learn to do is try new things that could be better for the game. It's easy to say they game does not need a ban list but its hard for those people to explain why. Banning Mewtwo EX would be better for the game since its proven then can't errata cards effectively without messing something up. Even if they could errata Mewtwo EX X-Ball attack to [P][C] or [P][C][C], it would almost fix the Mewtwo problem.

Bans exist for that reason alone. So when things like Junk Arm become over powered, they can step in and fix it. Even if they just limit it. Now the one thing for players to remember is a ban list is not a list you add to everyday. its based on data from winning deck and a list chosen just about every 6 or so months or once every new tournament cycle. It's an idea worth exploring and the reason why it can't take off the ground is because the players are unwilling to try something new. I mean, the players did beg for a HGSS rotation so the next huge tournament would not get messed up.
.

we get some kids and parents at tournaments who dont know anything about the format. So we have to tell that some of their cards can not be played and they look upset. A ban list would be more confusing and make those kids/parents more upset.
Imagine we have a ban list. If a kid gets a mewtwo EX by trading his whole binder. Next day he wants to play it but cant because he didnt know that mewtwo ex is banned....
Or some1 tells a kid :" hey your card (insert ex here ) is banned, but my (insert ex here) isnt. do you trade?". the kid does the trade but he gets to know later that he card he got is banned, but the card he gave away was not...

[Charizard3712]

Wow so many people complaining about how mewtwo ex is bad for the game. I'm terrified to see what they say about rayquaza ex when it comes out.
Posted with Mobile style...

[baby mario]

I don't remember the YGO banlist ever doing much to fix the problem of broken cards or the problem of ridiculous secondary market prices. When ever something gets banned, something else becomes overpowered.

[Yoshi-]

Originally Posted by baby mario

I don't remember the YGO banlist ever doing much to fix the problem of broken cards or the problem of ridiculous secondary market prices. When ever something gets banned, something else becomes overpowered.

Play "standart" yugioh and unlimited yugioh ;) Just because something is bad doesnt mean it couldnt be worse :P

@Topic

I think the reason why some cards are broken is that they act like reverse scramble energys, catcher is a card that gives an aadvantage to whoever is winning anyways and thats just bad game design, period :/

[Pablo]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but claiming 'bad card design' when the cards are being designed in Japan by people hired to do so is flat out ridiculous. There have to be bad cards so that the good cards stand out. There will always be a small pool of good cards and a big one of bad cards. It has been like this for the past what, 12+ years of the TCG?

Nobody forces you to play if you are not enjoying the game. Nobody forces you to buy expensive cards. Right now you complain about big basics being overpowered. Before Worlds you were complaining about Emboar and Magnezone being ridicoulosly overpowered Stage 2's. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE GOOD OVERPOWERED CARDS THAT ARE BETTER THAN OTHERS. Your idea of good card design would be making every Basic regardless of which one it is, to have 60 HP and a C 10 attack, every Stage 2 attack for 4 type specific energy because DCE is broken, and do 80 damage so that everything is 2HKO'd.

Like I said anyone is entitled to their opinion, but claiming bad card design from a company dedicated to making cards for the past 12 years by someone who thinks the % of people in a top cut is the cut * 0.attendance really makes you wonder.

Who complains about these things? Who wants Mewtwo EX banned? I don't see the top players whining about this.

[psychup2034]

Originally Posted by Pablo

Who complains about this things? Who wants Mewtwo EX banned? I don't see the top players whining about this.

This.

Mewtwo EX adds skill to the format, especially in terms of deckbuilding. While you're complaining, other (better) players are adapting to the format.

[waynegg]

See Cyrus's post on the other thread on a similar topic, just in the electronic version of the game.

Instead of pouring your energy into complaining about certain cards, pour it into working with what's available. It's a game. Different skill sets have been the focus of every Modified structured event since the beginning. There's always been one expensive card that has a good deck around it along with 2 or so less expensive, easier to obtain but equally competitive cards to build around. This is how the game has always been. Why do we have to keep flogging this same poor, dead horse?

