(MORE INPUT NEEDED see post 126) - Does Pokemon Need to go Back to Basics?

Celebi23

Aspiring Trainer
Advanced Member
Member
Ever since BW came out, we've had a huge power creep. It's really existed throughout the entire game. I mean, look at this thing. That thing used to be one of the most popular attackers in the game. It got reprinted in Platinum and got completely ignored, which only proves that the cards are in fact getting stronger with time. For a more comparable example, let's take a look at good old Metagross.

11-metagross-d.jpg

This card used to be amazing! It was a Stage 2 with 100HP that would do an average of 70-90 damage a turn for ML if you set up even more Stage 2 support on the bench (Dragonite), and it had built-in draw. Then, years later, we got Magnezone.

96-magnezone.jpg

He got an extra 40HP over Metagross, although he admittedly couldn't abuse Special Metal. He also got an updated Dragonite - Eelektrik. Eelektrik was a Stage 1, yet it only had 10HP less than Dragonite. That's a pretty darn good Stage 1. The draw is notably more powerful, allowing you to get far more than one card and refresh your hand every turn, sometimes multiple times in the same turn. The attack is where things get crazy. Losing one energy does the same amount of damage, but after that Magnezone does 30 more damage per energy! It's worthy of note that he sends them to the Lost Zone instead of the Discard Pile, but this didn't prove to be a huge issue since it could use other attackers early-game. Magnezone was good for awhile, but in the current format he's Tier 2 or so. A card far more powerful than Metagross, and it's not even that playable. But pretty soon, we're going to be getting Rayquaza-EX.

37.gif

Rayquaza-EX - Dragon - HP170
Basic Pokemon

[C] Heaven's Call: Discard the top 3 cards from your deck, and if there are any Energy cards, attach them to this Pokemon.
[R][L] Dragon Burst: 60x damage. Discard either all Fire Energy or Lightning Energy cards attached to this Pokemon. This attack does 60 damage times the number of Energy discarded in this way.

When Pokemon-EX has been Knocked Out, your opponent takes 2 Prize cards.

Weakness: Dragon (x2)
Resistance: none
Retreat: 1
Wow. So Rayquaza loses the draw power offered to Metagross and Magnezone, but he makes up for it quite easily by being a basic instead of a Stage 2. He gives up two prizes after being Knocked Out, but he also has almost double the HP of Metagross and an arguably non-exploitable weakness. Plus his retreat is far less and he gets a first attack. Looking at his version of the attack shared by these three Pokémon, we see it's far more powerful than either Magnezone's or Metagross's. Discarding one energy will allow you do do 10 more damage than either Magnezone or Metagross could do for that energy, and discarding more will allow an extra 40 per energy compared to Metagross and 10 extra compared to Magnezone. That's crazy. Discarding two energy would Knock Out any non-EX card in Metagross's time. Metagross would have to discard five energy to accomplish the same feat. And again, Metagross is a Stage 2 while Rayquaza is a basic.

Now, Rayquaza is notably more limited than either of the other cards when it comes to discarding. You can only discard the energy attached to Rayquaza, and only one type of energy attached to him, and all of that type. Still, the extra damage and HP makes up for it easily.

I don't know how many of you played when Metanite was a good deck. But for those of you did, imagine how you would react if they printed Rayquaza-EX instead of Rayquaza ex. The card would have broken the game. It would have been unbeatable. Therefore, there has to be a power creep.


Many people argue that the power creep isn't bad for the game because all of the cards get better. However, this isn't true. In the current format, you're basically playing the big basic Pokémon or you're losing. The card creators aren't giving Stage 1's and Stage 2's their fair share of the power creep. This limits deckbuilding creativity terribly. Furthermore, it makes the game less exciting.

We now have 180HP basics hitting for 150 damage and 170HP basics hitting for practically unlimited damage. Take a minute and try to imagine an Ability-less Pokémon the card creators could make that would blow you out of the water without breaking the 200HP cap. There's really nothing they can make that isn't broken. Each set generally brings a group of exiting Trainers, maybe one or two cool Special Energy, a couple cool Abilities, and then the "boring old" basic attackers with barely sub-200HP capable of OHKOing 95% of the format.

