Is it the format that's stale - or the players?

[Kayle]

In regards to Kayle's OP, a format can be diverse and remain stale.

Just because I played against four different decks doesn't mean it was enjoyable to do so. The rogue decks that you see tend to either be garbage or capitalize on a contextually strong card. The rogue decks you see, Scizor, Steelix, etc., aren't any more fun to play against, you either have a counter in your archetype and it's a fairly straightforward match, or you don't and suffer the improbable loss dealt to you by TOM.

It's not the fault of the rogue decks or archetypes. Boring wins. It's just that there are only so many viable decks that are capable of contending against the meta at large, and another category of decks capable of doing extremely well given a specific distribution of decks in its pairings.

I found this post to be very insightful.

In light of this it is pretty clear that it's the format. You're saying then, that it's not that there aren't ENOUGH decks, but the QUALITY of the decks is poor?

In which case, reflecting on it, I agree.

 

[InnoceNt]

If 80% of the players, at say Regionals, decided to run some half decent LostGar deck, then LostGar would win more Regionals than LuxChomp. Would LostGar then be BDIF? Of course not, it would just be the most played deck and by overwhelming odds it would win more. I'm sorry if you can't see that.

Take the States results for example. If 75-80% of the players played some sort of LuxChomp Variant (Straight LuxChomp, Sablelock, DialgaChomp, etc), then only 16 out of 41 reported Masters results were won by the deck. That's only 39%. With those numbers you should be able to see that your perception is fallacy. Therefor, you'll be no better or worse off playing something you created.

And that's what makes the player pool stagnant. Flawed perception and bandwagoning. You can create something and do well, but the limits you place on yourself with perception don't allow you to realize it.

You defnitely have a point, but LuxChomp was played in the first place because of it's good matchups.

 

[LoTad]

Except 75-80 percent of the players won't play some sort of luxchomp varient, even if by saying luxchomp varient you mean sp. Idk which regionals you're going to, but I would be surprised if more than a third of the decks at mine turn out to be sp.

I just don't like people playing lists they have spoon fed to them, camp during tournaments to watch, and get an edge on, upcoming opponents with little if any penalty, and then turn around and try to say how great they are when they had almost nothing to do with their success. It's easy to copy- anyone can do it.

I literally know nobody who does this. And even if they did, idk how you could say that they had nothing to do with their success. Some people may call what you call "Camping", while others may just call it proactive research. There is no rule against being a spectator and player of the game. Even if you do this to give yourself a slight advantage, you can't say that they had nothing to do with their success. Even if you watch matches when your done and only play lists posted by Chris Fulop on the internet, you still need to learn a deck like luxchomp, along with all the other decks in the format in order to be best prepared to succeed.

 

[waynegg]

I literally know nobody who does this. And even if they did, idk how you could say that they had nothing to do with their success.

I didn't say nothing...I said "almost nothing". Don't twist my words to bolster your argument. And I know plenty who do.

Some people may call what you call "Camping", while others may just call it proactive research. There is no rule against being a spectator and player of the game.

Really?!?!? Actually I, and the Tournament Rules, call it cheating:

5.2. Spectator Responsibilities
Spectators may watch a match but may not interfere with a match in any way. Spectators should maintain a reasonable distance, as determined by the event staff, from matches in progress to avoid distracting the players. The only way a spectator is to interact with a tournament is through contacting a judge to inquire into the legality of a specific play. Comments and questions regarding games in progress should be made an appropriate distance from the match to prevent players in the active game from gaining an advantage due to outside information or distraction.

Players who are still participating in a tournament may not watch other games still in progress, as this provides an unfair advantage to those players during later matches.

Any disruption or penalties earned on the part of a spectator not participating in a tournament will result in penalties for the player or players that the spectator is responsible for. Should it...

"Others" can call it what they like. I call for a judge.

 

[LoTad]

^ So when you see someone watching a game you call a judge? What do you do that like 400 times per tournament? It may be in the rulebook, but it is rarely enforced. Even judges agree that it is just a weak appeasement rule because there is no way to strongly enforce it. I admit that I like to watch an exciting game past time. Not to take a cheap look at someone's techs, but just to enhance the tournament experience. That being said, I also don't have a problem if crowds gather around my games.

