Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Ways to Approach the Game

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cabd

New Member
As to avoid making off-topic posts, I feel it is a good idea to have a place to talk about different approaches and mentalities to the game.

So, that said, we've had two opposite approaches given so far:

One approach is held by Vaporeon (and others too possibly), that is, anyone who plays anything that somebody has already done is "cheating the system" and that all players should play something completely original.

The other is that the only win condition is winning, and that originality is a self-imposed constraint that hurts performance.

So, it made me curious. Where do you, personally, fall in the sliding scale? This is not a poll, there is no "answer bank." I'm asking each person to say where they classify themselves, and to provide their mentality and reasoning behind it.

To start with, I'll answer this myself. I fall closer to the winning condition side. I prefer to play tier two decks, or reactive decks. I don;t have an issue with playing decks that others play as well, but i prefer to put my own personal spin on each list I see. I don't net deck, but i do enjoy "merging" ideas form several lists, and then looking at my binder for potential techs and alterations from there.
 
I'd say I'm somewhere between the two. I do love playing original decks - doing well with them is a real confidence booster - but I won't NOT play a deck just because others do. If that were the case we'd either have the most random format ever, or everyone could say 'Hey, you copied me...' at some point or another.

For instance, I can't stand sabledonk. It doesn't need much of any skill and it'll be overplayed. Yet at the same time I'm planning on playing it for Battle Roads. Why? Because I've never once won a BR and would really like to this time around. Now, I'm not saying I only want to win just to win. I'd just love to have the fun exp of winning for once. Closest I've come is Top 2 of the Luxpluff era battle roads.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. ^^
 
You really strawman the way people approach this game. Even if all you play are archetypes, being original in some regard is critical to success. Anyone who views creative deckbuilding or flexible playing as liabilities just doesn't know what this game is about.

So yeah, I guess I fall in the middle. Lol.
 
vaporeon said:
Everyone knows where I stand on this.
Click to expand...

And we'd love to hear well developed, thought-out, reasoning behind it, if possible. How can you expect us to understand your position if you don't explain the logic behind it?
 
I did provide logic behind it. I gave my reason why I think the way I do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Please don't resort to ad hominem attacks. We're all mature people here. So, let me see if i've got this right, your reasoning is that you feel that playing anything that anyone else does is copying, and therefore stealing, and that the best format would be everyone locked in a room with 4 of every card, given a few days, and then everyone plays each other? And that anyone with a deck that matched somebody else's somewhat closely was therefore a bad player, and does not deserve to win, and in your eyes, loses even if their deck takes first. I know this seems very very bizarre of a situation, but i'm trying to narrow down your logic here.
 
"How would you feel knowing someone had the answers to this huge exam that would get you into the really high end school, that you have been studing months for and that person scored higher then you and you were passed up and he went on, and not you? It would piss you off right?

knowing all that hard work went to waste because someone cheated. That's how I see it and that's how I feel about it. "

Thats how I feel about it. If everyone was locked in a room with a pile of cards and forced to build a deck to play in a tournament with, the best deck builder will win. Thats how it should be.

Of cource some ideas are going to cross at some point in time, but no one list is going to be the same card for card. Something will always be different.

I teach local kids how to play the game and be good at it. What should I tell them. Go online and build a deck that wins. There is not fun in that and takes away from the Spirit of the Game, something that I respect as a player.

Also, to my knowledge, a deck was banned, Wormadam Sandy Cloak.

http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1127860

It was banned for hurting the Spirit of the Game.
 
vaporeon said:
"How would you feel knowing someone had the answers to this huge exam that would get you into the really high end school, that you have been studing months for and that person scored higher then you and you were passed up and he went on, and not you? It would piss you off right?

knowing all that hard work went to waste because someone cheated. That's how I see it and that's how I feel about it. "
Click to expand...

This example makes no sense. How did that person get the answers? If they got them by breaking the rules (stealing the exam paper) then that's obviously wrong, but there's no real equvalent in Pokemon. A tournament isn't a test with set answers.

How can a person 'steal' your studying to pass an exam?

