Losing to the Game

[crystal_pidgeot]

That is a terrible example. People did tell those groups all those things, and what happened? They stuck it out, dealt with it, and adapted to what was now a part of their lives, which sounds a lot like what you need to do.

How was it a terrible example? You just said those things did happen? We also did stick it out, like those people did. We continued to play rather than just quit like some other would like. We also got a semi-hard counter to Night March coming soon. My example was perfect and relevant, even if you didn't like it and if thats the case, just say you didn't. We're all adults here and you can disagree with me.

The same goes for Trevenant. If item lock is so debilitating, why does it only account for about a small amount of States victories? Trevenant lost in Top 8 and Top 4 more than twice the amount of times it won. So did Night March (though Night March only lost in Top 4 a little less often).

No idea why. Maybe it took them a while to get going any they never got anything. Maybe the opponent hit all the right cards. Its not unbeatable.

No one is telling you what decks you can and cannot play in Standard, but if you want to play Standard, adapt. There will always be a best deck and you can either play it or not. If you don't, then you have to realize and accept that people will play it and you have to plan accordingly. I play Trevenant because it beats Night March, and I do that knowing that I will take a virtual auto-loss to Dark variants. Even with the T1 item lock, I still lose, and I lose even faster if I go second.

Not directly anyway. If you want to play quad Swellow, then go for it but don't expect to win with it and as players, we know what to play and what not to play. just like video games, people are going to use the character or gun they are most skilled with, whether or not its top tier. The deck you play had a great matchup with trevenant but it also punish other players just for playing the game because it turns off 30 something cards in another players deck. Even in trevenant mirrors, someone is eating a bullets. This is a bad example of how such a mechanic should work. What do you so with a turn one item lock? I would like to know and make it reasonable.

I played a PTCGO tournament where some kid was using Zygarde-EX and Regirock-EX. I gusted out his Regirock and stalled him out for the rest of the game. He was super butthurt and called me names just because his deck has a bad matchup against mine. If you're going to play in a tournament, whether real or online, you should be prepared to get matched up against decks that own you, and suck it up when it happens. This is the same whether or not you play Night March, Dark, Trevenant, or any other deck.

What did you learn?

Now, this is not to say that TPCi does not care about its game. When Absol SW was dominating, we got a direct counter in the very next set with Claydol. In the case of Night March, it's safe to say that TPCi did not plan for it to do as well as it did. For all their potential playtesting, there is no group of playtesters better than your player base. They will find strategies that you never thought possible, and I think that's the case with Night March. LTC did a decent job of checking Night March, but since they got all their resources back as well, it wasn't too difficult to just re-do everything with the addition of having access to any prizes they've taken over the course of the game.

I didn't even know that card was a problem but at least it was fixed. I didn't play that format but I did play the last ex format when Pidgeot, dark and metal decks were a thing and we got battle frontier. We also had other counters that were timely. Night March and Trainer lock has been out for how long now?

You might think that Karen is too little, too late, and you may be right on that, but that's no reason to stomp your feet and whine because the best decks in format are the best decks in format. If the Ascension Phantump didn't exist then Night March would be winning even more than it already is. Trevenant checks it, and Dark checks Trevenant. And that's not even taking luck into account; you can beat any deck with a bit of luck. Every deck draws dead sometimes. I lost a match to a scrub deck using Serperior BW because I stayed asleep for three turns in a row, allowing my Pokemon to get killed off by poison while he set up. I was already set up and going to town on him, but a series of coin flips that all went his way sealed my fate.

A little late is an understatement. For the rest of your post, what did you learn from that?

You are right that complaining gets results, but you seem to think that no one at TPCi is paying attention and leaving its players twisting in the wind, which is just plain wrong.

One is fine to think that. The player's didn't like X ball but we got it 3 more time. The players didn't like HGSS Vileplume and they remade it. We also didn't like Garbodor but that got reprinted. As a matter of fact, they reprinted just about all of the toxic things people hated and took away all the good things like Tool Scrapper. We still don't have a solid non supporter way to stop trainer lock and we JUST now are getting a Night March counter after about a year of it being around. Yeah, it does seem that they are leaving us to the wind.

