Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/30/20 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    I like how we are in an age of fucking race oversensitiveness and I cant even say my niggas my niggas anymore out of fear of being called racist yet we're like oh you're british fuck you dont come in my house you fucking cunt
  2. 2 points
    both sage and fuckfiend played decent games as scum, better than most town, i only started to get to fuckfiend by the end of day 2 where he started slumping i'd play more games for as long as I work from home but in like a month or so that i return to work there is no way i can/will play this game on mobile
  3. 2 points
    This is crap. You can make quota by saying quota. It doesn't even need substance. You wanted an excuse to be townread and you claimed (1) drug problems and (2) co-opted a national tragedy to do it. Completely unnecessary At best poor form. At worst, a clear attempt to use outside circumstances to influence a game you were not confident you could win.
  4. 1 point
    Do it. Disappear for awhile. These days are the perfect time to just hole up at home, cut social media off, cut texting/calls off, etc., and just binge on videos, learn a new skill or language or whatever. Just chill and relax to yourself.
  5. 1 point
    There is so much going on and I'm so stressed and I just wanna explode and disappear for like a month
  6. 1 point
    looks like im finally getting a decent job out here leaving the ebil empire i work for
  7. 1 point
    the title is inaccurate. real winner was me for not having to play a DGz Mafia game.
  8. 1 point
    also gj to marj, mafia god. was a fun day 1 until drama happened. really fun reading d2. Not bad for a long dgz hiatus tbh gg everyone
  9. 1 point
    we have? no please come we need money and you guys are like the easiest to get drunk and taken advantage of
  10. 1 point
    I feel like a real grown up now, I ordered a car part last night
  11. 1 point
    js jazz's switching votes at eod is the most difficult thing to possibly play against in dgz mafia. it always fucks scum. this is from when i played serial killer last time marjorie12/13/2019 WAHHHH [2:53 PM] NOOOO [2:53 PM] THEY ALL CHANGED VOTE TO GEMSTONE [2:53 PM] I DIDNT EXPECT THAT TO HAPPEN IN AN INSTANT [2:53 PM] WHY [2:54 PM] I WANTED TYRANNO TO DIE WHY DO I HAVE TO LOOK LIKE I'M ON TOP OF THE LYNCH [2:54 PM] I'M SERIOUSLY GONNA CRY [2:54 PM] THIS ISNT GOOD AT ALL Di4na12/13/2019 i am afraid that i cannot account for the stupidity of dgz mafia players marjorie12/13/2019 mother fuckers [2:55 PM] what the fuck [2:56 PM] they weren't supposed to actually listen to me [3:00 PM] lightning could've decended from the heavens at the same time i made that push against gemstone and they would've switched their vote before it struck the earth it was so fast Di4na12/13/2019 lol marjorie12/13/2019 please something happen [3:02 PM] good lord [3:02 PM] i think nothing beats this [3:02 PM] i have to kill gemstone [3:02 PM] omfg Di4na12/13/2019 you win if they fuck up marjorie12/13/2019 im so upset there are lots of dms i have with hosts and dead players that im explaining the game to... where i melt down bc someone is switching the votes. usually its jazz doing it
  12. 1 point
    Ur not getting banned. If anything we reopen the discussion on this particular issue for future games.
  13. 1 point
    Your play says otherwise. Confident players don't need to do the above because its unnecessary and definitely steps outside the bounds of the game -- not to mention abhorrent and disgusting.
  14. 1 point
    Thank u to everyone who played without losing their heads. It's interesting/frustrating that the ogi info discussion ended up having to come up as I recently saw spec chat on mafiau argue that u treat such stuff as nai and always potential bs
  15. 1 point
    Fuckfiend played a decent game from what I saw and absolutely did not need to do the above to win, but imo she should have been modkilled for the above. Completely unnecessary attempt to bring outside info to the game for the sole purpose of influencing other player's reads. At best, their play was super poor form (may as well have claimed X died and I have to get ready for their funeral). At worst, its banworthy. I'm not making these posts to call fuckfiend out so much as the tactic employed. Other people have done similar shit and it really has no place in a mafia game.
  16. 1 point
    Now you see why I advocate for shit like this to be banned. This is OGI used to justify a lack of in game activity. I'm fairly sure we did ban shit like this to justify a lack of in game activity.
  17. 1 point
    Biggest shock ITT is finding out that Sage isn't gay
  18. 1 point
    Guys we have to stop posting because Chevalier de Fromage said so
  19. 1 point
    I made some posts a good long time ago and I feel I should make a more complete series of remarks about the topics of those posts. So, I'm rezzing those posts. I will cover several topics. Here's the Table of Contents. To search for something, search for its number in brackets. (So if I wanted entry 3, I'd search for "[3]", without quotes.) [1] On Rarities and "The Blood-Curdling Blue-Eyes White Dragon" [2] Complaining without being an idiot [3] A more detailed history [4] On Power Creep [5] On LP Amounts [6] On Format Length, and why you shouldn't complain about it [7] Atem and Peddle talk about Solemn Judgment's Limitation [8] On Drafts (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH) [9] A more detailed history, part 2: "Exodia Day" [10] From August 23 to the game's 1 year anniversary UPDATED!~ Stories 1 and 4 have been corrected. I claimed in them that Fissure was on the first Limitation List; turns out it was Raigeki. The OCG didn't put Fissure on any List until the same time we did in the TCG - September 2007. UPDATED!~ I'll add more entries as I write them or find them if already written.
