Hmmm Holon Energy WP hard countering Liability and Jynx are fair points however I disagree that it hard counters RL. Unless there's a ruling I'm unaware of Holon Energy WP only stops Stone Generator from affecting the Pokemon it's attached to (not every Pokemon in play) so you have to get out multiples of them (with waters too) to completely shut off RL. Surely WP on a Candied Pidgeot would make it much harder for RL but is it really a hard counter?
The Game We All Love to Hate...
- Thread starter Flaming_Spinach
- Start date
- Status
Scizor Master CLR
New Member
Pokemaster1110 said:
Exactly. There are no suxh things as auto-losses. There are only players who are pessimists when it comes to facing a deck they know can give them a good run for their money.
On the topic of bad matchups. What exactly do you consider bad matchups? One where you lose or one where you have to fight against your deck's wearknesses?
Hello everyone I´m from México, Ihad no plans before reading this thread to post, but it is such a intelligent discussion(well some opinions)... into the post
sdrawkcab here in Mexico there is a much larger metagame, because some of the players simply
don´t know what is an archetypes(excause me if I write that worng), but the few who net deck
dominate the tourment escene, in the last gym challenge a guy who netdeck his deck win!
I know that hard counters are not exactly the best for the game, but there´s anything we can do,
maybe the next format will not be that extreme.
But there will always be some dominant decks, because making a metagame that will just be based
in the players skills is just to difficult to do, and will not be good to the sales... at the end it´s all about the money.
sdrawkcab here in Mexico there is a much larger metagame, because some of the players simply
don´t know what is an archetypes(excause me if I write that worng), but the few who net deck
dominate the tourment escene, in the last gym challenge a guy who netdeck his deck win!
I know that hard counters are not exactly the best for the game, but there´s anything we can do,
maybe the next format will not be that extreme.
But there will always be some dominant decks, because making a metagame that will just be based
in the players skills is just to difficult to do, and will not be good to the sales... at the end it´s all about the money.
Scizor Master CLR - There are autolosses. Let's say your playing a Hariyama EX deck with Lunatone/Solrock. You face a Dustox EX deck. Averagely, if you both setup correctly, the Dustox EX deck will beat you probably 9/10 games because of it's hard counter to your deck. "But both players don't always setup correctly Prime!!!!!" And? Your relying on the maybe 1 off game in the whole swiss to happen when they are playing you, an autowin for them? Even if you get setup fast and take 2 prizes, if they get a Dustox EX on the field, with energy, it's over.
There ARE auto-losses. Some people just believe in different auto-losses and many of those auto-losses can be won. Just some cannot the majority of the time.
There ARE auto-losses. Some people just believe in different auto-losses and many of those auto-losses can be won. Just some cannot the majority of the time.
Scizor Master CLR
New Member
Prime said:
You just reinforced my opinion right there.
Pidgeotto Trainer
New Member
If you can't win with the deck you have, make a different, better deck. If you know you can't beat Cham with RL and Cham is gonna be played, you probably shouldn't play RL. No one's taking the control out of your hands in that regard.
Scizor Master CLR
New Member
Prime said:
Considering how big a part luck plays in the game, there really isn't a matchup that can't be won. :thumb:
LOL, I said in my previous post that sure luck can allow anyone to win, but you can't rely on it when taking about auto-wins and auto-losses. Most of the time luck will not be that heavily in your favor when your facing an auto-loss and because of that, 99% of the time (yes I just randomly came up with that number), when you face an auto-loss, you will lose.
Cardzmaster2004
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=
Flaming_Spinach said:
Welcome to how I felt about a week ago on my "Limited Worlds" topic. People really didn't get he point that all I wanted was a format change primarily and Premier Events second. Anyway...
I definitely agree with you here. Autolosses suck and exist way too much right now. As I playtest, I see more and more Stadiums as uncounterable enemies. Honestly, Stadiums should be soft counters since you can't do anything to affect them then and there. As it stands, too many are Hard counters and probably need worked on a bit.
