Yu-Gi-Oh Discussion Thread

[BlueMoonIceCream]

11 hours ago, FairFamily said:

Meh, I wouldn't call tech choices the most creative element for deckbuilding but rather the one a player can diversify in. I mean some creative madman must have thought you can use cards like photon trasher and silver and gold gadgets, to go into tsukyumi and make a turn one buster dragon. The same with goblindbergh and the tinfish for heros. The plays and synergy are just so strong and natural, it becomes mandatory but still the creative spark has to come. Also archetype combination and engines are rather similar. For lower decks countering becomes more prevalent but sometimes hard decisions have to be made.

That is true, though once one person figures it out everyone copies the build instead of making something of their own y'know, however tech choices are for the most part personal choices which is what I was getting at basically

 

11 hours ago, FairFamily said:

It is hard to get over the mermail board but not impossible and I'm not sure of the consistency of mermails to get that boardstate often.

Oh believe me I've experienced it, I still have PTSD when I hear a mermail player say "I'm going first" 0-0

11 hours ago, FairFamily said:

Yeah but negating is a part of interaction. Do they take your bluff or don't they? Can you force negates for weak effects? Also I think you are exagerating in the amount fo negates a deck has. Metalphoes are not even guarantueed to have a negate. Only some cyber dragon infinity variants have it. I know treatoad is popular but decks these make plays with very little cards. I mean abc has a two card buster dragon.

Well it's negation's and card that interrupt your plays, basically anything that stops you from doing literally anything during your turn, for example if you play DM and you brick except for Magician's Rod which would let you search Illusion Magic to make your hand playable and the opponent Veiler's it and you just stare at your impending doom

[FairFamily]

So rank10ygo launched war of the worthless: an online tournament based on his legacy of the worthless series. I was willing to participate with B.E.S. and I was wondering if some of you had some cards in mind. Right now I have a deck around tribute summoning (for the counters) with vassals and monarch support cards. The side deck is right now empty because I want to decide that based on the main deck.

[BlueMoonIceCream]

No boss rush? smh

 

Why wave-motion cannon? I mean I guess this tournament will be slower but it really sucks when people pop it before you can cash in

 

Would ties of the bretheren help, it doesn't prevent normal summons

[FairFamily]

boss rush is a terrible card without the field spell, you have to build around it and it is not searchable. also you cannot normal summon or set.

For wave motion, it is like I have all this obligatory defense to make my B.E.S not blow themselves up so I thought of adding a bit of burn to my deck as an alternative win con and between the dimension guardians, domain and march I think they have bigger worries then wave-motion cannon.

Ties of the brethren in B.E.S a deck of different attribute monsters, also in this tournie it is limitted because too good.

 

[BlueMoonIceCream]

I was kidding about boss rush >->

 

Wave motion cannon's fun I like it

 

and I forgot ties of the bretheren was cards of different names my bad, I did read the rules, that's why I thought adding one would be harmless

 

Nothing immediately pops into my head, believe it or not I've never built B.E.S. before >->

 

The only thing I can really think of is limiter removal

 

You could probably get away with instant fusion if you used it for tribute fodder

 

Oooooo Supply squad, would that work or does march of the monarchs protect them from their own effect?

 

Seven dark monsters, Allure of Darkness?

 

After testing the deck I noticed that tribute fodder isn't really an issue so scratch instant fusion, with the protection though limiter removal would be pretty good. Draw power is kind of a problem, not sure if supply squad would do much good except for coming back so maybe allure of darkness would help with that.

 

Something I've noticed is that the despair uranus kinda steals the show a little bit unfortunately

[FairFamily]

Yeah despair kinda steals the show, but it does work towards the win condition and protects it well, so I hope it can stay.

 

March does protect against B.E.S own destruction meaning that supply squad is in contradiction but limiter removal on the other hand synergises well.

 

Allure of darkness does not seem to work that well. it is basically the same reason it works not well with the pendulumgraph magician, having many dark monsters is not bad. It is only bad if you have too many vassal or tributes but that seems unlikely. If the deck was completely dark I would reconsider but no the chance of fixing bad hands seems small.

