Losing to the Game

[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.

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




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.



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?

It's not a straw man. Since you should know that at face value the way at the game is played isn't different than before. You say now the game's broken. Look at how the game was like during base set. Automatic Pokemon switch with Gust of Wind and super denial with Energy Removal. Four Computer Search and 4 "discard your hand and draw seven cards" in one turn. Now that's solitaire.

And Gen 3-4 had powerful cards too.

And as for "juniper my hand, no one told me to do that you get rewarded for that". I've already stayed multiple times so yet you keep beating around the bush. It's part of the game to have to sacrifice some resources. You can't change that. Even in Mtg, you have to discard some useful stuff in exchange for new cards.

Also, nice red herring/unnecessary fear. Why bring everything right realism into this discussion? If you want to simulate real life, live out your life. Dont play any game. My prosecutor I'm real sorry sir but you are running out of ideas.

 

[crystal_pidgeot]

It's not a straw man.

Yes it was. You misrepresented what I said and then tried to undermine it by saying you don't like it when people play BDIF when I never made that claim.

Since you should know that at face value the way at the game is played isn't different than before. You say now the game's broken. Look at how the game was like during base set. Automatic Pokemon switch with Gust of Wind and super denial with Energy Removal. Four Computer Search and 4 "discard your hand and draw seven cards" in one turn. Now that's solitaire.

You are both right and wrong. Pokemon started out like that. Pokemon isn't new to the TCG market and the fact that they are making the same mistakes means they aren't learning. To me (and this is my opinion), the best years the game had were back in the last ex and format up to the late HGSS format. BW released and made the game stupid easy to play by just remaking base set. Pokemon has always been a game of solitaire but there was only so much one could do in their turn.

And Gen 3-4 had powerful cards too.

Yeah, it did. Gen 2 did as well.

And as for "juniper my hand, no one told me to do that you get rewarded for that". I've already stayed multiple times so yet you keep beating around the bush. It's part of the game to have to sacrifice some resources. You can't change that. Even in Mtg, you have to discard some useful stuff in exchange for new cards.

Well, no. Its part of the game to manage resources. You don't have to play Ultra Ball or Juniper. You don't have to play cards that force discard, you choose to. The only cards in my deck that discard are 2 copies of Ultra Ball because I cant afford to sacrifice resources. The difference between MtG and Pokemon is cards in Magic have a cost, while in Pokemon the 'cost' on cards either don't exist or never come into play. Now this is a red herring.

Also, nice red herring/unnecessary fear. Why bring everything right realism into this discussion? If you want to simulate real life, live out your life. Dont play any game. My prosecutor I'm real sorry sir but you are running out of ideas.[/QUOTE]

A red herring is when someone throws focus away from the real issue at hand in attempts to derail, which isn't what I'm doing. My examples at times may be extreme but I find the need to use real world examples since they did happen and have effects that are relevant. Pokemon, like other games are a prime example of cause and effect. Maybe discarding your only copy of Super Rod will affect the outcome on the game or maybe it won't. I've seen players lose games by discarding 3 copies of Vs Seeker when they didn't need to play a Juniper. Just like real life, these things do matter. Now this wasn't my point and I don't remember bring this up.

What I get is that you must play one or both of these decks.

 

[Latte1504]

You are both right and wrong. Pokemon started out like that. Pokemon isn't new to the TCG market and the fact that they are making the same mistakes means they aren't learning. To me (and this is my opinion), the best years the game had were back in the last ex and format up to the late HGSS format. BW released and made the game stupid easy to play by just remaking base set. Pokemon has always been a game of solitaire but there was only so much one could do in their turn.

Thank you for the disclaimer that this is just your opinion, but think about those formats. They housed two of the most powerful, meta-defining decks of all time. Someone said that in the '07-'08 season, you couldn't go to a seven round tournament and not expect to play 5 or 6 GardeGallade. If we take a look at the format, it may be more toxic, but it still much more open than this. In the State Championships this year, there were 12 decks with multiple top cuts. The 2010 also housed LuxChomp. It was probably the most winning deck of its format, and could tech in an option against almost any deck. If you planned on attending a tournament in this time period, it was probably a safe bet to expect this deck to win it.