 

[asdjklghty]

The game is luck based, I'm not saying it isn't. That isn't what my post was about because all game in some degree have luck. When I gave an example of what skill was, I said "When you lose to the player, you are losing to that persons skill, his play style and his knowledge of the game and deck he plays". What exactly are a different are a different set of skill needed to play and does this only apply to Pokemon? What do I learn when I or my opponent plays a Super Scoop Up and flips heads and a win or loss happens because of it, what is learned? Maybe I should have flipped better? How does one do such a thing that doesn't involve cheating? If we really break it down, even cheating coin flips are a skill. In Mario Maker, if someone puts a wall of Piranha Flowers you have to get through by timing the fire balls or Hammers thrown by the Hammer Bros and you die repeatedly, is it your fault? What about that SSU flip you lost to. Was that your fault? How about that new Greedy Dice card? What if your opponents picks one up off a prize card and flips heads and takes their last prize, is that too your fault you lost? You're being punished just for playing, which should be avoided when designing games and mechanics.

As for my second part, I didn't mean to use a red herring since I'm not the one to throw out logical fallacies but my example is perfectly reasonable here. You said twice "if you don't like it, then don't play", which is more than likely what those groups of people were told when they raised any issue to the people who were fine with it.

Whats above in this post isn't what I'm making this thread about and I dont want to derail it for that because I like making post that are considered food for thought and that part was only said for you. This post in its entirety is meant for losing to the game and what it means. I didn't bring up luck or RNG because it related to building a bad course in Mario maker and RNG is always bad when its meant to be a way to give a challenge to the player because if a player loses to it, they don't learn anything and if they do win, they still don't learn anything because they don't get a proper use of the mechanic. RNG almost always is a deceitful way of making the player feel they did something when they didn't.

Anyone Pokemon player can get lucky and win the lottery, but not all Pokemon players can win worlds.

1. Again, I have to repeat myself. Luck is part of the game. Decks like NM are bound to exist no matter what. And I'm not the only saying saying this. It seems you have trouble comprehending what others are reponding.

2. Minorities getting better representations and rights is a non-existent example because there's no problem in PTCG to begin with. Again, accept there will be luck or don't play. There's no middle ground here. It's either or. Which is why I said you have no premise since luck is accepted as part of card games. It's in their DNA.

3. Refer back to my previous posts. I said luck isn't all that there is to Pokemon but it's embedded in it. Don't fix what's not broke.

 

[poke4trade]

Except that there are competitively viable decks, "meta decks" (some tourney winning) outside what you mentioned. I think that omition was deliberate to support your agenda. Is Yveltal (both formats) a T1 deck? Is Manectric/Mega Manectric a T1 deck? Is Tyrantrum a T1 deck? What about Raichu/Bats or Greninja? And Trev can be beaten without Dark, even if it goes first. Trust me. And in Expanded, Primal Groudon is doing well. It's probably the slowest deck out there currently.

http://www.pokemon.com/us/strategy/tcg-winter-regional-championships-preview-2016/

I'm not going to deny that there arent T1 winning decks. But there's more to those decks. And like I've said, you gotta accept luck is part of the game.

I strongly disagree, that you don't believe the mechanics is giving you an advantage over other decks. It is the reason why we play them. We want to eliminate luck. Most of the decks I mentioned are running a very good probability, on first turn, which is killing luck. We want consistency. We want to ensure dominance because we know that it eliminates -- our's and the opponents skill and luck, and allows the mechanics to drive the game. You want the mechanics of the game to drive your deck because we are all humans and make mistakes. Mechanics do not make mistakes, it just is. You can make mistakes playing (NM) and still win heavy handily. You cannot make mistakes playing against it with other decks.

I don't have an agenda, I just used the last Standard format standings. The top two decks are used to win by overpowering the opponent on their turn one. The bottom three decks are used to stop the opponent from playing on turn one, with high probability that it will happen. Each of these decks have high turn one probabilities, but NM is tripling in % wins, which can correlate to a higher than average turn one probability.

Night March 19 12 25 50 106 29.26% 7230
Yveltal 6 4 9 20 39 10.48% 2590
Trevenant BREAK 5 6 12 12 35 10.04% 2480
Seismitoad EX (Hammers) 4 6 7 21 38 10.04% 2480
Vileplume/Vespiquen 4 4 10 10 28 7.93% 1960

Because expanded is not being played at worlds, the format is not a concern. I do have some concerns about standard because with all the decks running about in the format the ratios are a bit skewed for these particular decks. If I worked for this company, I would pose the question why? Mostly because I would want trainers to buy new cards, and buying aftermarket and trade wouldn't help the company. I would work very hard to ensure the stats never skewed because I would want more people to buy to new cards.

