Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Just a few thoughts about the situation of the game

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zephyr said:
I'll reiterate my point, which you failed to counter. Why would anyone buy from the latest set if it's inferior or even equal to earlier sets? If their decks are just fine without cards from the latest set, why buy the latest set?

IDK about you, but I'de buy the new stuff to have fun. On top of that, Pokemon rotates, so you evetually have to buy new stuff.



Alright, I'll give you MTG as a counter-example. Any others?
Yu-gi-oh? I'm pretty sure that the earlier stuff( chaos, ect) is better than the current stuff, though not a Yu-gi-oh player, thats just hearsay.

This format is only luck-based in that any TCG is luck based. Having played both Pokemon and Magic competitively, I can accurately say that Magic relies far more on top-decking than Pokemon due to Pokemon's natural tendency towards search cards.

Maybe vintage and legacy Magic, but as far as T2, I ahvent seen tutors see play in years. Even in extended they are rare. I'm not saying topdecks don't happen, I'de say its the same as every other game. But you don't see burn spells that say flip 5 coins and do 2 damage for each heads:rolleyes:

On your analysis of the format: that's a pretty poor summary. The only moderately successful deck specifically geared against SP's is Machamp. On the other hand, we have Gengar variants, Honchkrow variants, Gyarados, Kingdra, Beedrill, and a growing number of decks that utilize SP's and normal Pokemon in unison.

So gengar isn't as successful as it is because its good against SPs? or Kingdra? Beedrill? They aren't literally built against SPs, thats not what I meant, but they are good against them. Since SPs are rampant, anything good against them is a good play because its counter SPs.



*insert inflamed response here*

Come on. Surely you have better things to do than presume (incorrectly) upon my experience.

Oh, no, I did. And I still do if you arent used to seeing a format balance out between some archtype decks beating out rogues in consistancy. Happens in every format for every game.


Skipping this.
Why?

That was a miscommunication on my part. "This format, due to its unprecedented size, has a massive number of viable decks." This statement was meant to refer to the current format, not EM-on. Just look at the decks that top-cutted Battle Roads and then tell me that there isn't a huge amount of variety in the decks out there.
Fsho fsho. I understand what your saying now. But, like I've said before, and I'll reword it this time, they all biol down to SPs, good against Sps and therefore good, and suprise tech.


Yeah, try paying attention to the format before refuting posts using bad data.
Ellaboate please. What was I wrong about and proove it. Not claiming to be 100% right here, but for future knolege, what was I wrong about.



.
Click to expand...

replies in bold....../
 
You're incorrect in your summary of the format. Your summary may be consistent from post to post (which I appreciate), but it's just not accurate. First off, I don't think it's fair at all to SP players to lump all the SP decks together and just call them SP decks because, frankly, they have a lot of variety. You have the ever-present Toolbox, Blazeray, Luxape, Palkia G, straight Luxray, Absol G variants and combos, Toxitank, and probably a couple I missed along the way.

The "SP counter" decks you're talking about might be good against SP's, but for the most part they're just as good against everything else as well. There's very little that makes them counter SP's specifically unless a player techs specifically against SP decks (say, teching in a 1-0-1 Machamp line to any stage 2 deck).

I'd like you to explain what exactly you mean by "surprise tech". Are you talking about Secret Decks?
 
Zephyr said:
You're incorrect in your summary of the format. Your summary may be consistent from post to post (which I appreciate), but it's just not accurate. First off, I don't think it's fair at all to SP players to lump all the SP decks together and just call them SP decks because, frankly, they have a lot of variety. You have the ever-present Toolbox, Blazeray, Luxape, Palkia G, straight Luxray, Absol G variants and combos, Toxitank, and probably a couple I missed along the way.

I understand theres a lot of variety amongst the SPs, but they are all fast, aggressive decks focusing more on disruption and aggro than setting up.

The "SP counter" decks you're talking about might be good against SP's, but for the most part they're just as good against everything else as well. There's very little that makes them counter SP's specifically unless a player techs specifically against SP decks (say, teching in a 1-0-1 Machamp line to any stage 2 deck).

BUT decks that do specifically well agasint SPs are better than decks that dont. It just makes sense, that if a deck can do specifically wella against 60+% of the format without teching, its a better deck than those that can't/

I'd like you to explain what exactly you mean by "surprise tech". Are you talking about Secret Decks?

Secrets, random plays, ect. I should have said rogue, more fitting to the Pokemon crowd.
Click to expand...

Guess where the replies are.
 
Actually, outside of the Power Nine and dual lands, lots of Alpha-Beta-Revised-Unlimited etc. were actually pretty weak.

