Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/28/20 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    hey guys some stuff came up and it was bad so basically i popped a xan for my anxiety and im going to probably finish up whatever writing i was doing today for when i wake up. sorry. wouldn't joke abt this or like, use this as an excuse to not post anything. i actually do want to play this game with u guys.
  2. 1 point
    @MaterialMacer can you explain why you gave a heart on Tuesday to rei's last post that was defending you?
  3. 1 point
    the paradox is bad because it punishes players based on little more than random chance. looking at nothing more than odds, setting 2+ seems like the right play on turn 1 -- there are 3 mst and 1 heavy in your opponent's deck, best play around the card he's more likely to have. but every now and then, this pussy ass bitch is going to have the heavy storm. sucks to be you faggot, thats what you get for playing the odds correctly. the counterargument would obviously be that if heavy didn't exist in that scenario, there wouldn't be any odds to play at all, and there wouldn't be scenarios where a skillful player won because he set multiple backrow and his opponent didn't have heavy, while a more retarded player may have only set 1 and lost because of it. that's what we want more of, right? games where people win because they make the right play? but the skill difference is so absolutely binary that i don't think it's worth protecting. it's not like these are very complex evaluations that only the highest caliber player is capable of making, it's just a universal rule that anyone that can count is capable of learning. that isn't real skill, and the 1 in 1203480912834 scenarios where a bad player loses because they set 1 in fear of heavy instead of setting 2 in fear of MST don't make the game better than Heavy's absence would. [quote name='Pharaoh Atem' timestamp='1337152908' post='3182295'] an we not identify catch-22s from other formats? And isn't the ultimate catch-22 the eternal point of gameplay? That is, "run the right shit or lose, and sometimes you'll just get fucked up the ass with a razor dildo anyway?" [/quote] that ultimate catch-22 exists in any state of the game, no matter what cards we ban or limit, no matter what game we're even fucking talking about. but the *less* of these catch-22s we have in the game, the better, and if we can eliminate one, i think we're doing the game a service. i edited this post entirely too much, i apologize.
  4. 1 point
    I just hate that If you know your opponent runs 3 MSTs and 1 Heavy and they have some form of s/t removal, 25% of the time it'll be Heavy. So if you absolutely need to protect yourself and you have 2 traps, fuck it. Go with the 75%. And it sucks that that play is punished in 25% of the cases they have Heavy Storm.
  5. 1 point
    to put things CRIMINALLY simply, a hs ban would make things better because the retarded paradox of "set 1 card, lose to mst/night beam, set 2+ cards, lose to heavy" would be gone. there is obviously more to it than that, but let's start from there. (i'm not saying i agree with banning heavy storm, just that that's the core argument for banning heavy storm making the game *better,* not just different) i think the real issue, and what Atem is getting at, is that even with heavy gone, there are still situations where, you know, people lose because their opponent had the nuts and they didn't. with heavy, those situations look like "heavy storm, rabbit, tour guide in hand." without heavy, those situations look like "shi en with 5 protective backrow set," like what marshmallow was getting at. i think we can ignore both of these scenarios for the purposes of this discussion, because they are what we call fixed costs in economics -- they exist regardless of if heavy is banned or limited, and thus we need not consider either when weighing the costs and benefits of either plan. all we need to look at is what DOES change from "world with heavy storm" to "world without heavy storm," and whether or not those changes are good or bad on the whole.
  6. 1 point
    Like seriously people what would you rather have? It really shouldnt be that hard A) Heavy Storm exist. You can get Heavy Stormed, and overpowered/lose and theres nothing you can do about it. or B) Heavy Storm doesnt exist. People can set lots of backrows. They can protect their monsters and their life points. Games probably take longer. Seriously, no one complained when you had a Stardust Dragon out and 2+ backrows protecting your shit, i mean jesus fuck people consider the formats where you could do that some of the best ever. Why does Heavy Storm need to exist? Because people can set lots of backrows and not worry? Why shouldnt people be able to set lots of backrows?