[Poke Trainer J]

Originally Posted by psychup2034

This.

Mewtwo EX adds skill to the format, especially in terms of deckbuilding. While you're complaining, other (better) players are adapting to the format.

While Mewtwo EX does add skill to the format the real issue with the card itself is in terms of it's secondary market price value and it's accessibility which is REALLY bad. It's so bad that it's difficult for the majority of players to keep up with the format right now. Even reprinting Mewtwo EX as a Tin Promo, I'm not sure If it would be enough to drop it's price value down drastically to like $15-20 cause it will still be played in lots of decks.

The top players of the game don't whine about Mewtwo EX cause they have the trades, cash, and accessibility to afford running multiples of it. But yeah the 1st Turn Rules, the Rare Candy nerf, and the power creep of Basics in the last 10-15 sets are all contributing to how Mewtwo EX is hurting the format right now. If it wasn't the case then it's price wouldn't be so high as it wouldn't be abused in the majority of decks as much.

[Otaku]

I always get worried when I see talk of a "Ban List". The only ban I consider fully justified was Neo Genesis Slowking, because the English-language version of the card worked on the Bench and stacked, which means that of any/all formats we've ever had, if you put Neo Genesis Slowking into it, you pretty much take over. It just took a bit for players to realize they could run [insert attacker] + Slowking decks.

Multiple posts have explained that a Ban List is a bad idea for two really important reasons:

1) Ban Lists make the game more confusing.

2) Ban Lists are difficult to make worthwhile.

Ban Lists are a pain for veteran players, whether you are a Spike primarily concerned with taking first place, a Johnny trying to concoct a new killer combo, or a Timmy who just wants to use a favorite card.

A Ban List only works when there are a few clearly overpowered cards. Clearly... meaning you're left wondering how such a card made it through play-testing... like Neo Genesis Slowking. Even if you hate the current metagame, you can see how individual cards seemed pretty reasonably balanced. Zekrom looked like Donphan food. Reshiram should have been doused by Rain Dance decks. Pokemon Catcher is still an improvement of Pokemon Reversal (especially in a format where they are both backed by Junk Arm).

I mean, what really should we ban? What can we ban that wouldn't just rewind us to a less desirable state? I think we could ban enough cards to get a healthy, diverse format... but the list would be huge! Probably dozens (plural) of cards, minimum! Plus, "healthy and diverse" on paper doesn't always translate to the real world: some cards people just flock to.

[SuperWooper]

Originally Posted by psychup2034

Mewtwo EX adds skill to the format, especially in terms of deckbuilding.

I don't agree with this. Mewtwo makes deckbuilding more standard. Play Mewtwos, trainers that will search them out, 4 DCE, 2-3 Pluspower, and around 12 draw supporters to keep the Mewtwo chain going. These things are constant whether you run Celebi, Eel, or something weird like Donphan/Mewtwo. The fact that Mewtwo is its own best counter normalizes lists, leaving less room for people to distinguish themselves via deckbuilding.

[ogremarauder]

I'm not gonna spend much time on the 'ban' cards debate. What I will say is that ban list seem more effective for unlimited formats. Because Pokemon has no official support or interest in unlimited format, it seems almost moot. If something seems too abusive, they usually print 'silver bullets' to counteract it. This touches on my next point.

Pokemon is a very unbalanced game. Luck factors aside, the design and rarity scheme lend pack opening an air of lotto ticket mentality. Many times upon opening a pack, you find absolutely nothing worth putting into a constructed deck. I've touched upon it before, and now I say again here: Pokemon should be designed with more balance. Creating sets with limited play in mind would be a boon to the game in so many ways. Card sales would increase as people would want that much more product, to compete in drafts and such. Players would be given a greater chance to test their skills. By extension, constructed decks would gain more diversity as overall set playability increases. Fewer non trainer cards would be 'must haves', as each type would gain more playables. Card availability would increase, easing a newer or less financially invested player with entering the game on a competitive level. To me, it seems like a no-brainer. No one loses.
I enjoy the mechanics of the game, yet I will say that it could be better designed. It seems that we are subjected to the cycle of, super flashy or garbage. Why can't there be a more balanced approach?
Posted with Mobile style...

