Fun If You Could implement a Metagame Format For This Game, How Would You Do it?

[Lanstar]

I little background: Before I got into the competitive realm of the TCG, I was somewhat into the competitions of the main video games. There, you have the official tournaments and competitions with their own rules - but you also have unofficial battle organizations that are quite popular.

The most popular competitive battling site I know of is called Smogon University, and it has a very well known way of making formats that allow so many different Pokemon to shine in battle, even if many aren't viable enough in standard matches. It is done using a tiering system that is based on how much usage each Pokemon has in comparison to a standard ruled game, known by Smogon as "Overused" (OU). The pokemon that aren't used enough in OU are placed into a lower tiered format called "Underused" (UU), and Pokemon that aren't used enough in that tier is placed into a lower tiered format, and so on. Each format bans the use of Pokemon that is above it, and there are also rules and bans on Pokemon in the created formats if they make them too unhealthy, regardless of the amount of usage.

Now, looking at the state of the Trading Card Game, many of you here have felt that the metagame is quite unbalanced, filled with loads of strong cards that combine into terribly overpowered strategies, and that it makes a supermajority of cards unviable for competitive play. We've blamed certain mechanics, like Item Lock, Draw-Based Abilites, Mega Evolutions, Disruption-Based Items, Pokemon-EX, x2 Weakness, DCE, etc. for our ills of the game, and overall, we contribute this to a game as to why we think this game isn't much fun to play.

Now, if I wanted to, I could ask which cards you would ban from the game, and it would cause an endless debate on how sound the ban would be. Instead, however, I am asking you all to go deeper than that: Given the cards we are given to by TPCi, I ask that you create a metagame format that would allow for the boatload of unviable cards to become viable again, or at least make the game as a whole "fair" in your mind.

Now, there are many ways you can create a metagame format for the card game - and it doesn't have to be based on usage, like Smogon does it. Here are other ways you could base formats on for this game:

• Card Value. You could basically base restrictions on how hard particular cards are are to get in this game, and enforce tiers on their expensiveness. For instance, you could restrict each formats' sets on availability, and make it so only common and/or uncommon rated Pokemon are allowed in particular ones. Of course, you'll need to beware of some of those cards (Like Vespiquen and Night Marchers) so you don't overcentralize the metagame with them. You could even have a Rare-only format if you wanted to. xD
  
• Draw-Based Restrictions. You could make formats that have very different draw-engines allowed. One tier could have only ability-based draw, another could only have items used to draw, etc. Just be cautious of the consequences of how draw affects the game.
• Weakness Rules: This can mean to isolate pokemon into different format matchups so that each game has no weakness involved. That is, separate Dark and Grass-weak pokemon into a format away from their Dark and Grass counterparts. Then again, you could instead enforce weakness in in a different way in each format you make, like making it +20 or x3 instead of x2.
• Energy Requirements and acceleration: You could make a set of formats solely on how hard or easy it is to accelerate a Pokemon's attacks. This could be quite subjective when dividing pokemon into formats, but you could target cards like Aromatisse, Bronzong, Blacksmith, Mega Turbo, etc. and have rules for each one's usage.
• "Theme Deck" Constraints: This is a very hardcore restriction for a metagame format: Only have decks within parameters of what a basic theme deck can have, and other custom parameters for other tiers. Theme decks from XY-Base through Roaring Skies have very similar card distributions: 30 Pokemon, 12 Trainers, 18 Energy, 4 Different Normal Rares, 1 Holofoil, no EX's. The differences in the blueprints of each theme deck are quite subtle and somewhat tricky to enforce - Though the Dark Hammer version is the one I like the most.
• Selective Bans: This is probably what a lot of you are thinking: Ban the use of cards you think are too powerful and/or overcentralizing to the official metagame.

There are probably more (and perhaps better) ways to create metagame formats for the card game. If you have any ideas for how you'd enforce rules for a Metagame-friendly format, do post them here!

(Edit: I mixed up the meaning of the word 'Tier" with "Metagame Format," and this might have confused the readers. Also editing the title.)

 

[bbninjas]

Why don't you just tier it look smogon does, and not have different rules for each tier? Card Value fluctuates, draw-based sorta defies creativity, weakness changes isn't really a way to categories, redistricting energy acceleration also defies creativity and theme decks aren't really that fun. Most of the things you are suggesting appear to be targeted at particular mechanic. Limit the main user of that mechanic and you have your basis tiers.