 

[crystal_pidgeot]

Thank you for the disclaimer that this is just your opinion, but think about those formats. They housed two of the most powerful, meta-defining decks of all time. Someone said that in the '07-'08 season, you couldn't go to a seven round tournament and not expect to play 5 or 6 GardeGallade. If we take a look at the format, it may be more toxic, but it still much more open than this. In the State Championships this year, there were 12 decks with multiple top cuts. The 2010 also housed LuxChomp. It was probably the most winning deck of its format, and could tech in an option against almost any deck. If you planned on attending a tournament in this time period, it was probably a safe bet to expect this deck to win it.

That is true. In cities back in 2005, I placed second in masters with Articuno ex, Zapdos ex and Moltres ex with other random stuff. I played back in the days of GG a Pidgeot/Vaporeon/Empoleon/Omastar spread deck and had decent success with it against GG. I can see how that format would be toxic if you too were a GG player, seeing as your attackers were psychic weak with under 120 HP while eating an attack that does 120 and locking you out of abilities, something my deck didn't depend on. There was room to build other decks assuming you wanted to look for other options. Luxchomp I couldn't do anything about. I looked for options but couldn't find much but that deck might have been one of the most skillful decks out there but Gyrados was a thing too and so was Sablelock I think it was called.

In those formats, you at least got a turn to play.

 

[tehsquirrel]

In those formats, you at least got a turn to play.

T1 item lock before you have a turn is too much. Its worse than latios donk decks honestly, although the M-alakazam deck that can wipe out your 2 or 3 starting pokemon before you take a turn is pretty bad as well. And lets face it, starting with 2-3 pokemon today in a competitive deck involves some good luck.

 

[Latte1504]

Its worse than latios donk decks honestly, although the M-alakazam deck that can wipe out your 2 or 3 starting pokemon before you take a turn is pretty bad as well. And lets face it, starting with 2-3 pokemon today in a competitive deck involves some good luck.

Mega Alakazam needs a turn to evolve.

 

[asdjklghty]

Yes it was. You misrepresented what I said and then tried to undermine it by saying you don't like it when people play BDIF when I never made that claim.



You are both right and wrong. Pokemon started out like that. Pokemon isn't new to the TCG market and the fact that they are making the same mistakes means they aren't learning. To me (and this is my opinion), the best years the game had were back in the last ex and format up to the late HGSS format. BW released and made the game stupid easy to play by just remaking base set. Pokemon has always been a game of solitaire but there was only so much one could do in their turn.



Yeah, it did. Gen 2 did as well.



Well, no. Its part of the game to manage resources. You don't have to play Ultra Ball or Juniper. You don't have to play cards that force discard, you choose to. The only cards in my deck that discard are 2 copies of Ultra Ball because I cant afford to sacrifice resources. The difference between MtG and Pokemon is cards in Magic have a cost, while in Pokemon the 'cost' on cards either don't exist or never come into play. Now this is a red herring.

Also, nice red herring/unnecessary fear. Why bring everything right realism into this discussion? If you want to simulate real life, live out your life. Dont play any game. My prosecutor I'm real sorry sir but you are running out of ideas.

A red herring is when someone throws focus away from the real issue at hand in attempts to derail, which isn't what I'm doing. My examples at times may be extreme but I find the need to use real world examples since they did happen and have effects that are relevant. Pokemon, like other games are a prime example of cause and effect. Maybe discarding your only copy of Super Rod will affect the outcome on the game or maybe it won't. I've seen players lose games by discarding 3 copies of Vs Seeker when they didn't need to play a Juniper. Just like real life, these things do matter. Now this wasn't my point and I don't remember bring this up.

What I get is that you must play one or both of these decks.

Yes you are throwing a red herring even now. And so? Discarding stuff/losing things so what? You want to change that? You want a card game to have you able to stockpile on stuff and setup your board?

BTW, what does Drastic Revelation say?

"Discard your hand. Draw seven cards, then discard three cards at random."

Reforge the Soul "Each player discards his or her hand, then draws seven cards." So you can lose resources in MTG. You can deny you said that but your post says otherwise.

Tolarian Winds "Discard all the cards in your hand, then draw that many cards." Woooww!

And based on how I see your deck building, it's you, not the game. Like I've said repeatedly, you need different skills in Pokemon than anything else. One is the ability to adapt and make in-game decisions. Of course, decks like Vespiquen or Night March are skilless but that's irrelevant. The point is, you're probably complaining because you want to change how the game has been like since its inception and your deck building.

No, you don't need to play only 2 of those decks to win tournaments. Your point is invalid and I'm not the only one who says that.