So here is break down for standard format.

Night March 19 12 25 50 106 29.26% 7230
V
M Manectric EX 3 2 5 15 25 6.39%

Night March 19 12 25 50 106 29.26% 7230
V
Dragons/Bronzong 0 0 4 2 6 1.54%

Night March 19 12 25 50 106 29.26% 7230
V
Yveltal 6 4 9 20 39 10.48% 2590

Trevenant BREAK 5 6 12 12 35 10.04% 2480
V
Dragons/Bronzong 0 0 4 2 6 1.54%

Trevenant BREAK 5 6 12 12 35 10.04% 2480
V
M Manectric EX 3 2 5 15 25 6.39%

Yveltal 6 4 9 20 39 10.48% 2590
V
Trevenant BREAK 5 6 12 12 35 10.04% 2480

I could go on but by going through just the general numbers, not even digging deeper into the data, you can tell immediately that something is going on that is skewing certain deck list probability (Luck) more than others. And trainers are using that probability to rid themselves of luck based plays and using the mechanics to drive and win games.

 

[crystal_pidgeot]

1. Again, I have to repeat myself. Luck is part of the game. Decks like NM are bound to exist no matter what. And I'm not the only saying saying this. It seems you have trouble comprehending what others are reponding.

I know it is. I'm not saying it isn't but this should not be the main point of the game. Also, yes. NM decks are bound to exist but why don't decks like this exist in MtG and to an extend, yugioh? Even if these decks do come up, its up to the developers to handle it through a patch, game or engine update to correct the error or a new card meant to beat it. Its not a issue of understanding it not what this thread it about. Its about losing to the game and not the player.

2. Minorities getting better representations and rights is a non-existent example because there's no problem in PTCG to begin with. Again, accept there will be luck or don't play. There's no middle ground here. It's either or. Which is why I said you have no premise since luck is accepted as part of card games. It's in their DNA.

Again, this isn't the issue I was trying to tackle. Your post of "if you don't like it then don't play" was triggering to me so I gave you that response. The problem with the PTCG are its mechanic are being trumped by card design. They print a bunch of powerful trainers and their answer is to just fix it with trainer lock rather than rotating cards and not printing powerful ones and letting the game balance out. Again, luck is part of the game but that wasn't the point of this thread.

3. Refer back to my previous posts. I said luck isn't all that there is to Pokemon but it's embedded in it. Don't fix what's not broke.

If luck is going to be a thing, then it should play as little as role as possible. Right now there aren't toxic things around that require coin flips.

 

[asdjklghty]

I know it is. I'm not saying it isn't but this should not be the main point of the game. Also, yes. NM decks are bound to exist but why don't decks like this exist in MtG and to an extend, yugioh? Even if these decks do come up, its up to the developers to handle it through a patch, game or engine update to correct the error or a new card meant to beat it. Its not a issue of understanding it not what this thread it about. Its about losing to the game and not the player.



Again, this isn't the issue I was trying to tackle. Your post of "if you don't like it then don't play" was triggering to me so I gave you that response. The problem with the PTCG are its mechanic are being trumped by card design. They print a bunch of powerful trainers and their answer is to just fix it with trainer lock rather than rotating cards and not printing powerful ones and letting the game balance out. Again, luck is part of the game but that wasn't the point of this thread.



If luck is going to be a thing, then it should play as little as role as possible. Right now there aren't toxic things around that require coin flips.

1. People have already pointed out the obvious: there cards keep NM in check.

2. No, you're wrong when you think that T1 item lock decks are the only competitive decks that can beat NM. And if Pokemon is the only mainstream TCG with powerful cards, why in MTG, is there a Lysandre's Trump Card equivalent. Sadistic Sacrament is creepy because you look through your opponent's deck and discard cards! That's better than any mill deck in the history of Pokemon. The effects in MTG can be scarier than what is available in Pokemon. And btw Yu-Gi-Oh is more broken than Pokemon. Saying other wise is a first for me.