However, I don't think tiers are really healthy for a TCG game. Half of the problem that the game has is that half of the cards made aren't that exciting in the first place. Granted, you have your interesting cards that are great for fun games or rogue decks, but honestly, the lower the tiers get, the more boring the game gets, unlike the vg.

 

[Lanstar]

Why don't you just tier it look smogon does, and not have different rules for each tier? Card Value fluctuates, draw-based sorta defies creativity, weakness changes isn't really a way to categories, redistricting energy acceleration also defies creativity and theme decks aren't really that fun. Most of the things you are suggesting appear to be targeted at particular mechanic. Limit the main user of that mechanic and you have your basis tiers.

However, I don't think tiers are really healthy for a TCG game. Half of the problem that the game has is that half of the cards made aren't that exciting in the first place. Granted, you have your interesting cards that are great for fun games or rogue decks, but honestly, the lower the tiers get, the more boring the game gets, unlike the vg.

Technically, Smogon's tiering does enforce different rules for each tier, in that it does restrict overpowered, overused pokemon from being used in other tiers, as well as other tactics. For instance, in certain tiers, they also ban particular abilities - and even experiment with banning particular attacks.

Now, my brainstormed Draw based rule is quite similar: You're just banning particular cards depending on the rule of the card. Not much different from banning anything else. Now, messing with weakness... Yeah, that would be really changing the rules.

You say that the restrictions defy creativity. Actually, it can add creativity, too, as you find new ways to play the game, much like how when one is blindfolded, you find new ways to compensate not being able to see.

Theme Decks aren't always fun because you weren't the one creating the deck - but if you yourself were to create the theme deck with its restrictions, and were to make it competitive... Hey, that could be hilariously fun!

Anyway, please be open minded to possibilities. The tiers don't need to be hierarchical - but more in that they allow certain cards to be able to shine where before they were not. Either that, or they balance the metagame somehow...

 

[bbninjas]

I find that restricting draw, energy accelerating (or at least as the basis for its own tier) is not exactly healthy. If you mean be 'restricting draw' and are talking about Shaymin-EX, than go for it! If you are talking about restricting Juniper or Shauna, and even things like Slurpuff, than I'd prefer to just stick to the 'ou' tier. But personally, I don't think tiers is the necessarily the way to go. I think there should be leagues that provide perhaps a 300 cards that can be used in a deck each month or so, that includes both powerful and underused cards but neglects others. Maybe like a prerelease. I feel this is one way to improve one's analysis of the metagame, ability to deckbuild and, of course, experience the unique printed cards that can't shine in other circumstances.

I don't like playing with theme decks as they are sooooo slow. Two and three hit KOing opponents and setting up in four turns is just not enjoyable for me.

Haha, my post probably does appear quite closed minded, but to be honest, I take in your thoughts and consider/analysis them, see what I think. Personally I think balancing the metagame is probably a good thing >_>

 

[Ivy_Profen]

There are some deck's that I would love to play in tournamenta. But they just can't deal with the metagame. I would enjoy a no EX format. Because even if decks like vespiquen are good in the current meta. Doesn't mean they are good against all non ex decks as well

 

[Otaku]

Because even if decks like vespiquen are good in the current meta. Doesn't mean they are good against all non ex decks as well

While some decks that currently do well against Pokémon-EX without using them and while countering them might not hold up in a format without Pokémon-EX, that isn't the only reason people like myself tell you that removing Pokémon-EX won't give you a balanced format. In fact it would be all the cards that either are good now regardless of Pokémon-EX or that would be good without them.

There is an assumption that Pokémon-EX are too powerful; I reject this based on analyzing the cards. There are some Pokémon-EX that are a waste to use, same for non-Pokémon-EX. Some specific Pokémon-Ex are indeed too powerful, but so too are some non-Pokémon-EX. Even the ones that are too powerful aren't automatically so inherently but due to specifics of the metagame or larger card pool. The question what is the least we can change that does the most good for balancing things out, as well as what is the actual "threshold" for being "good" versus "bad" versus "too good"?

This is why I obsess with things like "pacing"; there is a certain pace where I think the game is great. It is a pace where barring the extremes of luck (which should be extremes, rarely impacting play especially over the course of a tournament) both players will have a chance for their deck to "do its thing" if they avoid misplays. The better deck and player will win in the end, but it will only be one-sided if a deck and/or player is significantly under performing.