I remember when an original ex set would come out. Peoples' eyes bulged when they saw Lugia ex for the first time. I would go to league after a new group of cards was revealed and everybody would be terribly excited about all of the crazy new attackers, even though they were actually just about as balanced as the attackers already in the format. They just had different ways of attacking.

Those formats also had much more of a "play what you want" feel. The gap between a Tier 1 and Tier 2-3 deck was much smaller than it is now. A great player could often pilot a sub-par deck to a win. Heck, Golem even won Canadian Nationals. This created much more hype when a new set came out because half of the cards were very playable. I did well in Juniors with a Kingdra ex Delta/Nidoqueen Delta deck. It wasn't great, but it could still beat all the best decks if my opponents weren't piloting them well.

Nowadays, the card creators seem to be focused entirely on pleasing the new and casual player. Casual players just want to collect and play with broken cards. They enjoy attacking for 120-150 damage with their favorite legendary Pokémon. They don't care that the cards they're using are on the brink of destroying everything that used to make the game so great. New players want to get in to the game as easily as possible. At States a couple weeks ago, my friend Grant brought a friend of his to the tournament and taught him how to play Durant during registration. He proceeded to go 4-4. To me, that's way too good of a record for a player who has an hour of experience in the game. They're all about marketing now. It doesn't seem like they care about creating a healthy, enjoyable game that can be played competitively.

Just making a list of all the things they've done to simplify the game:
-Removed the rules to balance the first turn, giving one player an incredibly unfair advantage every game.
-Combined Poke-Powers and Poke-Bodies, making it harder to create decks that lock these components of the game.
-Focused the game almost entirely on Basic Pokémon with simple attacks.

/rant

Now, the best solution to this is to just ban all of the cards in the game right now and make a new "Base Set" with much weaker cards that favor evolutions more than basics (to create a slower game). Or, to please players who don't want their collection to lose all its value, they could just make a bunch of sets with much weaker cards and rotate the current sets normally. However, the "bad" sets wouldn't sell as well, so this option isn't plausible to Pokémon as a business. Hopefully they come up with a solution eventually though.

For now, I had a different idea. I thought I could put together a team of elite players who have a good idea of what a healthy meta is, and have a good idea of what good card design is to create sets of fake cards that allow for a healthy "play what you want" metagame with mostly even matchups across the board. People could bring these cards/decks to tournaments, and play with them between rounds there. If it got popular enough, actual tournaments with the cards could be held at larger events such as Nationals and Worlds. Maybe we could even have prize support. Should all of this happen, it would show the card creators, Nintendo, TPCi, P!P, and whoever else is involved in the format that a large amount of the player base wants better-designed cards and more fair game rules. If they see that, they might actually change the game. Plus playing in a better format would be much more fun. Before doing this, however, I want to know if players are actually interested in playing in a format I (and probably others) create. Please let me know in your reply, and obviously give any suggestions you have as well.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

All of your suggestions are great. Aside from one little thing.

Pokemon is marketed towards little kids. Nintendo/TPCi cares more about the money it makes then it's player fanbase, due to the fact that there are more little kids going out to buy their merchandise then there are people in the competitive fanbase.

That's why Nintendo does what it does, because they have to sell their product to their target audience.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

Celebi23 said:
I thought I could put together a team of elite players who have a good idea of what a healthy meta is, and have a good idea of what good card design is to create sets of fake cards that allow for a healthy "play what you want" metagame with mostly even matchups across the board.

I would definitely use some of the Fakemon cards around the Pokebeach site (with permission, of course) to start off if you want to try this. I think the art people on this site have a good idea of what a healthy meta is, even if they don't play the TCG competitively.

I know there's a "power creep," but you have to commend TPCi for making the cards so proportionate throughout the years. Notice how the HP goes up at a rather consistent rate of 20-40, and the attack base damages, barring a few special cards, go up about 10-20 each time a whole round of sets is released. I'd love to see it go back to 70 HP Hitmonchans, Magmar, Electabuzz, Scythers dominating the format, but even then, we'd still have cards that are stronger than others. That aspect cannot be fixed.

