Let us cover one point first:
Yes, I read your whole post.
I do believe we are struggling with the upper limit of how much information a single post should contain, especially as we both admit to holding back. This could be where some of our difficulties in communication are coming from; quite frankly there are some things that I haven't said because they have been established all the other times this subject has been debated.
No, really, this debate happens about every other month on these boards, and last anywhere from a few days to a few weeks. If you "dig" you'll actually find them. :wink:
So for clarification, some background on myself:
I am not a world class player, and in fact right now due to financial struggles I've had to sell off my collection and no longer live near a League I could attend even if I had the cards to play with. Of course, even when I had my former collection, I was still not a world class player; I am just the kind of guy who chokes in a tournament setting plus I have certain Pokémon and game mechanics I favor, and prefer not to rely on a currently dominant archetype if I can avoid it.
Even then, my skills are generally just enough to be a tricky match at League or when you let your guard down in a tournament, but if you're some form of Spike you'll probably have me beat. Fortunately, I really enjoy other areas of the game, like the actual mechanics of it. I've been studying it for quite some time now; I began playing the Pokémon TCG either with its earliest U.S. release or at least an early U.S. release (if I didn't quite make the Christmas of '98, the slowest I picked it up would have been March of 1999).
Life doesn't always allow me to stay involved with the TCG; before I was online I got some bad information about the then upcoming Gym Heroes and Gym Challenge sets (that they were a reboot of the game, incompatible with what came before), so I sat them out and not until I joined the online community (by which point Neo Genesis was already out) did I return.
Between college and work, I've had one or two other stretches with minimal play and exposure to the cards. Still, with the oldest cards I've got 14 years of experience tinkering with them. This is quite important, as you can learn a lot from plugging in and removing cards from say the Base Set through Fossil era... like how much Team Rocket really added.
So forgive me for leaving out some things that have been well established in previous debates; it isn't your fault if you either are unaware of them or realize that unless you expressly omit them, they tend to be "ground rules" for serious discussion... and omitting them can be a debate in and of itself.
When trying to "fix" the game, the two biggies are:
1) Don't alter the game rules.
2) Don't add new game mechanics, nor bring back that which has already been abandoned, nor even fiddle much with what currently is.
I know, I know; sounds like I am "moving the goalposts" by saying this, but hopefully this explains why some of your proposals fall flat when they reach me. Point number one has been established by the rather circuitous path of game rules. Simply put, several changes to the core rules built up over the years - especially the first turn rules - and were intentionally undone by the powers-that-be. So while most agree that the first/second aspect of the game is unbalanced, "fixing it" needs to be done with the cards and not with altering the in game rules... because it has been made clear the latter is at best a long-shot for what actually would be allowed.
This is why, for example, I favor the designers stop creating Pokémon that (with their card pool) can attack for damage on the first or second (overall) turns of the game; it makes attacks that set-up your own field or disrupt your opponent useful during this period, but without altering the core rules would (after enough rotations) have the same effect as a rule that has been proposed in the past:"You can't damage your opponent's Pokémon with an attack first turn."
So adding a "Stage 3" form is a pretty serious step, even before we examine whether what you propose would actually work. The previous "Level Up" cards didn't seem to streamline game play. Some people loved them, some hated them, but they were pretty challenging to get out for Stage 2 decks.
Otherwise, that second rule I gave? That hits me crazy hard. The TCG is an adaptation of the video games; it doesn't need to nor can it actually be an exact translation of them because the total mechanics from video games are too complicated for a TCG to express. Obviously, we have the difference of a game that has a one-player, JRPG quest mode as well as versus play, being turned into a 2-player TCG... but there even on some basic mechanics, things get pretty crazy pretty fast. What creates problems are what is been "cut" and what hasn't.
My short list of TCG mechanics that I don't believe were adequately converted from the video games is:
1) Pokémon Types
2) Pokémon HP scores (plus Defense and Special Defense)
3) Weakness/Resistance
So I resisted suggesting solutions like picking out all the HP/Defense/Special Defense heavy Pokémon and from X and Y and using them for the first year's worth of X and Y sets while finally giving us HP scores with a more appropriate, video game like range (still keeping everything in increments of 10, though), as well as returning to the +X/-X (where X is a variable number) Weakness/Resistance scores we saw in the Diamond & Pearl era of sets. Plus I'd shuffle a few video game Types around within the TCG Types for better fit (current, untested hypothesis is Poison moves to Darkness and Rock to Metal).
