Jump to content
Satchmo

YCS Minneapolis 2016

Recommended Posts

Me.    1348
9 minutes ago, canasian said:

Decks like Majespecter and Kozmo existing really exasperate the issue with floodgate monsters

With 2 Dark Hole and Raigeki in the TCG it should be easier than ever to out Jowgen/Fiend/etc., but for every deck running those cards there's another that make Dark Hole/Raigeki an active liability in your main deck, which is why we're stuck using objectively worse cards like Book of Eclipse to get past the floodgates while still being able to do anything at all to the other decks

Book of eclipse isn't objectively worse if it's the better card to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+canasian    4175

...are you really saying that a card that is by itself a -1 and has the potential to let your opponent draw even more cards is not worse than a card that eliminates all of your opponent's monsters?

 

Allen's point was that he believes floodgate monsters aren't an issue because they've been around and decks now are less prepared for them than they used to be, and I wanted to point out that decks are less prepared for them because of other external factors, not because people just don't want to prepare for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me.    1348
Just now, canasian said:

...are you really saying that a card that is by itself a -1 and has the potential to let your opponent draw even more cards is not worse than a card that eliminates all of your opponent's monsters?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+ACP+    33994
9 minutes ago, canasian said:

...are you really saying that a card that is by itself a -1 and has the potential to let your opponent draw even more cards is not worse than a card that eliminates all of your opponent's monsters?

 

Allen's point was that he believes floodgate monsters aren't an issue because they've been around and decks now are less prepared for them than they used to be, and I wanted to point out that decks are less prepared for them because of other external factors, not because people just don't want to prepare for them.

My point is that counters to overpowered mechanics aren't themselves overpowered. People are messing up the causality here. Royal Oppression wasn't overpowered in TeleDAD because it stopped Dark Armed Dragon and the synchro mechanic. Rather, Dark Armed Dragon and the synchro mechanic were overpowered.

 

The correct solution to making cards like Jowgen/Dyna/Emptiness more fair is to create a metagame that is not so special summon heavy. That is the real issue. They should have a more niche role of stopping decks that are too reliant on that mechanic rather than just stopping every deck from playing Yugioh. Maybe we shouldn't take it for granted that i'ts fine if every deck is able to special summon a bunch of monsters t1.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+canasian    4175

In an ideal world you're right but isn't it abundantly clear at this point that Konami disagrees and very much would rather everyone special summon a bunch of monsters on turn 1?

 

We can clamor all we want for an "ideal" metagame but at a certain point we also have to accept Konami's vision for the game too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+ACP+    33994

I have no idea what their vision for the game is. The company has absolutely no transparency, and the inter-workings of their R&D are a mystery.

 

Just 3.5 years ago or so the metagame was Firefists and Mermails, both decks that were quite reliant on the normal summon to some extent, although they could special summon a decent amount as well. I don't see what would be wrong with going back to that type of metagame.

 

If you have strong cards in your game, the counters to them are always going to be quite strong as well. I don't see why people would want to play a game where there are no direct counters to anything. If you just let everyone nut all over the board and see whose nuts are better, isn't that just solitaire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Axle    1215

Banning Kirin is the only hit the deck will ever need. The card is still essentially at 4 copies. You just have to be more careful summoning it. After the ban, the deck can then focus more on Alkahest as a consistent means of disruption, given the format doesn't gain more untargetables. 
 

After a Kirin Ban, Metalfoes will probably be creeped out of the metagame before any other hits are needed anyway. Metalfoes aren't really as strong as last format's top decks. Are Juunishi strong enough to be that creep? I have no idea, I haven't tested them yet. But I don't even care if Metalfoes stay in the meta after the Kirin ban. I find them pretty fair and any other pendulum abuse (Avian/Qli/Ariadne/Jowgen) is not nearly as good as Kirin.  

 

On the topic of Jowgen: 

 

Jowgen is really good right now because we're in a limbo format where there aren't enough tier 1 decks. We're stuck between the giant nuke banlist and the content release of the structure decks and INOV.  So Blue-Eyes takes up a lot of the meta and Blue-Eyes happens to be really weak to Jowgen. Same with Kozmos to an extent, and a few other of the weaker top decks. But if new decks can easily get rid of Jowgen.. it will need protection to be setup, which means it will probably be dropped from builds. 