Edited January 8, 2017 by FairFamily

[BlueMoonIceCream]

I do like the deck, not gonna lie, I actually am working on doing guardians at the moment..... guardians suck by the way

[FairFamily]

Guardians, I don't envy you. My only way to even see some chance is with battle position changers like stumbling,lose 1 turn and gravity axe grarl and attacking directly with shooting star bow ceal.

[BlueMoonIceCream]

I can't even use trade-in

[BlueMoonIceCream]

 

What have I created?!

[FairFamily]

I don't know what you did to those guardians but it is turn 10 to be fair. I see some nice things though, magical contract door is an interesting concept: bait your opponent in using your equip cards while searching dread scythe , using kayest and tinfish to make bahamut shark.

[BlueMoonIceCream]

I made that turn one, they just couldn't get over me for that long, or rather I made the first bahamut shark turn one, either way this just goes to show that treatoad is a little more generic than Konami thought :|

 

 

You wanna help me improve it?

[FairFamily]

well blame norden and bahamut shark. Especially norden there is almost no deck that does not benifit this card. Ironically I know 3 decks that do not want norden in there. That does not make treatoad without blame either, for one of the few xyz monsters with an effect that requires no materials or an archetypical monster and can recycle elder entity norden, they choose water and rank 2, fantastic, then again norden is banned in the ocg so maybe they were a bit more lenient. Honestly norden and shark to zero and treatoad to one. I may be a bit exagerating with the shark, but rank 4 is the best toolbox in the game and I think konami wants to realease more xyz cards with an effect that doesn't need to detach materials which I support but if they do bahamut shark will always be a limitting factor.

 

Also what are your additonal high level dark monsters? Darklords perhaps? I doubt you play a card like magical contract door for dreadscythe only then again trade in fodder.

[BlueMoonIceCream]

I had trade-in but it really doesn't work with eatos, also I was just testing magical contract door to see if it was even useful, aside form tin goldfish all of those monsters are guardians

[FairFamily]

Well about your deck I was thinking about dark lords for consistency, rank 8 and eatos plays but that might be too much investment. Also 3 exacavations for like 3 grarl seems over kill, also no rank 5's? Also your decks dies to gyroid the moment dreadscythe comes on the field so maybe big bang shot? it has some neat utility with release restraint wave. Speaking of release restraint wave, maybe thousand eyes restrict with instant fusion for some spot removal and if you're at it Rare fish/mavelus to setup your attribute xyz plays? Dark hole can setup your death scythe and kayest is safe and nuke the monster line up when you can't get past it. Also you cannot deal that well with face-up spell and traps. That's just thinking when looking at your deck. I would have to test it for some extra analasys. 

Edited January 13, 2017 by FairFamily

[BlueMoonIceCream]

Rank 5's are too difficult to get out because grarl has to be the only card in your hand to special summon him, I rarely get him and fossil dig along with a hand of backrow, although one couldn't hurt just in case

 

How about Skill drain, would that hurt me at all?

 

[FairFamily]

a little bit, no tin fish, no arsenal summoner, no point in xyz summon, but the guardians don't have relatively usefull effects. Also a lot of legacy of the worthless decks try their hand at moon mirror shield, so the moment they play that and it is game over for you. 

[BlueMoonIceCream]

I added twin twister because my hand is usually useless anyway

 

 

getting better... or getting lucky

[Lits]

 

I came back to the game, heard dinos were coming back. Now I make this every turn 1

[HughJ]

If the game is this broken anyway why not just legalize draw cards and bring back Exodia

[FairFamily]

Can I see a decklist for that? I get the general gist of the deck from the field you've shown, but I'm missing some things.

[SJMistery]

There was a time I loved this game. Then I noticed that the only way to win is to pay millions for rare cards. Since then, I have never touched it again. It is still around on my house, with a Dinosaur+old Mech deck, with a chockfull of random additions. If you want an idea of how long was the last time I played, the game still had no Deck card or Special Deck card limits on the rules, and Fusion and Ritual were the only special summons available.

