Current State of the game… As seen by Jimmy Ballard
- Thread starter Top Cut Comics
- Start date
KingGengar
New Member
It seems like most people take one side or the other. If you play Machamp, then you don't want to see the donk eliminated. If you play Crobat/Honchkrow, you also like the donk. If you play Kingdra speed, you like the donk. Heck, in MANY decks are donkability, so there is some parity in the variety (Rampardos is another).
Now, if you like to show off how you've completely mastered the middle game, then in this format you have a problem. True, every deck must have the facility to go middle and end game. I daresay that Machamp, G, and Kingdra can pump out the damage all the way through, and not slack on some ingenious devices which, if we were fair, we would acknowledge. The game is NOT "I didn't get my donk so I lost."
What is the reasoning for declaiming the donk? Is it because you get donked? Then donk back. I have had to forego many wonderful deck ideas because of the correct reasoning that if I play such-and-such a deck (e.g., Royalty), I'm not going to be in the top cut. So, we ought to forgive our peers for desiring to hit their top stride. After all, does a pro ballplayer make a play look more difficult to appease a crowd which might like the occasional oddball, or does the ballplayer play at the best and brightest in order to win? In the sandlot, we can kick the dust and fool around, but at the big game we have to live up to our potential.
So, there is no "right" or "wrong" here.
Now, if the rules changed to be 2/3 for the round win, so be it, and I guarantee you there will be complaints about that also.
If you want to have fun, have fun. Just don't expect to win many tournaments with fun decks. Likewise, if you want to donk people, don't expect too much friendliness after the match. It's a definite trade-off.
Now, if you like to show off how you've completely mastered the middle game, then in this format you have a problem. True, every deck must have the facility to go middle and end game. I daresay that Machamp, G, and Kingdra can pump out the damage all the way through, and not slack on some ingenious devices which, if we were fair, we would acknowledge. The game is NOT "I didn't get my donk so I lost."
What is the reasoning for declaiming the donk? Is it because you get donked? Then donk back. I have had to forego many wonderful deck ideas because of the correct reasoning that if I play such-and-such a deck (e.g., Royalty), I'm not going to be in the top cut. So, we ought to forgive our peers for desiring to hit their top stride. After all, does a pro ballplayer make a play look more difficult to appease a crowd which might like the occasional oddball, or does the ballplayer play at the best and brightest in order to win? In the sandlot, we can kick the dust and fool around, but at the big game we have to live up to our potential.
So, there is no "right" or "wrong" here.
Now, if the rules changed to be 2/3 for the round win, so be it, and I guarantee you there will be complaints about that also.
If you want to have fun, have fun. Just don't expect to win many tournaments with fun decks. Likewise, if you want to donk people, don't expect too much friendliness after the match. It's a definite trade-off.
Politoed EX
New Member
I love how everyone agrees with Jimmy's opinion as soon as he posted it but when other users like Kevin (Mathorn) post the same exact thing there's disagreements.
NoPoke
Active Member
I haven't noticed that. I have noticed that there hasn't been a lot of discussion of Jimmy's actual proposal: that the win condition of being benched is only checked at the end of your turn and not continuously.
To make it into a completely explored proposal to be offered to PCL we need to consider inbetween turn effects too. The Toxicroak G, Skuntank G, Stadium, Energy Gain scenario.
I can see that there is a potential advantage with Jimmy's proposal for players that would lose their active inbetween turns. The opponent would not have anything to attack during their turn - so no prize can be taken. Which would mean that the proposal would probably have to be that you must always have an active pokemon for the opponent to attack during their turn.
Regis_Neo
Moderator
I have to admit, I'm not fond of the idea of 2/3 matches; to me, if you're gonna get donked the first game, there's just as good of the odds you can get donked the second game also, so there's no real fix here I think. Plus, I know I personally don't like having to do best 2/3, single elimination is fine up until the top X cut. In the rare case you can get into a 30 minute match (no donks happen obviously), this is only leaving you then 15 minutes to then get game 2 going, and even less time to get game 3 going should it happen. Finally, if you're making everyone do 2/3 instead of single elimination, you're adding overall more time to the tournament; yes, matches are scheduled to be 40 minutes each, but seriously, how often is it that matches ever last that long, excluding elements like slow play? I like for Round-whatever to be over so I can get back to playing, not twiddling my thumbs in a corner.
