Durant makes me want to quit TCG

[Celebi23]

HenryP: I was referring to newer players who want a deck that will still do good in a tournament. I like the deck for other reasons. What deck do you play? If you run something like reshiphlosion, of course you're going to beat durant.
Celebi: I'm saying someone who just wants to have fun, but not focus on completely winning, more hanging out with friends. However, if they still want to not get crushed, durant would be the deck for them.

I honestly don't see the point of this thread as a whole. It's just a bunch of complaining about how annoying durant is and a few people defending it.

A friend of mine said this best:

"We spent 14 hours testing and preparing that Eelzone list. First round, he played against some kid with his theme deck and drew Magnemite and six lightning. Without even realizing it, his opponent killed his Magnemite for the win on turn three, while he continued to draw nothing. This ended whatever chance he had at cutting."

It is completely unfair for a player who spent 10 minutes throwing together a Durant deck to be able to run 50-50 or better with a player like myself who has spent countless hours testing. People who don't test as much or whatever might not be able to understand how frustrating it is to lose to a mediocre player because they played a simple and straightforward deck or got the donk. The players who just want to go there for fun and not devote any time to the game at all should not be able to win tournaments.

I know two or three people who opted to sit this format for that reason.

I can't believe this thread has come to this level of arguing, it's not even discussion anymore.

Durant isn't the poor and bad player's choice of deck, it's a good deck that has good matchups across the board. Stop complaining and adjust to the meta, threatening to ragequit over a deck and insulting other players like this just makes you look like a child. Some people hate playing against trainer lock, tank and donk decks but they aren't nerdraging over them.

It's an efficient deck that runs smoothly. Learn to KO your opponent in a timely manner or lose. /thread.

We're still discussing, we're not arguing. Trainer lock and tank decks are fundamentally different in that you get to play an interactive game with them. You're not just sitting there wondering if you can take six prizes in 10 turns.

 

[HenryP]

If you're a good player you don't play Durant.
/thread

 

[DarknessGrace]

If you're a good player you don't play Durant.
/thread

just because you're a good player, doesn't mean you can't play a fun, inexpensive deck

 

[Akamu54]

The most important thing to think about here is that if you feel like quitting then you have lost hope in yourself as a player. Durant decks may be annoying, but so are little siblings, and you don't quit being a family because of that, so why quit Pokemon? IMO, if you feel like quitting over a deck which can help make you a better player by challenging it more then you shouldn't be playing the TCG. It's all about the challenges and how you overcome them.

 

[Captain Oats]

"We spent 14 hours testing and preparing that Eelzone list. First round, he played against some kid with his theme deck and I drew Magnemite and six lightning. Without even realizing it, his opponent killed his Magnemite for the win on turn three, while he continued to draw nothing. This ended whatever chance he had at cutting."

It is completely unfair for a player who spent 10 minutes throwing together a Durant deck to be able to run 50-50 or better with a player like myself who has spent countless hours testing. People who don't test as much or whatever might not be able to understand how frustrating it is to lose to a mediocre player because they played a simple and straightforward deck or got the donk.

I know two or three people who opted to sit this format for that reason.

So Durant is a bad deck that takes the fun out of pokemon and forces people to quit because it is consistently good and other players' decks are still prone to the occasional bad hands/draws despite possible countless hours of testing? Yeah? OK then, I agree; this game sucks and Durant is a horrible deck. Also it's completely fair to say that every single Durant deck is obviously made in the 10 minutes before a tournament and nobody has ever tested with it ever before playing it in said tournament. My deck is worth more money and has a really complex strategy so I should automatically win.

We're still discussing, we're not arguing. Trainer lock and tank decks are fundamentally different in that you get to play an interactive game with them. You're not just sitting there wondering if you can take six prizes in 10 turns.

People still hate to play against them. Trainer lock decks disrupt some decks (like Durant, for example) almost just as much as Durant disrupts anything. Tank decks make decks with weak attackers cry.

All Durant does is force you to stray from your normal strategy and forces you to have larger consequences for a misplay.

 

[Slowbro]

Celebi: Just because it's straightforward doesn't mean people can't put time into it. People can inadvertantly get the donk on any deck. That's part of the game. If you don't like all the luck in pokemon, play chess.