 

[PG24]

Those aren't tiers that you listed, but rather just ideas for restrictions for a side game with friends or your league. Essentially what you did is define a unique metagame, like how the Professor Cup does unique twists on decks or how Little Cup is handled in the video games. This is not what a tier is. Tiers are essentially guidelines for players to know what is effective in the game's official ruleset and metagame, or possibly the ruleset created by a gaming committee or group to allow for the most effective competitive play. Again, a metagame is the game's ruleset and how it's played, while a tier is a guideline for what is effective in the metagame.

For the TCG, the idea for tiering should come down to two factors: matchups or usage. With matchups, you can get a clear idea of which decks are the best based on how they do against other decks. The problem with this is that it can sometimes be subjective and doesn't factor in that players can play a matchup different. For example, player A can struggle against a character in a fighting game with their main, but another player can play the same matchup and see no struggle at all. Matchup tiers can still be effective for telling players how this option fares on average, and for that reason it's the most used in the competitive scene.

With usage tiers, you get an idea on what is effective based off the most reliable proof in the world: math. It's generally a given that the best options are also the most used. With usage, you also can see where the metagame is at its weakest and can surprise people by running the unexpected (ex: nobody plays option x, thus nobody is prepared for option x. see wailord at us nationals or gastrodon in gen 5 ou.) I don't like usage personally because it tells you nothing about the actual matchups, but I like it when it's supplementary to matchup tiers so you can see what your region is actually running.

 

[Lanstar]

Those aren't tiers that you listed, but rather just ideas for restrictions a side game with friends or your league. Essentially what you did is define a unique metagame, like how the Professor Cup does unique twists on decks or how Little Cup is handled in the video games. This is not what a tier is. Tiers are essentially guidelines for players to know what is effective in the game's official ruleset and metagame, or possibly the ruleset created by a gaming committee or group to allow for the most effective competitive play. Again, a metagame is the game's ruleset and how it's played, while a tier is a guideline for what is effective in the metagame.

For the TCG, the idea for tiering should come down to two factors: matchups or usage. With matchups, you can get a clear idea of which decks are the best based on how they do against other decks. The problem with this is that it can sometimes be subjective and doesn't factor in that players can play a matchup different. For example, player A can struggle against a character in a fighting game with their main, but another player can play the same matchup and see no struggle at all. Matchup tiers can still be effective for telling players how this option fares on average, and for that reason it's the most used in the competitive scene.

With usage tiers, you get an idea on what is effective based off the most reliable proof in the world: math. It's generally a given that the best options are also the most used. With usage, you also can see where the metagame is at its weakest and can surprise people by running the unexpected (ex: nobody plays option x, thus nobody is prepared for option x. see wailord at us nationals or gastrodon in gen 5 ou.) I don't like usage personally because it tells you nothing about the actual matchups, but I like it when it's supplementary to matchup tiers so you can see what your region is actually running.

Actually, I think you have a point - I really mixed up the concept of what a Tier is compared to a Metagame... More specifically, I think a more accurate term for my ideas should have been for inventing "Formats" instead of "Tiers". (My Bad! >_<)

Well... In that case, maybe I might need time to edit the top post and the title to reflect that... And perhaps go a little farther about this: If you could make a Format that had more cards capable of being used in the 'competitive' tier, how would you do it?

 

[Draaka]

One word to completely even out the metagame and change how all decks are conceived.

SIDEBOARD

Seriously, a sideboard similar to MTG (15 cards that aren't in your main deck, but can be exchanged on a 1 for 1 basis with other cards in your deck in between games in a tournament) would completely change how the game works. A lot of the cheesy and broken decks wouldn't be able to exist. Almost all pokemon have a hard counter, but the problem is trying to fit a good mix of anti meta game counters, with your main strategy, with enough speed to also make it viable is nearly impossible in 60 cards. But 60 cards for your main strategy and speed, then 15 cards you can use for game 2 and 3 in the match? That is more viable. Against mega ray? Tech in that 2-2 raichu line. Against toad? Suddenly two aegislash, three xerosic and a enhanced hammer in the deck for game two looks like a pretty good option. Against metal? Suddenly exchanging one of your pokemon lines for a 3-3 garbodour line is a great idea.