3. I've already stated that you can't change the way card games are played. Why do you want to fight part of their DNA? Why do you keep insisting that there shouldn't be so much luck in Pokemon? Would you say the same thing to CoD if you were a BF fan? They're different. As is Pokemon to MTG.

 

[asdjklghty]

I strongly disagree, that you don't believe the mechanics is giving you an advantage over other decks. It is the reason why we play them. We want to eliminate luck. Most of the decks I mentioned are running a very good probability, on first turn, which is killing luck. We want consistency. We want to ensure dominance because we know that it eliminates -- our's and the opponents skill and luck, and allows the mechanics to drive the game. You want the mechanics of the game to drive your deck because we are all humans and make mistakes. Mechanics do not make mistakes, it just is. You can make mistakes playing (NM) and still win heavy handily. You cannot make mistakes playing against it with other decks.

I don't have an agenda, I just used the last Standard format standings. The top two decks are used to win by overpowering the opponent on their turn one. The bottom three decks are used to stop the opponent from playing on turn one, with high probability that it will happen. Each of these decks have high turn one probabilities, but NM is tripling in % wins, which can correlate to a higher than average turn one probability.

Night March 19 12 25 50 106 29.26% 7230
Yveltal 6 4 9 20 39 10.48% 2590
Trevenant BREAK 5 6 12 12 35 10.04% 2480
Seismitoad EX (Hammers) 4 6 7 21 38 10.04% 2480
Vileplume/Vespiquen 4 4 10 10 28 7.93% 1960

Because expanded is not being played at worlds, the format is not a concern. I do have some concerns about standard because with all the decks running about in the format the ratios are a bit skewed for these particular decks. If I worked for this company, I would pose the question why? Mostly because I would want trainers to buy new cards, and buying aftermarket and trade wouldn't help the company. I would work very hard to ensure the stats never skewed because I would want more people to buy to new cards.

So here is break down for standard format.

Night March 19 12 25 50 106 29.26% 7230
V
M Manectric EX 3 2 5 15 25 6.39%

Night March 19 12 25 50 106 29.26% 7230
V
Dragons/Bronzong 0 0 4 2 6 1.54%

Night March 19 12 25 50 106 29.26% 7230
V
Yveltal 6 4 9 20 39 10.48% 2590

Trevenant BREAK 5 6 12 12 35 10.04% 2480
V
Dragons/Bronzong 0 0 4 2 6 1.54%

Trevenant BREAK 5 6 12 12 35 10.04% 2480
V
M Manectric EX 3 2 5 15 25 6.39%

Yveltal 6 4 9 20 39 10.48% 2590
V
Trevenant BREAK 5 6 12 12 35 10.04% 2480

I could go on but by going through just the general numbers, not even digging deeper into the data, you can tell immediately that something is going on that is skewing certain deck list probability (Luck) more than others. And trainers are using that probability to rid themselves of luck based plays and using the mechanics to drive and win games.

Firstly, just numbers isn't enough. Sorry math lovers. You need to understand the reason behind the stats.

YZG wasn't played widely at States because people wanted to win. The Charizard Lounge said that I believe. That explains why the Dark Bird's presence was so low. YZG has a good matchup against Night March and is definitely a good contender in Standard. It can handle any situation and its Cities wins proves it. BTW, Yveltal's matchup against NM is 50%, I don't know where you got that number from.

Just because a deck isn't played as much as another, doesn't mean it's bad. DialgaChomp, though popular, wasn't as widespread as LuxChomp. But every good player knew it was a good deck and like Yveltal, could handle any situation. No offence but you're using artificial numbers.

From the site you most likely got the stats from,

Trevenant BREAK is the primary deck that saw more success as the tournament series went on, starting out as the #10 deck, moving up to #4 in week two, and then holding onto the #2 spot in the last two weeks. Most likely this is a result of players not knowing optimal builds or how to play certain matchups early and then figuring it out as the series went on as well as playing it more in response to Night March...

...Yveltal has long been known as a 50/50 deck, posting 50/50 or better matchups against most things. This seems to be where Yveltal fell during State Championships, as it drew even with the best deck in the format, Night March, while keeping most of its other matchups close.

 

[crystal_pidgeot]

1. People have already pointed out the obvious: there cards keep NM in check.

Why? Why are these or that specific deck needed when it trashes all other decks in the process? That's punishing to the player.

