TDL, ah, something for me to read more in detail later. Already started and so far I like it.
The reason I didn't post in the topic is because, like you said, you are the generic competitive spokesman, and since I know how much I disagree with standard views, I didn't post there.
I suppose I'm not quite as serious as other people might be, but I think the most important thing is for a person to enjoy one's self. For myself, I find that in the variety of options available. Sure there are a few core cards that every deck should have, but after that I liked the ability to branch out into whatever you want (within reason).
And just because there's a metagame where autolosses exist doesn't mean it's a bad metagame, necessarily. Part of it has to do with frequency of decks and what you can do against the matchup when it arises (teching against, for example). For example, my Gigasbox had (has?) an autoloss to Machamp SF, and my response to that mainly Abomasnow. However, part of it was not having to worry about it showing up - although it was fairly possible, it wasn't seen often because, in the MD-on meta, it was slowed down tremendously. (In DP-on though, that wasn't the case. Gigas had to step back there, and he didn't step forward for me until a few months into MD-on...but then he swept.)
I mean nowadays there aren't a lot of autoloss situations, but I think even you can agree that the game is centralized around big basics, although whether or not that's an overcentralization is up for debate. (I personally think it is, and that isn't just me rebelling against the system. I just don't like the direction the game is currently headed, or at least the game in the present.)
I'm not saying your points aren't valid - far from it; I think they're excellent. I don't think I'm the only person who thinks differently to most (and even if I was I would still roll with it), but I don't like to be blind in my opposition to something.
By the way, "more healthier" is a double superlative
The reason I didn't post in the topic is because, like you said, you are the generic competitive spokesman, and since I know how much I disagree with standard views, I didn't post there.
I suppose I'm not quite as serious as other people might be, but I think the most important thing is for a person to enjoy one's self. For myself, I find that in the variety of options available. Sure there are a few core cards that every deck should have, but after that I liked the ability to branch out into whatever you want (within reason).
And just because there's a metagame where autolosses exist doesn't mean it's a bad metagame, necessarily. Part of it has to do with frequency of decks and what you can do against the matchup when it arises (teching against, for example). For example, my Gigasbox had (has?) an autoloss to Machamp SF, and my response to that mainly Abomasnow. However, part of it was not having to worry about it showing up - although it was fairly possible, it wasn't seen often because, in the MD-on meta, it was slowed down tremendously. (In DP-on though, that wasn't the case. Gigas had to step back there, and he didn't step forward for me until a few months into MD-on...but then he swept.)
I mean nowadays there aren't a lot of autoloss situations, but I think even you can agree that the game is centralized around big basics, although whether or not that's an overcentralization is up for debate. (I personally think it is, and that isn't just me rebelling against the system. I just don't like the direction the game is currently headed, or at least the game in the present.)
I'm not saying your points aren't valid - far from it; I think they're excellent. I don't think I'm the only person who thinks differently to most (and even if I was I would still roll with it), but I don't like to be blind in my opposition to something.
By the way, "more healthier" is a double superlative