Hell even a few pokemon that can attack for low colourless costs that see almost no play at the moment would come back in a big way because they can swing for weakness. Basically you could just have three or four different pokemon that could swing for DCE or single colourless and just put them in depending on your opponents deck weakness. Siesmitoad EX, Mewtwo EX, if you played a stage one attacker you could tech in and out which eeveelutions helped you in between games and in none of them are useful you can take the entire lot out and put in something else that will help.

It would even out so many decks that a strongly defined metagame would be very hard, and ads a whole other level of skill. Decks like vespiquen, toad and night march wouldn't even be a thing because they have hard counters, that aren't viable to be played in your deck every match of a tournament but are basically your only way of winning that match up.

Take the Laser/Bank strategy. That wouldn't have been so dominating if you could have side boarded in a poke centre lady or even a couple of full heals. Or even some paint rollers or extra stadiums. Decks that run of DCE and don't really mind what the basic energy types are (here's looking at you toad) could have had 2 virizon EX and enough grass energy to tech in so suddenly you can block status conditions on your main attacker.

 

[Draaka]

I played a lot of different decks last season, but if I had to have put together a "all comers" side board.

1 Mewtwo EX
2 Aegislash EX
1 Siesmitoad EX
2 Pikachu
2 Circle Circuit raichu
1 Pokemon centre Lady
1 Xerosic
1 Team flare grunt
1 Lysandre's trump card (a lot of the time I just played this to counter night march, so it wouldn't have gotten main decked for a lot of the season if I had the option do sideboard it)
2 wobbofett
1 Enhanced hammer


Imagine last season, if you could just run your main strategy, but in between games (not matches, games) you could have switched cards in your deck out for these. Would have made quite a few match ups more palatable no?

Example, against night march, game two you can put in siesmitoad, xerosic, trump card.
Against metal ray you could have etched in aegislash, raichu, wobbofett.
Against Toad/bank you could have brought in pokemon centre lady, xerosic, team flare grunt, aegislash, enhanced hammer.

I hope you guys can see how this would be a great thing for levelling the meta playing field, and there would be almost no auto losses, because if a deck had an auto loss match up, you could side board heavily against that one match up.

And your opponent would be counter side boarding you.

And of course then in game three your opponent could side board against what you side boarded in in game two.

It would take a lot of the This deck auto wins against this, auto looses against that type of thinking that pokemon suffers from and would bring the "meta" down to player on player skill and foresight in the individual match up you are playing. A lot less emphasis on making the right deck choice before the tournament. (although arguably deck building would become even more of a refined skill)

 

[Rakkis157]

I played a lot of different decks last season, but if I had to have put together a "all comers" side board.

1 Mewtwo EX
2 Aegislash EX
1 Siesmitoad EX
2 Pikachu
2 Circle Circuit raichu
1 Pokemon centre Lady
1 Xerosic
1 Team flare grunt
1 Lysandre's trump card (a lot of the time I just played this to counter night march, so it wouldn't have gotten main decked for a lot of the season if I had the option do sideboard it)
2 wobbofett
1 Enhanced hammer


Imagine last season, if you could just run your main strategy, but in between games (not matches, games) you could have switched cards in your deck out for these. Would have made quite a few match ups more palatable no?

Example, against night march, game two you can put in siesmitoad, xerosic, trump card.
Against metal ray you could have etched in aegislash, raichu, wobbofett.
Against Toad/bank you could have brought in pokemon centre lady, xerosic, team flare grunt, aegislash, enhanced hammer.

I hope you guys can see how this would be a great thing for levelling the meta playing field, and there would be almost no auto losses, because if a deck had an auto loss match up, you could side board heavily against that one match up.

And your opponent would be counter side boarding you.

And of course then in game three your opponent could side board against what you side boarded in in game two.

It would take a lot of the This deck auto wins against this, auto looses against that type of thinking that pokemon suffers from and would bring the "meta" down to player on player skill and foresight in the individual match up you are playing. A lot less emphasis on making the right deck choice before the tournament. (although arguably deck building would become even more of a refined skill)

For a month now I've been trying to push this format forwards as a tournament format on r/ptcgo, hopefully for the one right after the current tournament. It's an interesting format to experiment with, and can make a lot of the more annoying decks much, much more formidable. Such a format would knock decks like Shiftry right out of the running, since any player can proceed to tech in their Baltoys.