That is true. In cities back in 2005, I placed second in masters with Articuno ex, Zapdos ex and Moltres ex with other random stuff. I played back in the days of GG a Pidgeot/Vaporeon/Empoleon/Omastar spread deck and had decent success with it against GG. I can see how that format would be toxic if you too were a GG player, seeing as your attackers were psychic weak with under 120 HP while eating an attack that does 120 and locking you out of abilities, something my deck didn't depend on. There was room to build other decks assuming you wanted to look for other options. Luxchomp I couldn't do anything about. I looked for options but couldn't find much but that deck might have been one of the most skillful decks out there but Gyrados was a thing too and so was Sablelock I think it was called.

In those formats, you at least got a turn to play.

You keep deliberately beating around the bush. Back in 2010 VileGar had T1 item lock because guess what? Rare Candy worked T1. Modern Vileplume only gets T1 75% of the time at best. And when someone else says basically what I said, you agree. So you're disagreeing because of some vendetta. Back in 2010 everyone played the same decks competitively. Why the double standard?

BTw, I played DialgaChomp because it was a very skill-reliant deck and very versatile. LuxChomp was a skillful deck but needed less skill than Dialga variants which is why more people played it.

Mega Alakazam needs a turn to evolve.

Finally someone gets it.

 

[crystal_pidgeot]

Yes you are throwing a red herring even now. And so? Discarding stuff/losing things so what? You want to change that? You want a card game to have you able to stockpile on stuff and setup your board?

Whats my red herring? I want to make sure you understand what a logical fallacy is. I'm not trying to deceive anyone. The point of this thread is to discuses losing to the game and not the player.

BTW, what does Drastic Revelation say?

"Discard your hand. Draw seven cards, then discard three cards at random." Lets look at this. The card cost 5 Mana to cast. 1 Blue, 1 Black, 1 Red and 2 random. This means the card has at least a 5 turn waiting period to cast and requires a very specific deck type to play. Those types also don't really have land acceleration, though red can play a spell to gain mana for the turn. The card does let you discard your hand and draw 7 card BUT you forget the cost of the card or the second effect. You have to discard 3 cards from your hand at random, meaning you're paying 5 mana so you can draw 4, since you lose 3 cards from your hand. Juniper is just discard and draw 7. No cost and can be played turn 1 of the game and doesn't require you to pay anything to play.

This is like comparing a cherry bomb firework to a nuke. This is an example of a red herring.

And based on how I see your deck building, it's you, not the game. Like I've said repeatedly, you need different skills in Pokemon than anything else. One is the ability to adapt and make in-game decisions. Of course, decks like Vespiquen or Night March are skilless but that's irrelevant. The point is, you're probably complaining because you want to change how the game has been like since its inception and your deck building.

Well, this is still a strawman. There aren't any issues with my deck building skills. Those are easy to do. Look at any well constructed game. They give the player the means to beat any challenge they throw at them. You learn the mechanics of the game and if there are things that break the game, its expected to be fix. This is especially true when something is exploitable by the masses. Speed run communities exploit bugs and glitches to finish the game as fast as possible but that is a niche community. Now if this was something that the masses could exploit, then its a problem. I don't know if you play Pokken Tournament but Shadow Mewtwo has an infinite he could do that was very easy to do. You sound like the type of player that would say "this isn't broken, you just need to adapt".

Let me ask you this, how do you adapt to a turn one item lock? I'm sure most of us would like to hear that answer. I build very good decks and people who try to play my decks fail because they aren't easy to play, and yes I want the game to change. No one likes sitting down and signing a match sleep.

No, you don't need to play only 2 of those decks to win tournaments. Your point is invalid and I'm not the only one who says that.

That wasn't my point. My point was the way I build my decks, I can't really afford to lose resources. has nothing to do with winning tournaments. Please stop with the strawmans.

You keep deliberately beating around the bush. Back in 2010 VileGar had T1 item lock because guess what? Rare Candy worked T1. Modern Vileplume only gets T1 75% of the time at best. And when someone else says basically what I said, you agree. So you're disagreeing because of some vendetta. Back in 2010 everyone played the same decks competitively. Why the double standard?

Yeah, it did. Glad we aren't playing that format anymore but I remember LuxChomp still being BDIF. No double standard here. Turn 1 item lock shouldn't exist but at least it was double sided item lock. How often did Vileplume come out turn one or two?

BTw, I played DialgaChomp because it was a very skill-reliant deck and very versatile. LuxChomp was a skillful deck but needed less skill than Dialga variants which is why more people played it.

Why does that matter? Everyone says the deck they play is more skilled than other decks. What made the deck less skillful. One can argue that item lock isn't a skill, right?