Not to mention the power cap on this TCG is through the roof. If you even wanted to play some of the older POKEMON cards in this format, they'd get crushed by some of the most basic attacks. And don't get me started on EX power level. It's a bit obscene in my opinion. We really need to put a power cap on things. this is anotehr problem along with Hard counters IMO. Great write up, FS.
ninetales1234
<a href="http://pokegym.net/gallery/browseimages.p
Lack of card escalation is one of the things that makes Pokemon way better than other TCGs. Let's make sure it never happens to Pokemon. I want my cards to playable for more than a year (I'm an Unlimited/Modified player, BTW). As a Yu-Gi-Oh! player, I hated buying an LOB booster in 2002, then having half the cards in that booster obsoleted around 2004.Cardzmaster2004 said:
We don't want Pokemon to be like Dragon Ball Z (anime), with the power of one card topping the power of the last and having that pattern continue until we get something that can blow up the universe with the slightest effort.
Flaming_Spinach
Feature Editor
Scizor Master CLR said:
Excuse me.
Have you ever played a game of Pokemon?
Sheesh. Have you ever played Rock-Lock vs. Medicham? Or Medicham vs. Healix? Or non-BF Ludicargo vs. Rock-Lock?
All of those are auto-losses my friend. If you are on the short end of the matchup, you have about a 10% chance of winning (5% for Medicham/Rock-Lock). That's what an auto-loss is. It's not a game where you have a 0.0000001% chance of winning. An auto-loss is a game where you have less than a 1:6 chance of winning, or 15%.
Even a theme deck can beat LBS 1:200 times.
Auto-loss is not a literal term, it is a slightly exaggerated term.
Now quit arguing semantics and get back to the point.
Lastly, since Gyms have officially started, I expect the number of complaints due to bad matchups to increase. Who here would be HAPPY that they sweep through every round, up until the finals, where they face the 1 deck in the whole tournament that can beat them?
Scizor Master CLR
New Member
Flaming_Spinach said:
I very much have, thank you. Pokémon player since 2000. Loving you trying to talk down to me.
Flaming_Spinach said:
I've played Rock-Lock against Medicham and won quite a few times. It was difficult, but not impossible. The others I can't say because I've never played said matchups.
Flaming_Spinach said:
Where exactly do you get such statistics? Have you actually played (at the very least) 25 games with the same two decks to come to such conclusions? It just seems like random numbers drawn up in order to prove a point.
I'm aware that there are odds to certain matchups, but some of these numbers are ridiculous and pretentious.
Flaming_Spinach said:
Fair enough.
Flaming_Spinach said:
People will always complain about the simplest things, the Pokémon TCG not being an exception.
Anyway, it is us, the players, who create the metagame. The cards are at our disposition, it is up to us to give them a purpose. Make the best of it and have fun or complain about it until something is done. I'd rather have fun, with fun not being equal to winning.
ZAKtheGeek
New Member
Yes, just like the number of complaints about losing to to coin flips and/or topdecks.
sdrawkcab
Forum Moderator
I swept every round (exsept for one swiss) until I made the finals and played lbs vs (me) flariados/pidgoetFlaming_Spinach said:
Am I complaining? no. I lost fair and square. The deck worked the way I wanted it to, so did spencer's. Neither of us had bad hands, and the games turned out perty much how they should have. We both played our best, and made no misplays. It wasn't auto loss, but If Gordon would have won t4 I would have had a better match up.
Same thing happend at CC's but thats what make the deck building aspect in this metagame right now so importent.
flaming_spinach
in accordance with every other point posted before me.
how would you suggest this is fixed?
dont publish strong cards?
you're calling for a flat game.
no advantages.
Everybody has the same shot as everybody else
it then, yet again, becomes a game of luck, and not skill.
in accordance with every other point posted before me.
how would you suggest this is fixed?
dont publish strong cards?
you're calling for a flat game.
no advantages.