Honestly, I'd really be happy (and possibly come back to playing the TCG) if they took off the nerf on Rare Candy and only let the second player play I/S/S. I don't know the intentions behind these changes, and I didn't mind Machamp SF putting SP Pokemon in their place. Rare Candy is being re-printed soon; do you think it will get its nerf removed? I hope for it.

That's my opinion on it, anyway.

Edit:

Celebi23 said:
Would you play a version of the game designed solely to create a healthy and diverse metagame with fair matchups?

You never told anyone to answer the question, nor did you mention it in your rant.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

@Zorua- Yeah, that's kind of what I was saying throughout the whole article. That's why I thought it was a good idea to have a player-made version of the game geared toward the competitive player. And you didn't answer the most important question. :p Would you play a version of the game designed solely to create a healthy and diverse metagame with fair matchups?

@Yoshi- I'm pretty sure that based on the translation, Rare Candy is staying nerfed. But you didn't answer the most important question either. :p What if there was a player-made version of the game that had an un-nerfed version of Rare Candy? Would you play that, even if you don't play regular TCG anymore?
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

Celebi23 said:
@Zorua- Yeah, that's kind of what I was saying throughout the whole article. That's why I thought it was a good idea to have a player-made version of the game geared toward the competitive player. And you didn't answer the most important question. :p Would you play a version of the game designed solely to create a healthy and diverse metagame with fair matchups?

No, I obviously want to stick with the version of the game that is the way that it is because that's how Pokemon makes their cards

/sarcasm

Of course I would. It would make for a great community, balanced metagame, and just a wonderful game overall.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

How about if we made it PB-sponsored? Maybe if it really took off, we could have an online simulator for it so the people who do play can always find opponents even if nobody plays near them. It would make the whole PB community far more tight-knit if most people played it.

P.S. The Yoshi- I edited my above post to respond to yours as well. Figured I might as well point that out because people sometimes miss edits. I would have responded right away, but you ninja'd me. :(
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

I suppose that could work, but don't get too far ahead of yourself. I want to see some proof before I start believing the legitimacy of what you're trying to pull off.

And yeah, of course I would. The Rare Candy nerf really irked me, and I guess it made me show up to leagues and tourneys less often, and when Next Destinies was released, I couldn't stand what TPCi had done with Basic Pokemon. This may sound a little cliche, but I really enjoy playing with high HP Stage 2 Pokemon like a little kid, like Typhlosion Prime and Magnezone Prime.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

Yeah, I'm trying not to get ahead of myself. Obviously I have to make the cards before people will play with them.

But the other nice thing about a player-driven version of the game is that it allows for easy feedback from the people who are actually playing. We have no idea what PCL is doing over in Japan, or what their plans for the game are. But the people creating the player-driven version could easily communicate with everybody who has a suggestion. If we get a bunch of complaints that one card is overpowered, we can errata or ban it very easily. Hopefully that never happens though. :p
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

I would be really happy if something like this went through, and I'd love to get in on the process of creating the new mechanics and card designs. Some things I really want to see again are energy-less attacks- something like Gyarados SF or even Yanmega Prime. Those are some of my favorite and most interesting mechanics. Pokebodies and Pokepowers should really be seperate and there was literally no reason for combining them into Abilities.

Something cards are really lacking these days is interesting Abilities- sure there's the occasional accelerator like Emboar or maybe an ExoSkeleton-esque ability, but I want to see more things like Chandelure NV and Gengar SF where the ability is completely mind boggling and new- it makes you think, what should I play this with? Take Emboar: It's ability allows you to attach as many fire energies as you want per turn. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what would go well with that. Obviously you're going to play it with powerful fire pokemon.