  20. 1 point
      I'd rather play a card game where Warning doesn't have to be banned because banning warning doesn't make  going first good any less good tbh.  If you can't build advantage and pressure t1 then a trap as good as warning merely becomes a trap as good as warningm, it doesn't mean it's an unfair lockout card because it's a trap as good as warning backing up the equivalent of a Shock Lock     The fact is bottomless trap hole, or even normal trap hole, are as good as solemn warning is in many scenarios.  Solemn warning does the same thing as bottomless or normal trap hole, but it does that thing every single time, and stops trigger effects and all that shit.  Warning shouldn't be banworth just because it does the job of trap hole to decks.  What should change is that the card game shouldn't be so shitty that setting a trap hole t1 that stops your opponent from doing one thing, isn't actually dumb.  
  21. 1 point
    Except that the moment you don't have one of those outs, you're dealing with an unnecessarily powerful card. This kind of logic just doesn't apply.   Fuck whether or not someone has the outs.    Let's go to Stein as an example of how outs can lead to equally stupid results.   Presume first that one activates Stein.   Presume second that if it resolves, they won't be an idiot and will actually pick some Fusion worth picking.   Presume third that Veiler is runnable in this meta.   There are many possible situations here.   1) Things all go well for Mr. Stein and he drops a big mon for essentially nothing-worth-caring-about, and wins handily with it. This is an undesirable result.   2) Things don't go well, because the big mon was dropped for naught, leaving him ridiculously vulnerable to his opponent - and he loses for it. This is also an undesirable result, and this result just requires things to just go wrong as few times as once.   Why are both undesirable?   Situation 1 doesn't make for good gameplay because of how seemingly inconsequential the notion of a back-and-forth game just became. Aside from driving down consistencies, what's the fucking POINT of a deck having 40 cards if we don't see more than, say, fifteen ever?   Situation 2, despite how much we might want a Stein user to fail just for playing it, is also undesirable - because your opponent dropping 5k LP on something risky, just to have it ruined by a Veiler that they had no way to know-was-in-your-hand, essentially reduced the entirety of the game and its nuance-within-a-gamble... to just a mere gamble with a shitty pretense. Skill is an island in a vast ocean of probabilities and luck, and you just reduced the game's potential for skillful play down to ONE VEILER USE.     No matter what, the game is rendered "stupid", even if someone "has the outs." It's just stupid in a similar but not-identical sense.           Consistent Stein would just have scenario 1 all day every day forever, which is inane bullshit.   Inconsistent Stein rides between scenarios 1 and 2, but the stupidity is not diminished.   This is why some kids would love a Norleras Forbidding - they don't CARE that it isn't consistent, they by principle say "this should never fucking happen."
  22. 1 point
    I don't play all that much anymore, but I thought I'd voice my opinion for a second.  Hoban's idea that a card is fine if it has enough outs is honestly pretty spot-on, but a lot of people are failing to see what 'outs' are.   There are two general categories that you can put 'outs' in: proactive and reactive.  Let's take CED for example, because it's already been brought up and is pretty clearly an unhealthy card, but maybe why this is the case isn't clear.  Reactive outs to CED include cards like Bottomless, Torrential, Solemn Judgment, etc.  These deal with the problem right away (thanks to no priority), but they are the most vulnerable to hate like Typhoon, Heavy, Trunade, etc.  Proactive outs to CED are cards like Macrocosmos and Fossil Dyna.  They stop it from ever being a problem, rather than relying on answering it once it threatens the board.  CED is a problem in general because its actually quite hard to answer.  All reactive answers to it have to be immediate, so cards like Smashing Ground just won't cut it. In addition, all of the proactive cards that are good against CED are very polarizing in the deckbuilding process.  You can't just splash in Macro or Dyna to most decks and have it work out, and more splashable but weaker proactive outs like D.D. Crow just don't do enough to stop it.     If CED had harsher summoning conditions, it would be worse because it has more reactive outs like D.D. Crow (it could also be slow enough that 'killing the opponent' becomes a fast enough proactive out). If CED was slower on the board, it would be more open to reactive outs, and thus also be worse.  The combination of it being relatively hard to stop with any kind of out in addition to its sheer power and impact upon the game make it a very strong card.  People are baffled by the idea that CED would be balanced if it had outs, but Norleras is a card that exists.   ---   I'm gonna throw this in here too, because it sorta fits in with the idea of reactive outs.   I'm sorry for the constant MTG comparisons, but it's just the easiest and most useful parallel to make.   One of the things that makes Yugioh hard to balance (and I would say poorly designed, but that's another issue) is that most threats have an immediate impact on the board, seeing as they can attack right away.  This means that the number of effective reactive threats is greatly reduced, namely "sorcery-speed" cards like Smashing Ground are much less impactful and are generally not played unless they have a huge impact on the board (Dark Hole).  This means that we have to rely on "instant-speed" reactive cards to deal with a lot of threats.  That's fine and all, but Yugioh also forces you to play your "instant-speed" threats on the board, where they're very vulnerable to destruction via MST and Storm.  In MTG, your "instant-speed" outs are kept in your hand, not on the field, and only certain decks have access to generic hand disruption.  This means that when a threat is played (especially earlier in the game), it's much more open to removal.     This is why you often see MTG games revolve around a big multi-turn swarm that outpowers the opponent's removal, or a removal/attrition war that ends in one player being able to stick a relevant threat and carry it to a good advantage or victory.  In Yugioh, removal is either much more vulnerable (traps) or much slower (spells), so the game can get out of hand before the opponent has a chance to react.  This is why Hand Traps are generally good in Yugioh.  They're reactive, not very vulnerable, and generally make a good impact on the state of the game.  If spell/trap disruption was less prevalent, there would be much less need for Hand Traps (and I think a healthy format shouldn't need Hand Traps aside from maybe DD Crow).   Essentially what I'm trying to get at is that the combination of fast monsters and vulnerable reactive cards makes Yugioh a highly volatile game.  I don't necessarily think Yugioh needs Summoning Sickness. There are certainly ways to cater card design to the overall design of the game, but Konami hasn't really shown us any.  As is, s/t removal can make games extremely hit-or-miss, but taking away such removal makes games really drawn out and boring.   Sorry if I ranted too long or if I got anything blatantly wrong!  I've been out of the game competitively for a few years now, so I might have missed something.  Theory-Oh is and always was my favorite part about this game, because I think there's a lot to work with.