 

[asdjklghty]

Whats my red herring? I want to make sure you understand what a logical fallacy is. I'm not trying to deceive anyone. The point of this thread is to discuses losing to the game and not the player.

BTW, what does Drastic Revelation say?

"Discard your hand. Draw seven cards, then discard three cards at random." Lets look at this. The card cost 5 Mana to cast. 1 Blue, 1 Black, 1 Red and 2 random. This means the card has at least a 5 turn waiting period to cast and requires a very specific deck type to play. Those types also don't really have land acceleration, though red can play a spell to gain mana for the turn. The card does let you discard your hand and draw 7 card BUT you forget the cost of the card or the second effect. You have to discard 3 cards from your hand at random, meaning you're paying 5 mana so you can draw 4, since you lose 3 cards from your hand. Juniper is just discard and draw 7. No cost and can be played turn 1 of the game and doesn't require you to pay anything to play.

This is like comparing a cherry bomb firework to a nuke. This is an example of a red herring.



Well, this is still a strawman. There aren't any issues with my deck building skills. Those are easy to do. Look at any well constructed game. They give the player the means to beat any challenge they throw at them. You learn the mechanics of the game and if there are things that break the game, its expected to be fix. This is especially true when something is exploitable by the masses. Speed run communities exploit bugs and glitches to finish the game as fast as possible but that is a niche community. Now if this was something that the masses could exploit, then its a problem. I don't know if you play Pokken Tournament but Shadow Mewtwo has an infinite he could do that was very easy to do. You sound like the type of player that would say "this isn't broken, you just need to adapt".

Let me ask you this, how do you adapt to a turn one item lock? I'm sure most of us would like to hear that answer. I build very good decks and people who try to play my decks fail because they aren't easy to play, and yes I want the game to change. No one likes sitting down and signing a match sleep.



That wasn't my point. My point was the way I build my decks, I can't really afford to lose resources. has nothing to do with winning tournaments. Please stop with the strawmans.



Yeah, it did. Glad we aren't playing that format anymore but I remember LuxChomp still being BDIF. No double standard here. Turn 1 item lock shouldn't exist but at least it was double sided item lock. How often did Vileplume come out turn one or two?



Why does that matter? Everyone says the deck they play is more skilled than other decks. What made the deck less skillful. One can argue that item lock isn't a skill, right?

You can and should adapt to matches. So yes your skill is relevant. I can't help but feel you have an agenda which is clouding your thoughts about this game. Skill is relevant here since you can adapt to many matches. Yveltal is an example of a 50/50 deck.

"My point was the way I build my decks, I can't really afford to lose resources. "

I've said this over and over again. Play another game if you don't want to lose resources. Your opinion or thoughts in this isn't relevant. It's never gonna be fixed cause it's ingrained in the game. It's a fruitless pursuit trying to change it. A simple fact is, Pokemon isn't for you. Since Day 1, there has been "discard your hand and draw 7 cards". There are more things in life to lose sleep over than pondering about how to change the game.

And hahahaha. VileGar loved T1 vileplume cause it happened all the time. Rare Candy+ Broken Time Space baby.

 

[Camoclone]

I haven't read much of the thread but I want to ramble a bit.

