Haruki

The Official Goat Format Thread (April 2005 Forbidden and Limited Lists) [Sets Until TLM]

4072 posts in this topic

I for once I agree with Jazz. I would also want to try Graceful as the sole piece of Trinity if we were to do a goats minus thing. It's the only one of the three that requires you to use your brain.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For goat minus I would hit only trunade, dustshoot, PoG, and delinquent. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

am i good yet

 

 


B1CpnMo.png
 

 

 

 

 


 lP7woHm.png

 

8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gooderest

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TRUMPOLOGIST said:

am i good yet

  Hide contents

 


B1CpnMo.png
 

 

 

  Hide contents

 


 lP7woHm.png

 

Not enough Wild Nature's Release

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think eliminating more than 1 Trinity piece drains Faith of too much of it's power that, over time, the best decks in goat format would drift aware fairly significantly from what modern goat decks look like.

And that doesn't have to be a bad thing, but I personally think it's a negative.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TRUMPOLOGIST said:

am i good yet

  Hide contents

 


B1CpnMo.png
 

 

 

  Hide contents

 


 lP7woHm.png

 

 

I hope you are playing Token Thanksgiving because that shit is busted. Allows you to play Goats to protect your own LP, clear opposing Goats, and pay for Stein twice.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we were strictly speaking about a competitive environment, do the majority of goat players like to have competitive, intellectually stimulating duels, or is it more or less about having fun? I understand that there’s just about always a fun factor involved, as well as a sense of nostalgia for those who were actually around back then, it’s just that I have this ridiculous belief that my level of play will not be higher enough for my opponent, thus making for a one sided duel that could ultimately be seen as a waste of time for them. If you haven’t worked it out already, I’m a newcomer to this format, and whereas I’ve been lurking this thread for a decent period of time (on and off) and looking at other Goat related material, I still can’t seem to step out of my comfort zone. Admittedly I’ve always been like this when it came to this sort of thing competitive, I’d do my research but then later second guess myself just when I think I’m ready to put it in place, thinking that I needed to go to the drawing board and refine my strategy. Obviously looking at something from a technically correct standpoint is important, but it’s undoubtedly experience that gets you to recognise the scenarios and appropriately apply what you’ve learned.

So, with this in mind, do I continue to watch duels and look over material, slowly building up the required knowledge that will allow me to be semi-decent, or do I just give it a go in my current state? I understand that I’ve probably introduced myself as a complete dickhead, but I legitimately have to overcome certain problems by not caring. It’s not something that I like or even want to do; it’s just that it can be depressing sitting on the sidelines when you’re seeing everyone else having a good time.

---

On a more serious note…

When going about deck building in Goat Format, how are people ultimately determining what makes the final cut?

I’ll start off the hypothetical scenario by using morphing Jar as an example. Now, there are people who know the ins and outs of how to “correctly” play the card, and then there are others (which seem like a lot of people, especially newcomers) who completely butcher it through giving off blatantly obvious tells and the like. So, my question to anyone is the following. Because a newcomer is completely butchering the card, should they build a better understanding of the workings of the deck/ card or do they make deck building decisions that will better suit them? They could use “X” to better effect for an extended sample size, even if it could be seen as subpar.  At the same time, can cards that fulfil completely different roles be ranked on a scale as best to worst, or does that only apply to ones that do similar? Can ones deck be just as good as someone else’s by taking a completely different route when it comes to filling the void in a format where Exarions’ been removed? Passive vs aggressive vs mixed alternatives perhaps.

If you stripped the deck back to its bare bones, running only the true necessities, does anyone have their own idea of what the true “power rankings” would actually look like? 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If you stripped the deck back to its bare bones, running only the true necessities, does anyone have their own idea of what the true “power rankings” would actually look like? 