We NEED Claydol back. Not necessarily in the flesh, but we seriously need some kind of basic or stage one draw. Decks in the time of DP-on, it'd be a rare sight to see a single draw supporter in lists, because there were cards like Uxie and Claydol. Now, we're sacrificing up to 12-14 spots in decks purely for shuffle draw or straight draw supporters. That's one reason you don't see crazy techs swinging games in the drop of a basic-candy-stage two anymore. Remember Dusknoir DP? That card was awesome. It could allow a player to stage a complete comeback, and forced everyone to assume that the opponent had it in their hand, or they would suffer the consequences.

Another thing I want to see is more trainer-based draw. Cards like Pokedex (the old one, not the rearrange one), Pokedrawer+, all those speedy trainers to enable swarm decks like Kingra and Jumpluff to exist again. BTS and Rare Candy were in no way overpowered, all they did is give stage two decks a fighting chance. People would complain about how "overpowered" Jumpluff or Gyarados was, but now we yearn for them back in a format with 180 HP Basics that can OHKO 99% of all stage twos.

I don't want to see weaker and worse cards that can't stand up to these big hitters-- not only would that be a bad sales idea for Pokemon the company, but it would also have no effect on the metagame as it is. I want to see cards that aren't overpowered or underpowered, but interesting. They have their uses, but they may not be obvious. I would also absolutely love to see more +30 weaknesses, which would really help prevent a rock-paper-scissors format based purely on the most obvious factor in matchups, weakness. I want matchups to be hard to predict without proper testing, not "that fire deck will have a bad matchup against that water deck, but a good matchup against that grass deck. I've never tested it though".
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

Yeah, you could make a Play TCG for Fakemon. We have enough fakemon this moment to make over one or two set just as good, if not better, than any Pokemon Company set ever released (good in power balance and creativity). I kind of like this TAKE THE GAME INTO OUR OWN HANDS! kind of mentality.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

I love this idea! I'm not an elite player (Yet), but I would love to help with the concept or anything I can help with.

I would really love to see this happen.

I was looking at one of my mom's friends fakemon (Moonshaft) And he seems to have some pretty decent and fair seeming ideas. Some of them are a bit powerful, but I like the idea of bred pokemon, and some other concepts he's used or come up with.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

Cinema's reply is the kind of reply I wanted. :) Those of you who want to help out more should make posts like his, or give your opinion on his post/my responses. I want to get an idea of what the player base wants to happen to the game. :)

Cinema said:
I would be really happy if something like this went through, and I'd love to get in on the process of creating the new mechanics and card designs. Some things I really want to see again are energy-less attacks- something like Gyarados SF or even Yanmega Prime. Those are some of my favorite and most interesting mechanics. Pokebodies and Pokepowers should really be seperate and there was literally no reason for combining them into Abilities.
Energy-less attacks were definitely a good mechanic. However, I don't think the energy-less attacks that do damage are good for the game. It's very easy for a deck to become overpowered when it has 10 free slots for luxury cards because it doesn't need energy. However, attacks like Eeeeek, Playground, and Lifting are great. They allow for very consistent T1 setup since you can Retreat to them even if you don't start with it.

Something cards are really lacking these days is interesting Abilities- sure there's the occasional accelerator like Emboar or maybe an ExoSkeleton-esque ability, but I want to see more things like Chandelure NV and Gengar SF where the ability is completely mind boggling and new- it makes you think, what should I play this with? Take Emboar: It's ability allows you to attach as many fire energies as you want per turn. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what would go well with that. Obviously you're going to play it with powerful fire pokemon.
Completely agree.