1. People will always complain about the game. They complained about an EX dominated format and now they hate the non-EX format. I've played competitively since around when PLS first came out, however, I know a decent amount about old formats and own a lot of those decks. Every year seems fairly different to me and is unique. Some are more skill-based than others. Our current Standard format just so happens to be centered around non-EX Pokemon and Item-lock. TCGs will always have varying degrees of luck and this format is no different. Like I said that earlier that fluctuates. Look at who is winning and topping at high level events though. You rarely see an unknown name or an unskilled player there. Is the game luck-based? Yes. Is the game so luck-based that great players can't thrive? No.
2. Night March is an interesting deck. It really took off after LTC's ban, however, it saw success before then. Winter Regionals 2015 it was rogue and took tournaments like Virginia Regionals by storm. It didn't really begin to dominate until Worlds 2015 (Nats was the first major tournament that LTC was banned at and NM didn't really show up). Raichu flopped at U.S. Nats but dominated some other countries. NM destroyed Worlds. I don't think anyone really considered it cancerous though. Seis / Bats and Lando / Bats were at large. The card that really pushed NM over the edge was Hex Maniac. It gave NM the out it needed to completely shut down most decks and leave them without a way to catch up / recover. Contrary to popular belief I believe NM is actually a relatively skill-based deck and that there is a large difference between a good NM player and a bad one. Every card matters a lot and every play you make will determine the outcome of the game. NM mirror matches actually do have a decent amount of skill involved, that's not to say that luck can determine the outcome but a good NM player should be able to take the series in a Bo3. The problem with NM comes from how you need to counter it. Item-lock last format was basically the only thing that actually beat NM. With a lack of draw Supporters it could easily decide the game since a plethora of the Item lockers did so on turn one. Now that N is back I don't think that this is as big of an issue. Greninja beats NM now and is shaping up to be the new strongest deck. Every deck gains N, a strong draw-out that some decks can utilize easily. N makes a lot more decks viable. There are a lot of cool one-of techs that are able to swing matchups and do cool things. The format for Nats actually looks pretty cool (look at WaterBox).
3. I really dislike Karen as a card. As I said earlier I don't hate NM. The bigger problem I have with it is that it just straight up shuts down a lot of decks. Vespiquen is the prime example of that. I'm not quite convinced that it will be the thing that kills NM off though. As I mentioned earlier NM was able to compete in a format with LTC even though it was seen as viable. LTC did give NM a way to shuffle back in their Compressor and Ultra Ball but remember the biggest deck of the time was Toad. The NM decks that did extremely well used Mew-EX and Hard Charm to counter Toad. We also don't know what the future brings in terms of rotation and new cards.

Please excuse any spelling errors I make. I typed this up on mobile.

 

[Gabking5458]

I haven't read much of the thread but I want to ramble a bit.

1. People will always complain about the game. They complained about an EX dominated format and now they hate the non-EX format. I've played competitively since around when PLS first came out, however, I know a decent amount about old formats and own a lot of those decks. Every year seems fairly different to me and is unique. Some are more skill-based than others. Our current Standard format just so happens to be centered around non-EX Pokemon and Item-lock. TCGs will always have varying degrees of luck and this format is no different. Like I said that earlier that fluctuates. Look at who is winning and topping at high level events though. You rarely see an unknown name or an unskilled player there. Is the game luck-based? Yes. Is the game so luck-based that great players can't thrive? No.
2. Night March is an interesting deck. It really took off after LTC's ban, however, it saw success before then. Winter Regionals 2015 it was rogue and took tournaments like Virginia Regionals by storm. It didn't really begin to dominate until Worlds 2015 (Nats was the first major tournament that LTC was banned at and NM didn't really show up). Raichu flopped at U.S. Nats but dominated some other countries. NM destroyed Worlds. I don't think anyone really considered it cancerous though. Seis / Bats and Lando / Bats were at large. The card that really pushed NM over the edge was Hex Maniac. It gave NM the out it needed to completely shut down most decks and leave them without a way to catch up / recover. Contrary to popular belief I believe NM is actually a relatively skill-based deck and that there is a large difference between a good NM player and a bad one. Every card matters a lot and every play you make will determine the outcome of the game. NM mirror matches actually do have a decent amount of skill involved, that's not to say that luck can determine the outcome but a good NM player should be able to take the series in a Bo3. The problem with NM comes from how you need to counter it. Item-lock last format was basically the only thing that actually beat NM. With a lack of draw Supporters it could easily decide the game since a plethora of the Item lockers did so on turn one. Now that N is back I don't think that this is as big of an issue. Greninja beats NM now and is shaping up to be the new strongest deck. Every deck gains N, a strong draw-out that some decks can utilize easily. N makes a lot more decks viable. There are a lot of cool one-of techs that are able to swing matchups and do cool things. The format for Nats actually looks pretty cool.
3. I really dislike Karen as a card. As I said earlier I don't hate NM. The bigger problem I have with it is that it just straight up shuts down a lot of decks. Vespiquen is the prime example of that. I'm not quite convinced that it will be the thing that kills NM off though. As I mentioned earlier NM was able to compete in a format with LTC even though it was seen as viable. LTC did give NM a way to shuffle back in their Compressor and Ultra Ball but remember the biggest deck of the time was Toad. The NM decks that did extremely well used Mew-EX and Hard Charm to counter Toad. We also don't know what the future brings in terms of rotation and new cards.

Please excuse any spelling errors I make. I typed this up on mobile.

I agree with Camoclone here and will go on my own little rant. I would not classify Night March as extremely toxic and I do not see it as bad in Standard. At least how I see it right now, there is no "losing to the game" in the TCG besides an autoloss matchup or very bad dead draw. How I see standard right now is like this.