 

[Celebi23]

So Durant is a bad deck that takes the fun out of pokemon and forces people to quit because it is consistently good and other players' decks are still prone to the occasional bad hands/draws despite possible countless hours of testing? Yeah? OK then, I agree; this game sucks and Durant is a horrible deck. Also it's completely fair to say that every single Durant deck is obviously made in the 10 minutes before a tournament and nobody has ever tested with it ever before playing it in said tournament. My deck is worth more money and has a really complex strategy so I should automatically win.

Yeah, pretty much. If I play better, spend more time preparing, and play a hard-to-use deck then I should win. I'm glad we see eye to eye on this. :O

I never said every Durant deck was made in 10 minutes. I just said that a Durant made in 10 minutes does have the potential to run with almost any deck if it's not lucky enough.

People still hate to play against them. Trainer lock decks disrupt some decks (like Durant, for example) almost just as much as Durant disrupts anything. Tank decks make decks with weak attackers cry.

You don't seem to understand. Against Durant, I setup one attacker and mindlessly attack while my opponent mindlessly attacks. Against any other deck, I have room to outplay an opponent. I can stray from a linear path of action if it appears it will lose me the game. Against Durant, there is nothing I can do except continue to hammer away at Durants.

All Durant does is force you to stray from your normal strategy and forces you to have larger consequences for a misplay.

Durant forces both the player and the opponent to use a one-dimensional strategy that depends a lot on the opening hand, mills, and flips.

Celebi: Just because it's straightforward doesn't mean people can't put time into it. People can inadvertantly get the donk on any deck. That's part of the game. If you don't like all the luck in pokemon, play chess.

There is very little difference between a Durant deck put together in 10 minutes and a Durant deck put together in 14 hours. Sometimes playing chess instead is tempting.

 

[Matryoshka]

Durant is not a total braindead play. Timing disruption is key. I thought Durant was great for the game. I know I said before Durant usually loses to Chandelure, but it's one of the few decks that CAN beat it. I mean WHEN YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT IT, is this a skill based game? No. Durant is only a bit easier to play than most of the leading decks. Saying that "playing a deck that takes no skill to play is unfair, so I prefer to play a skill based deck" is like saying "meta decks are unoriginal and an easy win, so I'm going to play an original rogue for every tournament." I gave up "playing for privelege" a while ago. Just because it feels right to play a skill based deck doesn't mean that not playing a skill based deck is cheap and unfair and not fun. A win's a win, no matter how autopilot it is. And if that's how how you need to win, then more power to you.

Tl;dr: Complaining that Duranr takes no skill to play is a poor argument.

 

[Vulpix Yolk]

Sometimes playing chess instead is tempting.

This. So much.

I'm alright with Durant being in the format, I would never play it, because I don't feel like getting shot in the parking lot after a Pokémon event, but I think it is good that there is a cheap (price wise) deck in the format. Some people just don't have the collections to build any deck they want in the format, and a lot of people don't have the money to buy the cards they need. Given a dog could probably build an effective Durant list, and I could play that list and win with my eyes closed, I still respect Durant as a deck. Good players can usually beat it, and players who are trying to get better at the game have the potential to preform well at tournaments with it. None the less, I can't wait until Heatmor comes out and thrashes these pesky ants out of the meta.

I mean WHEN YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT IT, is this a skill based game? No. Durant is only a bit easier to play than most of the leading decks.

:/
Really? I guess the Pokémon TCG taking no skill explains why the same handful of people like Jason K, Pooka and Chris Fulop have been dominating the game for years on end now. And the skill level required for playing Durant well is at least 5 times less than a deck like google's.

 

[Celebi23]

Durant is not a total braindead play. Timing disruption is key. I thought Durant was great for the game. I know I said before Durant usually loses to Chandelure, but it's one of the few decks that CAN beat it. I mean WHEN YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT IT, is this a skill based game? No. Durant is only a bit easier to play than most of the leading decks. Saying that "playing a deck that takes no skill to play is unfair, so I prefer to play a skill based deck" is like saying "meta decks are unoriginal and an easy win, so I'm going to play an original rogue for every tournament." I gave up "playing for privelege" a while ago. Just because it feels right to play a skill based deck doesn't mean that not playing a skill based deck is cheap and unfair and not fun. A win's a win, no matter how autopilot it is. And if that's how how you need to win, then more power to you.