I do like Jimmy's proposed idea, it essentially gives any player a last-shot attempt to get SOMETHING onto the bench to avoid a loss. This of course also isn't guaranteed to work; you may not draw that Roseanne's or whatever to save your butt. But still, it is a fighting chance, unlike the current ruling which allows for a quick win.
I'm also in favor of the optional mulligan; this would not be hard to implement at all, as mulligans already exist in the TCG, and this would simply be adding a new mechanic to it. It's not hard to understand (only do this if you want to during set-up) and adds a nice element of strategy as well I think.
I do like Jimmy's proposed idea, it essentially gives any player a last-shot attempt to get SOMETHING onto the bench to avoid a loss. This of course also isn't guaranteed to work; you may not draw that Roseanne's or whatever to save your butt. But still, it is a fighting chance, unlike the current ruling which allows for a quick win.
I'm also in favor of the optional mulligan; this would not be hard to implement at all, as mulligans already exist in the TCG, and this would simply be adding a new mechanic to it. It's not hard to understand (only do this if you want to during set-up) and adds a nice element of strategy as well I think.
baby mario
Front Page Article Editor<br><a href="http://pokeg
Surely the odds on getting donked twice in a row are smaller?
You spend LESS time twiddling your thumbs with 2/3 cos you get to play more games, rather than leave the table after a 30 second donk and have to wait 40 mins for the round to finish, you get to go again.Where 2/3 is played, rounds are 45 mins long - not too much of a difference if you are really that impatient. The fact that you play at least 2 games means that most of the time you do far more playing than waiting.
Apart from anything else, 2/3 is a much better test of deck build and skill than just 1 game. The more games you play, the more the better deck will shine. Look at it this way - when you test a match up, do you make conclusions on 1 game, or do you test many times to find out which deck is the best?
NoPoke
Active Member
Regis_Neo:I disagree that 2/3 has no impact upon donks. One of the factors in being donked is that there is a coin flip as to who gets to play trainers first. With match play there is no coin flip for the second and third game. The player who is donked within a minute of the round begining can choose to go second in game two, that player will get to use their trainers and supporters first. Sure they may still be donked even if they get their trainer turn: bad luck happens. The proposal isn't to eliminate donks or quick wins, it is to extend table time so that all players get a chance to actually play their deck and not just shuffle, setup, and then one turn later tidy up.
Matchplay (2/3) does not fix donks.
Changing the "no active" win condition does not fix donks.
Neither is intended as a fix.
There is no fix for donks because they are part of the game.
---
However 2/3 is not supposed to be the focus of the thread. 2/3 is not without problems, for example the current implementation of 2/3 has big implications for venue time at big events. It isnt just 5 minutes per round, I wish that it were.
Matchplay (2/3) does not fix donks.
Changing the "no active" win condition does not fix donks.
Neither is intended as a fix.
There is no fix for donks because they are part of the game.
---
However 2/3 is not supposed to be the focus of the thread. 2/3 is not without problems, for example the current implementation of 2/3 has big implications for venue time at big events. It isnt just 5 minutes per round, I wish that it were.
A weighty discussion indeed gentlemen and ladies if online, as hard as it is the say this format has been one of the most interesting and entertaining since I started before the turn of the century. I got sick seeing the holon engine and rayquaza, and PLOX was a pain to see every game last year but true to form although it took awhile the new arch types r in reach, the galactic engine is the play I'm afraid as like Coca cola it can mix with anything
MAP
Quote:
Originally Posted by meganium45
Steve...dangerous post to make as a judge, although I make them ALL over the place!!!
Vince, In my post, I clearly said this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokeDaddy
I am speaking as a parent of a player who detests donk decks and standard decks. Where is the skill?
If I cannot speak as a parent of my son on these forums, then there is something wrong.