  23. 1 point
    Except that the moment you don't have one of those outs, you're dealing with an unnecessarily powerful card. This kind of logic just doesn't apply.
  24. 1 point
    Jinzo #7 would still take like a dozen turns of attacking to win the game.  that's a dozen chances to draw a piece of monster removal or your own Jinzo #7.  and if there's no attack stopping, no monsters stronger than Jinzo #7, AND no monster removal, then Jinzo #7 is still fine.  the problem with that game is that your missing too many pieces.   "Gorz is necessary to stop retarded stuff from pushing in everybodies shit and OTK'ing" type sentiments are a joke.  Ya know what else stops OTK's?  battle fader.  it's a hand trap too and it's less restrictive even.  but nobody but piper and monarch decks run Battle fader because the point of Gorz isn't just to stop retarded stuff from pushing in your shit, Gorz is also retarded and can push back in their shit.   The proper response to ridiculous stuff like this isn't to make answers that are just as ridiculous to stop the stuff.  the proper response is to get rid of the ridiculous stuff altogether. 
  25. 1 point
    I wasn't comparing Gorz itself to CED itself at all.  I picked CED because it was one of the most outrageous examples I could think of... so you guys missed the point.  And yes, I used ad hominem on purpose.  I am comparing the argument which was used about Gorz to this outrageous argument about CED; that's what ad hominem IS.  And when that argument can apply to my ridiculous CED example and is so easy to see why the argument doesn't work, then the same can be said of Gorz, the argument doesn't work for Gorz either.   The point is that if something is broke like " sit on your ass play nothing and be rewarded with a humongous monster plus something as big as your opponents monster for free no work involved +1" or "a noob to punish the more experienced player going for a late game push who waited until he drew enough backrow removal before putting his cards on the table" like Gorz does, the answers that are available still does not excuse the fact that what some cards do is flat out illegitimate.  I shouldn't be allowed to play my cards badly and get free +1's.  I shouldn't be allowed to punish you for waiting for Heavy Storm to kill my backrow before making a push and just shit all over what you just did for free.  FOR FREE NO WORK NO STRATEGY NO SET UP. To me, it doesn't matter that a smashing ground for instance can destroy my gorz and potentially allow you to come back from that.  when you don't have the answer to my illegitimate plays, then I get away with it and that's not fair to you.   I'm noticing that a lot of your guy's argument is basically "yeah Gorz used to be unfair but now it's OK because the game has evolved and Gorz helps mitigate against OTKs"  let me reword that: "Gorz isn't fair but the power creep in this game has been so bad that a lot of stuff is less tolerable than Gorz now and Gorz is an OP answer to other OP cards"  OK, point granted, the game has changed a lot and there's plenty of stuff that's worse than Gorz now adays.  that doesn't take away from the fact that Gorz is still a BS card that wouldn't be present in a healthy format.  the fact that it helps against other problems is to its benefit, but that does not erase the fact that it is als a problem in and of itself.   As for the rest of the hand trap stuff, maybe I'm just being overly cautious.   I'm weary of the potentiality that I might be running handtrap archetype.deck and be able to stop any relevant thing you do while your S/T destruction is irrelevant and you can't do anything about what's in my hand.  And we have the entire history and design of the game  around interactivity between players coming from the backrow.  and the interactivity of this system goes both ways with heavy storm and MST and stuff to fight it.  We have nothing to fight against hand traps, that's all I'm saying.