 

So post structure deck ABC will enter the meta as tier 1, and MAYBE Subterrors will enter the meta too (Really it's up in the air, but Konami seems to want to make it tier 1 from INOV support. None revealed yet, but I just have a feeling. ) 

 

And ABC won't have as much an issue  with every monster in the deck being able to deal with 1300 DEF and the deck can also set traps for the following opponent turn or use additional cards to continue their play after the normal summon. Jowgen is also not optimal 2nd turn against them if they setup Buster, since they can just banish Jowgen in response to the summon or blink their ABC dragon out for the pieces on standby. The ABC deck will likely take up a LOT of meta % controlled by Blue-Eyes. Maining Jowgen won't be as effective. 

 

(Metalfoes are decently strong against ABC post-inov and ABC are strong against Blue-Eyes. Blue-Eyes will probably take the largest hit in popularity when ABC releases compared to Metalfoes).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+mark    3006
1 hour ago, ACP said:

My point is that counters to overpowered mechanics aren't themselves overpowered. People are messing up the causality here. Royal Oppression wasn't overpowered in TeleDAD because it stopped Dark Armed Dragon and the synchro mechanic. Rather, Dark Armed Dragon and the synchro mechanic were overpowered.

 

The correct solution to making cards like Jowgen/Dyna/Emptiness more fair is to create a metagame that is not so special summon heavy. That is the real issue. They should have a more niche role of stopping decks that are too reliant on that mechanic rather than just stopping every deck from playing Yugioh. Maybe we shouldn't take it for granted that i'ts fine if every deck is able to special summon a bunch of monsters t1.

Would you say the same for Imperial Order, that in a slower meta that's less defined by spell-cards the LP cost etc. would make the card fair? If not, is it because you can decide where Imperial Order ends such as with Messenger of Peace, or is it because you think Spell Cards should be more important than Special Summons? I have a hard time figuring out what 'Overpowered' means at all, because that's all relative to the format. In a normal monster only format where every monster has 500 atk, a monster with 600 atk is for sure 'overpowered'. If every deck can special summon a bunch turn 1, and cards such as Raigeki/Dark Hole exist, is special summoning still an OP thing then, and if so, what makes it such? I mean I can understand if the reason is that you shouldn't be able to put your best plays on the board T1 just because you drew them, without any kind of setup, although even if all OP cards were banned I think I'd prefer all floodgates gone as well because it creates the 'draw the specific out to this specific floodgate or lose the game' scenario. I also dislike archetypes as nowadays you have to play the full archetype, and that archetype has one goal that's pretty much 'hit or miss', that's not really reactive with what your opponent is playing: skill may still be a factor because good players still top events frequently, but it's a different kind of skill, more deckbuilding to draw your combo asap and solitairing as you said, than playing a game between 2 people with multiple turns and making reads etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+ACP+    33994

I think Imperial Order order is a poorly designed card, and other cards that do a similar thing (such as Spell Canceler) are fine. Getting to choose when it ends is of course what makes it so good. Messenger of Peace is a little different, although it's certainly possible to conceive of a format where Messenger of Peace is better than Imperial Order. The main differences between Imperial Order and Messenger of Peace are:

- Imperial Order always goes even on cards. Half the time, it just negates one spell, stops your opponent from playing any more spells for that turn, then dies during your next standby phase. That's already extremely good. The fact that you can choose to keep in around longer just makes it that much better. By comparison, shutting down attacks for one turn with Messenger of Peace, then killing it on your own turn is usually terrible. Messenger of Peace needs to be around for several turns to get any true value out of it.

- Messenger of Peace, by the very nature of shutting down your own aggression, requires it to be built around. This is why it has traditionally thrived in burn decks. You need to have a deck that breaks the symmetry of the card. You can run Imperial Order in a deck that itself plays 25 spells without any problems. It's too one-sided.

 

I think it's fine if there are cards that tell certain decks "if you can't get rid of me, you can't play the game." No one really complains about cards like Thalia, Leyline of the Void, Stony Silence, etc. in MTG. Every deck should have a downside to playing it. That's what makes the game balanced. What's wrong with that downside being "has trouble with floodgate X?" Keep in mind that many of these problems could also be solved with more metagame diversity in general. There were a lot of potential floodgates that could be used in Edison format for example (Royal Oppression vs Quickdraw, Mask of Restrict vs Monarchs, Consecrated Light vs Blackwings, etc) but it's actually a very deep and interactive format. I would argue that if you were to ban all of those cards the format would be significantly worse.

  • Upvote 1

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.

×