  7. 1 point
    Stop looking at Heavy Storm as a "mind game" and start looking at it as a 1/4 shot of getting fucked. Your opponent has 4 S/T removal cards they can draw. You can play the odds and set 2 and 75% of the time, when they draw 1 of these 4 cards you are safe, but 25% of the time that they draw 1 in 4 of their S/T removal cards out of 40 cards, you get owned. Adding in Night Beam to the equation means that setting 2+ is the frequent, best play. Heavy Storm should not be able to exist in a format with 6 MSTs, or even 4 MSTs, because it punishes player X for playing correctly (where setting more is playing correctly).
  8. 1 point
    [quote name='Gagaga Magician' timestamp='1336281674' post='3173099'] [quote name='broken' timestamp='1336180908' post='3172405'] Light Storm Destroy all spell and trap cards on each side of the field. You cannot conduct your battle phase this turn. We can only hope right? [/quote] Wasn't this what some were translating Storm as? Either way, these "Heavy Storm solutions" can never be perfect as we never know what Konami has in store for the future. There could be some burn OTK that would abuse the "you cannot conduct your Battle Phase this turn" clause. There could be a deck that revolves around normal summoning and does that multiple times in a turn but does not special summon at all so the "you cannot Special Summon during the turn you activate this card" clause isn't relevant. In my opinion the only way we could get around this card is with an effect like Cold Wave where you must play it at the beginning of your Main Phase and then you end your turn directly after. Then again, this could be abused by possible cards that activate in the Standby and Draw Phases. (of course I am not one to design such cards lol) tl;dr no special clause attached to Heavy Storm will assure it to be safe in the future [/quote] Then we go right back to what I said and do the following: Treat HS - or its replacement - as sacrosanct design, and then design around it at all fucking costs, such that every time there's a problem and HS (or its replacement) is involved, the other cards always take all the blame. This is the heart of what it means to build a format.
  9. 1 point
    .................. DOES ANYONE EVEN REMEMBER NO HEAVY STORM FORMAT? ARE U FUCKING KIDDING ME LET ME REFRESH PEOPLES MEMORY These are the decks that won during the span of Heavy Storm being forbidden Heroes X Sabers Plants Gravekeepers Six Samurai (When gateway was at 3, completely irrelevant imo) Six Samurai Heroes Zombie Plants Tengu Plants Tengu Plants Nationals: TG (And everyone was still using Agents and Tengu Plants cause no one knew about TG) So with all you people complaining about how the entire format was keeping one monster on board with a bunch of backrow kindly learn fucking yugioh. The format was not like that AT ALL. The only deck that was even close to being annoying was Gravekeepers (and that was because of turn 1 Royal Tribute, NOT Heavy Storm being banned) and even then it only was able to win once and then TG (which did benefit from Storm Being banned) at the very end of the format AND THATS IT.
  10. 1 point
    Make a "Heavy Storm" replacement in a future set with the exact same text, but add "you cannot special summon the turn you activate this card" to the end of the card text. Problem solved.
  11. 1 point
    This solemn warning discussion blows my mind. People are complaining about a one for one that costs 2000 lifepoints because it can kill their 2500 Attack monster which negates any spell or trap effect. For us to consider solemn warning broken we implicitly accept that giant horrible boss monsters are part of the game and they shouldn't be removed. Solemn Warning is only broken when it supports a card that allows for a lock like Stardust or Shien. The problem card is clearly the boss monster you set up with Warning. It makes much more sense to end swarms and boss monsters than Warning. Monsters like Stratos which are +1 upon summoning have been criticized for years and now that we have a heavily costed card that turns these autoplus ones into a one for one exchange people are pissed?
  12. -1 points
    I probably will end up voting Macer today, but I want to make sure everyone gets a chance to weigh into the thread first in case anyone came to some kind of epiphany over the night phase. I also want to make sure everyone meets quota first, and am interested in seeing that analysis that macer said he supposedly ran out of time on yesterday. Can you quote all instances where Haz was defending rei? The bolded in the quote above was my post, the paragraph below it was Walia's response to it. The response itself actually makes sense but... In the bolded part of the quote here does the exact same thing he just called me out for. WTH?