 

 

Off Topic

This game is the reason I added the Third Rule on my personal guide of competitive games:

(In case you want to know, they are the rules that a game must follow to be truly competitive)

 

 

1 Equally Winnable: That means, the game can never be decided by who plays first.

2 Statistically Fair: Random elements with a realistic chance to happening should NEVER be able to completely turn the tables on a game. That means, weapons like the Blue Shell, or the Freeze and Confusion status in pokemon, must be either removed or limited as much as possible (for example, with the Freeze Clause).

3 Universally Available: ALL viable resources must be available to all players from the start. Otherwise, the game might be decided before even playing simply because you couldn't afford to pay for that super-rare-10000-dollar-worth-card.

4 Relatively Balanced: If one single strategy decides the game, the game becomes a coin-toss on whoever does it faster. However, this also means that the game shouldn't be decided from the start depending on what both players pick. Ex Rosalina vs Ness in Smash 4. The main reason I dislike the ORAS and S&M metagame.

5 Anti Stalling: A strategy that consistently prevents the game from ending after long periods of gameplay on resonable circumstances should NEVER happen. For example, two players constantly switching back and forth between two Regenerator pokemon.

 

by the way, rule 5 Technically does NOT apply to the "Funbro", or better said "Scumbro", as the only way to ensure it to work requires the opponent to willingly carry a team with 6 pokemon, no one of them having Shed Shell, Ghost typing, or a switch-out attack and no one of them having Toxic, a stat-boosting attack, or a variant or Roar, or deliberately leave the pokemon they have on the field that happens to lack all of the above knowing Block will trap them on the immediate turn. However, it is still better out, in my oppinion.

[HughJ]

I agree with a good amount of details on that list but you have to admit some facets of it are unrealistic as far as the interest of the producer is concerned

 

Consider Konami's production of YuGiOh packs and how they interact with your third rule. The primary factor behind most independent purchases of traditional YuGiOh card packs is the idea that inside you might find a rare card worth some pride or money. The best compensatory technique I've seen come out of players' dissatisfaction with overly rare cards is the limited release of booster or anime packs which either have a guaranteed rare/ultrarare, or a guaranteed powerful card in specific. Although this makes obtaining viable materials a little more practical of an investment for the individual player, it waters down the rarity and value of the cards from the perspective of the producer and ultimately they'll just have to create another, more powerful card or even a new class of cards as a substitute. I'm pretty sure this is what happened with Bakugan and why in a matter of 2 years the awesome little trinkets became these huge metal and plastic cube and pyramidal abominations. I suppose you could call it Rarity Creep, and it's probably already well-established enough.

 

There is a solution in the form of an accepted digital environment for competition such as Showdown or the recently-forsaken DuelingNetwork. However, just as before, trading card distributors almost always stand to lose money with the introduction of such a competitive system. The reason Pokemon allows showdown to continue probably has something to do with the fact that they aren't necessarily losing money off of player use, because they only sell their games (which typically include every asset available save a few free event Pokemon). In the case of duelingnetwork however, there was a system perpetually undermining Konami's sales by allowing the free use of otherwise restricted cards.

 

 

In terms of the last two points I'd say a relatively balanced metagame with a select roster of characters (OU and up in Pokemon, run-of-the-mill typhoons in YuGiOh, B-tier and above in Melee) is of course beneficial to the growth of a scene but you can't understate the value brought by low-tier or undervalued assets in their ability to upset the meta and generate hype (like a magikarp sweep). And finally, although a lot of people probably wouldn't agree with me, I have to say that games that run on waaaay past when they were supposed to end are some of my favorite to play because it almost develops a sort of localized meta. One of my favorite activities a few years ago was playing trouble in terrorist town and trying to make the game last as long as possible to see the steady dissolution of people's trust in one another. Stupidly long duels in YuGiOh and Pokemon are also fun to watch for similar reasons, as often the game becomes entirely mental in the way the players are forced to anticipate one another and transcend traditional strategy

 

Thanks for giving me something to think about for a while, those are some pretty solid rules from an ideal standpoint but there are a number of odd factors (producers' economic interest/support; and low-tier hype) which might influence your opinion

[FairFamily]

I think "equally winnable" is not desirable for yugioh. There are many cards that favor the second turn player but are useless in the first turn like "maxx C". So it could have been a trade-off.  However I will digress that first turn players have a distinct advantage especially since cards like solemn strike, dimensional barrier, .. are running rampant combined with the reducted cost of combos these days. So I will say that  equally winnable should be a choice for the player which it isn't right now.