The 4 major decks of standard.
Night March
Trees
Vespiquen/Vileplume
Yveltal/Zoroark (No tech cards really needed

Each of the top 4 (except for Night March) tends to beat Night March. Night March however beats everything else not it the "top 4". So players have interesting choices to make in the form of tech cards. As much as people favor consistency in this current Standard Format; tech cards are non-negotiable if you want to place well at a tournament without hitting only positive matchups (which never happens). I believe that the metagame is actually moderately balanced because of all of the tech cards. Here are some of my personal favorite techs.

JirachiXY67: Helps against Night March and Vespiquen/Vileplume, Yveltal/Zoroark
Increased Hex Maniac Line (2): Night March, Trees and Vespiquen/Vileplume
Lugia-EX (Very annoying for Trees to deal with if you can get it out T1): Trees
N: All of these (Not really a tech but still)
Delinquent: All of these (You have to be patient, also combines well with JirachiXY67)

If you don't like teaching cards PLAY SOMETHING ROGUE. Playing something rogue, that has a great matchup against the top 2 or 3 decks in the format in which you are building can completely derail common strategies, because of the sheer unawareness of your deck. I agree with Camoclone here that the metagame is not broken and that people are not being creative enough and relying on other people's finishes to tell them what to play. If you do not like the meta be innovative and stop complaining about the metagame instead of actually trying to be innovative in this game. I feel this is the best way to get Championship Points and enjoyment out of the Pokemon TCG

 

[crystal_pidgeot]

You can and should adapt to matches. So yes your skill is relevant. I can't help but feel you have an agenda which is clouding your thoughts about this game. Skill is relevant here since you can adapt to many matches. Yveltal is an example of a 50/50 deck.

Yveltals match up seems to be 50/50 because against everything else, its normal. Same is true for a lot of decks. You still didn't tell me how to adapt to a turn one item lock or a night march deck that get enough damage to KO an EX every turn. What does one do about that? I assume you have the answer.

"My point was the way I build my decks, I can't really afford to lose resources. "

I've said this over and over again. Play another game if you don't want to lose resources. Your opinion or thoughts in this isn't relevant. It's never gonna be fixed cause it's ingrained in the game. It's a fruitless pursuit trying to change it. A simple fact is, Pokemon isn't for you. Since Day 1, there has been "discard your hand and draw 7 cards".

I dont have to play another game because my decks work as is. My opinions do matter, as does every other opinion. The reason its not getting 'fixed' is because players like you don't want them fixed and like I said, all throughout history, it was the people who did what others considered pointless that changed the world. You don't like it, you can go to another thread. lol, I had to do it.

There are more things in life to lose sleep over than pondering about how to change the game.

Yeah, you're right, there are more important things to lose sleep over but I enjoy the little things in life. Can't solve world hunger right now!

And hahahaha. VileGar loved T1 vileplume cause it happened all the time. Rare Candy+ Broken Time Space baby.

Oh, I bet!

 

[Latte1504]

I dont have to play another game because my decks work as is. My opinions do matter, as does every other opinion. The reason its not getting 'fixed' is because players like you don't want them fixed and like I said, all throughout history, it was the people who did what others considered pointless that changed the world. You don't like it, you can go to another thread. lol, I had to do it.

Errrrrm, you do realize TPCi really DO NOT care what people lake us think. They are a major company, and so long as we consume they're product they're happy. I suspect that if a third of the competitive player base walked away, they would be okay with it. This is <most likely> a small aspect of the money that they make. Other merchandise probably produces far more revenue.

 

[asdjklghty]

Yveltals match up seems to be 50/50 because against everything else, its normal. Same is true for a lot of decks. You still didn't tell me how to adapt to a turn one item lock or a night march deck that get enough damage to KO an EX every turn. What does one do about that? I assume you have the answer.



I dont have to play another game because my decks work as is. My opinions do matter, as does every other opinion. The reason its not getting 'fixed' is because players like you don't want them fixed and like I said, all throughout history, it was the people who did what others considered pointless that changed the world. You don't like it, you can go to another thread. lol, I had to do it.



Yeah, you're right, there are more important things to lose sleep over but I enjoy the little things in life. Can't solve world hunger right now!



Oh, I bet!

I don't need to tell you cause it's your decision and responsibility to make good in game decisions. Lysandre a Trev. Hex a vileplume or deck him her out.