  26. 1 point
    @canasian: O yeah.  Scratch that idea.  Reborn should just be banned no switcheroo. Hand traps are okay. Plants was a great format and 3 Maxx "C", Veiler, and Gorz were a staple. Plants was my favorite deck.  That being said, negged because of implication that in a healthy format Gorz is OK, or at the very least, tolerable.  It is not.   Also, Plants could do some degenerate stuff.  and it could do it just about at any point in the game, including on the first turn, before the opponent has the opportunity to interact.  Enter hand traps, which allow interaction even when your opponent does shit on the first turn.  But in a healthy format, that crap shouldn't be able to be done on the first turn.  Some of that crap shouldn't be able to be done at all, which means hand traps either shouldn't be around or they're around but no one really plays them.  I fall on the side of shouldn't be around.   All the hand traps, everything from Kuriboh to Gorz etc.(yeah, even Kuriboh, I'm going there) are situational cards that sit dead in hand most of the time.  Until the opportunity arises for them to massively cock-block the opponent in the situation that they're live for.  In which case they stop the opponent dead in their tracks and you HAVE play them because you don't want to get blown out and because if you don't play it now it will just be a dead card again.     Taking the least threatening of them all to show an example:  let's say during the Cyber Stein format threatening roar didn't exist, such that if the Stein player had enough S/T removal to go for game, there was nothing to stop them.  People would start running Kuriboh. Let's take a moment to analyze this: Stein is untolerable in part because it has such low interaction, and our response is to play Kuriboh PRECISELY because the Stein player equally cannot interact with the Kuriboh.     Yeah, has anyone else considered that hand traps aren't any more interactive than the broke situations they are intended to stop?  this is akin to Gryphon wing and Harpies Feather duster:  The situational answer is commiting the same sin that the problem does, which is a hallmark of bad card design.   So, in a healthy format, these really degenerate situations that one fears enough to run otherwise dead cards in your deck shouldn't exist, rendering hand traps largely unnecessary.  Furthermore, in a healthy format we want maximum interactions, which includes that opponents can answer our answers... and we cannot say that of hand traps.  Lastly, there's no reason why all the answers to our opponents plays that we want to use on their turns cant be put onto quickplay spells and traps, so there's no reason for hand traps to really exist.   In a healthy format, we wouldn't need them, wouldn't want them, they wouldn't make the game any better, and they don't really have any reason to exist.
  27. 1 point
    why are you posting in bold italic comic sans
  28. 1 point
    articles have been written by pretty much everyone on this site about gorz and its healthiness to the game in the long run everyone has pretty much agreed to the consensus that in our 'ideal' ygo we wouldnt have cards like gorz, because gorz itself rewards the player using it for being bad if you get put in a situation where your opponent can clear your board (remember, this is in our 'ideal' game, not the actual) then you should not be able to drop a 2700 body that your opponent cannot beat, because they went through all the effort of (presumably) outplaying your backrows and clearing your board, if they earned the right to go in direct (ideally being just as low on cards as you are, in a balanced game) they should have the right to reality however is reality, and we all nowadays are forced to label it "necessary evil" bluffing a gorz is about the only skilled segment that it has added to the game, and it gives you the ability to open shitty and do nothing but do we want a game where that one card can make it so my opponent can open absolute garbage to the point to where they cant even make a play and i cant do anything about it because of that 2700 benchmark? something tells me that factor had something to do with us getting BLS back THAT fucking number is the real problem, and its cards like gorz that make us need more powerful cards, because decks need to be able to regularly get over gorz if they wanna be competitive 3000 has been the end all be all number since the beginning, but lately konami has been making it difficult for BEWD to look like a badass all things considered the concept of hand traps is not new, we've had kuriboh for ages and ages, we need to make note that only problematic hand traps are ones that can be used offensively gorz and c fit this bill, along with honest and kalut veiler, kuriboh, GK watcher, and d.d. crow to an extent, are preventative, stall cards that for the most part solve more problems than they cause it all depends on the card, and how it can be used, i dont think, personally, that the concept of the hand trap itself is an issue for the game, but the actual effects of the cards themselves is more the issue
  29. 1 point
    I think you've failed to realise how broken hand traps are for the game. Hand traps are a defence which you cannot see, and cannot stop without a handful of extreme methods. Releasing some version of Waboku is going to have the impact that the highly playable trap card has in Inzektor's, except it can't be predicted and read while FD, you can't EP MST it. If you print this you're going to have way more of the aha, I had a hand trap all along, your play is screwed moments. It'll just be a case of sorry I drew this you lose without the player interaction that flies around the use of trap cards. Plus lets face it, Final Countdown does not need another goddam degenerate swift scarecrow.