The idea is to create the foundation for a new format without an instant cut to it (because the counters we have for the current problem cards will outlast them by at least a format); by focusing on Pokémon with poor offensive capacity we create a bunch of "punching bags" for the current overpowered cards to wail on... that can take the beating and hit back just enough to even things out without the new (hypothetical cards) dominating the old (that is the current) cards.
That isn't a realistic solution, unfortunately; I think it is a good approach, but we have no indication that it will happen. Past HP creep seems to be met with as much or more damage creep. While Types have been shuffled around in the past, it isn't a "regular" thing and is viewed as pretty extraordinary. We just returned to the "damage x2" formula for Weakness, so that also is not going anywhere. =/
So for a serious discussion, I try to work within those parameters.
Now, this post is long enough and I am sorry I didn't get to address the specifics of your post. Perhaps I can later. I do believe, as stated earlier, that due to the sheer volume of ideas some things are getting "lost", but at the same time see how much of my posts wouldn't have been made had, as you yourself pointed out, a slightly different approach would have made your actual points much, much clearer. So those points will have to wait so I don't repeat my own communication mistakes.
I will just conclude by pointing out I want a balanced format, where as long as a Pokémon is designed for a function (early game set up, stalwart Bench-sitting support, main attacker, etc.) they can be utilized regardless of Stage, and I fear your suggestions run contrary to that; while your suggestions might reign in the power of Pokémon-EX I don't see how they wouldn't force everyone to run an Evolution-centric deck and thus imbalance remains. I also don't believe Evolutions are that "weak", just that what should be their natural support mechanism (their lower Stages) are.
I won't comment on your self-introduction here that much. It's nice to hear where you are coming from and sad to hear you can't play the game that much at the moment. And although I didn't doubt your 'credibility' in the first place, hearing about your experience still improves it.
I picked up how you are interested in the mechanics of the game and tend to prefer using something other than the dominant archetype. I'm kind of the same at the moment. Evolution is pretty much the most interesting mechanic of the game and vastly underutilized. But still, at the moment I only uses decks without basic Pokémon attackers. That hobby should become much easier with Plasma Freeze, though I still don't see any stage 2 attacker deck becoming a competitively viable option.
I think you have misunderstood my intentions here a little bit. I'm looking for the
theoretically best way of fixing a game that is under the burden of big basics that will remain modified-legal for a long time. The purpose is to find a method that would solve the issues without too much power creep and new issues taking the place of the current ones by targeting the issues directly and leaving as much as possible as it is. Rule changes and new mechanics seem to be the only way unless we go with your earlier suggested methods, my concerns for which I already wrote about.
It's quite impossible to tell what the agenda of TPCi and PCL is, and the direction they have chosen has proven to be something so incomprehensible to me I have no idea what I should expect to happen next.
But still, if they want to fix donks, I feel they'd prefer to do it with a rule change for practical reasons. Rotations are supposed to change the game, and when this time's rotation would not really change the dominating decks of the format to change at all, this would be one approach to do it. It's also a matter of opinion concerning patience with changes. I'd prefer a quick change as I can't really find any flaws in it, and the biggest obstacle seems to be the past trend of the people in power not giving us what we want.
Stage 3's purpose would be to directly address the issue of big basics by being a specialist type against them. They wouldn't even need to become the next big thing unlike I wrote (I wrote that because I think they need a marketable new/resurrected concept for X&Y sets). It would also be effective as something that current metadecks would need to tech or adjust their playstyle against, and that would bring their relative power down as they drop a couple luxury trainers.
Concerning your list of inadequately adapted mechanics, I agree particularly on 1) and 3).
1) is an issue particularly for dark, fire and grass. Pretty much everything there has the exact same weakness. Shuffling things around a bit is a good idea, but in addition to that, I think there should be Pokémon that are certain type (primary type) but use the energy of another type (secondary type) for their attacks. That would be a way for even those decks to mitigate their weakness. I actually feel rock is fine at the moment, it might be better to give some steel-types a different weakness instead or to use primary/secondary type mix to give such variety to steel decks.