Once, with my raichu deck, I used PRC Milotic's attack to force my opponent to switch Trev with one of his benched Pokemon. He couldn't have access to float stone or AZ and thus I broke the lock. See it's these little quirks you can make with what you have. And of course, good deck building to allow you to pull yourself out of these situations. I don't need to tell you. You need to figure out yourself. Brigette got out 3 basic Pokemon onto my bench, thinning out my deck and setting up my board under item lock. Raichu/bats was one of the most successful Cities decks.

You still haven't told me how you would change Pokemon other than pointing out its "flaws". Because you can't.

And it's easier for Yveltal, Toad, Giratina, Manectric or Kyogre to deal with T1 Item lock. Hex Maniac, Team Flare Grunts and Xerosic for days. Rough Seas and healing cards love weak 30 damage.

 

[crystal_pidgeot]

Errrrrm, you do realize TPCi really DO NOT care what people lake us think. They are a major company, and so long as we consume they're product they're happy. I suspect that if a third of the competitive player base walked away, they would be okay with it. This is <most likely> a small aspect of the money that they make. Other merchandise probably produces far more revenue.

Yeah, I know. They like money and item lock sells.

 

[crystal_pidgeot]

I don't need to tell you cause it's your decision and responsibility to make good in game decisions. Lysandre a Trev. Hex a vileplume or deck him her out.

How many of each should I play? Should I just run 4 of each of them and use the heart of the cards to draw them when I need them while also making sure my opponent doesn't draw anything? You have some godlike skillz there.

Once, with my raichu deck, I used PRC Milotic's attack to force my opponent to switch Trev with one of his benched Pokemon. He couldn't have access to float stone or AZ and thus I broke the lock. See it's these little quirks you can make with what you have. And of course, good deck building to allow you to pull yourself out of these situations. I don't need to tell you. You need to figure out yourself. Brigette got out 3 basic Pokemon onto my bench, thinning out my deck and setting up my board under item lock. Raichu/bats was one of the most successful Cities decks.

So I should use Milotic then? I once used a Pidgeot and locked a Darkrai EX in the active spot and won due to it. Am I good now? I too have won with odd things while being lucky with the draw. Gues what, I do play those cards but I hear Brigette isn't good at getting EX Pokemon.

You still haven't told me how you would change Pokemon other than pointing out its "flaws". Because you can't.

It wasn't my goal to change Pokemon but to talk about losing to the game and not the player. You took it to this other thing.

it's easier for Yveltal, Toad, Giratina, Manectric or Kyogre to deal with T1 Item lock. Hex Maniac, Team Flare Grunts and Xerosic for days. Rough Seas and healing cards love weak 30 damage.

Yeah, they do.

 

[asdjklghty]

How many of each should I play? Should I just run 4 of each of them and use the heart of the cards to draw them when I need them while also making sure my opponent doesn't draw anything? You have some godlike skillz there.



So I should use Milotic then? I once used a Pidgeot and locked a Darkrai EX in the active spot and won due to it. Am I good now? I too have won with odd things while being lucky with the draw. Gues what, I do play those cards but I hear Brigette isn't good at getting EX Pokemon.



It wasn't my goal to change Pokemon but to talk about losing to the game and not the player. You took it to this other thing.



Yeah, they do.

Haha no. You can't be serious. You can't adapt if you think that the moral of my example means use Milotic or switching Pokemon. Which explains why you dislike the current state of the game. But hey, if you locked Darkrai-EX once, good for you. You have mad skillz now, you just don't realize it.

"It wasn't my goal to change Pokemon but to talk about losing to the game and not the player"

These excerpts disagree with you
"What am I getting at? Well, as a content designer, I have to find that balance of control while minimizing things they cant control. Now these things are (or should be) easy for PvE game but when you have a PvP game, which the Pokemon Trading Card Game is, the developer has more responsibility to the players of their game to not make things, well, toxic for the players."

"Its the sign of a good game! You can learn something from your losses or deaths. A lot of the time you just don't have a firm grasp on the mechanics and that's okay, because you'll learn them as you get better at the game but currently with the Pokemon TCG, the player is being punished just for playing."

 

[crystal_pidgeot]

Haha no. You can't be serious. You can't adapt if you think that the moral of my example means use Milotic or switching Pokemon. Which explains why you dislike the current state of the game. But hey, if you locked Darkrai-EX once, good for you. You have mad skillz now, you just don't realize it.