Compare them to cards such as Loxodon Hierarch (4/4 for four with I think trample and something about gaining 4 life?) and Chameleon Colossus and Bitterblossom and Jitte and you will see far more powerful cards being released with new sets that dominate metas.
 
prodigal_fanboy said:
Actually, outside of the Power Nine and dual lands, lots of Alpha-Beta-Revised-Unlimited etc. were actually pretty weak.

Compare them to cards such as Loxodon Hierarch (4/4 for four with I think trample and something about gaining 4 life?) and Chameleon Colossus and Bitterblossom and Jitte and you will see far more powerful cards being released with new sets that dominate metas.
Click to expand...

compare those to mishras workshop, smokestakcs, shperes of resistance, tendrils of corruption, demonic tutor, ect ect ect and you'll see thats a misconception. Sure, alpha, beta, revicsed pretty much had only power and duels, but past that it got nutty, then came back down to where we are now.
 
What, you mean like how Gust of Wind, (Super) Energy Removal, Computer Search, and Professor Oak are a handful of early cards that are still absurd?

Yeah, Pokemon definitely has no power creep because of that handful of ancient cards that are ridiculously overpowered. JUST LIKE MTG LOL.
 
I've never lost to Machamp at a tournament, and with the way the format is headed, it doesn't look like I will any time soon.

I like the way the format is right now. We're going to see a nice balance of types, of different stages in decks, and different kinds of strategy. It should be fun.
 
ryanvergel said:
I've never lost to Machamp at a tournament, and with the way the format is headed, it doesn't look like I will any time soon.

I like the way the format is right now. We're going to see a nice balance of types, of different stages in decks, and different kinds of strategy. It should be fun.
Click to expand...

So you're saying you never, EVER start with 1 basic vs. a T1 Machamp?

Consider yourself VERY lucky.
 
Scipio said:
So you're saying you never, EVER start with 1 basic vs. a T1 Machamp?

Consider yourself VERY lucky.
Click to expand...

The times my opponent has had a T1 Machamp I either played Toxicroak G, had multiple basics, or I started with call. For him to get off a t1 champ, I have to go first, and 50% of the time I had a call and couldn't be donked. Not that lucky, really.

My donks last season were to Sableye and Kingdra pretty much.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

Tagrineth said:
You can also pick and choose examples to prove that energy costs have gone up and damage has decreased if you try hard enough... lol
Click to expand...

Arcanine. I didn't have to think hard at all.
 
Last edited:
ryanvergel said:
The times my opponent has had a T1 Machamp I either played Toxicroak G, had multiple basics, or I started with call. For him to get off a t1 champ, I have to go first, and 50% of the time I had a call and couldn't be donked. Not that lucky, really.
Click to expand...

Like I said, lucky. You had the right stuff to avoid the donk, not everyone is that fortunate despite of what they play. I've seen an SP deck playing 17 basics, Croak G's AND Call NRG get donked by it.
 
Scipio said:
Like I said, lucky. You had the right stuff to avoid the donk, not everyone is that fortunate despite of what they play. I've seen an SP deck playing 17 basics, Croak G's AND Call NRG get donked by it.
Click to expand...

Then he got unlucky. It's not lucky that I didn't have that 10% chance not to get donked actually occur. That's how it normally plays out. Not getting donked my Machamp doesn't make me lucky.

I played SP with 4 call for 2 states, and then played GG for regionals and nationals. I only played vs Machamp during CCs and States. I got donked twice at Regionals by Sableye (didn't even draw a card) despite 2/3 of my basics having 60hp, and despite having 12 basics. I wished I had played more Machamp during Regs/Nats, as my GG had a great matchup against the deck should I not get donked, which happens a huge majority of the time.

Running 4 call and quite a few basics means you shouldn't get donked my Machamp. Does it happen? Certainly. But that doesn't mean that if you AVOID the donk, which SHOULD happen, you're therefore lucky. I had the right stuff because I built my decks well, and chose decks with a good Machamp matchup (Obama with 3 Unown G for CCs, Dialga G with Unown G and Toxitank- both with 4 call, and then GG for Regs/Nats when Machamp became less popular, but I still had a great matchup).

If I play Machamp 7 or 8 times, and don't get donked, well, that's how the math dictates it SHOULD happen. It's not like I play vs Champ all day and have enough opportunities for my deck to not yield call/going second/not start with Dialga (deafen) or Toxicroak G/not start with multiple basics/not have Unown Gs in my opening hand. Chances are very much in favor of NOT getting donked, even if you play vs Machamp 5+ times. The fact that you should only get T1d 10% of the time (thereabouts- you have to have a lone start, go first, and not open with call, and all of this assumes the opponent even HAS a T1 Machamp in hand!) means that you should expect to play vs Machamp 10 times before you get T1d. I didn't play against Machamp 10 times, so the math says that I shouldn't be donked. There's no luck involved.