2. No, you're wrong when you think that T1 item lock decks are the only competitive decks that can beat NM. And if Pokemon is the only mainstream TCG with powerful cards, why in MTG, is there a Lysandre's Trump Card equivalent. Sadistic Sacrament is creepy because you look through your opponent's deck and discard cards! That's better than any mill deck in the history of Pokemon. The effects in MTG can be scarier than what is available in Pokemon. And btw Yu-Gi-Oh is more broken than Pokemon. Saying other wise is a first for me.

I never said that. Every deck can be beat but the ONLY strats the game favors right now are lock the opponent from playing or throw the deck at the opponent and yes, that card is good but how often is it being played on turn 3? In Magic, you also have counter spells to prevent it. Now I dont play MtG so I don't know its effects on the meta but it does have a cost, unlike cards in Pokemon which can be very disruptive and be played for free. In magic, I'm sure a card doesn't exist in their standard format that turns half the deck into dead draws.

In Yu-Gi-Oh, if you over extend, you can be punished hard for it. There is also a lot of room for counter play and there is player interaction. I wish a lot of the cards weren't as stupid as they are but you get to play. In Pokemon right now, there is a very good change of signing the match slip after a turn or so or you draw pass until you do so.

3. I've already stated that you can't change the way card games are played. Why do you want to fight part of their DNA? Why do you keep insisting that there shouldn't be so much luck in Pokemon? Would you say the same thing to CoD if you were a BF fan? They're different. As is Pokemon to MTG.

Sure we can. The luck of the draw can't be avoided that should be only it. In Pokemon, there should be a few turns at the start used for setup decks. No rule saying that but card design that doesn't fully punish that isn't draw as much as you can and hit for lots of damage as fast of you can. In CoD competitive, they made it to where you can't use explosives in the first few seconds of the match to prevent snipes or unfair kills versus the map you are on.

In Pokemon, cards are very powerful vs the cost of the card which is often free and easy to get. In magic, since almost everything has a cost, they have playroom for powerful effects since you have to pay for them.

 

[Serperior]

This should definitely have been a blog article. Nice read.

I kind of touched on the importance of the coin flip in my Battle Compressor article. It seems like this is almost what the game has come down to and it's scary to think so. I'll elaborate later, but you bring up some great discussion here.

 

[asdjklghty]

Why? Why are these or that specific deck needed when it trashes all other decks in the process? That's punishing to the player.



I never said that. Every deck can be beat but the ONLY strats the game favors right now are lock the opponent from playing or throw the deck at the opponent and yes, that card is good but how often is it being played on turn 3? In Magic, you also have counter spells to prevent it. Now I dont play MtG so I don't know its effects on the meta but it does have a cost, unlike cards in Pokemon which can be very disruptive and be played for free. In magic, I'm sure a card doesn't exist in their standard format that turns half the deck into dead draws.

In Yu-Gi-Oh, if you over extend, you can be punished hard for it. There is also a lot of room for counter play and there is player interaction. I wish a lot of the cards weren't as stupid as they are but you get to play. In Pokemon right now, there is a very good change of signing the match slip after a turn or so or you draw pass until you do so.



Sure we can. The luck of the draw can't be avoided that should be only it. In Pokemon, there should be a few turns at the start used for setup decks. No rule saying that but card design that doesn't fully punish that isn't draw as much as you can and hit for lots of damage as fast of you can. In CoD competitive, they made it to where you can't use explosives in the first few seconds of the match to prevent snipes or unfair kills versus the map you are on.

In Pokemon, cards are very powerful vs the cost of the card which is often free and easy to get. In magic, since almost everything has a cost, they have playroom for powerful effects since you have to pay for them.

1. Welcome to competitive anything. In BF, everyone uses the AEK 971 or similar weapons. In fact, competitive BF players favour rapid fire weapons. Anyone can say, "I wish there were more variety" to anything but when it comes to competition, you gotta pick what can help you reach as far as you can. Which means your choices of your equipment are homogenized.

2 and 3. Both those things in Yu Gi Oh are applicable to Pokemon, especially overextending. And cards do have a cost here in Pokemon. Abeit less but it's not MTG. Like I've said, why compare this to another TCG? Well, Ultra Ball has a cost. Same with Professor Sycamore and other cards. NM suffers from needing to discard your resources and draw 7 cards.