"It wasn't my goal to change Pokemon but to talk about losing to the game and not the player"

These excerpts disagree with you
"What am I getting at? Well, as a content designer, I have to find that balance of control while minimizing things they cant control. Now these things are (or should be) easy for PvE game but when you have a PvP game, which the Pokemon Trading Card Game is, the developer has more responsibility to the players of their game to not make things, well, toxic for the players."

"Its the sign of a good game! You can learn something from your losses or deaths. A lot of the time you just don't have a firm grasp on the mechanics and that's okay, because you'll learn them as you get better at the game but currently with the Pokemon TCG, the player is being punished just for playing."

My goal was to talk about what good design is. The developers should want to make sure their game is playable, all mechanics work and things that abuse those mechanics are put in check. Giving players access to turn one item lock shouldn't exist because all it does it punish the other player for just wanting to play the game buy using what you gave them.

I can't change the game, TPC can and its clear they have no interest in doing that but that doesn't mean we can't talk about a unbalanced game.

 

[Javi Blizz]

I 've read the complete thread, message by message, so I think I can give my oppinion now.

It doesn't matter if you are under Item Lock T1 or your opponent's Joltik can do 180 damage in T1. What really matters is that you can adapt yourself to the metagame. When I started back in the BW begginings, I haven't any really competitive card since DRX, when I got 3 Garbodors. So, when I got them, I started to play Garbodor + techs against the metagame of my city. And now I think I learnt a lot from that. It's true that there are powerful decks, but each player plays something that adapts to him/her. For example, I can't play NM, not because of hate or something like that. It's because I preffer to play a healing or a disruption deck. So, what can I do against my bad match ups? Techs.

Now I'll write what I think you could do againts those 2 match up you're 'complaining'

For Trevenant:
I don't know your supporter list, but I'd like you to tell us how the deck works without discards. I guess its about using Xana/N/Tierno (I used to run Cheren as a 1-of, 'cause drawing 3 cards in the BW format wasn't too bad, but that works when you run some Ability-based drawing deck). As said before, Lysandre is your only supporter option to break Item Lock (as you can't use Hex Maniac). But you have other resources to fight Item Lock. You can use Swellow XY or the new Hawlucha to break the lock. Use a supporter-based search engine with Brigette or Fan Club. Instead of using Tierno/Xana for drawing, play something as 4x Unown + Slurpuff PhF (Octillery and similars are not an option under Item Lock as you can't do much to reduce your hand). There you have 3 alternative options (I'm not saying to use all of them at the same time). Be creative!

For NM:
You're playing against pokemon wit max 100 HP (with FFB). I'm sure you can add 2-of any pokemon that uses you're energy requirements (for Ho-oh EX [L][W][G] I think) and can KO marchers and Mews. For example, Pinsir BKT. For a [G] energy, 30 damage. You only need the Pinsir and maybe a Megaphone (Or Muscle Band for mew). How can you get those cards just when you have lost one pokemon your last turn? Teammates. You need to discard? No. Futhermore, you're not under Item Lock, so you can use your Items to obtain those things! You don't like Pinsir? Use any other thing. Use Mew + something (maybe White-Kyurem FC?) I'm sure you must run Max Elixir, with that and Golduck BREAK you can fuel a potential Blizzard Burn with Mew (NM plays DV) at least 2 times a game to ko FFB Pumpkaboo. Kyurem's first attack can Ko Joltik while not using FBB.

I hope you understand my point of view. The way the game is, is not a problem. The problem is not trying to make it evolve.

 

[Gabking5458]

My goal was to talk about what good design is. The developers should want to make sure their game is playable, all mechanics work and things that abuse those mechanics are put in check. Giving players access to turn one item lock shouldn't exist because all it does it punish the other player for just wanting to play the game buy using what you gave them.

I can't change the game, TPC can and its clear they have no interest in doing that but that doesn't mean we can't talk about a unbalanced game.

Lol I would definetly disagree. If T1 Item Lock doesn't exist, what does literally everyone on the face of the earth play?!?

NIGHT MARCH

TPCi gave us Trevenant BREAK as a direct counter to Night March after its rampage through City Championships. When they realized Night March was still incredibly broken they gave us Revitalizer (Literally made for vespiplume). Frankly I like Standard right now (especially with M Alakazam-EX) and I feel that the main cycle right now is... ||||||| Item Lock beats Night March, Night March beats EXs, EXs beat Item Lock ||||||| (If they are suited to deal with it, which they all should be IMO). Frankly I would very much disagree with this statement. Plus, TPCi is not going to make the metagame completely fair or it makes it stale. This encourages people to be innovative and create a more fun and balanced metagame for all.