3) But if +weakness and -resistance were returned, it wouldn't matter that much. It would be a type-advantage rather than type-steamroll with fixed numbers. Together, when in balance, these would be a great thing for the game indeed, and it would give the next set a big advantage over the current ones with 2x weakness.
2) Different levels of + and - in weakness and resistance could be one way to bring in the special defense and defense stats, aside from damage reduction Abilities that come every now and then. But if I understood it right about "giving us HP scores with a more appropriate, video game like range", would that mean bringing the HP well over 200? I can see how that would help against the current problem cards, but it seems to be overdoing it. But then again, I guess I misunderstood something.
I'll address your overall vision you summarized now.
So it seems like this is your version of a dream fix with no hopes of it ever becoming reality. I see the logic of it, but it seems to have some practical issues in the game. Catcher makes walling rather hopeless. And if the walls with higher than ever HP can even take prizes from something like Keldeo EX or Black Kyurem EX then they are too strong. I feel those are problem cards that need unique measures to fix without power creep. I actually think the speed of draw, search and energy acceleration are adequate at the moment. The relationship between speed and power of certain basic Pokémon attacks creates all the issues, even Blastoise would be just fine if the cards that abuse it weren't all basics.
I might need to adjust the numbers of my suggestions for it to reach the goal of making big basics generally the strongest cards, Stage 3 the strongest cards against basics, Stage 2 and Stage 1 the strongest against Stage 3 and big basics the strongest against Stage 2, Stage 1 and NFE. So since big basics are the strongest thing on the field until Stage 3 enter, and since Stage 3 are weak to Stage 2 and Stage 1, it would force all-basic decks that are strong from the beginning to the end(something I definitely think the game shouldn't have) to change. And regarding energy efficiency increase for evolutions, I don't believe it would be broken if it's done as a measure the current, extremely unfavorable conditions where Stage 1 and Stage 2 just can't exploit energy acceleration like big basics, on top of taking more deck space anyway.
I also don't believe Evolutions are that "weak", just that what should be their natural support mechanism (their lower Stages) are.
That's a pretty good way to put it. I still think you underestimate Keldeo and Black Kyurem a little bit here as Stage 2 getting OHKO'd is something that just can't be overcome so easily, but generally I agree that getting the helpless basics and sometimes stage 1 catchered before I can evolve them is a huge problem.
Having an abilty to stop EX's won't do much good right now with Garbodor in the format. I think a stadium is whats really needed. The only problem with evolved pokemon with extremely energy efficient attacks is that that it stores up problems in the future. Whoever gets that first evoloution out will be able to cripple the opponents setup as they can knock out the unevolved basics like we initially had with HGSS-ON. The lack of evoloution support has been shocking in recent times. They even have the cheek to give basic pokemon cards like Eviolite, Sky Arrow Bridge and Prism Energy. Some have said they want a Take Out Machamp card, but thats too extreme IMO as it will turn the format into a Neo Slowking one i.e. play this card or lose.
As for when the release of X+Y. I hope we get...
Return of +weakness system
Player who goes first can't play a supporter
Unevolving basics geared more towards helping setup.
Evolving basics to have more HP, ideally 80hp to cope with HTL+cheap attack shenanigans.
Of course, Garbotoxin would disable that ability. But Garbotoxin decks are clunky either way, and if the opponent's deck can be energy efficient with their attacks against big basics even without relying on Abilities and has the aid of Trainers to boot, then I feel it should be enough. One of the most important purposes of Garbodor is to disable energy acceleration. Most of the time, anyway.
Evolution support options are definitely needed. Stadiums would definitely be neat to either power up evolutions or weaken basics. Another idea I have is replacing DCE with a new special energy that gives 1 (c) if attached to a basic Pokémon but 2 (c) if attached to an evolved or restored Pokémon.
That's a very good concern to raise about fast-attacking evolutions. It could be mitigated if catcher didn't exist and we could get dependable walls, but that is not very likely to happen. That's why it makes makes me doubt the idea of improved energy-efficiency and think the power of evolutions compared to big basics should maybe be done by improving their durability with support Trainers/Abilities and better pre-evolution card design in the future.