  30. 1 point
    [quote name='Kynoshi' timestamp='1342639428' post='3234835'] [quote name='Pharaoh Atem' timestamp='1342633084' post='3234698'] [quote name='marshmallow' timestamp='1342628398' post='3234661'] [font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]Storm ought die because it was ALWAYS wrong for it to exist[/size][/font] [font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]the same way Dark Hole, and along with Raigeki and HFD[/size][/font] [font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]these cards were obviously designed to sweep the field clean costlessly [/size][/font] [font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]​such design in a game where you intend to release new cards (which inevitably, irrevocably, and undoubtedly create power creep)[/size][/font] [font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]so from the beginning cards like these should have been seen as problems and had [s]better and more[/s] watered down versions of themselves released as soon as power creep hit[/size][/font] [font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3](which if im not mistaken, the truest and most meaningful impact of power creep in terms of summoning power and creating a big board was IOC)[/size][/font] we kind of saw this with lightning vortex, great move on konami's part then they kinda stopped..... and now we have this thread, where we are debating whether or not costlessly sweeping the field is bad for the game or not yes Earl, we are discussing whether or not costless mass removal is good for the health of the game, thats happening.... [/quote] See, now this is a post I can support. It's not predicated on stupid bullshit like "it was fine but now it's not." Either it's fine now, or it never was. [/quote] This isn't entirely true. There are plenty of cards that were fine, but became problems due to other cards being released. Mass Driver came out at a time when crapping out monsters was unheard of, it didn't become a problem until power creep showed up and allowed gratuitous amounts of monsters to be thrown onto the field in one turn. Painful Choice wasn't a problem until the game shifted to being reliant on the graveyard to do all kinds of nutty shenanigans. Last Will wasn't a problem until low attack monsters with amazing effects decided to pop up. You can't just say because it's a problem now it was also a problem in the past, because the way the game evolves has an impact on how good cards become. [/quote] [b][i]Driver didn't improve[/i][/b]; shit alongside it did, and exposed it as a card that's "either too bad to be worth running, or is terrible yet has a niche to fulfill in something intolerable." The ban isn't justified by saying "Driver's suddenly good" - that's too simplistic. It's justified by saying "Driver + X ought not be possible, and if we eliminate X, Driver becomes so pathetic that it might as well not exist anyway." It's justified by making it a question of how many cards we want to ban to solve the problem - one card, or two? Banning X essentially "defacto bans" both X and Driver. I'd wager Painful was a problem even at its invention in 2000, but that's just me considering that the Grave has been a toolbox ever since Reborn was first printed in 1999. Reborn being unlimited at the time was also rather damn important to the point. Last Will, likewise, was a problem at its invention too - "Tribute Summon and fetch something" was even a problematic notion, as was "oh hey I could play this to let some mon or whatever act like a floater and make my opp's potential Mirror Force into a bad idea", or some other variant. Remember also that Sangan and Witch were unlimited at the time, which essentially means "I now set off the permanent recruiting chain" is one of Will's tricks of the time period as well. Storm, likewise, has always been a pluripotent force.
  31. 1 point
    [font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]Storm ought die because it was ALWAYS wrong for it to exist[/size][/font] [font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]the same way Dark Hole, and along with Raigeki and HFD[/size][/font] [font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]these cards were obviously designed to sweep the field clean costlessly [/size][/font] [font="tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif"][size=3]​such design in a game where you intend to release new cards (which inevitably, irrevocably, and undoubtedly create power creep)[/size][/font] [font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]so from the beginning cards like these should have been seen as problems and had [s]better and more[/s] watered down versions of themselves released as soon as power creep hit[/size][/font] [font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3](which if im not mistaken, the truest and most meaningful impact of power creep in terms of summoning power and creating a big board was IOC)[/size][/font] we kind of saw this with lightning vortex, great move on konami's part then they kinda stopped..... and now we have this thread, where we are debating whether or not costlessly sweeping the field is bad for the game or not yes Earl, we are discussing whether or not costless mass removal is good for the health of the game, thats happening....
  32. 1 point
    The thing that I like about this is that there are multiple equilibria where the format can be balanced, and focus on multiple types of skill. For example, I would argue that the extra deck is a source of skill. More options available to a player allows for more complex decision making. The constant availability of the extra deck mitigates the impact of poor hands, since this variety of options is always available to players despite the cards they draw. The larger the pool of playable extra deck cards, the greater the deckbuilding skill involved. However, Scapegoat is a card I've thought promoted skill for about 7 years. The skill that scapegoat promotes is not conducive to a format where the synchros are very prominent because it allows for a high level of level manipulation when syncing. It allows for access to many synchros which is simply too easy. However, scapegoat slows the format down without relying on non-interactive cards like Messenger of Peace and Gravity Bind. I like the possibility of multiple skilled formats which are all very different. This discussion is useful for getting around the overly simplistic notion that simply banning overpowered cards is skilled, and it takes cards out of an abstract vacuum and considers them in the context of other cards, as they are in reality.
  33. 1 point
    often the player who made the first synchro lost the game, because the better player saves resources so they can Goyo/set up a DAD on whatever Synchro they brought out. Aside from the double Teleport DAD OTK which was fairly rare, the game would be a stale mate until someone wanted to make the first move and USUALLY whoever made the first move lost. SJC Chicago was one of the hardest Shonens for me mentally, because when you have Stratos DDraw Teleport it's so hard to hold yourself from doing it, but I knew that if I did it and brought out Stardust, they'd go Storm -> Stratos -> Teleport Goyo take Stardust or something similar So the games really came down to which Synchro to bring out and when to bring it out. Oppression Tele-DAD took the skill level to another level, of course.