I take umbrage with this:
Quote:
UMBRAGE, also glad to see the Queens english is still being taught in New England, and u 2 anyone who don't cheer for theirs is not a human, this is becoming more and more of a concern since so many big names are fighting as if there is something to do about judging these and I think not, the teams at regionals states and hopefully nationals have been superb and supportative and we can even joke with em every once and again
supporting teams, children, friends can not be a bad thing, team work all or I'm taking my ballokeball:and going home
This is a kids and big kids game after all
and there is no solution about the donk if your scared Galactic it, you could make it a muligan unless both have two basics to start but then your just supporting galactic's set up, it's inevitable you'll probably see elite 4 or a gym leader FTW in St Louis the Golem exploud em, Alakazam how I've missed ya. and how come the big sleepy guy on the left coast and the Ursaring in Houston have not chimed in, Gentlemen?
the game has never been more deverse (and I play the trap card power spray) and don't make me break out my cyber hippo, if it aint broke, don't fix it:thumb:
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
or how bout no attacks either's first turn
MAP
Quote:
Originally Posted by meganium45
Steve...dangerous post to make as a judge, although I make them ALL over the place!!!
Vince, In my post, I clearly said this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokeDaddy
I am speaking as a parent of a player who detests donk decks and standard decks. Where is the skill?
If I cannot speak as a parent of my son on these forums, then there is something wrong.
I take umbrage with this:
Quote:
UMBRAGE, also glad to see the Queens english is still being taught in New England, and u 2 anyone who don't cheer for theirs is not a human, this is becoming more and more of a concern since so many big names are fighting as if there is something to do about judging these and I think not, the teams at regionals states and hopefully nationals have been superb and supportative and we can even joke with em every once and again
supporting teams, children, friends can not be a bad thing, team work all or I'm taking my ball
okeball:and going homeThis is a kids and big kids game after all
of course it's a rogue world after all and if DONKS really bother u then maybe crazy 8's or UNO is more to your liking, no donks there
and there is no solution about the donk if your scared Galactic it, you could make it a muligan unless both have two basics to start but then your just supporting galactic's set up, it's inevitable you'll probably see elite 4 or a gym leader FTW in St Louis the Golem exploud em, Alakazam how I've missed ya. and how come the big sleepy guy on the left coast and the Ursaring in Houston have not chimed in, Gentlemen?
the game has never been more deverse (and I play the trap card power spray) and don't make me break out my cyber hippo, if it aint broke, don't fix it:thumb:
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
or how bout no attacks either's first turn
Last edited:
KingGengar
New Member
Again, all you're doing by proposing new rules is saying that you don't want to play a deck that can donk on T1. So what if we invent decks that can donk T2? Oh wait.. we did... it was called Zap-Turn-Dos.
Really, I'm quite sick of hearing how good players who build quick decks ought to be penalized. This is not a role-playing game where the fun is in the fantasy story. There is no linear action. The game is random without a plot. Unlike chess, the game is not 99% skill.
At some point, you're going to say that Pokemon should have no coin flips (oh, wait... you had that argument last year). Or maybe you'll say that we ought to have no prizes since that randomizes too much (oh wait... we had that argument two years ago).
Certainly, Pokemon changing the rules is exciting if they do so, but I think this is just a case of people wanting to express "sparkling conversation" on a topic which will have no impact on this year's format.
Really, I'm quite sick of hearing how good players who build quick decks ought to be penalized. This is not a role-playing game where the fun is in the fantasy story. There is no linear action. The game is random without a plot. Unlike chess, the game is not 99% skill.
At some point, you're going to say that Pokemon should have no coin flips (oh, wait... you had that argument last year). Or maybe you'll say that we ought to have no prizes since that randomizes too much (oh wait... we had that argument two years ago).
Certainly, Pokemon changing the rules is exciting if they do so, but I think this is just a case of people wanting to express "sparkling conversation" on a topic which will have no impact on this year's format.
baby mario
Front Page Article Editor<br><a href="http://pokeg
That's a blatant strawman argument, sorry.