Tl;dr: Complaining that Duranr takes no skill to play is a poor argument.

Durant's ideal setup: 4 Durant. (4 basic Pokémon, 4 Pokémon.)

Chandelure's ideal setup: Chandelure w/3 energy, Chandelure, Dodrio, Vileplume, Lampent, Chansey. (3 Stage 2's, 2 Stage 1's, 1 basic, 16 cards.)

Just looking at those numbers, Durant is 4x easier to play than Chandelure.

Durant's strategy: use a 1-energy attack every turn. Time Crushing hammers will, and flip heads every time. Discard the opponent's good cards and always have a Revive in-hand.

Chandelure's strategy: Lock your opponent out of items and get fully setup without going down too many prizes. Use Chandelure's Ability to decide what threats to eliminate. Ensure that you don't lose Chandelures if possible. If a Chandelure goes down, make sure it has a Rescue. Sometimes use Lampent to disrupt the opponent. Save the Chandelure that's going to attack so that you use the attack at the perfect time and ideally don't end up discarding the energy with Blissey. Often, try to setup enough Jirachi kills to win the game that way. Take as many cheap prizes as possible if you prize Jirachi. Decide between attacking with Chandy again or retreating and spreading 30 more damage. Etc.

You should get the idea by now.

If this is not a skill-based game, why do the same group of players consistently make top cut almost every tournament? Is the most skill-based format we've ever had? Certainly not. Is this still a skill-based format? Certainly.

We are not discussing whether or not a win is a win. We are discussing whether or not Durant is a healthy deck to have in the game, and whether or not that win is truly representative of each player's skill.

 

[Matryoshka]

@VY: Skill is definitely involved. But when I think of skill based competitive games, I think of Street Fighter, chess, and sports. Card games are NOT skill based. It plays a big factor, but luck is more mainly involved in card games than any other competitive game.

@Celebi23: the point of bringing that up was to convey that Durant being easy to play doesn't transfer to "bad for the game." It sucks to lose to autopilot while playing a more skill based deck, but that doesn't mean we have a game crisis *cough*unlikemd-bw'ssabledonk*cough* I wasn't trying to start another topic.

I know that Chandy is much harder to play, I've tested since November and only now I hardly misplay! But (no offense) there isn't a huge gap between Durant and, say...a Dragon deck.

We should already know that the mill win doesn't show a player's skill...but why does this matter anyway?

 

[Captain Oats]

Yeah, pretty much. If I play better, spend more time preparing, and play a hard-to-use deck then I should win. I'm glad we see eye to eye on this. :O

Playing better has nothing to do with it and neither does the complexity of the deck. If you play a perfect game but make 1 misplay and your opponent capitalizes on it letting them win doesn't mean that you should have won or that you are a better player, you made a mistake and your opponent ended up beating you. When google went to world's he didn't expect to win because his deck was more complex than every Tyram deck he played, he had a gameplan for each deck he faced and he used it. Have a game plan for Durant and you should be fine.

Your friend had a dead hand and no draws, any deck would have beaten it, a loss is a loss, whether it's by 1 prize or a donk so it doesn't matter what deck he was playing against.

I never said every Durant deck was made in 10 minutes. I just said that a Durant made in 10 minutes does have the potential to run with almost any deck if it's not lucky enough.

Again, the card is extremely good at what it does, why should this be counted as a con? Nobody ever complains when other cards are good at what they do.

You don't seem to understand. Against Durant, I setup one attacker and mindlessly attack while my opponent mindlessly attacks. Against any other deck, I have room to outplay an opponent. I can stray from a linear path of action if it appears it will lose me the game. Against Durant, there is nothing I can do except continue to hammer away at Durants.

No I understand how to play against Durant perfectly fine. It's incredibly easy to play against, but it isn't mindless. You have room to outplay an opponent in Durant, too. And why do you need options to face a deck? You need one strategy to beat it, why do you have to have multiple options? It's straightforward.

Durant forces both the player and the opponent to use a one-dimensional strategy that depends a lot on the opening hand, mills, and flips.