  34. 1 point
    We all have our own opinions on what outplaying is, as do I. Outplaying doesn't mean you get to go first and open up with One for One and Dandylion. It means you play OUT of the scenario your opponent put you in by not using your cards the moment you had the opportunity, but rather at the CORRECT time. I was watching Soul duel online yesterday, and he displayed the perfect example of this. He had a Great Tornado (WIND Attribute E-Hero Fusion) on the field and was attacking a Trishula his opponent had summoned previously. His opponent activated Mirror Force, and Soul had Seven Tools of the Bandit face-down. Guess what? Soul could've activated Seven Tools to negate Mirror Force. Instead, he decided to let the card through and let his Great Tornado be killed. Next turn, his opponent rips what I believe to be a Debris Dragon. Soul activates his face-down Solemn Warning on the summon (the guy had a dandy token on the field and Dandylion in grave), and his opponent chains Solemn Judgment, and Soul now chains his Seven Tools of the Bandit, negating the Solemn Judgment. This play ultimately won Soul the game. By outplaying his opponent, he turned what could've been a disastrous Solemn Judgment into a victory. This, in my eyes, constitutes outplaying; activating your cards at the RIGHT time to get yourself OUT of a disastrous scenario. Sadly, Soul lost the match due to the guy opening Dandylion + One For One, and getting to go first. The winner of that particular game (Soul) outplayed his opponent. The winner of that particular match (not Soul) outdrew his opponent. That's the difference.
  35. 1 point
    good questions, but they touch on a field we've barely even begun to define. At this early stage I think we'll have to start by poking around subjectively (as Freud did in pioneering his field), and over time we may be able to distinguish trends that are definable. For now I'll start with this: "Outplaying requires the outplayer to have available two or more distinct, cogent, and viable (i.e. not-bad) options before him. What is most important is the quality of his thought process that leads him to choose the option he does from the pool of viable options. Outplaying occurs when this process succeeds a play that in hindsight is determined to be superior. Whether or not the superiority of play is borne out by the outcome of that game is irrelevant due to the 'YUGIOH!' factor, but more often than not the superiority of the play will be reflected in the outcome of the game." One meaningful difference (probably more to come) could be the deck giving you multiple alternatives which requires a thoughtful DECISION process. Vs The deck gave you one, and only one clearly marked path to follow (and punishes you for straying from it). Sure you may have to think about it to discern the path but in the end there's very likely just that one path. Idk. Is one of those outplaying, and the other not? Or are they both forms of outplaying? In the latter case, it would be you seeing the one true path for your deck, while the opponent didn't. As an aside for the latter, it can be taken as both one of the best, or the worst aspects of teleDAD format. Matt Peddle claimed one of the best things about teleDAD was "multiple paths to victory." You would started to see distinct strategies you could pursue which were often exclusive of each other, and would alter your path as you discovered new information. He said the "discovery" element of the game was a very beautiful aesthetic that made that format of yugioh superior to VS System and MTG. At the same time Jae Kim claimed teleDAD was linear (granted this was after the time Peddle was talking about, when the format had evolved from teledad to oppression-teledad). I forget the exact quote (maybe PJ can dig it up on his blog) but it was something like "once you really know the deck in and out, teledad is quite autopilot. When you know it really well you'll discover there is only one best way to play it on almost any given turn." That suggested that there weren't multiple paths, but only "one true path", and outplaying consisted of following that path better than your opponent did.
  36. 1 point
    I find this question only has meaningful context when we ask not "what is outplaying" and "how the fuck do we differentiate from winning because of yourself and winning simply because your deck did what it was supposed to do" If it's impossible to discern meaningful difference between "you won the game" and "your deck won the game for you", the words "skill", "wit", and "outplay" mean NOTHING in YGO, and I will begin destroying the section immediately.
  37. 1 point
    I haven't read every post in this topic completely because I know it'll just be people talking in circles, so I'm sorry if these things have been touched on already. I just saw this comment early and I hate it so I feel a need to address it. luck is one of the things that makes this game different from chess. the greatest, most enjoyable difference between this game and chess is that everything is more personalized. I find wizards and shit fighting a lot cooler than some faceless objects, which leads into the fact that yugioh is also far more customizable (which lends to skill in different aspects). I will be the first to admit that this game will never be as good as chess from a skill standpoint, but am I really so wrong to want it to be as skill-intensive as possible? and these shitty cards don't promote that in any way. the problem with what I want has been addressed by jeff before, and I take what he says with a lot of value (at least particularly in this regard). he said that the main force behind the game, the ocg, treats yugioh as a gambling/lottery experience, which means they value these kind of "luck draw" cards to a major degree and that's what makes the game enjoyable for them. so, basically, regardless of this being retarded, it's probably never going to change.
  38. 1 point
    i used to think it was ok a few years ago, but its gotten to the point lately where its just frustrating how you could lose significant game position first turn just because your opponent won the dice roll and opened their broke card. imo, the game turned from bad to excruciatingly bad when solemn went to 1. skill-less herp derp win games with marginal setup/finesse required is simply bad for the game.