 

[crystal_pidgeot]

1. Welcome to competitive anything. In BF, everyone uses the AEK 971 or similar weapons. In fact, competitive BF players favour rapid fire weapons. Anyone can say, "I wish there were more variety" to anything but when it comes to competition, you gotta pick what can help you reach as far as you can. Which means your choices of your equipment are homogenized.

Well, of course people use automatic weapons. They are the best in the game. Also in real life, tactical assault teams prefer automatic weapons. Back to games, Destiny players prefer to use scout rifles and hand cannons because they are more stable but at the end of the day, each gun does have a role. If you want to be Rambo, then use assault sets but if you want to be a sniper, there is also something for you. There is also a variety of weapons to choose from too but you'll never run into a team or player where they have something that says you can use your gun.

2 and 3. Both those things in Yu Gi Oh are applicable to Pokemon, especially overextending. And cards do have a cost here in Pokemon. Abeit less but it's not MTG. Like I've said, why compare this to another TCG? Well, Ultra Ball has a cost. Same with Professor Sycamore and other cards. NM suffers from needing to discard your resources and draw 7 cards.

Sure they are but can you punish the NM player who played 40 cards on their first turn? In Yugioh if a player set their entire back field, they risk eating a heavy storm and losing up to 5 cards. In Pokemon, as discard cost of 2 is hardly seen as a cost. Sure it is a cost but it almost never comes into play. I don't want to compare to other card games but its important to see how other games balance competitive. NM would never be allowed to exist in other TCGs for as long as it did.

 

[Latte1504]

Sure they are but can you punish the NM player who played 40 cards on their first turn?

Please show me.

 

[crystal_pidgeot]

Please show me.

I don't understand?

 

[Latte1504]

I don't understand?

I've never seen Night March go through 40 cards/46 cards. Please elaborate on when you've seen this.

 

[PMJ]

How was it a terrible example? You just said those things did happen? We also did stick it out, like those people did. We continued to play rather than just quit like some other would like. We also got a semi-hard counter to Night March coming soon. My example was perfect and relevant, even if you didn't like it and if thats the case, just say you didn't. We're all adults here and you can disagree with me.

It sounded to me like you were arguing that things like Night March and T1 item lock should leave the format because it makes you uncomfortable, instead of learning how to combat it and dealing with it instead of making a YouTube video of you beating people with the BDIF while complaining that it's the BDIF.

No idea why. Maybe it took them a while to get going any they never got anything. Maybe the opponent hit all the right cards. Its not unbeatable.

That's the whole point.

Not directly anyway. If you want to play quad Swellow, then go for it but don't expect to win with it and as players, we know what to play and what not to play. just like video games, people are going to use the character or gun they are most skilled with, whether or not its top tier. The deck you play had a great matchup with trevenant but it also punish other players just for playing the game because it turns off 30 something cards in another players deck. Even in trevenant mirrors, someone is eating a bullets. This is a bad example of how such a mechanic should work. What do you so with a turn one item lock? I would like to know and make it reasonable.

Increase your Hex/Xerosic Lysandre count. If you are that worried about being locked out, adapt. If you're worried about your consistency suffering, then you can either just accept that you might need to take a consistency hit to deal better with item locked, or keep the consistency and accept that you will do worse under item lock.

What did you learn?

A little late is an understatement. For the rest of your post, what did you learn from that?

I was giving examples of how luck is a factor in games and how bad decks will sometimes beat good ones.

One is fine to think that. The player's didn't like X ball but we got it 3 more time. The players didn't like HGSS Vileplume and they remade it. We also didn't like Garbodor but that got reprinted. As a matter of fact, they reprinted just about all of the toxic things people hated and took away all the good things like Tool Scrapper. We still don't have a solid non supporter way to stop trainer lock and we JUST now are getting a Night March counter after about a year of it being around. Yeah, it does seem that they are leaving us to the wind.

People didn't like X Ball because it could be used with one Energy and hit for absurd amounts of damage if the target was weak to Psychic. That's why Evil Ball costs a dark and Lugia-EX can only hit for Weakness in Unlimited. How many Lugia-EXs do you see now? Almost none. The attack is fine now.

Xerosic, Hex Maniac, and Lysandre can all help stop a trainer lock. I would argue part of the reason Vileplume came back is due to Night March and the over-reliance on items in general. I think that it may have taken this long to come up with a decisive, definitive counter because TPCi believed that the more subtle things they tried weren't working. While Night March may have been BDIF for a while, it's not the only good deck out there, and I think that TPCi wanted to promote a competitive format with the widest variety of decks.