I didn't say nothing...I said "almost nothing". Don't twist my words to bolster your argument. And I know plenty who do.

"Almost nothing" is just a timid, unsure way of saying "nothing". Both wordings yield the same fallacies.

 

[Kayle]

^ So when you see someone watching a game you call a judge?

I am often told off for being anywhere near the play area by judges at tournaments I attend. Going and getting the judge is often not necessary.

But in any event I don't see how this discussion is relevant, guys.

 

[waynegg]

^ So when you see someone watching a game you call a judge?

Intently, right beside me, obviously trying to figure out my deck? Damn straight I do.

Even judges agree that it is just a weak appeasement rule because there is no way to strongly enforce it.

Really? In all my experience, all it takes for it to be 'strongly enforced' is to call it to a judge's attention- they can't be everywhere at once. And which judge's find it a 'weak appeasement' rule? Perhaps they shouldn't be judges. Also, first you say there is no rule and now it's a non-rule?? Which is it?

"Almost nothing" is just a timid, unsure way of saying "nothing". Both wordings yield the same fallacies.

Then you obviously don't have a clear understanding of the English language. You're flaccid assumption is wrong; maybe you should look up the definition.

But in any event I don't see how this discussion is relevant, guys.

You're right. It segmented off of a relevant statement and somehow became the focus. Back on track...

 

[fabulousTaz]

I was thinking about this the other day. People continue to complain about the format, though looking back we never really had as many playable decks after states as we do now, since the Team Rocket Return days. To me the worse format post states was easily the PLOX one. God, and yes the players have become a little stale. Luxchomp isn't a clear dominant deck, its just played the most by far. Don't get me wrong its BDIF, but Gardy post states didn't have this much competition and didnt till around nats if i remember. Empoleon <3

 

[kwisdumb]

If 80% of the players, at say Regionals, decided to run some half decent LostGar deck, then LostGar would win more Regionals than LuxChomp. Would LostGar then be BDIF? Of course not, it would just be the most played deck and by overwhelming odds it would win more. I'm sorry if you can't see that.

Take the States results for example. If 75-80% of the players played some sort of LuxChomp Variant (Straight LuxChomp, Sablelock, DialgaChomp, etc), then only 16 out of 41 reported Masters results were won by the deck. That's only 39%. With those numbers you should be able to see that your perception is fallacy. Therefor, you'll be no better or worse off playing something you created.

And that's what makes the player pool stagnant. Flawed perception and bandwagoning. You can create something and do well, but the limits you place on yourself with perception don't allow you to realize it.

There's no way that 80% of the players at any given tournament are playing a specific deck, even if you are considering all Garchomp-based decks to be LuxChomp variants (which is very incorrect). Plus, there's no way that would even happen, as too many people care about winning to play something like LostGar. I understand what you're trying to get across, but I don't think it's a very realistic example to use in this discussion.

I'd also throw in the argument that there are plenty of people playing rogue decks of their own creation. You see them all the time and you see discussion about them pretty often. It's just that there's a reason why you never see them talked about in the "What Won" threads, because they don't often win. Sometimes, like in the case of Jerin Head, you win an SPT with something like Scizor. 90% of the time though, you bring your homebrew to a tournament and figure out that it just can't compete with tier one decks, and then you write a report about how you went 4-3 but would've just won if...

Also, not sure if I'm just making this up, but you seem pretty upset, and almost like you're taking small personal jabs at me, Wayne. I definitely didn't mean for this argument to get to the point where anyone is catching feelings about anything. You've always been a good guy to me and I hope the fact that we aren't seeing eye to eye on this isn't hurting that friendship.

 

[waynegg]

Then you misunderstand. It's nothing personal at all Kenny. It's simply a game of numbers. Every tournament I've personally been to this year (albeit not many), Luxchomp and variants had those types of numbers, 75-80% of the decks present. With those types of numbers, odds are it will win even though I stand by my statement that it is most definitely not the best deck.