  39. 1 point
    said it better than i could. >Now that most every deck is able to pick up those 1 or 2 wins b/c they opened with a "broken" card, how much does it matter anymore? i.e. Oh no, I got sacked by Lightsworn b/c they opened with Judgment Dragon. But I sacked Monarch because I opened with Tribute. If you're just trading the occasional "sack" wins and losses over the course of a tournament, should we still be getting upset about it?< I can answer this specifically. It IS a big problem. When we look to tournaments as the ultimate test of skill, we are looking at performance over 9+ rounds. Even if over 100 games everything evens out, a sack or two in a 10-round jump can put the best player in the room (as in overall win ratio) in the scrub bucket, and a mediocre player in top 16. The gambling aspect of this can be "fun," but gambling (slots, roulette) is an inherently bad game, if we look to "reward for skill" as the standard of a good game. [edit] another thing I want to explore. I remember Atem pointing out triple-stratos as an example of good consistency, as a virtue isolated from power level. Now imagine a meta with two main decks. both use triple pod. One uses triple stratos and the other uses triple whirlwind. The power level of the meta would be high, but overall it would be *fair*. You mention BWW as a "bullshit" card (which it is). But you must ask, what makes it bullshit? It is not the power level itself that makes a card bullshit, it's "lol i am rewarded with instant no-skill advantage just because of the off chance i happened to draw it." Having 3 pod, 3 of the card in question, and ways to tutor it mitigates the bullshit factor, because it's no longer "wtf they drew that one-of," it's "i fully expect them to draw that card and it is my duty to always be ready for it." Roughly speaking, Power level can be treated comparatively, "lol instant advantage by luck of draw" cannot be. Let's go back to DSF format - power levels were through the roof. But blackwings didn't "Sack" by drawing BWW, they sacked by drawing storm for autowin. The power levels of all the other decks were also incredibly high that they could reliably deal with the opponent drawing BWW, because they'd also be reliably drawing cold wave, JD, and rescue cat.
  40. 1 point
    I'm tempted to close the thread for want of it doing a good enough job of answering its original purpose, which was to gauge DGZ's aptitude for design matters.
  41. 1 point
    thank you gehring. maybe people will actually listen to you because of your rep. i've been saying this shit since before the card came out, and now people are trying to use 3 of them along with 3 duality. Never mind Gehring saying that the deck needs every mon it can get (and implicitly saying "don't fuckin' rely on your power cards people") Folks are SERIOUSLY trying to use 3 Duality and 3 CfBF? So, what, do they WANT to never Special Summon and then lose because Special Summoning is 99% of the deck's life force? God fucking damn it I hate people when they do things that an idiot like me finds stupid Seriously, I'm the worst player ever You should NEVER EVER DO THINGS that I, in all my idiocy, find stupid. If it's stupid to me, it's stupid for everybody. The bolded statement could not be any more wrong about BW. If you are the worst player in the game, it is because of such blatantly fallacious ideas. Unlike zombies, glads, debris, salvo, and sabers, BW doesn't special summon out the ass, because to special summon with BW burns up hand resources incredibly fast. BWW is no longer at 3, monsters thrown onto the field cannot be replaced. If anything, BWs are only SS-happy in the hands of a bad player, AKA the guy who goes t1 sirocco bora bora into a t-set or pi-set. The better players DON'T have the irresistible compulsion to jizz a lot of cards onto the field every turn. They can hold in their load for the ONE TURN of ss-abstinence that pot/cfbf needs, then make a REAL play with the hand improvement that pot/cfbf gives. imagine: You are holding the BWs to make a push but not the s/t removal to set it up. you play pot and grab the trunade/trapstun/storm you need, and use this turn to set up for your push next turn. High odds of success. Now imagine if you weren't running pot. HEY I CAN SPECIAL SUMMON THIS TURN BECAUSE I DON'T RUN SHITTY POTS...you proceed to throw out special summons and get eaten alive by their backrows. Being able to special summon that turn sure helped, didn't it? There are SO many situations like that arising when running BWs. Playing pot is the porn star holding in his load for a decisive orgasm next turn. Not playing pot because you insist on being able to special summon THIS INSTANT is the 14-yo who either can't or won't hold his load in for more than 30 seconds (one turn) and sprays all over the table Even in past formats, BW was the prime deck to run oppression in, because it was less SS-reliant than every other deck. Hell, this was even the case in DSF format, when BWs were at their most SS-intensive. As far as "don't rely on power cards." I don't, and doubt anyone else does either. I can win with non-limited cards, but limited cards making winning even easier. There's no good reason to NOT increase the frequency of seeing limited cards, EXCEPT the downsides of running more draw power - downsides that are trivial and easy to play around. As I said, their only real downside is not being immediately live in a simplified gamestate - that's the best argument given by syko, hoey, and gehring against them. Syko doesn't play cfbf/pot for the same reason he didn't play brain control last format - because it's not live in a simplified gamestate. Though I disagree with it, that's rock-solid reasoning. I have been in situations where that reasoning fits to a T. The other "arguments" of the no-ss and once-a-turn restrictions are jokes (especially compared to the one good argument) that only scare the worst of players out of using pot/cfbf. [edit] To above poster: we enjoy debate in general.