I've never seen Night March go through 40 cards/46 cards. Please elaborate on when you've seen this.

I once played against a VV player who ran himself down to four cards in his deck on his first turn. I don't think it would be too hard for Night March to do if he really wanted to.

 

[crystal_pidgeot]

It sounded to me like you were arguing that things like Night March and T1 item lock should leave the format because it makes you uncomfortable, instead of learning how to combat it and dealing with it instead of making a YouTube video of you beating people with the BDIF while complaining that it's the BDIF.

It should leave the format because it turns things into 'your opening hand better be good or else'. The game should support all play styles and not just one or two. That video I made of me playing night march was to prove a point. I never played the deck before that and wanted to show how effortless it was for me to do so and I bet any Night March player out there would say I played it poorly. Watching the video again allowed me to see my mistakes. There isn't much a player can do if Night March gets a turn one 180 damage and can KO your EX Pokemon or under item lock. What if you don't draw your one or two card tech? What if they are prized? Its too punishing to expect a player to respond to that on turn one of the game, even more so if they aren't play aggro.

Increase your Hex/Xerosic Lysandre count. If you are that worried about being locked out, adapt. If you're worried about your consistency suffering, then you can either just accept that you might need to take a consistency hit to deal better with item locked, or keep the consistency and accept that you will do worse under item lock.

Increase them to what? Do I run 4 of each? What do I cut to run them? Can you run 4 of each of them or is it a issue with game design and balance. Why blame the players for this?

I was giving examples of how luck is a factor in games and how bad decks will sometimes beat good ones.

Luck is always a thing. Maybe you stay sleep for more that 6 turns? Is that somehow your fault? Should we expect the players to run 4 Switch and Full Heal to prevent such a thing? Is it your fault you didn't have those 4 cards in your deck?

Xerosic, Hex Maniac, and Lysandre can all help stop a trainer lock. I would argue part of the reason Vileplume came back is due to Night March and the over-reliance on items in general. I think that it may have taken this long to come up with a decisive, definitive counter because TPCi believed that the more subtle things they tried weren't working. While Night March may have been BDIF for a while, it's not the only good deck out there, and I think that TPCi wanted to promote a competitive format with the widest variety of decks.

You need to see those cards first and hope they aren't prized. I'm not sure why ruining your match up against everything else is needed to maybe win against one deck. You cant expect players too run 4 copies of each of those cards, which seems to be your answer, otherwise I don't know what me mean by add more. Not all decks can support these cards.

I once played against a VV player who ran himself down to four cards in his deck on his first turn. I don't think it would be too hard for Night March to do if he really wanted to.

I played against a bee deck that had vileplume and it decked itself on the third turn.

 

[asdjklghty]

Well, of course people use automatic weapons. They are the best in the game. Also in real life, tactical assault teams prefer automatic weapons. Back to games, Destiny players prefer to use scout rifles and hand cannons because they are more stable but at the end of the day, each gun does have a role. If you want to be Rambo, then use assault sets but if you want to be a sniper, there is also something for you. There is also a variety of weapons to choose from too but you'll never run into a team or player where they have something that says you can use your gun.



Sure they are but can you punish the NM player who played 40 cards on their first turn? In Yugioh if a player set their entire back field, they risk eating a heavy storm and losing up to 5 cards. In Pokemon, as discard cost of 2 is hardly seen as a cost. Sure it is a cost but it almost never comes into play. I don't want to compare to other card games but its important to see how other games balance competitive. NM would never be allowed to exist in other TCGs for as long as it did.

And you totally disregard my response to your dislike of everyone playing the same deck in competitions. Maybe it's cause you realized that's bound to happen no matter what?

 

[crystal_pidgeot]

And you totally disregard my response to your dislike of everyone playing the same deck in competitions. Maybe it's cause you realized that's bound to happen no matter what?

That was never a claim I made.

 

[poke4trade]

Actually, because I deal with military contracts, they do not use the best of everything. They are not actually allowed to use the best of everything because there has been war elements that have been deemed by our own government and the United nations as inhumane. Bi-logical, Weather Control, Multi-missle destination and even nuclear are some of the few. On top of that, they also have some cool Tactical Gear that comes straight out of DARPA that they are deemed by our own government as unfair in warfare. Warfare, contrary to belief, is fair. That is why we (USA) don't nuke countries anymore.