Most people accept that there is a fair amount of luck in the game. That doesn't mean that they can't argue that cards designed to win on T1/T2 make the game less fun overall.
Wading in......the game is healthy! We are 10+ years into the game and it keeps evolving and growing! What PUI has done with the game since Nintendo took over is nothing short of fantatstic.
The GG folly of last year was based on the fact that the rest of the world had a different format than Japan. Japan kept more cards in their pool to have good counters. Once the japanese looked over our card pool for Worlds, many used GG based decks too. That was an overall blip though when you look at the overall track record. Look at this year....you can play a number of varients on the Galatics. You have Champ to counter that. Kingdra was huge early on. GG w/ some differetn friends still exist. Gengar is a nice deck.
I dont think the game needs to be fixed. I think the game acknowledges the OHKO. It is horrid when you set up, flip over, and you just KNOW you are donked. But, everyone KNOWS that this can happen going into the tourney. I do like the b.o.3 in swiss though. If the idea is to have more play time, then this solves it. If you want to try and recover from a donk or horrid start, if you have a 2/3 set up, then you can suffer that donk or scoop to save time and continue playing! Yes, it can make many more games go to time, which is a strain on the staff and poss. the venue.
Keith
The GG folly of last year was based on the fact that the rest of the world had a different format than Japan. Japan kept more cards in their pool to have good counters. Once the japanese looked over our card pool for Worlds, many used GG based decks too. That was an overall blip though when you look at the overall track record. Look at this year....you can play a number of varients on the Galatics. You have Champ to counter that. Kingdra was huge early on. GG w/ some differetn friends still exist. Gengar is a nice deck.
I dont think the game needs to be fixed. I think the game acknowledges the OHKO. It is horrid when you set up, flip over, and you just KNOW you are donked. But, everyone KNOWS that this can happen going into the tourney. I do like the b.o.3 in swiss though. If the idea is to have more play time, then this solves it. If you want to try and recover from a donk or horrid start, if you have a 2/3 set up, then you can suffer that donk or scoop to save time and continue playing! Yes, it can make many more games go to time, which is a strain on the staff and poss. the venue.
Keith
KingGengar
New Member
Baby Mario: sorry, not a strawman, because it's already happened. Fact. BTW, the reason these arguments exist is because people DON'T want to accept the amount of luck in Pokemon. Deck-building is architecture; donk is an earthquake. Everyone is saddened when a disaster occurs, but the earthquake has no feelings.
Keith: I agree with everything you said (am I still in the will?). You put forward a good counter to the 2/3 Swiss idea: the need for more staff. Not that this is impossible or bad. Hey, for half a box I would likely give up an event to judge! I like judging.
Keith: I agree with everything you said (am I still in the will?). You put forward a good counter to the 2/3 Swiss idea: the need for more staff. Not that this is impossible or bad. Hey, for half a box I would likely give up an event to judge! I like judging.
baby mario
Front Page Article Editor<br><a href="http://pokeg
It IS a strawman. The fact the some people have already made those arguments a year ago is not relevant. You are saying that people who argue that donks are bad for the game will go on to protest about coin flips and prize cards ('At some point. . . '). This does not necessarily follow at all . . . you are trying to shoot down an argument that is not even being made in this discussion, and that is why it is a strawman.
I don't think they should change the rules to stop T1/T2 wins. I know that people will always find ways of getting those wins either because of luck or skill. I just don't think it was a good idea to print a card which makes it all too easy to win in that way, that's all. Unfortunately, we just have to live with it until the card is rotated out.
I don't think they should change the rules to stop T1/T2 wins. I know that people will always find ways of getting those wins either because of luck or skill. I just don't think it was a good idea to print a card which makes it all too easy to win in that way, that's all. Unfortunately, we just have to live with it until the card is rotated out.
icemelter1001
New Member
Donks happen.
Do I like it? Of coarse not.
Like NoPoke said, there is almost no way to eliminate T1 wins in this format.
Almost every deck has a way of winning on T1.
At a Cities I saw someone get T1'ed by an Azelf because all they had was an Unown Q.