  42. 1 point
    As I thought, you misinterpreted my meaning. It's only a matter of semantics here. If you boil it down that much, sure. However within the parameters I described, the assumption is that most every card you control is a live card, or can be made live. We're just talking about total cards in control, not how live they may or may not be individually. What I was getting at was card advantage in a simpler sense - the same way that Hoey said BW was not an "Advantage-based deck." We're just talking about number of cards, nothing else. You are correct in this analysis, the problem is semantics. What you described is the idea of simplification as an anti-meta tool (which is one of BW's big theory-ohs, I used to use DDWLs in BW just on that theory). Ideal BW situation Anytime BW uses a card (which is often), it is paying live cards out of its own lifeblood. Ideally, for that payment you are getting an equal amount of the opponent's live cards, a nominally even trade. The bigger strategy is that after enough of those trades, though you and your opponent have the same amount of cards, you have more live cards while he has more dead cards due to the nature of your respective builds. This is a very successful strategy employed by Syko and others. While you can try for it, there is no guarantee that your two-for-two trade will leave the open hurting for live cards more than you will be. Sometimes that two-for-two trade will have to be made even at your loss (in terms of "liveness"). Reversal of the ideal situation BW's success depends on its tenuous hold on that ideal gamestate, a hold which translates into damage for every turn that gamestate is maintained. However, if it can be reversed, the "dead" cards the opponent is holding suddenly become live, and your raw card deficit (if you allowed yourself to sink that far) will bite your balls off. However, BW is good this format because it can maintain a strong grip on its ideal gamestate. That's an enormous stretch; you're just shoehorning finer points of argumentation into "well everything is card advantage." That's only the case if you use such a broad, blanket definition of it. Suppose you topdecked cylinder with no cards in hand or field against your opponent's 6 cards and 2k life. he attacks, you flip cylinder for game, "deadening" his massive card advantage by making him dead. LOL I WON THROUGH CARD ADVANTAGE...no. That's called winning through damage. Winning through card advantage is having more cards than the opponent (giving all cards equal weight, which is the most accurate simplification), SO they can't answer your constant pressure. If I were to use your definition of card advantage, I can split it into two forms. The one you just described would be the card advantage of the present (liveness). This is the card advantage of having immediately better cards. What Hoey and I described is the card advantage of the future (long-term playability). The idea behind the second is over the long term, all cards in both decks are equally live (barring inherent individual differences), and in the long term, more cards wins. This is the card advantage of having more cards. Now with semantics aside, have you further argument?
  43. 1 point
    With Deko, you had to put in a modicum of work - not simply abstaining from something so obvious that the CARD tells you to abstain from it - but through your own wit or wisdom, you had to make Deko survive a duration. I should not have to explain Frog's point against this.
  44. 1 point
    Honestly I don't see very many people bring up the ratio of atk power to difficulty to drop that often, which is one of the biggest flaws with the game. You could cap at 1350 for <=lv4 monster atk and still get the 1/6 ratio Simon is going for. What I would do is use an exponential curve like such: lv4 and below: 1000 (max atk + def) so like 1000/0, 900/100, 800/100, 800/200, etc. lv5-6: 2000 (max atk + def) lv7 and up: 4000 (max atk + def) for vanillas of course. The idea is, in a vacuum, since it would be twice as hard to summon something with x tributes vs x-1 tributes where 0<x<=2, it should have twice the total stats cap. With this sort of curve you really start to put an emphasis on resource management because it becomes absolutely worthwile to play the lv7+ vanillas in an appropriate amount.
  45. 1 point
    The question I was asking was more along the lines of: With existing game mechanics, but not existing cards how should the curve have been designed. But, that discussion is not really particle. The most particle thing for Konami to do with be to adjust game mechanics to meet the standard they already made for Monsters ATK values. So by this new change the vanilla curve says the normal beatdown monster should be killing you off in 6 turns if unhindered. Using some math we can say the curve should roughly be: Vanillas: Lv 4 and lower: LP/6 ATK | (LP/6)*0.05 DEF -- (LP/12) ATK | (LP/6) *1.1 DEF 5-6: (LP/6)*1.3 ATK | (LP/6)*1.15 -- (LP/12)*1.2 ATK | (LP/6)*1.5 DEF 7-8: (LP/6)*1.65 ATK | (LP/6)*1.65 DEF Rounded for 8000: Lv 4 or Lower: 1400 ATK | 100 DEF (Aggressive Monster), 700 ATK | 1500 DEF (Defensive Monster) Lv 5 - 6: 1800 ATK | 1600 DEF (Aggressive Monster), 800 ATK | 2000 DEF (Defensive Monster) Lv 7 - 8: 2200 ATK | 2200 DEF (Big Monsters) You get the idea... ---------- IMO Burn and Costs are actually supposed to relate to this basic level of damage (LP/#) that would make valuation of the card easier to understand (I can take this many attacks in exchange for this effect). The current standard is I believe 800 for Damage/Cost (Ookazi/Royal Oppression) and 1000 for Life Gain (Dian Keto the Cure Master) and there is hardly a curve to go a long with it. They also both fall very short when compared to the current standard for monster damage (LP/10 vs. LP/4). Not saying Burn should be equally as powerful, but the difference is huge and LP/8 vs LP/4 makes Life gain mostly useless. The problem is clearly with the ATK ratio being LP/4.
  46. 1 point
    Yea, deck is definitely solid. It also helps that a great player was playing it. Congrats on the t8 btw.
  47. 0 points
    Wow what the heck :'( The one time everyone says I played ok jc says I sucked... The only one who's opinion I ever cared for
  48. 0 points
  49. 0 points
    I feel this in my soul. vote Walia I honestly just want the game to be over; I'm not even having fun anymore. If scum is Marjorie or Chrome then congrats.
  50. -1 points
      I rest my fucking case. Jesus the fucking Jew.