[losjackal]

The complaints about the overpowered Basics remind me of the line from the movie "The Incredibles":

"And when everyone's super, no one will be."

Reshiram and Zekrom have been the super powered Basics since the release and BW. So what are we wishing for? A format where 50 out of 100 cards in a new set are playable, because nothing is exceptional? Sure that could work, perhaps that's very much was Base Set was like...but what we have now works too, like it or not.

Originally Posted by vaporeon

a ban list is suppose to do one thing, and that's to restore balance and maybe skill to the game.

I'd argue there is a tremendous amount of skill needed in the formats of the 2011-2012 season, that's why the best players still win...let's just hold up Pooka as a representative example of this. The meta also allows for a newcomer, Alex D. who is a Pokedad from Florida, to make an impact by winning two State Championships. That's fair, right?

If you'll forgive me for being a proud papa for a moment, know what else the format allows? The Junior National Champion to play a rogue deck all year and be ranked #1 by Rating in North America. That's the definition of skill if you ask me. (And for correlation to the Nationals runner-up in Masters division, Pooka is #3).

[psychup2034]

Originally Posted by SuperWooper

I don't agree with this. Mewtwo makes deckbuilding more standard. Play Mewtwos, trainers that will search them out, 4 DCE, 2-3 Pluspower, and around 12 draw supporters to keep the Mewtwo chain going. These things are constant whether you run Celebi, Eel, or something weird like Donphan/Mewtwo. The fact that Mewtwo is its own best counter normalizes lists, leaving less room for people to distinguish themselves via deckbuilding.

With Mewtwo EX in the format, most competitive decks will have to run it (or something to counter it/Durant). A skeleton list with Mewtwo EX is much looser than a skeleton list for a deck from the last format.

For example, the skeleton for Magnezone/Eelektrik around cities was probably around 54-55 cards, and Chandelure pretty much was at 54-55 as well. Today, a Zekeels probably a skeleton around 52-53 cards, while Celebi has a skeleton somewhere around 51-52. A looser skeleton allows for more creative and skillful deckbuilding (someone went undefeated in Swiss and T8ed with a Zekeels using Shaymin EX, someone won 2 states using a list with multiple Smeargle, etc.).

In the Cities format, you'd have to struggle to find cuts for Cobalion and 3 Special Metals in Chandelure if you wanted to play that version. Or if you wanted to run Terrakion in Magnezone/Eelektrik, it would be difficult to find cuts for the Terrakion and 2-3 Fighting/Prism. Now, if you want to run a Shaymin EX in Zekeels or CMT, it's not that hard to finds a cut. If you want to run a 4th Mewtwo, it's not that hard to find a cut. If you want to run a Smeargle engine in either deck, it's not that hard to find the cuts. If you want to tech Terrakion into CMT, it's not that hard to find the cuts.

There's so much more flexibility in a concentrated format in terms of what can be done to a deck without diminishing too much consistency. This gives more space for the best players to distinguish themselves through deckbuilding.

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by losjackal

The complaints about the overpowered Basics remind me of the line from the movie "The Incredibles":

"And when everyone's super, no one will be."

I think you're tanking things out of context there. "The Incredibles" is about how too many people mistake "sameness" for "equality". We are talking about a manufactured game. The goal of good game design is to make sure a player's choices are different yet equal; it's called balance.

So the obvious goal should be to design a set where 100 out of 100 cards are worthwhile. I don't expect them to be equal, but that doesn't mean that shouldn't be the designer's goal. Kind of how that "And when everyone's super, no one will be." quote doesn't apply to things like "the law". Under the law, all are supposed to be equal, or at least to the best of the law's ability.