1. NoC

2. Duo

3. Pot

4. Charity

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mmf said:

1. NoC

2. Duo

3. Pot

4. Charity

Oops, I kind of screwed that part up by separating it from the bit before it. When it comes to a persons "power rankings" (if they actually had considered them) I was more or less talking about stripping back the monster line-up, the "filling the void part" was in regards to the removal of Exarion as well. The more I think of it makes me think it was somewhat of a stupid question in the first place, but then again, people do run different techs for different reason so it would be somewhat interesting to know why they think of certain cards so highly. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, d1n0man said:

If we were strictly speaking about a competitive environment, do the majority of goat players like to have competitive, intellectually stimulating duels, or is it more or less about having fun? I understand that there’s just about always a fun factor involved, as well as a sense of nostalgia for those who were actually around back then, it’s just that I have this ridiculous belief that my level of play will not be higher enough for my opponent, thus making for a one sided duel that could ultimately be seen as a waste of time for them. If you haven’t worked it out already, I’m a newcomer to this format, and whereas I’ve been lurking this thread for a decent period of time (on and off) and looking at other Goat related material, I still can’t seem to step out of my comfort zone. Admittedly I’ve always been like this when it came to this sort of thing competitive, I’d do my research but then later second guess myself just when I think I’m ready to put it in place, thinking that I needed to go to the drawing board and refine my strategy. Obviously looking at something from a technically correct standpoint is important, but it’s undoubtedly experience that gets you to recognise the scenarios and appropriately apply what you’ve learned.

 

 

So, with this in mind, do I continue to watch duels and look over material, slowly building up the required knowledge that will allow me to be semi-decent, or do I just give it a go in my current state? I understand that I’ve probably introduced myself as a complete dickhead, but I legitimately have to overcome certain problems by not caring. It’s not something that I like or even want to do; it’s just that it can be depressing sitting on the sidelines when you’re seeing everyone else having a good time.

---

On a more serious note…

 

When going about deck building in Goat Format, how are people ultimately determining what makes the final cut?

 

 

I’ll start off the hypothetical scenario by using morphing Jar as an example. Now, there are people who know the ins and outs of how to “correctly” play the card, and then there are others (which seem like a lot of people, especially newcomers) who completely butcher it through giving off blatantly obvious tells and the like. So, my question to anyone is the following. Because a newcomer is completely butchering the card, should they build a better understanding of the workings of the deck/ card or do they make deck building decisions that will better suit them? They could use “X” to better effect for an extended sample size, even if it could be seen as subpar.  At the same time, can cards that fulfil completely different roles be ranked on a scale as best to worst, or does that only apply to ones that do similar? Can ones deck be just as good as someone else’s by taking a completely different route when it comes to filling the void in a format where Exarions’ been removed? Passive vs aggressive vs mixed alternatives perhaps.

 

 

If you stripped the deck back to its bare bones, running only the true necessities, does anyone have their own idea of what the true “power rankings” would actually look like? 

 

 



"Do I waste people's time playing versus them if I'm bad?"

 

No, people play to win. They can only win if others are worse, so essentially you're giving them the chance to outplay you - while you give yourself the chance to learn and improve. If you enter a SJC/YCS you also face bad people in the earlier rounds, it's part of the game. Remember that these people also were bad once, and everyone has to start somewhere. Don't put too much pressure on yourself.

It's a combination of experience and theory, and trying things out, talking with experienced and better players, reflecting on your own play all help you improve.

You should have periods of time were you play, focus on your play, and you should have periods of time where you study, then combine both imo. You can't have one without the other, because to have good theory you need to have played first to see most patterns etc. Unless if you're some kind of super computer who remembers and calculates everything.

I think you just test your decks, see at what problems occur and then change accordingly. At some point you'll realize which cards are good in which match-ups, and then you decide what you play by the decks you expect to face and make a main and side-deck strategy accordingly. 

You play the "best cards" because you want to learn how to use them. I mean you should start out with a simple deck, of course, but long-term you want to get familiar with all these decks. That said, if you were to go to a tournament RIGHT NOW, then play a deck you know how to pilot. Even if it's a bad deck - there's no point in running decks when you will fuck up the plays.