Everybody has the same shot as everybody else
it then, yet again, becomes a game of luck, and not skill.
Flaming_Spinach
Feature Editor
Randiddle said:
More Soft Counters in the place of Hard Counters.
Make Cursed Stone instead of Battle Frontier.
Make Cacturn-ex instead of Medicham-ex.
Instead of Lunatone/Solrock, Make something that gives YOU an advantage when YOUR OPPONENT has Pidgeot in play.
ie.
Pokebody: Sol-Shader:
As long as you have a Lunatone in play, and your opponent has a Pidgeot with the Quick Search Pokepower in play, You may use that power as your own. Either way, you can not use more than 1 Quick Search Pokepower each turn.
There. It gives you the advantage, but doesn't automatically win you the game. This is a Soft Counter because PIDGEOT CAN STILL BE USED.
Soft Counters give you an advantage, but it doesn't make the cards in your opponents deck USELESS.
Scizor Master CLR
New Member
Flaming_Spinach said:
...the hell? So you'd like cards that target specific cards and are useless unless the face said specific card? Very useful, indeed.
ninetales1234
<a href="http://pokegym.net/gallery/browseimages.p
Maybe it has a good attack that isn't situational (ie. it will help in many different situations).Scizor Master CLR said:
Jolteon101
New Member
I realise this topic is a few days old, but wanted to put in my thoughts:
Pokemon is not like chess, where the best player always wins. There are too many situational factors (pairings, coin flips, misplays, bad draws) that all affect the outcome of the game. These are things you can't control, so when you're preparing for a tournament you have to focus on the things you CAN control, which are namely 1) deck choice and 2) knowledge of matchups from playtesting. If you look at the top 32 at large events, you will often find the same names because these are the players who know all the matchups thoroughly, choose the right deck, predict the metagame correctly, and avoid misplays. I think this explains why "unknown" decks seem to do so well at the first tournament they appear at, and then only enjoy limited success after that - because the person piloting it knows all of the matchups while their opponents know nothing, and are therefore more likely to make misplays or walk into traps simply by not knowing what to expect.
Usually when you're preparing for a tournament, deck choice usually comes down to a combination of what you think you will be facing, and how the deck performs against those matchups. You then tech appropriately based on your metagame. It's a case of balancing the percentages (percentages assuming all other factors being equal because that's all you can account for). For example if you play four of Stadium A you might improve your matchup against archetype X but also decrease your chances against archetype Y, and vice versa if you play Stadium B. But it also depends on how much this effect is, and how prevalent decks X and Y are in your area. What you end up going with will depend on what (you think) the metagame consists of...
The problem with the current format is that this process starts to look a lot less like science and a lot more like a guessing game. Whatever you are playing, you will be taking an autoloss to at least one of the top-tiered decks (and potentially several others, I mean there are like 20+ decks out there =/). And for argument's sake, when I say "autoloss", I mean a matchup that when both decks set up, all other factors being equal, you will win less than 20% of games against. If you want to argue this definition then fine, I'm just pointing out that whether you like it or not, there are matchups for any deck that you will lose the majority of the time, regardless of skill. Anyway, this means that no matter how good you are or what deck you use, all it takes is a couple of unlucky pairings and some retarded draws and all of a sudden you can't make the cut. Compare this to a format where decks don't necessarily hard counter each other, and the better players can make use of tech to improve the unfavourable matchups (which obviously still happens in the current format, but most autolosses can't be eliminated by the addition of a couple of tech cards - if they could then they wouldn't be autolosses).