 

[bbninjas]

One word to completely even out the metagame and change how all decks are conceived.

SIDEBOARD

Seriously, a sideboard similar to MTG (15 cards that aren't in your main deck, but can be exchanged on a 1 for 1 basis with other cards in your deck in between games in a tournament) would completely change how the game works. A lot of the cheesy and broken decks wouldn't be able to exist. Almost all pokemon have a hard counter, but the problem is trying to fit a good mix of anti meta game counters, with your main strategy, with enough speed to also make it viable is nearly impossible in 60 cards. But 60 cards for your main strategy and speed, then 15 cards you can use for game 2 and 3 in the match? That is more viable. Against mega ray? Tech in that 2-2 raichu line. Against toad? Suddenly two aegislash, three xerosic and a enhanced hammer in the deck for game two looks like a pretty good option. Against metal? Suddenly exchanging one of your pokemon lines for a 3-3 garbodour line is a great idea.

Hell even a few pokemon that can attack for low colourless costs that see almost no play at the moment would come back in a big way because they can swing for weakness. Basically you could just have three or four different pokemon that could swing for DCE or single colourless and just put them in depending on your opponents deck weakness. Siesmitoad EX, Mewtwo EX, if you played a stage one attacker you could tech in and out which eeveelutions helped you in between games and in none of them are useful you can take the entire lot out and put in something else that will help.

It would even out so many decks that a strongly defined metagame would be very hard, and ads a whole other level of skill. Decks like vespiquen, toad and night march wouldn't even be a thing because they have hard counters, that aren't viable to be played in your deck every match of a tournament but are basically your only way of winning that match up.

Take the Laser/Bank strategy. That wouldn't have been so dominating if you could have side boarded in a poke centre lady or even a couple of full heals. Or even some paint rollers or extra stadiums. Decks that run of DCE and don't really mind what the basic energy types are (here's looking at you toad) could have had 2 virizon EX and enough grass energy to tech in so suddenly you can block status conditions on your main attacker.

Personally I would not be an advocate for this. I enjoy the challenge of adding techs to improve matchups for a whole day, rather than each deck; I'd feel that could perhaps be too easily. Anyway, I know that any rogue deck I make would virtually fail in this type of format - they often have a hard counter but that counter is rarely used. I feel a format like this could decrease creativity in rogue decks.

 

[Draaka]

Yeah, against shifty just tech in some baltoys and/or wobbafetts and you have instant win effectively (serves them right for playing such a one trick pony deck)

But I don't think this would kill the shifty donk. What I would envision is as you have a 15 card side board, you shifty donk game one, then when they tech stuff in you tech out all the shifty line, a load of other stuff and ad in a playset of Eyvetel or Mewtwo EX and four DCE and 6 Dark or Psychic energy and play a speed beatdown deck in game two, then if you go to game three (unlikely if they just piled their deck full of baltoy/wobbefette in game 2) then you can either continue, or go back to donk depending on what you think they will sideboard.

Doesn't that alone make the shifty deck a fun deck to play and play against? Significantly more skill involved. (in comparison to current decks)

As for the rogue decks, I think it would completely eliminate rogues. In the sense that rogues are decks, using unusual cards to hard counter specific meta game trends. Almost all decks would be rogues because it would open up the card pool so much more. Suddenly cards that wouldn't even make a tier three deck last season has a reasonable chance at top eight in any regional if it has a good pilot. Because there is significantly less you must play one of three decks to win meta game. And as for your decks having hard counters that are rarely played, if your deck is still obscure then chances are they won't have the hard counter anyway. But you will have more tools at your disposal.

Rogues wouldn't be a thing, but deck building opportunities would be so much freer you wouldn't even miss them.

 

[Rakkis157]

Personally I would not be an advocate for this. I enjoy the challenge of adding techs to improve matchups for a whole day, rather than each deck; I'd feel that could perhaps be too easily. Anyway, I know that any rogue deck I make would virtually fail in this type of format - they often have a hard counter but that counter is rarely used. I feel a format like this could decrease creativity in rogue decks.