So you would rather every deck play the exact same way no matter what the matchup? It's a different strategy than you normally use. And yeah, opening hand, draws, coin flips and overall luck have a pretty large affect on every game you play. Just tech in recovery like Super Rod if you think the milling is unfair. You only need 2 - 4 pokemon, max, against Durant.

There is very little difference between a Durant deck put together in 10 minutes and a Durant deck put together in 14 hours. Sometimes playing chess instead is tempting.

That just isn't true. If a novice makes their own Durant deck in 10 minutes it is definitely different than someone who actually understands the game who has playtested for 14 hours.

 

[Celebi23]

Mr. Tea- I completely agree. Last cities I won every game I got a turn but still finished 3-2 and bubbled cut. However, there is enough skill in the format for it to be relevant in deciding a good number of games. Because let's face it, if skill was not the deciding factor in at least half the games played, none of us would take this game seriously.

However, that's not what this thread is about.

Playing better has nothing to do with it and neither does the complexity of the deck. If you play a perfect game but make 1 misplay and your opponent capitalizes on it letting them win doesn't mean that you should have won or that you are a better player, you made a mistake and your opponent ended up beating you. When google went to world's he didn't expect to win because his deck was more complex than every Tyram deck he played, he had a gameplan for each deck he faced and he used it. Have a game plan for Durant and you should be fine.

Yeah, but if I play a complex deck that's harder to use than a simple deck, the payoff for a perfect game should be larger than if I play a simple deck flawlessly.

Your friend had a dead hand and no draws, any deck would have beaten it, a loss is a loss, whether it's by 1 prize or a donk so it doesn't matter what deck he was playing against.

Unfortunately, that's true. It's why a lot of people quit this game.

Again, the card is extremely good at what it does, why should this be counted as a con? Nobody ever complains when other cards are good at what they do.

By this logic, if I were the best serial killer in the world, I shouldn't be hated because I am good at what I do. Durant is not hated for how well it works, but for what does.

No I understand how to play against Durant perfectly fine. It's incredibly easy to play against, but it isn't mindless. You have room to outplay an opponent in Durant, too. And why do you need options to face a deck? You need one strategy to beat it, why do you have to have multiple options? It's straightforward.

Because a straightforward strategy requires less skill to execute than a strategy involving multiple options and attackers.

So you would rather every deck play the exact same way no matter what the matchup? It's a different strategy than you normally use. And yeah, opening hand, draws, coin flips and overall luck have a pretty large affect on every game you play. Just tech in recovery like Super Rod if you think the milling is unfair. You only need 2 - 4 pokemon, max, against Durant.

Of course not. That's why I hate Durant. Every time I play Durant, I do the exact same thing. Every time I play any other deck, my strategy evolves and develops in order to respond to what cards they play.

That just isn't true. If a novice makes their own Durant deck in 10 minutes it is definitely different than someone who actually understands the game who has playtested for 14 hours.

I'm not quite sure how to respond to this because I'm not 100% sure how I feel about it, so I just won't respond.

 

[Matryoshka]

^Added more clarification, that was directed at VY actually.

 

[Captain Oats]

If you play a complex deck you don't deserve anything, it's a game, you should never be entitled to anything. People hate Durant not just because of what it does (nobody hates KGL or Slowking/Weavile/Ampibom even though they do the same thing, disrupt and stall) but because it does it well and people don't like losing. If you can beat it you don't mind it but if you can't you complain.

But if you get out multiple attackers and burn those resources you help Durant. It's not just about beating them, because while you play you inevitably help them if you aren't careful. There is nothing wrong with playing conservatively, even if it means just running 1 attacker all game. google didn't ever say "I hate dominating Tyram with SEL all game every time I play it, this isn't fun", he said "Hey, easy strategy easy win. I'm gonna set up and steamroll through the win, sorry 50% of the meta, deal with it." It's the same against Durant, you have 1 strategy you use in that specific matchup and you do it, every time. You only react to a certain extent, no matter the matchup, and yes, despite what you apparently believe, you do still have to react to Durant.

I'm really confused at why so many people's opinions on the deck have changed both ways since this was a thread but whatever http://www.pokebeach.com/forums/thread-heatmor-the-answer-to-durant?