The spinoff from this is that people will try and play metagaming decks, which autowin against some of the top decks and perform poorly against the rest of the field. I'm talking about the hypothetical guy with the Dustox EX/Ninetales deck (which someone mentioned earlier) who beats a couple of Medis and then ends up 3-4, effectively burying the resistance of the better players who were using Medi. In the same tournament, several other Medi players (even if they're not as good as the other Medi players) won't get paired against this guy, and will easily make the cut. Or in another scenario, the Dustox/Ninetales guy somehow makes the cut - one of the Medis gets paired against him, the other gets paired against a Rocklock. Perhaps Medi was the best choice for the tournament, but OOPS there go your chances. This sort of randomness is something you can't tech against, and I don't think it does much to promote skill =/
From an observer or less skilled player's perspective, a really diverse format like this is awesome because it makes the whole tournament more exciting and interesting, and increases the chances of you scoring wins against superior players. From a skilled player's perspective, it's a metagaming nightmare, especially when you have to win (only first place at NZ Nationals gets trip to Worlds)...
Pokemon is not like chess, where the best player always wins. There are too many situational factors (pairings, coin flips, misplays, bad draws) that all affect the outcome of the game. These are things you can't control, so when you're preparing for a tournament you have to focus on the things you CAN control, which are namely 1) deck choice and 2) knowledge of matchups from playtesting. If you look at the top 32 at large events, you will often find the same names because these are the players who know all the matchups thoroughly, choose the right deck, predict the metagame correctly, and avoid misplays. I think this explains why "unknown" decks seem to do so well at the first tournament they appear at, and then only enjoy limited success after that - because the person piloting it knows all of the matchups while their opponents know nothing, and are therefore more likely to make misplays or walk into traps simply by not knowing what to expect.
Usually when you're preparing for a tournament, deck choice usually comes down to a combination of what you think you will be facing, and how the deck performs against those matchups. You then tech appropriately based on your metagame. It's a case of balancing the percentages (percentages assuming all other factors being equal because that's all you can account for). For example if you play four of Stadium A you might improve your matchup against archetype X but also decrease your chances against archetype Y, and vice versa if you play Stadium B. But it also depends on how much this effect is, and how prevalent decks X and Y are in your area. What you end up going with will depend on what (you think) the metagame consists of...
The problem with the current format is that this process starts to look a lot less like science and a lot more like a guessing game. Whatever you are playing, you will be taking an autoloss to at least one of the top-tiered decks (and potentially several others, I mean there are like 20+ decks out there =/). And for argument's sake, when I say "autoloss", I mean a matchup that when both decks set up, all other factors being equal, you will win less than 20% of games against. If you want to argue this definition then fine, I'm just pointing out that whether you like it or not, there are matchups for any deck that you will lose the majority of the time, regardless of skill. Anyway, this means that no matter how good you are or what deck you use, all it takes is a couple of unlucky pairings and some retarded draws and all of a sudden you can't make the cut. Compare this to a format where decks don't necessarily hard counter each other, and the better players can make use of tech to improve the unfavourable matchups (which obviously still happens in the current format, but most autolosses can't be eliminated by the addition of a couple of tech cards - if they could then they wouldn't be autolosses).
The spinoff from this is that people will try and play metagaming decks, which autowin against some of the top decks and perform poorly against the rest of the field. I'm talking about the hypothetical guy with the Dustox EX/Ninetales deck (which someone mentioned earlier) who beats a couple of Medis and then ends up 3-4, effectively burying the resistance of the better players who were using Medi. In the same tournament, several other Medi players (even if they're not as good as the other Medi players) won't get paired against this guy, and will easily make the cut. Or in another scenario, the Dustox/Ninetales guy somehow makes the cut - one of the Medis gets paired against him, the other gets paired against a Rocklock. Perhaps Medi was the best choice for the tournament, but OOPS there go your chances. This sort of randomness is something you can't tech against, and I don't think it does much to promote skill =/
From an observer or less skilled player's perspective, a really diverse format like this is awesome because it makes the whole tournament more exciting and interesting, and increases the chances of you scoring wins against superior players. From a skilled player's perspective, it's a metagaming nightmare, especially when you have to win (only first place at NZ Nationals gets trip to Worlds)...
- Status