We NEED Claydol back. Not necessarily in the flesh, but we seriously need some kind of basic or stage one draw. Decks in the time of DP-on, it'd be a rare sight to see a single draw supporter in lists, because there were cards like Uxie and Claydol. Now, we're sacrificing up to 12-14 spots in decks purely for shuffle draw or straight draw supporters. That's one reason you don't see crazy techs swinging games in the drop of a basic-candy-stage two anymore. Remember Dusknoir DP? That card was awesome. It could allow a player to stage a complete comeback, and forced everyone to assume that the opponent had it in their hand, or they would suffer the consequences.
This one is something I'm not so sure about. I used to agree completely, but then I talked to Zero. Claydol was definitely great for allowing decks to get consistent draw for the course of an entire game. However, it over-centralized the game. The player who got Claydol out first was at a huge advantage. If one player got their Claydol taken out and the other didn't, the player who still had Claydol almost always won. This not only reduces the amount of skill it takes to win a game, but it also restricts the types of cards that can be designed. If everybody uses Claydol and then you print Luxray GL LV. X, you give one type of deck too big of an advantage. It means you can't design a balanced card with a group of mechanics. N would have been a terrible card if Claydol was in the format. Yet N is a great card for the game because it allows comeback wins. Dusknoir was a cool card for sure. But the bad thing about designing a card like Dusknoir is that it means any deck relying on a bench of more than three is automatically bad. Furthermore, all the other decks are practically restricted to a bench of three. That makes games somewhat one-sided and boring too often for my liking.

I definitely agree that lists nowadays are too cramped, and that it's bad to devote 14/60 cards to draw supporters. However, I have some creative ideas to fix this. ;)
Another thing I want to see is more trainer-based draw. Cards like Pokedex (the old one, not the rearrange one), Pokedrawer+, all those speedy trainers to enable swarm decks like Kingra and Jumpluff to exist again. BTS and Rare Candy were in no way overpowered, all they did is give stage two decks a fighting chance. People would complain about how "overpowered" Jumpluff or Gyarados was, but now we yearn for them back in a format with 180 HP Basics that can OHKO 99% of all stage twos.
I'm a firm believer in learning from past successes and mistakes, so I strongly disagree with this part of your post. Having trainer-based draw was the reason Sablelock could exist as a deck. It was the reason good players lost to terrible players using Shuppet donk. It was the reason a consistent T1 Gyarados was possible. It created too much of a fast-paced game and too many donks. The original ex sets had no trainer-based draw outside of Victory Medal, and that was arguably the best time in the game. So I'm a big believer in having more Supporters and Stadiums than trainers.
I don't want to see weaker and worse cards that can't stand up to these big hitters-- not only would that be a bad sales idea for Pokemon the company, but it would also have no effect on the metagame as it is. I want to see cards that aren't overpowered or underpowered, but interesting. They have their uses, but they may not be obvious. I would also absolutely love to see more +30 weaknesses, which would really help prevent a rock-paper-scissors format based purely on the most obvious factor in matchups, weakness. I want matchups to be hard to predict without proper testing, not "that fire deck will have a bad matchup against that water deck, but a good matchup against that grass deck. I've never tested it though".
I completely agree. Right now, the type/color of a Pokémon is far too important. Terrakion's color is more important than its actual capabilities (see Bouffalant). Less top-down card design is always great. I think it's a lot of fun to have to sift through a set and test everything in order to weed out the good combos from the bad ones. With most of the sets nowadays, you can find all the combos after looking at the set for 10 minutes.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

Okay, I see where you're going with the Claydol argument. I would definitely love to see Uxie return or some kind of non supporter draw card. It's frustrating to use a supporter, whiff on a card you need and know that there is no way you can draw any more cards after that.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

That I certainly agree with. That's why I think having very weak Pokémon-based search can be a good thing. It lets you get exactly what you need, and if you balance it correctly, it's not broken but still good if timed well. It also takes a lot more skill to decide what card you need than to blindly shuffle your hand in for six cards and hope to hit something that turns the game around.

The Pachirisu I used for a round in the Mini Cup 2 is a great example of what I mean. It's a very hard card to use for both players, but it gets what you need when you need it. It's probably a little too fast for what I would consider to be a healthy non-singleton format, but the concept is still one I like.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

Ok, then, let me see what I think would be interesting and improve the game, or things I suggest:


Well, as I stated earlier in this thread, an artist Has some really awesome Ideas I'd like to share.

The first idea Is a mechanic called bred, Where if you have two certain pokemon In a game, just to use his example, Sceptile and Dragonair, You may discard both of those cards and play Sceptair, which is a breed between both of the pokemon. These pokemon would have some better features and some worse, Like less retreat, more damage,etc.