That list of fixes you gave seems very practical and effective. If only it included some miracle magic solution that stops Keldeo and Kyurem from sweeping everything, it would probably be enough to improve the game greatly.
I never did like the no supporter rule because the player going second had a advantage of playing one first but there was never a threat of being donked. Also the draw cards were not as powerful as they were now and normally ended at TV reporter.
The huge advantage of going first was being able to get the first energy attachment and the first "setup" attack. The advantage of going second was playing the first supporter. Its was good because their was card balance. The most powerful draw card back then was Steven's Advice. Everything else was draw 3 and discard 1 or shuffle draw but the format had place for other supporters like Lady Outing and Wally's Training. The supporters not are almost exclusively powerful draw and shuffle draw with the rest of them being ok under some obscure, hard to pull of combo or lock.
A first turn no supporter rule now with the game the way it is will destroy it.
Sorry for butting in, but I don't think you thought this through.
I'll show why:
Current rules:
1st: Energy attachment advantage, evolution advantage, support use advantage, safer from donks, greater chance to donk your opponent.
2nd: Nothing.
The proposed rule:
1st: Everything except supporter
2nd: Supporter only
The way I see it, the second one is closer to balance no matter how strong supporters are.
But I'll demonstrate even further.
Now, let's assume that there's a hidden turn in the game. The player who loses the coinflip goes first, but he can't do anything, not even draw a card.
1st: Nothing
2nd: Energy attachment advantage, evolution advantage, support use advantage, safer from donks, greater chance to donk your opponent.
3rd: Nothing.
Compare this to the proposed rule. Notice something? Yeah, this one has way bigger imbalance. And it's identical to the current rules in practice since we are only talking about theoretical turns of nothing. You can make and endless string of them, but in the end the effect is the same. The player who can do something first is what matters.
If they decide to remove Pokemon Ex from sets, then they need to put something in its place. They are the chaser cards and help keep a sets value. Without them, sets because awful and not worth anything.
They need to just make evolutions of Ex Pokemon and stop sticking to just legendary and basics.
Drew
EX 2 prize rule is a price to pay for their power (but some of them have too much power relative to this penalty). I feel they should just make Stage 2 that are strong without the 2 prize rule as they take the most risk and resources to get in play. Those weaknesses are their price for their power, rather than some EX rule (but they don't have enough power relative to this penalty..)
Awesome article and great points!
I hope for the good of the game, that the XY TCG expansions gives us very weak and underpowered Pokemon, so that eventually in a rotation the game allows for skill once again.
Thanks! Letting the current problem cards rampage for a year would be a safe way to handle the problem, but I doubt that would do very good to the sales of X&Y sets
There is a ton to read here, and I have a headache so excuse me if somebody addressed this already. I do not think 1 of each EX would really fix anything. A deck of 1 Tornadus EX, 1 Landorus EX, 1 Mewtwo EX, 1 Terrakion EX, 2 Terrakion, 1 Ho-Oh EX would still stomp the entire metagame (probably throw in 1 Lugia EX + Scramble Switch just to make it even better). So the metagame would turn into a war between Eels, Blastoise, Garbodor decks, something like this abomination, and Klinklang...would that really be that much better?
(and Klinklang or Garbodor would have just autowon this format).
Garbodor decks might even end up terribly broken.
Re-fixing first turn rules seems like a much, much better way to deal with all the problems. I mean maybe something in my theories up above is wrong, I am just thinking this out quickly, but it honestly sounds like what we have now with LESS competitive decks and even wackier EX decks, and while it might be fun for some, it would make it hard to really learn the ins and outs of your EX decks.
Big basics + energy acceleration = death. But while that deck would still be relatively strong, I think I'd find it much less problematic than a focused Blastoise + Keldeo/Kyurem deck or a Darkrai lasers deck. And in the end, if EX are banned, restricted or somehow nerfed, other big basics would likely take their place in energy acceleration decks. They would still be a lesser problem, admittedly. They would probably lose against Empoleon and Garchomp, and be easier to fix in future sets. Anyway, I'm agaist EX bans as tempting as it sounds.