At Regional's I was T1'ed by a Skuntank.
It's just gunna be part of the game for a long time.
About the no attacks for either player on the first turn. Why?
That really doesn't solve anything.
They can't use take out, well then you can't use Call For Family(If you play it against a donk deck)to try and avoid getting T1'ed.
Do I like it? Of coarse not.
Like NoPoke said, there is almost no way to eliminate T1 wins in this format.
Almost every deck has a way of winning on T1.
At a Cities I saw someone get T1'ed by an Azelf because all they had was an Unown Q.
At Regional's I was T1'ed by a Skuntank.
It's just gunna be part of the game for a long time.
About the no attacks for either player on the first turn. Why?
That really doesn't solve anything.
They can't use take out, well then you can't use Call For Family(If you play it against a donk deck)to try and avoid getting T1'ed.
KingGengar
New Member
babymario: you can argue the strawman, but your argument is strawman because what you say I was doing I was not doing.
Even so, the point I made is not to take away one argument by setting up another and scurrilously knocking it down, but was to show an analogy (something perfectly tenable in logic), which is that this year's argument is no different than last year's, in two ways: (1) it expresses the displeasure one type of deck-builder has against another (coin-flipping "lucksack" talk, for example, in prior years; this year, "donk-makers"), and (2) it expresses the displeasure that luck has in the game at all (viz, the argument that prizes take away from the art and architecture of deck-building).
You can argue that this year's set of complaints proceed from an entirely new genre of complaint, but I doubt it. You can also argue that today's complaints emanate from a different bunch of folks, but this doesn't make the analogy any less forceful; and only serves to speculate that human nature from last year has changed to a different human nature this year.
In so saying, I have EMBRACED the donk by not fighting it, and have (for the second year) decided to play that which is proficient and powerful rather than putting my all towards rogue-ing to a trophy (as I did 2 years ago). This does not mean that I don't build rogue decks in hopes of finding the "magic secret" - I do. It's just that I haven't found an answer to the donks of Champ, Ramp, Kingdra, Crobat/Honchkrow, Toxitank, and still others. Therefore, the nuance of today's deck-building must be found in deciding *which* donk deck to play, and not *if* to play one (in my opinion).
I don't look down on rogue deck-builders. Why should I? I have taken enough heat for Mario, though it did very well in its heyday. And I built Mewquaza well before Destiny was considered viable. In my first season, I put together BQA (Blastoise/Quagsire/Articuno) when the rage was LBS. So, though I realize no one today has cast aspersions on me for siding with donking, I find it useful to myself to defend this point in advance.
Even so, the point I made is not to take away one argument by setting up another and scurrilously knocking it down, but was to show an analogy (something perfectly tenable in logic), which is that this year's argument is no different than last year's, in two ways: (1) it expresses the displeasure one type of deck-builder has against another (coin-flipping "lucksack" talk, for example, in prior years; this year, "donk-makers"), and (2) it expresses the displeasure that luck has in the game at all (viz, the argument that prizes take away from the art and architecture of deck-building).
You can argue that this year's set of complaints proceed from an entirely new genre of complaint, but I doubt it. You can also argue that today's complaints emanate from a different bunch of folks, but this doesn't make the analogy any less forceful; and only serves to speculate that human nature from last year has changed to a different human nature this year.
In so saying, I have EMBRACED the donk by not fighting it, and have (for the second year) decided to play that which is proficient and powerful rather than putting my all towards rogue-ing to a trophy (as I did 2 years ago). This does not mean that I don't build rogue decks in hopes of finding the "magic secret" - I do. It's just that I haven't found an answer to the donks of Champ, Ramp, Kingdra, Crobat/Honchkrow, Toxitank, and still others. Therefore, the nuance of today's deck-building must be found in deciding *which* donk deck to play, and not *if* to play one (in my opinion).