The second Idea I liked from this artist is his stage 3 concept. Stage three pokemon could be almost the EX's of this game, of course they wouldn't be the only ones, but I still think it's an awesome Idea. A stage three wouldn't In anyway have better attacks or be a better card, but have maybe a factor that makes it cool and worth playing.

I would enjoy seeing much more stadiums and If something might be to powerful (Ex pokemon/Bred Pokemon, or any other special powerful pokemon.) We could have nerfing stadiums, like if the defending pokemon is an EX card, all damage done to your pokemon is reduced by 30, etc.

I also agree with some people I would love to see poke powers and body's back, as well as more of them, and more interesting one's such as chandelure's power.

I enjoyed the reference SP pokemon had to the video game, and I'd like to see it return, but make it so that they were not all basics, and so the moves were similar to the moves thay have in the video game, such as ash's pikachu could have Iron tail and volt tackle, or agility.

I'd like to see as cinema said, cards that you would have to test together to see if they work, not the, OH! This works with all these cards! That certain cards have been like lately.

Another thing I would like to see, Is abilities that are good with drawbacks/requirements.
Let's say we have a draw ability. It could be something like

Gastrodon West Sea:

Draw Dive
If gastrodon east sea is your active pokemon draw two cards.

Or even ,

Flygon

Dangerous Draw/Sand cycle:
Draw 1 card and place 3 damage counters on your pokemon in any way you'd like.

While these pokemon have draw backs, (Pun!) you could have a card in a set with an ability like this:

Terrakion 80 HP

Revenge

For each pokemon on your side of the field with damage on it this pokemons attacks do 10 damage more.

{F}{F}Land Crush 30 damage
{F}{F}{F}{C} Gaia hammer 50 damage
This attack does 10 damage to each pokemon in play.

I have more ideas, but I gtg now. I hope this post helps/has some good ideas!
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

I completely agree with you on everything. I think that the new Basic EXs really ruined the game, and prevented my favorite component: creativity. Any deck could win if you made it good. I almost won states a few years ago with a Torterra/Darkrai deck! Now, if your deck doesn't have a Mewtwo and isn't revolved around basic legendaries, it isn't viable. The rare candy nerf, the T1 T/S/S, everything has changed the game for the worse. In D/P/P, I was like, "WHOA! Regigigas has 160 HP and Wailord has 180! How can levels of HP like that not disturb the Time-Space balance?" But now, when I look at the new cards, I just say, "Great. Another 170HP basic. Thanks, Card Designers, it's just what I wanted." The worst part about this how they can not find balance. Although the EXs award 2 prize cards when KO'd, how can they even be killed if they are dealing 120+A turn?
Evolutions have been rendered completely out of the game. Before, there was a nice balance: Take the risk with a lower HP basic with a cool attack, or be stronger with Stage 2's but take a little longer to prepare? Now, instead of having the whole Level X thing, the game is just like: BAM! Awesome cards with a Pokemon Collector. Pokemon Collector should be Erratad to say, "(Except EXs)". Then, it would be balanced. Now, in today's game, people can get two MewTwo EXs and a Zekrom EX in one supporter! Compared to Elm's this card became hopelessy unbalanced when they released Basic EXs. Lots of other people have written so many great things in this thread that I totally agree on.
I would be extremely excited if you let me contribute to your genius plan. I would really like to help create cards, and I could also create art using my Wacom Tablet and GIMP. Please PM me if you'll let me.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

I think this is a really interesting concept. You're taking a step back from the cards and looking at things seriously from a game design standpoint, something that I think is really hard to follow when looking at how the official game has progressed, especially over the past couple years.