That's what I'm trying to, for lack of a better word, experiment with if the ptcgo tournament is successful. Unlike Magic, a few cards can swing a matchup much more thanks to weakness and whatnot, so a slightly harsher limitation than 15 cards might be needed. Something like 8-10, with a limit on the number of Pokemon/Trainers/Energy you can have for starters, would make it not too overwhelming. You can have an effective 70 card deck, but you still need to put some thought into what you add in that extra 10 slots as well as account for what everyone else is putting into those slots.

If the sideboard is restricted enough, then rogue decks shouldn't have it too hard. After all, if a whole lot of people can decide that they want use their limited sideboard space to tech against a deck that they would most likely not see over against a deck that they will see, then I don't think said deck is a rogue deck to begin with.

 

[Otaku]

Personally I would not be an advocate for this. I enjoy the challenge of adding techs to improve matchups for a whole day, rather than each deck; I'd feel that could perhaps be too easily. Anyway, I know that any rogue deck I make would virtually fail in this type of format - they often have a hard counter but that counter is rarely used. I feel a format like this could decrease creativity in rogue decks.

That would be because you're not an idiot, bbninjas.

Pokémon is far closer to Yu-Gi-Oh than it is to Magic: The Gathering. I am told Side Boards work were there, but for Yu-Gi-Oh it was awful. Oh, they were effective, the problem is they end up being too effective in a game like Pokémon, where Trainers are usually "generic" like many Spells and Trap cards in Yu-Gi-Oh and unlike most cards in Magic: The Gathering.

You know how when arguing comic book fights, you'll get that guy that says "Batman always wins!" no matter who the opponent is that you suggest? Well it is half true because like a lot of long time superheroes, Batman has been "inflated" and has had fanboys become writers on his main book at times, and they have carefully laid out that Batman just needs time and he'll both think of and obtain a counter to any foe he faces, at which point "merely" being a human trained to the peak of human ability with vast amounts of wealth, cutting edge technology and a vast social network (not that kind of social network! XD) means yes, yes he does win.

Against Superman, he gets the kryptonite and/or magic and/or method to emit "red" solar radiation, then gives Superman a pounding (if needed at that point).

Against... wait do I have to list them all out? There is an entire storyline where Batman's planned countermeasures for the Justice League (his teammates, composed of either the most popular or most powerful of the DC comic book universe, give or take) were stolen by their enemies and used against them.

Back to Pokémon: The Side Board basically means your deck becomes Batman. The reward for running something simple with room to side in the best countermeasures will be obscene. You'll weaken a few nasty decks that I wish weren't so dominant, but you'll empower beatdown and/or control decks, which will mostly merge into beatdown/control decks.

 

[Draaka]

Pokémon, where Trainers are usually "generic" like many Spells and Trap cards in Yu-Gi-Oh and unlike most cards in Magic: The Gathering.

That's actually quite a good point, I hadn't considered how the colour pie keeps certain things honest in MTG that pokemon might not have as much of (due to colourless attackers). But I still stand by the side board being a great way to level the playing field in competitive play.

 

[asdjklghty]

Item Lock, Draw-Based Abilites, Mega Evolutions, Disruption-Based Items, Pokemon-EX, x2 Weakness, DCE, etc. for our ills of the game, and overall, we contribute this to a game as to why we think this game isn't much fun to play.

Because a weird human thing is to blame something else other than the real reason a game isn't "fun" to play.

1. Item Lock
No this isn't a problem. It exists for a reason other than a strategy; game balance. If everyone could keep spamming Battle Compressors, dumping Night Marchers in the discard pile, would you keep playing the game? If everyone could always keep playing Enhanced Hammers, would you still enjoy playing? No.
The game designers knew that they had to find a way to keep people from spamming Items and auto winning because of it. One sided Item lock also isn't a bad thing considering that's the point of it in the first place. Take Manectric-ex (not EX) that had the attack "Disconnect" that prevented only your opponent from playing Trainers (Items) or Dialga G that also had one sided Trainer lock.

2. Draw-Based Abilities
This has to be the worst reason listed. Drawing through Abilities isn't a bad thing and actually makes decks more consistent overall, allowing them to exeggcute their strategy instead of allowing people to win because their opponent couldn't draw for crap. Drawing a bunch of cards through Abilities (Poke-Powers back then) and still being able to use Supporters is something that makes the game healthy.

I'm too tired to comment on the rest of what many blame but I have to say this. None of what is listed are problems. And the Tier thing wouldn't help either. Why? Because the real reason is the game has shifted to become more luck based. It's that simple. Who sets up first wins. If your deck has a bad matchup, too bad, sucks to be you. AUTO LOSS.