People may be born with natural advantages, and sometimes other advantages will be given them. That... shouldn't matter when designing cards. Now while making everything equal is the goal, equality does not mean "sameness". The problem arises when cards become essentially useless. It is one thing for a card to obviously be the center of a deck... that doesn't mean anything that isn't the center of a deck is bad! There are various roles that need to be filled.

Even when a card isn't the optimal choice, it can still be a great part of the game. For a while at least this was obvious with draw Supporters. Those that shuffled your hand away and then drew would snag you more cards, but you couldn't combo with stacking cards and you couldn't use them to build upon your hand, only try to improve it. Those that didn't, even when they had a cost, did enjoy those combo options, but they couldn't double as deck replenishment in a pinch late game.

You could run a card like Rocket's Admin. for strategy, Professor Oak's Research for reliability, or Copycat to feed off your opponent. Some decks did well with discard costs, especially specific discard costs, others didn't.

So right now we have a game that doesn't seem very diverse, which many find boring. It also doesn't seem as skilled to those of us who are more impressed when someone can build and play a deck to win in a diverse format. If you believe that winning in such a format is all due to luck (as others have stated) then I'll just have to disagree. Granted, that goes to game balance again; you shouldn't have to directly counter another deck to beat it. When things are balanced, you counter weaknesses of your own deck, not specific decks.

Some people really love a blazing fast format where players only have two or three significant decks to choose from and a large part of the game comes from figuring out a handful of cards to run. Some don't. I am amongst the latter, and feel that best matches the intention of the game's design, and that the present format isn't unfolding as expected.

[baby mario]

Originally Posted by Otaku

Some people really love a blazing fast format where players only have two or three significant decks to choose from and a large part of the game comes from figuring out a handful of cards to run. Some don't. I am amongst the latter, and feel that best matches the intention of the game's design, and that the present format isn't unfolding as expected.

I think there are a couple of factors that you need to bear in mind . . .

1. The game is incredibly competitive. I'm sure it always has been, but it seems like winning/topcutting just gets more and more important for more and more players, especially with Championship Points on the line.

2. The amount of information on decks from quality sources is far better than it ever has been. You can watch videos of the best players playing tournaments on the top cut, you can get top quality advice (including lists) on a whole lot of websites.

What does this mean? It means that more and more people want to play the best decks, and more and more people have access to the lists for those best decks. So even in your ideal format where there are 5-6 top decks and a dozen that are competitive . . . guess what? People will condense that format for you into those 5 or 6 best decks, leaving the others to be played by those who aren't so competitive or can't afford the cards.

So your ideal format actually ends up closely resembling what we have now. Creating perfectly equal decks is a practical impossibility, and as long as there is even the slightest advantage to playing one or two particular decks, they will rise up and dominate a format.

[ExoByte]

Originally Posted by Otaku

I think you're tanking things out of context there. "The Incredibles" is about how too many people mistake "sameness" for "equality". We are talking about a manufactured game. The goal of good game design is to make sure a player's choices are different yet equal; it's called balance.

So the obvious goal should be to design a set where 100 out of 100 cards are worthwhile.

In what is probably one of his most cited articles of all time, Mark Rosewater (lead designer of Magic: The Gathering) does a great job of explaining why this is both impossible and not actually a goal you would ever want. 2 points: 1) this is from before their site redesign, so the formatting and image links are a little off. 2) Yes, it's from Magic: The Gathering's point of view. I know everyone on here has varying levels of familiarity with that game, but the concepts should be pretty clear to everyone, even if the specific examples might not make sense.

When Good Cards Go Bad

[immewnity]

Originally Posted by ExoByte

In what is probably one of his most cited articles of all time, Mark Rosewater (lead designer of Magic: The Gathering) does a great job of explaining why this is both impossible and not actually a goal you would ever want. 2 points: 1) this is from before their site redesign, so the formatting and image links are a little off. 2) Yes, it's from Magic: The Gathering's point of view. I know everyone on here has varying levels of familiarity with that game, but the concepts should be pretty clear to everyone, even if the specific examples might not make sense.