If you want to "power rank" the monster I think you have to understand what each card does. BLS is just the most powerful monster out there, but requires set-up. Flip effect monsters generate advantage, and can set up Tsukuyomi locks. Tsukuyomi is good vs some decks and worse vs others, so this one really depends on the match-up but because you can reset your own TER and flip effect monsters it's probably never bad. Tribe is a hard counter against a lot of stuff. I guess you can categorize monsters as "good late game (BLS, Chaos Sorcerer)" "solid stand alone beaters" (Breaker, Blade Knight, Skilled Dark Magician), Flip monsters (Faith, Merchant), etc. One is not "better" than the other. I can think of decks that don't want to use BLS/Chaos Sorcerer, or don't want to use flip monsters, or too many beaters. Yes, some cards are individually better than others (Such as, do you play Skilled Dark Magician or Blade Knight?), but the strategy of your deck is more important and some strategies require you to play more of type X card than other strategies. A lot of cards also specifically "counter" certain cards your opponent can have (such as BLS, Airknight, Scapegoat, TER, Tsukuyomi, Magician of Faith). So you want your deck to be able to have counters against these cards, but you don't want to have 15 counters against Airknight and 0 against Magician of Faith, etc. So look at your deck as a whole rather than individual cards only.


 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got this link on the "Elephant Method" of deck construction for MtG from a fellow DGZer, don't remember who :http://www.starcitygames.com/article/26317_The-Elephant-Method-A-Case-Study.html It's an article by Zvi Mowshowitz that describes a strategy of deckbuilding in MtG, which is useful for Yu-Gi-Oh!

This quote summarizes: "Writing out ideal realistic lists for all matchups and then trying to make the unique cards in those lists add up to 75 cards before deciding on the specific 60 for the maindeck and the specific fifteen for the sideboard".

Since most games will be post-sideboard, it makes sense to build the side and maindeck simultaneously with the same level of focus applied to each. Skilled YGO players will note which cards do and not "make [their] 55" in their builds.

If you find 40 too restrictive at first in terms of thinking of all the stuff you need to deal with, expanding the list to "what makes my 55" may help.  @mark 's explanation above of how to evaluate cards individually with the big picture in mind is great. If you know the metagame lists, half your work is already done for you. 

I also have this excellent screenshot from a post by @OD Superman in Discord in which he explained why a list I posted was inadequate along similar lines to what mark said. [the deck being referred to was an attempt to make a Guardian Sphinx-centric Monarch type build]. It's a great example of bad deckbuilding and good advice. Don't get disheartened if what you make sucks; it's an opportunity to learn and make something better anyway. I now have a more mathematical understanding of how much of X type of card or Y mitigation is needed to handle the common threats of the metagame, right here in this picture.

some number crunching from Kris.PNG

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Japan/OCG was always on the Exarion train it seemed like. Every list I saw had at least 2. http://en.ygo-card.de/show_deck.php?htm_dname=Miso-G+06+2005%2F04%2F17+-+2.Platz

 

more decks from 2005 to look at:

 

http://en.ygo-card.de/decks.php?turnier_art=&jahr=2005&erfolg=&typ=

 

Never knew the guy who won Worlds used Sacred Phoenix. I thought DDAs pushed that card out of the format.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does the 0,5 likelihood represent in KPerovic's post? I assume it's the odds of X card being an out (such as, drawing Meta + LV1, Prem + an out in grave, etc.)?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mark said:

What does the 0,5 likelihood represent in KPerovic's post? I assume it's the odds of X card being an out (such as, drawing Meta + LV1, Prem + an out in grave, etc.)?

 

Yeah I guess it means that you need that + something else for it to be an actual out

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mark said:

What does the 0,5 likelihood represent in KPerovic's post? I assume it's the odds of X card being an out (such as, drawing Meta + LV1, Prem + an out in grave, etc.)?

 

Right, it wasn't an actual, accurate statistical weight. I just wanted a quick way to devalue cards that need another card to combo with to make the point that they're not as reliable as standalone answers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, OD Superman said:

 

Right, it wasn't an actual, accurate statistical weight. I just wanted a quick way to devalue cards that need another card to combo with to make the point that they're not as reliable as standalone answers.