 

[Lanstar]

Because a weird human thing is to blame something else other than the real reason a game isn't "fun" to play.

I'm too tired to comment on the rest of what many blame but I have to say this. None of what is listed are problems. And the Tier thing wouldn't help either. Why? Because the real reason is the game has shifted to become more luck based. It's that simple. Who sets up first wins. If your deck has a bad matchup, too bad, sucks to be you. AUTO LOSS.

You say that the game is too luck-based right now. But if you made a Metagame format that was less luck-based and not so much "set up first" or matchup based, how would you do it? After all, you've been speaking of all that as a pet peeve, no?

----

As for the sideboard... Well, I kind of interpret it as changing your deck's destiny, right in the middle of the game. It could be quite interesting and fun to implement and experiment with. Though I'm just imagining all the ways players could abuse it as well.

Good suggestions, everyone!

 

[asdjklghty]

You say that the game is too luck-based right now. But if you made a Metagame format that was less luck-based and not so much "set up first" or matchup based, how would you do it? After all, you've been speaking of all that as a pet peeve, no?

----

As for the sideboard... Well, I kind of interpret it as changing your deck's destiny, right in the middle of the game. It could be quite interesting and fun to implement and experiment with. Though I'm just imagining all the ways players could abuse it as well.

Good suggestions, everyone!

No offence but I wasn't impressed by limits for the meta game format. That in turn, makes the game luck based as well.

What I would do, is make the game require more skill, like a throwback to the Majestic Dawn-On format. That was one of the best the game had. Making Weakness relative to the Pokemon instead of always doubling it. But at the same time, keep powerful Trainer cards that are balanced to give you an edge against your opponents.

Imagine a format where there is N, Professor Oak's New Theory, Professor Sycamore, Lysandre, Computer Search, Ultra Ball, VS Seeker, Battle Compressor, Super Potion, Max Potion, powerful Draw Abilities, EXs and good Stage 1s and 2 decks as well as big Basics that aren't EXs. All that allow you to choose which kind of Pokemon you want to play and everything is more grey until the end of the match, meaning not everything is predetermined like your deck against your opponent's, etc.

 

[bbninjas]

Yeah, against shifty just tech in some baltoys and/or wobbafetts and you have instant win effectively (serves them right for playing such a one trick pony deck)

But I don't think this would kill the shifty donk. What I would envision is as you have a 15 card side board, you shifty donk game one, then when they tech stuff in you tech out all the shifty line, a load of other stuff and ad in a playset of Eyvetel or Mewtwo EX and four DCE and 6 Dark or Psychic energy and play a speed beatdown deck in game two, then if you go to game three (unlikely if they just piled their deck full of baltoy/wobbefette in game 2) then you can either continue, or go back to donk depending on what you think they will sideboard.

Doesn't that alone make the shifty deck a fun deck to play and play against? Significantly more skill involved. (in comparison to current decks)

It also causes a looooot more time to perfect a deck, deterring a lot of competitive players from the game. Instead of testing one decks, you effectively have to test two, and effectively play two. This would pretty much nullify the point of having one deck in a tournament, and sticking with it. .-.

As for the rogue decks, I think it would completely eliminate rogues. In the sense that rogues are decks, using unusual cards to hard counter specific meta game trends. Almost all decks would be rogues because it would open up the card pool so much more. Suddenly cards that wouldn't even make a tier three deck last season has a reasonable chance at top eight in any regional if it has a good pilot. Because there is significantly less you must play one of three decks to win meta game. And as for your decks having hard counters that are rarely played, if your deck is still obscure then chances are they won't have the hard counter anyway. But you will have more tools at your disposal.

Rogues wouldn't be a thing, but deck building opportunities would be so much freer you wouldn't even miss them.

If rogue decks didn't exist, then every deck you versus would be similar or the same. Always versing Toads, M-Manectrics, Bronzongs and that's it. Nothing fun, nothing new, nothing creative. I know that I can nearly always look a deck and notice a hard counter for it; they are rarely obscure. Hard counters will, perhaps at the beginning, be creative, but eventually people will realise the significant of the counter and it will be used much more often. Even though, many rogue decks I don't have a practical counter to their counter, meaning the rogue would be destroyed anyway.