Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Winning

afstandopleren

afstandopleren

New Member
So, people like to win. That's generally not a bad thing, but IMHO there are several downsides to winning. But first, I'll explain why I made this thread.

I've won very few contests in my life. It didn't and still doesn't bother me much. And then I won WWNN's DDDDC contest and I noticed I did not have the same reaction as normal people that win all the time have. No, I was more like "Okay, this is it? Now what?" I did not feel a 'kick' of any sorts. So I began to wonder, why do people want to win so bad? What makes people so motivated that they use decks like Macheap to have a glimmer of chance to reach that 'magical' point of having won something 'big'? I mean, we all win from time to time a game in Pokemon, but when on a tourny, being better then everybody else seems to come in first. Even at freaking Battle Roads and Prereleases people are like "Look at me and my deck having gotten first place! Whooo!". The worst part about it is there are always people that have the tendency to kiss butt with those peoples to just be part of the spotlight. This can be clearly seen on the Organized Play parts of forums. It's hard to tell who's generally happy for you, or disguising it just to cloak possible envy or what not.

As a side effect, you wil see certain type of decks exist: Metagame decks. Decks that everyone claims to be a winner. Strangely, those decks are nothing but a hyped strategy that has won once or twice and then put on the internet for the whole world to see and be played. There is no originality and creativity left as the only difference between 2 of the same meta decks is the techs or the amount of a certain card put in. So in the end, the meta is what people 'believe' what it is because they see a card combo and go bonkers on it's potential while there are more card combos to be explored then just the ones in the meta that people themselves created.

Don't get me wrong, I am most of the time happy with my results, tho loosing on coin flips and donks are a real killer for my ability of enjoying the game. The fact that people that put more energy and thought into their decks don't really have a place to shine at tournaments, is also a bummer for me as those people don't stand a chance vs people that are driven to an almost extreme to win.

I discussed this problem with someone from the Dutch Pokemon scene. After having gotten 4-2 out of every deck I build (Café Noir, Café Zone etc.) during the time that they were best suited in the meta game and had statistically a good chance to do better then that, I became doubtful whether there would ever be place in tournaments for original and creative decks to win for once. After a while, in the discussion the only choice left was to play metadecks if I would really want to win. Which just doesn't feel right to me. So okay, I can play metadecks, I've tried, but it just doesn't do it for someone like me. But that leaves the question: Should I play for fun and continuously lose? Or should I play a (to me boring) meta deck to have atleast a good shot and getting to the top cut. I find this to be a ridiculous position because it seems to boil down to "Play this or lose" which I'm sure of wasn't ever meant to be with this game. It also came up that some people seem to want to win to stroke their ego or to just feel good about themselves for once in a while. Understandable, but sometimes it seems to be a bridge to far in how it's achieved within the legal boundaries of the game.
 
When I first won a Pokemon game, I felt proud of myself. I agree with you when you state Machamp Donk is a cheap win. I was donked at Battle Roads and it was a waste of my time. Rather than lose in my 1st turn, I would've much rather had played a complete game, and then lost.

Some people feel as if when they don't win, they didn't do well. Perhaps they "need" to win to achieve something, like ranking points.

Personally, it's great to win, but I don't really care as long as I enjoyed the game.
 
Ranking points in BRs is ridiculous IMHO. Your rating doesn't really improve by much and you are left with a rather meh Promo card that confirms your ability to win low class tournaments. Besides, not everyone is as good as others or is able to attend that many tournaments to keep their Rating up. Yet, those peoplethat do are at Nats because there is rating for that as well despite them having an invite by rating in their pocket, making it extra (and unnecessarily) hard for others to get a good shot at getting the Top Cut at Nats.
 
I can see Battle Roads being very important for someone within 5 - 10 points of a Ranking Invite. This type of stake can lead to ridiculous competitiveness.
 
Well, BRs are solely meant to give newer players a taste of the competitive environment. Everyone misses this point. In a competitive environment, rating points are at stake. It's not about how many tournaments you can make it to or anything else.

But about not being able to play creative decks... I'm sure that they didn't mean it to be this way, but they can't really help it. There's always going to be the tier 1 decks--the decks that are better then the rest. They don't intend for any one card/combo to become dominate. It just happens. It's impossible to stop it. It's not, "Play this or lose," it's, "Play the best possible deck you can play to increase your odds of winning, even if that means sacrificing creativity."

Imagine you're going to a race track. Which car are you going to pick, the Chevy Camaro, or the Toyota Prius? You might like the Prius more, but the Camaro is going to smoke it either way. It just makes sense to go for the Camaro.
 
What is the point of this thread, out of curiosity? I'm sorry you don't feel any kick out of winning, and I'm sorry you can't win with your rogue decks. I find statements like this ludicrous:

I find this to be a ridiculous position because it seems to boil down to "Play this or lose" which I'm sure of wasn't ever meant to be with this game.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no card game developing team ever expected for there to be a metagame which prevented bad or mediocre decks from overwhelming success. Since the days of Alpha, Beta, and Revised, they've been left scratching their heads, frantically trying to figure out how this whole "meta" thing works.
 