You can't just throw that word around. I didn't get lucky. Do some basic math before you say I did.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Vergel:
You are mistaking Probability for Chance. Probability is what SHOULD happen. Chance is what DOES happen.

Not saying you're wrong, just that you're counting probability, when there is no way to truly account for chance.
 
Scipio said:
Not everyone is that fortunate despite of what they play.
Click to expand...

Am I the only that bristles when people use diction like this to make an argument? Sounds so... second-hander.

Prime: There is a difference between chance and probability, but I think what Ryan is getting at is that the odds of getting Machamp-donked are small enough to where the chance of it is anecdotal. Or perhaps there just exists an argumentative bias that numbers trump stories.

To support Ryan's claim:

I played in 4 Cities, 1 States, 1 Regionals, 2 Spring BRs, and 1 National tournaments.
I was donked once by a Sableye at a Cities.

I think once at nats, I donked a lone horsea start with my lone Luxray, and he would've had the candy-kingdra-double pp KO had he gone second, but that's the closest I've come.
 
ApachePrime said:
Mr. Vergel:
You are mistaking Probability for Chance. Probability is what SHOULD happen. Chance is what DOES happen.

Not saying you're wrong, just that you're counting probability, when there is no way to truly account for chance.
Click to expand...

I don't see any mistake. Probability dictates I should not get donked. Chance is that it does not happen. I am pointing out that it was no coincidence (luck) that my chance matched the probability- the probability was so high not to get donked. It's lucky if your chance is high but your probability low, such as winning the lottery. By chance you win, but the probability said you should not have, so you got lucky.

For me, the chance that it did not happen is not lucky, because the probability of not getting donked was high.

Every time I play Machamp, I have at least 75% chance to not get donked t1 (simply by going first with a call (~50%) or going second (50%)), without considering multiple basics or toxicroaks, or calculating the chance of my opponent having the necessary cards to achieve a t1 machamp. There's only something like 10% of me actually getting donked every time I play Machamp with a deck using 4 call energy if we average it out.

Please point out a flaw in my logic. I don't see any luck in the chance of not getting donked when the probability is so low. I played in 5 CCs(Obama for all 5- with 3 Unown G, 4 Call, lots of basics), SP for 2 states, GG for Nats/Regs, all using 4 call. I got donked 3 times. Once by Kingdra at a CC. Twice at Regionals by Sableye vs an otherwise autowin (TTar vs GG is pretty sad. Gallade says nono). I didn't get lucky. The chance played out how the probability said it should have. How is that lucky!?
 
Last edited:
I kind of like where the format is right now. Sure, there are a lot of people copying Palkia/Dialga decks (don't claim that they're yours just because you changed 3 cards), but it's a lot of fun. Lots of good choices out there.

There is a lot of diversity right now.

But I'm running out of room in my boxes! With no rotation, I'm going to have problems organizing the THOUSANDS of cards that are legal.

I really like the fact that there are so many things that are viable right now.

(Did I mention that I'm glad GE Exploud didn't rotate out?)
 
Woah, gotta catch up here.


Tagrineth said:
What, you mean like how Gust of Wind, (Super) Energy Removal, Computer Search, and Professor Oak are a handful of early cards that are still absurd?

Yeah, Pokemon definitely has no power creep because of that handful of ancient cards that are ridiculously overpowered. JUST LIKE MTG LOL.
Click to expand...



Okay, I'll give you that Alpha-revised was weak, but then it got nutty. Lets call computer search, oak, ect pokemon's power. Now, take power out of the begginning of the game( not like alpha- revised, like alpha-antiquities). Pokemon was really, really weak compared to now. Would you play hitmonchans or even gators now? I wouldn't. But in Magic, you get nutty, stupid stuff like tutors, tendrils, workshop, stacks, ect. All stuff mroe powerful than current cards. Pokemon has a handfull of cards that are rediculously overpowerd, MTG has 2 formats filled with 'em.
 
The format now has some really good things and some bad ones.

The Good

There are good cards of nearly every type and stage which in turn leads to great potential diversity in decks.

There is more than one way to win. It’s possible to build several different viable decks that aim for nearly every win condition.

The Bad

Luck seems to play a stronger role than ever in terms of event performance. With multiple types of decks being viable pairings become more important than ever in determining your standings.

We have more speed cards than ever, meaning that Donks can and will continue to happen more frequently than they used to in older formats.
 
vanderbilt_grad said:
The format now has some really good things and some bad ones.



There is more than one way to win. It’s possible to build several different viable decks that aim for nearly every win condition.
.
Click to expand...

What are the win conditions? drawing 6 prizes and mill are all there are to my knoledge, and I don't see any mill cads lol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top