I'll be the first to admit that I know hardly anything about the mid-life of this game. After TR, I didn't play a single Pokémon match against anyone until late HGSS. That said, I wouldn't have a clue as to what kind of specifics you're aiming for, though I think I do understand the general and theoretical goals of the re-design concept. It's something I would certainly like to play with and take part in.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

I am definitely in agreement and in support of everything mentioned in this thread so far, something that is very rare with me lol. Some really obvious things that bug me about this format:
  • Mewtwo Wars: Once a Mewtwo is down, whoever can power up the most Mewtwo's from that point on wins. This can be fixed by not putting Mewtwo in the set...
  • The weight of weakness: Weakness is everything. Easy solutions would be cards that eliminate weakness, and our fiddle with weakness. For instance a stadium like "All Pokémon are now weak to the type they resist". Something like that could drastically increase the level of in game playing skill.
  • Pokémon Collector's weight on the format: I love the ability to search out basics, don't get me wrong, but if you don't get a turn one Pokémon Collector, and your opponent does, you basically lose. It would be neat if we could find a way to lower the advantage, maybe when you play Collector, your opponent can search their deck for 2 basics and put them into their hand?
  • Lack of Locks that require skill: Durant and VVV seem like locks to me, but no one likes those decks and they take very low levels of skill to play effectively. Things like Cursegar or FlyLock are the kind of locks I am talking about. Something that can be broken fairly easily (like with Regice and Switch), but require skill to set up and skill to play around. Not simply playing a Collector, or using a Rare Candy and attaching a Double Colorless Energy. That doesn't take any skill. Things like Mr. Mime, maybe something that couldn't take damage if the Pokémon attacking it had __ or more damage counters on it. Just an idea.

Yeah, so that is all I can think of now, I will obviously post again if I can think of anything. I would love to help create text for cards, I get some pretty weird ideas sometimes.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

I would enjoy seeing Mewtwo EX, Zekrom EX, and Reshiram EX banned and start to see more 150/160-ish HP Stage 2 Pokemon EX around. I think a damage cap at 120 or 130 would be a good thing if we had Stage 1/2 EX's with a good 30 or 40 HP above it. It would be out of one-shot range usually.

The problem I see with Rare Candy un-nerf is Vileplume. Getting Rare Candy un-nerfed means being able to get a Vileplume out T1, and that would be devastating. It would literally mean whoever goes first wins hands down.

Overall the thing I want most is an emphasis on Stage 1 and 2's. If basics lower base damage for attacks, everything would be fine. I also don't like how every deck needs Energy Acceleration in order to do good, which is also part of the problem for the big basics- too much support. And about the player-based thingy you have going on, I would be all for and online version of the game. In no way would I spend money on that because I'm stretched a little thin right now anyway, but I would be happy to play it online.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

^We're talking about a complete re-design. Remove all the cards from the current format and build the game from the ground up.

Leafy101 said:
I don't have a long time to post since I need to go to bed, but here's my two cents:

I completely agree with you on everything. I think that the comeback of EXs really ruined the game, and prevented my favorite component: creativity. Any deck could win if you made it good. I almost won states a few years ago with a Torterra/Darkrai deck! Now, if your deck doesn't have a Mewtwo and isn't revolved around basic legendaries, it isn't viable. The rare candy nerf, the T1 T/S/S, everything has changed the game for the worse. I would be extremely excited if you let me contribute to your genius plan. I would really like to help create cards, and I could also create art using my Wacom Tablet and GIMP. I'll edit my post tommorow to include more of my thoughts, but I have to go soon. Please PM me or post on my profile if you will let me contribute. :)
I don't think the EX cards ruined the game. They bring a risk-reward factor to the game that hasn't existed since the first run of the ex's. They just made them too overpowered. The original ex cards co-existed very well with regular cards and only added diversity. They just need to be designed better.

@Vulpix Yolk- I agree with all of that. The easy fix to the Collector problem is to simply make the format slower. Make a T3 setup a fast setup, not the slowest playable setup. Then missing the T1 Collector isn't as relevant.

@Archeops- Those are definitely good ideas. I think the Terrakion might be a little OP for what Flygon does. 90 damage for one energy off a basic with no drawback is like the basics we have now. If you re-cap the non-ex HP at 120, that becomes really broken since most Stage 2 cards will have about 100HP.
 
Back
Top