@asdjklghty I usually don't comment on people that don't believe in math. It is hard because that is where they start talking about their emotions. I can tell you that NM and the others I talked about is comparing Agent Orange to an AR-15, or M-16. You don't win you just die -- die horribly.

But that really doesn't matter. What saddens me is that you actually think the military doesn't have restraint. It means this generation is not understanding some core principles. The military does have restraint, and please please never ever think otherwise. If the military used the best tactical gear out there, we wouldn't be in two different wars at the same time. It would be NM, first turn dominance and over. And it would scare people allot.

 

[asdjklghty]

That was never a claim I made.

Care to explain this?

Why? Why are these or that specific deck needed when it trashes all other decks in the process? That's punishing to the player.

You're talking about competitive decks. In league or anywhere else, people use fun decks all the time. It's just that competition means people will use whatever allows them to win.

Actually, because I deal with military contracts, they do not use the best of everything. They are not actually allowed to use the best of everything because there has been war elements that have been deemed by our own government and the United nations as inhumane. Bi-logical, Weather Control, Multi-missle destination and even nuclear are some of the few. On top of that, they also have some cool Tactical Gear that comes straight out of DARPA that they are deemed by our own government as unfair in warfare. Warfare, contrary to belief, is fair. That is why we (USA) don't nuke countries anymore.

@asdjklghty I usually don't comment on people that don't believe in math. It is hard because that is where they start talking about their emotions. I can tell you that NM and the others I talked about is comparing Agent Orange to an AR-15, or M-16. You don't win you just die -- die horribly.

But that really doesn't matter. What saddens me is that you actually think the military doesn't have restraint. It means this generation is not understanding some core principles. The military does have restraint, and please please never ever think otherwise. If the military used the best tactical gear out there, we wouldn't be in two different wars at the same time. It would be NM, first turn dominance and over. And it would scare people allot.

And how is that relevant? No offence but appeal to authority is meaningless and frankly, worse than whatever you say about my generation.

And what does real war have to do with Battlefield by EA? eSports are obviously fake. I using Battlefield guns as an example to let Crystal know that people will be bound to use whatever allows them to win in competition. Red herrings do nothing for anyone.

 

[crystal_pidgeot]

Care to explain this?

Sure! I never said or made a claim that I dislike it when people use BDIF. This is a huge strawman here.

You're talking about competitive decks. In league or anywhere else, people use fun decks all the time. It's just that competition means people will use whatever allows them to win.

I'm talking about all decks in competition. Competitive games have to make their game as balance for all its players and play styles. This is part of the reason competitive games support all play styles, regardless if the most dominate one wins. Getting a turn one item lock isn't competitive. Its a problem with card interaction and mechanics disguised as competitive. It's a broken strategy and one that can't be prevented. Same with Night March as it suffers from the same issue. It's not competitive but a problem with card interaction and mechanics. The problem with pokemon players now is they seem to confuse the two. They don't want to play skillful decks, they want to play the m Gardevoir EX that does 110+30+ damage for 0+1 energy. Not all players want wins fed to them but want to earn them.

And how is that relevant? No offence but appeal to authority is meaningless and frankly, worse than whatever you say about my generation.

And what does real war have to do with Battlefield by EA? eSports are obviously fake. I using Battlefield guns as an example to let Crystal know that people will be bound to use whatever allows them to win in competition. Red herrings do nothing for anyone.

That's what make games great, right? You can't nuke your enemy in real life but you can in games... As often as you want with no consequence. Pokemon is much the same way. Since the game is just solitaire with 2 people, you can play any card you want as often as you want during your turn without any challenge but we hear all too often "I didn't have the right cards" or "I discarded them too early" when a player loses. No one told you to juniper away your whole hand of resources yet this play style is favored. Its not for me and I don't build my decks that way but that makes the game much harder for players like me who build very skill based decks.

I know people will play the best things around. This wasn't my point of this thread. My point was to show what good design is and how to avoid bad design. YZG is an example of a good Mario Maker stage while Trev and NM are an example of a bad Mario maker stage that thinks its good because a lot of people play it to see Mario's face. You see the difference right?