The format is anything but stale as there is more variety in winning decks now than there has been in about 3 years. The players, however, are stale. They see a 'What Won' thread, take note of what won the most, netdeck the list (which then increases the numbers of that particular deck in play), and then assume it to be the best.

That's a failed assumption.

Take for example an ERL/Lux X deck I played earlier this year. I faced 3 Chomp decks (run by very competent players), 2 of which were for all I could tell the exact same card for card. Each time my opponent got a good set up and so did I. I cleaned the table with 2 of them and was narrowly beaten by the third that ended up winning the day (which was one of the two card for card twins). I also beat the other 2 decks I faced- a Blastoise and an Eeveelution. Just by the results of the tournament, you would assume Chomp was clearly the best. Was it?

It's this that makes me say the player pool is stagnant (or at least has been; it's showing signs of coming around). The ease of being able to be lazy and just copy someone else's work is never a good thing i.m.o.

 

[PhadedPhione]

Playing consistent decks is vital to tournament success at the high end.

I, myself, don't have the time to do the extensive playtesting required to build a red blush that can work smoothly. If I had the development time, maybe I would sit there and come up with some off the wall deck. But like myself, a lot of people don't have this kind of time or patience. I have a deck based on Flygon RR, and while I love the deck to death, it has some serious problems against some of the meta decks at large. I play it to have fun, but I am not throwing away rating points at states,regionals,nationals or worlds by playing it there.

Having played multiple tcgs in the past, this same general argument always appears: netdecking, hindsight bias in regard to the state of the format, and an attack on player's 'laziness'. I find nothing lazy about choosing a solid, consistent deck if you want to do well. I don't personally get offended or care what you play or why you play it.

 

[LoTad]

Also, first you say there is no rule and now it's a non-rule?? Which is it?

Wow does it matter? Either way it's almost irrelevant.

Then you misunderstand. It's nothing personal at all Kenny. It's simply a game of numbers. Every tournament I've personally been to this year (albeit not many), Luxchomp and variants had those types of numbers, 75-80% of the decks present. With those types of numbers, odds are it will win even though I stand by my statement that it is most definitely not the best deck.

So.... you haven't played much, but where you have played, the metagame has been 80 percent luxchomp? You're not helping credibility. I think that anyone else on the gym would agree that the national metagame consists of nowhere near 80 percent luxchomp, or even 80 percent sp. Bias?.......

Originally Posted by LoTad
"Almost nothing" is just a timid, unsure way of saying "nothing". Both wordings yield the same fallacies.

Then you obviously don't have a clear understanding of the English language. You're flaccid assumption is wrong; maybe you should look up the definition.

You're claiming that I don't understand the literal difference between "almost nothing" and "nothing", and that I should look up the definition..... of "almost"?

And maybe you should go back and look at how your previous posts were written before you bring up my knowledge of the English language on a site called THE POKEGYM.

 

[eriknance]

I found this post to be very insightful.

In light of this it is pretty clear that it's the format. You're saying then, that it's not that there aren't ENOUGH decks, but the QUALITY of the decks is poor?

In which case, reflecting on it, I agree.

I haven't thoroughly read through this thread, but I'm going to say once again what I've been saying all along:

When you look at all of the decks that are performing well on a consistent basis, you have two (maybe three) definitive strategies emerge. One is speed/disruption, and the other is trainer lock. To prove a point to my roommate, I played Luxchomp against his 2007 World Championship Absolution deck. I took the game in 4 turns, doing 30 the first turn, 80 the second, 80 the third, and 80 the fourth (with various Crobat G drops). He spread damage with Jolteon ex, and I healed it with "Healing Breath." He couldn't believe the difference between the speed of the decks.

For people who don't know, Absolution was an Absol/Eeveelutions deck informally known as "Speed Spread," a hint towards its two dominating strategies. To have a multiple tournament-winning speed deck be embarrassingly out-sped is saying something.