When Good Cards Go Bad

Definitely. There have been cards that were thought to be bad cards at introduction, then became a good card later due to other cards from a newer set. Can't think of a perfect example now, but this would be one issue to a ban list. If a card becomes good, should it then be banned? The line has to be drawn somewhere, and the current line is the only place where any cards are ranked differently than another without ending POP.

[psychup2034]

Originally Posted by Otaku

The goal of good game design is to make sure a player's choices are different yet equal; it's called balance.

So the obvious goal should be to design a set where 100 out of 100 cards are worthwhile.

I vehemently disagree with this. The goal of good game design, in my opinion, is to make sure that the top tier decks in the format are balanced.

Mark Rosewater's article that Exobyte linked is one of the best articles about competitive trading card games that I've ever read. From a game designer and a player's point of view, reading Mark's article makes it so much easier to understand why designing a set where 100 out of 100 cards are worthwhile is horrible game design.

---------- Post added 04/06/2012 at 03:22 PM ----------

Originally Posted by immewnity

Definitely. There have been cards that were thought to be bad cards at introduction, then became a good card later due to other cards from a newer set.

Suicune-Entei LEGEND

[King Piplup]

Originally Posted by immewnity

Definitely. There have been cards that were thought to be bad cards at introduction, then became a good card later due to other cards from a newer set. Can't think of a perfect example now, but this would be one issue to a ban list. If a card becomes good, should it then be banned? The line has to be drawn somewhere, and the current line is the only place where any cards are ranked differently than another without ending POP.

Celebi Prime for example.


Posted with Mobile style...

[losjackal]

As a Legend and a Prime, I suppose we should have expected usefulness at one point or another. I'm thinking a less obvious example is Shaymin UL, who didn't become popular until paired with Pachirisu CL in a ZPS deck. But according to the article, these are the "hidden gems".

The truly bad cards that will always be bad are the dozens of miscellaneous Common and Uncommon cards in a set. Looking at the recent Rares, it's hard to find one that is truly bad and will forever be bad. They exists, but most of the Rares seem to be playable at some point.

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by ExoByte

In what is probably one of his most cited articles of all time, Mark Rosewater (lead designer of Magic: The Gathering) does a great job of explaining why this is both impossible and not actually a goal you would ever want. 2 points: 1) this is from before their site redesign, so the formatting and image links are a little off. 2) Yes, it's from Magic: The Gathering's point of view. I know everyone on here has varying levels of familiarity with that game, but the concepts should be pretty clear to everyone, even if the specific examples might not make sense.

When Good Cards Go Bad

I actually read that article back when WotC was still in charge of Pokemon. Needless to say, I didn't agree with it back then nor do I now. I guess you can make the claim that I have become less reasonable or more incompetent over the last decade.

R&D cannot make bad cards that are secretly good without also making bad cards that are actually bad.

This is an important, early premise in the article, but it is never justified, merely assumed to be true. Who am I to doubt professionals? A person with a thinking, questioning mind and a customer. "Buyer beware" after all: one need not explain everything but be prepared to have customers shy away. Plus, even leading players in an industry can make colossal mistakes.

Does a gourmet restaurant need to occasionally serve meals they know are bad to make sure the clientele appreciate their better dishes? No. Why make bad cards when odds are they are going to happen by accident? Why must cards be "secretly" good to the point where players don't actually know if a card was even intended to be good? Can't a card be "secretly" good in that it takes practice and ingenuity to reveal its hidden potential? Is it really that bad for a player to be able to safely assume that a card that wasn't accidentally ruined is indeed going to have a use?

I won't waste time quoting the rest of the article I need to address: basically the response to the second question. It was a lengthy explanation so anyone who hasn't read it yet, please do. I may not agree with it, but it is important to know the industry justification. Just remember that just because it is "how the industry works", even for a company at the top of an industry neither makes it right or guarantees it to succeed.