Thats how I feel about it. If everyone was locked in a room with a pile of cards and forced to build a deck to play in a tournament with, the best deck builder will win. Thats how it should be.
Click to expand...

Pokemon is a test of many things . . . in-game skill, ability to handle pressure . . . not just deckbuilding.

I teach local kids how to play the game and be good at it. What should I tell them. Go online and build a deck that wins. There is not fun in that and takes away from the Spirit of the Game, something that I respect as a player.
Click to expand...

Here's something that takes away from SOTG . . .

Calling players 'unfair' and accusing them of cheating when they have done NOTHING that breaks any rules. (Except the ones you made up in your own head).

Also, to my knowledge, a deck was banned, Wormadam Sandy Cloak.

http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1127860

It was banned for hurting the Spirit of the Game.
Click to expand...

Wormadam was banned from a tournament that used commons/uncommons. This was because it was originally a rare that got reprinted as an uncommon in a POP set.
 
cabd said:
I don;t have an issue with playing decks that others play as well, but i prefer to put my own personal spin on each list I see. I don't net deck, but i do enjoy "merging" ideas form several lists, and then looking at my binder for potential techs and alterations from there.
Click to expand...

Half-and half the same as me. I see a nice list on here, then I try to replicate the strategy and goal behind the deck with relatively unknown cards (stuff that wouldn't normally see competitive play). If that fails (which it does quite a few times), I conform and play lists that are almost archetypal- but this season I developed a personal tailor-made deck engine that I never leave home without so I guess that hints at a red face paint-ish side to my way of playing.

I can't really describe my logic behind this, if you can even call it that. I usually don't think clearly about things and I almost always get the ideas 100% wrong/ slightly off kilter.


If you have a deck that you love (like how I love my Hippowdons), play the hell out of it. Never part with it just because some netdecker- no matter how experienced he/she is, or whatever his/ her record may be- tells you "ZOMG AUTOLOSSTOEVERYTHING PLAYMYSTUFF TROLOLOLOL" (I've had that happen to me before. Annoying as hell.). If there are flaws, improve and tweak by all means but never get pressured into something you aren't comfortable with.

I ramble a lot. Sorry. There's probably a point in that mess above. If not, just ignore my noise.

---------- Post added 05/08/2011 at 02:02 AM ----------

And was the auto-change from R O G U E to red face powder really necessary, Pokegym?
 
The problem with non-conformity is that you let the people which you don't want to be like/play the same as limit what you yourself will be playing. Vaporeon, I used to think like you a year back or so, but I stopped realizing I had actually quit the game because I was getting tired of being stomped by all the decks I hated. You say you perform well with original ideas like Vaporeon/Pidgeot, I don't believe you. No matter how skilled you are, some cards in the format will be better than others, that's just how it is. You will get beat a lot if you don't stick to metagame/viable decks, and there is no way you can avoid it. I may still stay away from stuff like LuxChomp, but playing my own style-VileGar is OK - and I can actually do well with it.
 
Are you some sort of painfully bad internet troll, Vaporeon? Playing the game doesn't end with deck building - it ends with PLAYING THE GAME.

Deck building and metagame are enjoyable games within the game, but they're means to an end.
 
I usually play meta decks with whacky techs (e.g. Luxchomp with three Expert Belts and Zangoose PL for the mirror, and 2 Looker's to keep the Promocroak away).

On the subject of netdecking, skill and meta decks: Netdecking takes the skill out of deckbuilding, but it doesn't take the skill out of successfully playing a complex and strategic deck. Someone winning a tournament with a netdecked LuxChomp still demonstrates skill in playing the deck.

Playing a meta deck =/= netdecking =/= not having any skill at playing the game
 
Last edited:
Cyrus said:
Are you some sort of painfully bad internet troll, Vaporeon? Playing the game doesn't end with deck building - it ends with PLAYING THE GAME.
Click to expand...

Hang on, I'm going to jump on Vaporeon's side for a minute. They said:

"Thats how I feel about it. If everyone was locked in a room with a pile of cards and forced to build a deck to play in a tournament with, the best deck builder will win."