It's very basic: whatever value you place on the "win" (or achievement in general) directly results in a certain response to winning.

You can obtain "value" from a variety of things: monetary gain, social gain, personal goals, etc. That's why you have people so worked up over Sudoku or Crossword...Because they're personally invested in it.

So in your case, you thought of the deck contest as no big deal, and thus worth not that much. However, if you have a kid someday, you'll probably be ecstatic.
 
Last edited:
I sympathize with Afstandopleren's case. I play rouges, purely because it's something special when I win or do well at an event. The only BR I ever won was two weeks ago, and I did it with Starmie. Also, I played in masters, even though I'm in Seniors(yes, there were only 2 seniors including me), and went 4-1, so my first tourney win was something unique, making it even more satisfying for me!
 
@ Original Post. I made T4 at my first Regionals, first year of playing with Gardevoir EX Flygon Delta. My very first tournament (Cities) I placed third with my own creation, Charizard Delta, Dusclops (1 CG 1 EX) Deoxys EX. Now I know that was a while ago, but just last year I made 4th at a BR using RaiEggs, a really stupid version at that too.

So rogue decks can win, you just need to build them well enough.
 
@OP: For investing time, effort, and money on Pokemon and making decks, I would think it is just natural for anyone to want to win tournaments to have the feeling of accomplishment on a game that interests one most and to have some compensation for all the efforts (physical, mental, financial, etc) (well, Pokemon cards are not exactly free, right?). However, I do understand your point about boring decks and decks that are fun to play. I guess it is up to person whether playing non-meta decks will provide him more satisfaction than playing archetypes that have a greater chance to win...

You know, sometimes I contemplate what would it be like if there is also an Overused (composed of the archetypes) and Underused (composed of rogues) Metagame in TCG (similar to the video game). A tournament full of surprise and not-your-usual decks would undoubtedly be fun. However, I would concede that there will be difficulties in determnining what is archetype and rogue in that regard (a Luxray deck vis-a-vis a deck that has a tech Luxray).

@pikamaster: The problem with playing rogue these days is that its there are so many decks that are playable in the format and making a rogue deck now (which, IMO has a purpose to counter the meta) is very difficult, if not impossible compared to past formats.
 
play yugioh, win, and then come back and talk about feelings. you'll be changed. trust me.

i play these games to win.
 
afstandopleren said:
I discussed this problem with someone from the Dutch Pokemon scene. After having gotten 4-2 out of every deck I build (Café Noir, Café Zone etc.) during the time that they were best suited in the meta game and had statistically a good chance to do better then that, I became doubtful whether there would ever be place in tournaments for original and creative decks to win for once. After a while, in the discussion the only choice left was to play metadecks if I would really want to win. Which just doesn't feel right to me. So okay, I can play metadecks, I've tried, but it just doesn't do it for someone like me. But that leaves the question: Should I play for fun and continuously lose? Or should I play a (to me boring) meta deck to have atleast a good shot and getting to the top cut. I find this to be a ridiculous position because it seems to boil down to "Play this or lose" which I'm sure of wasn't ever meant to be with this game. It also came up that some people seem to want to win to stroke their ego or to just feel good about themselves for once in a while. Understandable, but sometimes it seems to be a bridge to far in how it's achieved within the legal boundaries of the game.
Click to expand...

For one thing, I don't think there is a 'play this or lose' deck right now. Nothing like it. People HAVE come up with original or underused decks that have been really successful. Look at RayBees, Gyarados, and Kyogre Kid's Toolbox. Those are all creative, non-archetype decks (at the time) which did well enough to become archetypes. Just cos your deck(s) didn't have a similar impact doesn't mean it can't be done.

For another you can never expect points just for being 'original and creative'. If an original deck can't win, then it's just a mediocre deck. You need something that is original, creative, and good. Like French Gyarados was at Worlds.

Lastly, if you are not bothered about winning, then what's wrong with playing for fun and a respectable 4-2 record? People play for different reasons, you have no more right to criticise people for trying to win, than they have to criticise you for being a snob about archetype decks.
 
/\ I totaly agree with you.

As for winning, i really like to win just to prove to myself (and others) that i'm the best (in my country)
 
afstandopleren said:
So, people like to win... how it's achieved within the legal boundaries of the game.
Click to expand...

Everyone has a competitive spirit.

For most people they get the rush and thrill by just winning. They don't care about the cards the same way someone like you and I do.

For people like us to get all woo hoo!, we would have to win with an original creation we devoted a lot of time and thought into making. With this mind set winning is nothing if you can't do it with style. The reason you didn't get all excited over DDDDC is because you weren't playing. Someone else won with a virtual net deck created by you, if that makes sense.

I would say keep playing the way that is most fun for you which is obviously by creating your own decks and going against the tide. Either that or train your mind to realize that all these Meta/Net decks were someone's original creation in the first place.

I think you will find there will be more of an enjoyable spot for you once Arceus and back phases out and you are playing with the slower cards that appear to be coming down the pipe, presuming the sets following HGSS will be like what we have seen of HGSS so far. these cards will put the game state back to what it was when Neo came out forcing much more creativity in deck building. There will always be archetypes though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top