 

HughJ explained why "universibly available" will never happen. I'm also not sure if it has to be and before you roast me I mean not everyone should have access to every card but can gather a viable set within a reasonable amount of money/effort.  Unfortunately the concept of staples reduced any chance of that happening and the splashable engines to come will not help either.

 

"Statistically fair" and "relatively balanced" are in this game (and many other games) in contradiction. You see the more statistically fair a game becomes the more the match up decides the out come. Once people can find the winning strategy, the game boils down to a chance of victory depending on the matchup. Now before I will continue a strategy can include a random choice or outcome and finding this winning strategy can and will occur ( I think penalty kicking in soccer requires mathematicians for this very reason). So if you want to have less reliance on chance then you will have a more secure outcome based on matchup and vice versa.

 

The last point "stalling" is in general fine as long as it is dynamic, interactive and exciting. Right now speed in yugioh is asinine, I have seen decks spew out their boss monster 3 times in a single turn and I have dismantled fields likke these before the end of his following turn. I have also had slow where both of us where grinding each other away at an agonizing pace while giving each other not a single inch but these are a lot more rare and a lot less competitive. Its a shame though because even though both types are fun the slow matches are fundementally different. Right now the concept resource management is defined in how much plusses you can make in a single turn and the resulting field: all of it is just the present. There is no long term resource management or long term strategy, players don't have to look further then turn 3. In fact the popularity for pot of desires is a clear proof of this. However we don't have to go 3 messenger piece burn decks in return. What is important is that the turns you play themselves are fun, speed does not matter then (within reason). I mean no player will like playing against an FTK no matter how fast it is. 

[SJMistery]

Don't worry, I won't go roast you because you are right on what you said, it's just that you didn't understand well what I meant with  rules 2 and 4:

I mean with rule 2: Being able to consistently eliminate skill as a factor on the game, simply by repeteadly using a luck-based attack or strategy (AKA Swagger Kefki or Double Team) until you luck out. A good example of what I mean and I wish programmers made sure to code against, is this:

 

Concretely, what happened on 7:55 Got a 2 stock advantage, yet the Greninja looses simply because his opponent got incredibly lucky.

 

And, who has not lost a game simply because the tank you sent to receive around 5% damage from an Ice Beam got frozen?

In a card game, of course there must be an inherent luck factor as the cards are supposed to be shuffled around by your opponent precisely to prevent cheating. But if, let's say, a card that gave you insta-win was allowed (and it used to be many, the most well known being Last Turn), the game would be reduced to who draws it first.

 

What I mean, is that randomness, while unavoidable even on apparently deterministic games like chess (you will never know if the opponent will miss a mate, or if he overlook a piece and that attack he is decimating you could have been stopped, or even how will he open up the game), it should be limited enough to allow both players at least a decent way to control it.

 

 

The fourth point was confusing, I admit: What i mean is that the player at least SHOULD be able to have room to cover for any relevant threat. In other words, the game should never be won or lost from the very beggining, simply because you didn't have room to include an answer to every common threat. I am the first that likes to see unexpected threats or even surprise-reliant strategies, but let's say, loosing to Medicham Mega simply because including a Gengar meant you have to remove Keldeo and loose to dragon dance Mega Tyranitar instead, that sucks.

 

 

I agree with stalling not always being bad, in many games, it IS the best way to win, if you have a good lead, or if all that stops you from winning is the enemy Quagsire that walls you, but has only 36 PP on his attacks, while you have 60 to spare.

What I mean, is intentionally drawing the game longer and longer for the sake of making it longer, in hope the opponent will eventually misplay. The most obvious analogue is the now-banned card that reset the entire game. As long as you keep drawing it, nobody can win, allowing you to try again and again until you get a favorable enough position that your opponent won't be able to reset.

 

And thanks to you both. It's been a while since I got a GOOD competive discussion outside of the Smash forums

Edited January 20, 2017 by SJMistery
grammar error again