 

[Riskbreakers]

First of all, I hate it when people say a deck takes no skill to play it. All decks require skill. It's more of a grammatical/technical error anyway but that's not what I'm weirded out about.

For me Celebi23 is representing the ideology of a perfect world where "the hardest worker and most skilled gets all the glory" but we all know in reality this is a farce. Don't believe me? Look up Justin Bieber and you know why this ideology is impossible. I admit that I believe in this ideology to a certain point and then get struck by reality that luck will really play a factor in our lives.

Why am I talking about all this crud when the topic is Durant? It's because there is some co-relation to it. Durant takes less skill than most decks and yet can win a few tournaments here and there. Why people hate it so much? It's because it looks like a shortcut to victory rather than most standard decks. But with all shortcuts we all know they have flaws and Durant is no exception to that.

If someone has been playtesting for 14 hours and loses to that bad luck? That's life. I lost to a little kid before after winning the prior week a few years ago. We all have our bad days and that will be unavoidable. Here's what I can say, Durant isn't exactly going to be the best deck ever considering it doesn't have the majority of Cities wins but it presents another way of winning which I actually can smile from.

Bottom line, don't spend all this time hating on Durant. I know it's auto-pilot but it shouldn't be the biggest threat people should be seeing. Losing to Durant once to surprise is understandable. Losing to it over and over again is inexcusable because you haven't learned your lesson once from Durant.

Also, HenryP. "Good Players don't play Durant"? I'd rather say, "Good players know how to play against Durant." IIRC Kenny W and Jason K have played Durant before so does that mean they are not good?

I honestly found Gyarados+Sableye and Sabledonk more annoying because you technically can't play against it. Once they go first, you'll most likely scoop anyway.

 

[AmishEskimoNinja]

The most important thing to think about here is that if you feel like quitting then you have lost hope in yourself as a player. Durant decks may be annoying, but so are little siblings, and you don't quit being a family because of that, so why quit Pokemon? IMO, if you feel like quitting over a deck which can help make you a better player by challenging it more then you shouldn't be playing the TCG. It's all about the challenges and how you overcome them.

This comparison makes no sense. You don't choose to have siblings. And even if you could, you probably wouldn't choose to because it would be fun. On the other hand, you should only play pokemon if it is fun. And unlike "quitting" your family, no one is harmed if you quit. (Although in my case my League wouldn't be very happy since I'm an organizer)

---

Losing to Durant once to surprise is understandable. Losing to it over and over again is inexcusable because you haven't learned your lesson once from Durant.

I spent a lot of time trying to tech for it. There just isn't a good tech for it right now. Victini is a terrible tech, no matter what people say. Plus, even if there were a good tech, there is always the chance the tech will get milled, or you will start with something else that has a high retreat cost.

I play a Klinklang tank deck that utterly destroys any traditional deck that just stands and fights. I beat so many eel decks at cities. I actually won a game when I was down by 5 prizes. But what am I supposed to do to show that I have "learned my lesson"? Pick a new deck. That sounds just great. Give up the rogue deck that is basically my trade-mark at league.

 

[Riskbreakers]

IMO Durant isn't to be teched against but rather to be outsmarted. Just don't play all your resources and keep a PONT handy.

Look, there are such things as an auto-loss that one has to accept. No deck is 100% foolproof, you beat eels already, that should be good because that comprises most of the meta.

Back during pre-Catcher era. I was running DonphanDragons. I always had to accept that any TyRam there would give me problems but I just accepted it so as long as I could counter majority of the other players.

 

[James]

I myself have quite some experience from battling Durant (both in playtesting and in tourneys), and it basically comes down to this:

- Set up something that can clean sweep a Durant in less than 4 turns after they start milling (if you cannot, ánd you cant recover any cards, thats GG right there). Aka anything that can hit for 80 ~ 120 damage consistently after those 4 turns will save you the game. Anything less than that means GG against a ''normal'' Durant list.

- Don't lay down more than you need. In other words, do you have 1 ''big hitter'' up? Building ONE extra can't hurt; leave the rest of your cards on hand. Your ''ideal'' field would be 1 attacker, 1 back-up attacker, and 1 ''Seeker-Target'' pokémon. Other than that, you need nothing else to win the game.