Now something I wish to make clear, I am not saying that every card needs to be a game dominating titan! Far from it. Plus, a card that seems bad but is indeed a vital part of a combo or deck is not truly bad. Far too often I find people create these diametric opposites and leave no middle ground. The article itself tries to do this by claiming quality is on a sliding scale with no bottom. While a person may define bad as "the least useful card to play", that isn't what I am talking about. In fact, bringing it up really strikes me as either a gross misunderstanding of the situation (at least in this case) or a distraction tactic.

This isn't like a class of students being graded on a curve, where whomever scores the most points is the "A" and the lowest is the "F". This is about criteria: just as some students can get by with a "C" but not be bad students, so can some cards.

The notion that designers can only design so many good cards and thus have to create filler cards makes me question a companies future. Indeed I fear far too many companies succeed because of undiscriminating consumers, of which I am one far too often. I am glad this article was linked to: it reminded me why I kept deciding to avoid getting into Magic: The Gathering.

When it comes down to getting a filler version of a card where TPC is better off having me assume no effort went into the design (since actual effort was clearly wasted), the article does not persuade me that I do not have a legitimate grievance. When a card is clearly subpar, instead of wasting five minutes to throw together a "generic" Pokemon card to go with the new art... just give me the new art on a reprint.

So what about Limited? What about Set Rotation?

Limited is an aspect of playing, as is collecting. Tell me though, including the constructed format used in major tournaments, what should prioritized? Are all equal? If pleasing collectors is most important, why make this a "game" at all: just strive to have the best Trading Cards! Limited is quite fun, but making cards non-bad for constructed doesn't mean making them unplayable or broken for Limited.

I can understand cards being released that will be poor in the current format but better later, and that's already been taken into account. Again players like me already have taken into account that some cards are released in anticipation of upcoming changes. However, claiming that a bad card could hypothetically be good in the next format or after a few sets when the card that is outclassing it is a set-mate stretch's credibility. So again, not buying the argument.

As for the argument about player diversity in terms of experience, once again I am already familiar with this concept and understand it. I've gone to great lengths to explain it to others. I do not fully agree with it, since it isn't how good a card is, but how simple. A simple card need neither be "broken" nor "binder fodder". Dumbing the game down to please beginners just alienates more experienced players. I know, the money comes from mainstream retailers, and a lot of the purchases they get the TCG pack is just replacing a trinket toy. It is a fine line to walk, but it must be tread.

While a game needs to keep adding new players, if it retains no one then it just magnifies that need, usually to the "breaking" point. I am sure I don't have to point out that even before the "information age" hit, the average consumer would tell 10 people about a bad product or service to express their dissatisfaction.

I think I've said enough for now. This argument was weak back then and it seems to grow weaker with age. If that article is 100% correct, then you've saved me a lot of time and money: I should quit right now and post some farewell articles to explain why other people should drop Pokemon as well. I guess you are safe from most Pokemon sites posting that article, though, even the one that normally is willing to give my opinions a place to air. I mean, you're telling me that "Well, we could design a good set, but we aren't talented to do it with the same production schedule, so we are going to give you filler". Why not dial back the release schedule? Like I said, you telling me this is a good business model? Remind me not to eat where you eat or shop where you shop.

[Tagrineth]

Does a gourmet restaurant need to occasionally serve meals they know are bad to make sure the clientele appreciate their better dishes? No. Why make bad cards when odds are they are going to happen by accident? Why must cards be "secretly" good to the point where players don't actually know if a card was even intended to be good? Can't a card be "secretly" good in that it takes practice and ingenuity to reveal its hidden potential? Is it really that bad for a player to be able to safely assume that a card that wasn't accidentally ruined is indeed going to have a use?

Why is a gourmet restaurant a gourmet restaurant? Because it's better than the Fast Food drivel you can get for a fraction of the price.

Restaurants don't HAVE to serve bad food to complement their good food, because other restaurants already do that for them!

There's also the fact that food is a matter of preference. You can't claim Mewtwo EX is a bad card like you can claim a particular food is bad because it doesn't meet your personal sense of taste!

Flawed analogy is flawed.

Also, there's a good reason you aren't the one designing cards. :)