Yes, it includes playing a tournament. And the way I read this, Vaporeon is putting a lot of credence in calling someone "the best deck builder". You put Chris Fulop and me in a room with cards, he will win, not just because he walked out of the room with the "best" 60 cards (that's certainly subjective), but because he deeply knows the reasons why he put those 60 cards into a deck, and he knows how to use them against me in a game. That's what being "the best deck builder" means.

Finally, Vaporeon's style actually reminds me of Jimmy Ballard, who likes to try to build rogue format-breaking decks. But when one of them catches on (i.e. Mewperior, inspired by cpeterik, at least in our area here), he feels the need to go create something new. Right or wrong, agree or disagree, that's just how he likes to play the game.
 
Jimmy Ballard looks for unexpected ways to counter the metagame. He doesn't just build decks out of 'fun' Pokemon that he happens to like and tries desperately to make the deck work. His decks are built to win just as much as any meta deck is.

That's the HUGE difference between him and Vaporeon.

I doubt he would call anyone who played a meta deck a 'cheat' either.

In this example of being locked in a room with a fixed set of cards, yes, the best deck builder would likely win.

But WHY would he win? Because he identified the most powerful cards and combos, while anticipating what other players would build that's why. He wouldn't win because he made the best deck he could with a couple of pet Pokemon.
 
I will play whatever wins FOR ME. I played the rogue-archetype ChampPlume for regionals expecting no Vilegar and much Sp. I ended up playing up on 10 games vs. Sp winning them all. Its not all about picking the "best cards", it's picking the best cards to beat your opponent.

I remember playing GG my one (and only) event with it in 2008. Everyone else played it too. I went like 3-2 because I ran up against 1 GG player who I got pretty bad luck against. The second loss was also against a GG player only this time, I got the best start. Only thing was he totally outplayed me with the deck. I try to avoid the best deck in format out of hate for mirror match. Not because I hate the deck its self.

Not talking about anyone specifically, but I REALLY wish people would stop hating on "net deckers". It also feels to me like that word has been thrown around to much lately. IMO A net decker is some one who strictly takes decks off the internet. This assuming this person would be a very bad player without the internet. This is a net decker. A net decker is usually someone who plays meta decks, but a player who plays meta decks is not necessarily a net decker. THE ONLY REASON THEY NET DECK IS BECAUSE THEY ARE SMART ENOUGH TO USE THE RESOURCES THAT ARE THERE.
 
I hate those that blindly netdeck. If you netdeck, you're not taking into account your personal playing style, your area's metagame, or the players that you're going up against.

I'll admit to being a Metagame player, but not a netdecker. I hear an idea that I like, and I build my own version around that idea. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. But it's always interesting that way.
 
Victory Bell said:
I will play whatever wins FOR ME. I played the rogue-archetype ChampPlume for regionals expecting no Vilegar and much Sp. I ended up playing up on 10 games vs. Sp winning them all. Its not all about picking the "best cards", it's picking the best cards to beat your opponent.

I remember playing GG my one (and only) event with it in 2008. Everyone else played it too. I went like 3-2 because I ran up against 1 GG player who I got pretty bad luck against. The second loss was also against a GG player only this time, I got the best start. Only thing was he totally outplayed me with the deck. I try to avoid the best deck in format out of hate for mirror match. Not because I hate the deck its self.

Not talking about anyone specifically, but I REALLY wish people would stop hating on "net deckers". It also feels to me like that word has been thrown around to much lately. IMO A net decker is some one who strictly takes decks off the internet. This assuming this person would be a very bad player without the internet. This is a net decker. A net decker is usually someone who plays meta decks, but a player who plays meta decks is not necessarily a net decker. THE ONLY REASON THEY NET DECK IS BECAUSE THEY ARE SMART ENOUGH TO USE THE RESOURCES THAT ARE THERE.
Click to expand...

Great post. There's a lot of hypocrisy about netdecking. We've all learned from seeing great lists and picking up ideas from the internet.
 
The best way to approach the game is to not be self-righteous about what you choose do and in turn look down upon every other method.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top