The decks in today's format are completely polarized, with very few alternative strategies (special conditions, spread, etc.) succeeding. Yes, there have been a couple of decks to surface that many people didn't know about, but they have their autolosses in the format. Everything still has to match up favorably against turn 1 donks or trainer lock. It's stifling.

 

[vaporeon]

You can't blame people for playing the deck that has the highest chance of winning. I'll probably never invent a rogue deck or anything like that, simply because I want to play the best cards in the format and I want to play a deck that gives me the highest chance of doing well. There's nothing wrong with that menality, and there's also nothing wrong with your mentality. People enjoy the game for different reasons, and everyone wants something different out of it.

I consider that cheating and taking the win from someone who would have earned it.

 

[PhadedPhione]

I consider that cheating and taking the win from someone who would have earned it.

You still have to win the game, by playing the game and outplaying your opponent.

 

[evil psyduck]

I consider that cheating and taking the win from someone who would have earned it.

Playing within the rules is not cheating.

 

[chriscobi634]

I don't believe this format is as stable as we are making it out to be. There is a stat out their that proves this, but that stat is very hard to track down. It's the ratio of Wins by a deck/how many people play it vs. how well a rogue does when a smaller percentage of players play said rogue.

A good example of this is Abomasnow. I've always thought that was broken even in a format where Kingdra and Torterra where pretty big. By itself it can't completely counter everything, and that's ok because a lot of this game is about combos.

I'm gonna give away my SD simply because I have nothing to lose. I don't play this game as competitively as I used to and not many people on the 'Gym really listen to my deck ideas which is ok. I haven't won any big tournament or anything to be given that attention. But I believe a really good counter to this format is Abomasnow/Gallade 4. I have analyzed the match-ups on paper and really just like always Aboma really doesn't have an Auto Loss. Dialga is a very hard match-up but you cancel out their main strategy of healing with your own Power Sprays, reduce their Garchomp snipes with Abomasnow, and with the gym that cancels resistance you can surprise the Dialga with Aimed Cut, Gallade 4 X's attack.

 

[The_Lurb]

I consider that cheating and taking the win from someone who would have earned it.

Sounds like somebody loses to Luxchomp a lot.

@Thread: Luxchomp hasn't been winning for roughly two years now just because of numbers. It is the best deck. It is able to capitalize on every single one of the best cards in the format. It is able to tech for the matchups you think you'll see that aren't Luxchomp with ease. It can win it's autolosses. It can donk going first or second. If Luxchomp's numbers dropped it would probably still win because there is maybe one deck in the format it just can't beat (Scizor).

People play to win at competitive tournaments and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Saying people should play inferior decks just to "diversify" the format is absolute nonsense. The format we have right now isn't the best and I'm looking forward to next year but people really whine about Luxchomp (other strong decks, too) so much it's annoying. If you decide to play Eeveelutions at Regionals you have to accept that you probably won't do that well because they just aren't the best cards right now. Say there 2 Luxchomps in a tournament and X amount of bad deck (talking things that are only league worthy here) I'd be willing to bet that one of those Luxchomps would win the whole thing. Moral of the story; there is nothing wrong with playing what you think is the best deck.

 

[chrataxe]

Not quite true. It's likely that it won't win proportionally at to how much its played, because good players who don't play Luxchomp will be playing decks that have at least a 50/50 matchup or better against it.

I'm not sure I'm picking up what you are putting down. Isn't the Lux mirror 50/50? So, how would playing NOT playing it any different?

 

[Tagrineth]

I consider that cheating and taking the win from someone who would have earned it.

So what happens when every remotely viable strategy has been discovered? Should there be a limitation on how many people are allowed to play because there can't possibly be more than about 30 decks in any given format that could be considered "viable"? And that's pushing it.

At least here in Florida, that's less than the average turnout of a single tournament. For anything bigger than City Championships, calling repeat decks "cheating" is a completely asinine assertion.

Edit: And in the case where someone DID discover the single best deck (e.g. LuxChomp or Storm or RockLock) does that effectively give them a free pass for the season since anyone copying his deck is "cheating"?