Alright, that makes sense. Responding to this though, what's your opinion on the type of deck vs how many outs you need? For example, do you think a quick-paced deck needs outs to BLS and other "late-game" threats at all? If their aim is to finish the game in like 3-4 turns instead of 10-20 turns with goat control (just a random number here). An example would be "Beatdown / zoo", with Trap Dustshoots to cut them short of light/darks etc.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2017 at 5:30 PM, mark said:


Alright, that makes sense. Responding to this though, what's your opinion on the type of deck vs how many outs you need? For example, do you think a quick-paced deck needs outs to BLS and other "late-game" threats at all? If their aim is to finish the game in like 3-4 turns instead of 10-20 turns with goat control (just a random number here). An example would be "Beatdown / zoo", with Trap Dustshoots to cut them short of light/darks etc.

By definition, a "quick-paced" deck should have less cards that qualify as "late-game" threats, meaning they don't need as many "answers" -- however a "quick-paced" deck still needs reliable access to however many answers it runs.

 

I.e. If the only out Zoo had to BLS, which is it's only "threat" in this example, was 1 Snatch, I imagine they'll still lose at an unacceptable rate unless they had a crazy draw engine too.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fwiw the actual weights for soul exchange/meta are higher than 50%, but not by much: soul exchange is around 60% t1 with 6 tributes in deck, meta is the same with 1 sinister 2 faith 3 goats). obviously the odds of a half-answer being live get higher the longer the game goes on, though, which is why meta is live more than half the time you draw it in a standard goats deck. just food for thought

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool concept. I think it's more important for comparative analysis anyway so quibbling about the precise weights is not so important. Being able to quickly see, oh this new deck I built has approximately half the outs to Boss Card X when compared to your typical goat build is really useful, however. That can quickly point you in the right direction for testing and refinement purposes.

 

Also I agree I don't think arsenal summoner is playable this format, sadly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone interested in the Duelingbook "meta" right now.

 

Ive been testing a pre-Exarion deck for the past week and I record every game I play. These are the decks I played against over 50 bo3 matches.

 

Goat Control: 27

Chaos Variants: 7

Gravekeepers: 5

Beastdown: 4

Empty Jar: 2

Ben Kei: 2

Zombie: 1

Hand Control: 1

D Fusion Turbo: 1

 

No burn was surprising considering the amount of random shit I saw. Only 7 Chaos (turbo, recruiter and control combined) was also a little suprising considering how good the deck is. Imo its a contender for the best deck in the format. For me personally its the most difficult matchup.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's hand control? Is it just Don Zaloog/Reapers with Tomatos?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Goins said:

For anyone interested in the Duelingbook "meta" right now.

 

Ive been testing a pre-Exarion deck for the past week and I record every game I play. These are the decks I played against over 50 bo3 matches.

 

Goat Control: 27

Chaos Variants: 7

Gravekeepers: 5

Beastdown: 4

Empty Jar: 2

Ben Kei: 2

Zombie: 1

Hand Control: 1

D Fusion Turbo: 1

 

No burn was surprising considering the amount of random shit I saw. Only 7 Chaos (turbo, recruiter and control combined) was also a little suprising considering how good the deck is. Imo its a contender for the best deck in the format. For me personally its the most difficult matchup.

Sick post. Thanks for sharing. These were all against random people?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Azn_Boy said:

What's hand control? Is it just Don Zaloog/Reapers with Tomatos?

 

Pretty much, and Thestalos + Card Destruction too

 

4 hours ago, Zappdos said:

Sick post. Thanks for sharing. These were all against random people?

 

Yeah all just against randoms on DB but I think some of them are from Dgz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goins, Chaos Turbo and Chaos Control should not be difficult if you bring in 2 of the following (assuming a standard goat main): Dekoichi, Creature Swap, Trap Dustshoot. Take out: 2 non flip monsters, 2 Books, 2 Sakuretsu.

 

For extra spice, take out Call and put in a third Goat.

 

For Chaos Recruiter, which I consider an entirely different type of engine, it's going to be different. In this case, you probably want to make minimal changes to your deck between games. None of the cards I suggested above will really help except possibly Dekoichi. Kycoo is probably the best choice if you have space for it in your 55. Seven Tools isn't bad if you expect to face Solemn.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.