- Use cards like PONT wise. While most decks usually only run 2-3ish PONT, you should keep in mind it could be your ''savior'' for the game. Even in a situation where all your Super Rod and/or FSL are milled, a big hand of 8+ cards alone will fetch you at least a ''small portioned deck'' back (why 8? The PONT (-1), You redraw 6 cards (-6), and leave 1 card in your deck. I know a single carded deck will be milled empty next turn, but it's just to show an example people!). Keeping a large hand prevents Durant from playing Spiritomb TM at times, leaving the opening for you to use your PONTs to refill your deck when needed.

- When possible, Junk Arm those Super Rod. Don't be shy to play Flower Shop Lady either; if they didn't mill it and they don't run Weavile, keeping a Super Rod/FSL on hand is the safest bet to have really. What Revive is to them, Super Rod and/or FSL should be to you; have one on hand if possible. In the case of Weavile, don't be shy to use them when the opportunity arises!

- Manage your resources well. While this sounds ''obvious'', I took a friend of mine 7 games of playtesting to realise it's not so smart to Magnetic Draw to a full hand when your opponent is milling your deck (Nobody insult my friend now though!! >=P). Some ''logical'' choices (refill your hand to get what you need, etc) will cost you the game. Of course, you'll want to build up something, but be wary at what extend you're trying to build something up. Need the final stage of your attacker and got a Sage's Training on hand? Consider your odds of nabbing what you need with that Sage. Sage's Training and Professor Juniper's card texts should be translated to ''I make sure Durant needs one less turn to win'' and ''I hand the win to any smart Durant player'' respectively. Of course, that single Sage or Juniper could fetch you just what you needed; just keep in mind any Sage effectively cuts your turn count by 1, and any Juniper cuts your turns by 2. Quite nasty if you just need one more turn to win, eh?!!

- Trainer-Lock eats the ant better than Heatmor at the moment. A friend of mine runs a 2-0-1 Vileplume line in his MagnEel just to counter the ant (it is/was quite big here), and suprisingly it works as well (needless to say, the Vileplume tech also works against other matchups)! Of course this isn't viable for all decks, but if you really detest Durant so much, it might be somehting to consider to run.

- Any list which runs at least 3 Rainbow Energy and which can fit in a single copy (or 2) of Reshiram will eat the ant. A lot of people from my area disagree with me, but for me it has been working (at least a little). If you can acces two Rainbow Energy fast enough along with the Reshiram, you can simply Outrage KO from there (not counting in Eviolites and Sp Metals though!) for your 6 prizes. I personally find this best working with CaKE type of decks; popping something to sacrifice a prize, then Twins for some Rainbow Energy. Of course, people have been suggesting other things like Victini (V-Create) for an example, but any decent Fire type smacking for at least 40 is viable really.

All in all I must say Durant became a lot ''bigger'' than I could anticipate, but I've been a ''defender'' of the deck from the moment I saw the spoilers for the little bugger. While I agree with the people who say ''it's just !@#$% annoying to face!'' or ''Durant is so luck based it isn't even funny anymore!!'' and that kind of comments, yes you're right. However, that's also what Durant was designed to be, people! What else did you expect from the moment you saw the spoilers?

And inb4youhaveneverlosttoit; I've both tested ánd played competitive and lost against Durant. Yes, it is annoying when your opponent gets lucky and mills crucial cards you needed, and it's even more annoying when you're a seasoned player and you lose to a ''newb'' simply because they got lucky with the deck. But then I ask you, have you never been lucky during a tourney?

All in all, Durant is a new twist to the meta; it plays and wins differently than most (if not all) decks out there. Learn to beat it, or get beaten, that's just to it. Complaining won't win you the game either, you know!

[/sand=James] -Celebi23

 

[Card Slinger J]

Durant is a deck for people who don't have enough skill to play things like Chandelure, CaKE, etc. If I'm thinking "I wan't to do well and not think", I'll play something like Magnezone Eelectric. Durant is the poor and bad players friend.

Wow, I actually did find that comment rather insulting especially considering
that EelZone can take some level of skill to play and is a pretty fun deck to boot.