I don't look down on rogue deck-builders. Why should I? I have taken enough heat for Mario, though it did very well in its heyday. And I built Mewquaza well before Destiny was considered viable. In my first season, I put together BQA (Blastoise/Quagsire/Articuno) when the rage was LBS. So, though I realize no one today has cast aspersions on me for siding with donking, I find it useful to myself to defend this point in advance.
phoenixback4fire
New Member
Me and my friend were talking and we were thinking.
If you couldn't promote an active during the end of your turn your opponent draws a prize card (a sufficient penalty ) for not having an active and the opponent doesn't get to attack any pokemon (attacks can still go off)
.. instead of jimmys original idea (you get one more turn to find out if you get a pokemon or not :\ ) .. lets just say
my hand has a gengar,rare candy, and a psychic energy I draw into another energy then my opponent draws a prize and continues for 2-3 turns then all of a sudden i draw into a Roseanne's changing the game state, I now have a ghastly to candy into gengar and attach one of my psychics and ko a benched claydol with 20 on it and taking my last prize. making the game more balanced in my opinion.
This way even if i was up 1-6 prizes and my opponent draws 5 prizes this way I could theoretically make a come back after those five turns.
but ... I just thought about this .. what if someone held a basic in their hand for a few turns till they drew what they needed to win (like held the ghastly and gangar and P energy until he or she drew into the candy to win) I think there would have to be some lookers type rule on the hand or the jugde would have to "inspect"
sorry just flappin my gums
If you couldn't promote an active during the end of your turn your opponent draws a prize card (a sufficient penalty ) for not having an active and the opponent doesn't get to attack any pokemon (attacks can still go off)
.. instead of jimmys original idea (you get one more turn to find out if you get a pokemon or not :\ ) .. lets just say
my hand has a gengar,rare candy, and a psychic energy I draw into another energy then my opponent draws a prize and continues for 2-3 turns then all of a sudden i draw into a Roseanne's changing the game state, I now have a ghastly to candy into gengar and attach one of my psychics and ko a benched claydol with 20 on it and taking my last prize. making the game more balanced in my opinion.
This way even if i was up 1-6 prizes and my opponent draws 5 prizes this way I could theoretically make a come back after those five turns.
but ... I just thought about this .. what if someone held a basic in their hand for a few turns till they drew what they needed to win (like held the ghastly and gangar and P energy until he or she drew into the candy to win) I think there would have to be some lookers type rule on the hand or the jugde would have to "inspect"
sorry just flappin my gums
KingGengar
New Member
phoenix: Your thoughts are to be respected because they go beyond what others have proposed, which is merely pipedream. You correctly assess that chicanery would be more afoot when there is a reward for laying low. So, instead of "donk" being the problem, it would be "hiding."
Jimmy idea is really not new. In college football overtime, just because one team has scored doesn't mean they have won the game; the other team gets the same chance to tie it back. I have seen this also in pee-wee baseball. To me, it's a form of stalling. "Let's see, I just lost the game, but I now have another chance to win." As usual, the brilliance of the idea depends on which side of the table you're on.
Jimmy idea is really not new. In college football overtime, just because one team has scored doesn't mean they have won the game; the other team gets the same chance to tie it back. I have seen this also in pee-wee baseball. To me, it's a form of stalling. "Let's see, I just lost the game, but I now have another chance to win." As usual, the brilliance of the idea depends on which side of the table you're on.
tglilly
New Member
I know this may sound silly but maybe change the rulles to have where both players can NOT evolve there pokemon at all on there first turn. Keeping the rest the same so player who goes 2nd will have an opportunity to get there bench filled before player 1 get's to evolve. Also it gives player one a chanse to fill there bench as well. This will not fix all of the 1'st turn ko's but it will help vs. the stage 1 or 2 donk decks.
KingGengar
New Member
Cyrus with Crobat and Honchkrow in hand is about the same as a donk. I think G decks have enough advantage without letting them get set up whether or not they go first.
If we do that, let's allow Stadiums also, so that if I have Machop, Machamp, Bebe's and energy in hand with Broken Time-Space, then I can donk T1 also.
It's all about parity.
ADDED:
I guess if you wanted to eliminate ALL T1 donks, then no player can attack on T1. Done.