Rogue VS Meta
- Thread starter samhink1
- Start date
Oh yea, I love meta I play it all the time and I think rogue players are stupid...
-_-
Can't fool anyone, huh? Anyway, IMO nobody considers rogues in matchups, so that's the advantage to playing rogues competitively.
Other than than that, rogues are actually the challenging part of the game. Otherwise who knows if I'd be here or not.
-_-
Can't fool anyone, huh? Anyway, IMO nobody considers rogues in matchups, so that's the advantage to playing rogues competitively.
Other than than that, rogues are actually the challenging part of the game. Otherwise who knows if I'd be here or not.
I play rogue, never meta, and I am a strong believer in rogue. People who play rogue are origanal, and not afraid to try new things. I have nothing against the meta itself, but it's overused. I'm not saying everyone is, but some people who play it, just copy and paste decks. In fact, the only decks I play are my decks, I don't play Gyarados or other discovered decks. I make my own. I can tell your a rogue player, no?
Well this is kinda obvious, Metagame. As much as I like Rogue decks, metagame decks are 99.9% of the time better, they make up the Metagame because they are the decks that people have tested and found to be the best (such as Sablelock). If someone does find a very good rogue deck and they win a big tournament with it, it becomes Metagame, Metagame is better. If you can find a REALLY good rogue the element of surprise helps you. I am a strong supporter in rogue though and I have played it for most tournaments
PikachewTofu said:
Alright fine I'll meet you in the middle at 90.45% of the time happy? Also I don't want to sound like a rogue hater, rogue won me States (no matter how much luck I got)
K, I'm satisfied with the number. My Salamence deck that I went to States with (I was a noob then, no Rare Candy's, Bebe's, Uxie's, etc.) and I get 17th place out of 29 Seniors. Pretty good. No one played a metagame deck besides one dude with Cursegar. I lost that match in three minutes.Vulpix Yolk said:
I play what I want, and make no distinction between rogue or meta. I think deciding what you play based on whether or not someone else is playing it is silly.
Tyraniking said:
You know what Meta is? It is Rouge that does good. Make a Rouge deck and win Nationals or Worlds, and it will become a Metagame deck.
I play a mix of rouge and Meta decks.
konter_j8902 said:
Same here. Whenever I play meta, I like to be creative with the decks. I also love making my own rogue decks, although I do need to playtest with them some more....
~A+G
I only keep 1 or 2 decks at a time. Right now I have Luxchomp and Regigigas Lv.x~Absol+Gallade~ said:
konter_j8902 said:
Yes, I'm limiting my decks to 3 at a time. I only have a 2-1 Uxie line and 1 Azelf, and I just transfer those from one of the decks to the deck I'm using in a tourney or whatever. The 3 decks I have are Jumpluff, Sablelock, and Gyarados. I don't mind Luxchomp, except I hate how popular it is!!
~A+G
I play both, I was playing Kingdra Prime last week I would call that meta, but now I'm playing Charizard which is probably closer to rogue then it is meta. Sadly I can't play meta much because most of the meta consists of sp decks now and I have the sp engine but no good sp pokemon.
I read alot of deck list's and strats on both, I play neither but enough for my decks to be called rogue (apparently, so i use the title, idk), do I think they should be called differently, no, because they're all apart of the same format. I've tryed out both and play neither. cya
Rogue builds should always test against meta builds. The idea behind rogue is to have the advantage of a meta player playing against your rogue deck and having no clear strategy, while you have played plenty against meta and know what to expect.
Gyarados and Sablelock are two examples of "rogue meta" decks. No one was prepared for them at first.
Gyarados and Sablelock are two examples of "rogue meta" decks. No one was prepared for them at first.
Sometimes rogue is good. Sometimes, it isn't. I consider rogue anything outside of the norm. For example, I'd say that a rogue Luxchomp won worlds this year. The deck that won played a 1-1 DGX, a weird energy line, and a PONT. I consider rogue anything unique enough t distinguish itself.
Flyterra won german nats, that's rogue. Raybees won worlds last year... that was pretty rogue. Once again, meta wins more, but only because good decks get played often. A deck can start out quiet and end up popular. That is how the game works. A good rogue deck will go meta as soon as it is found out. If it doesn't go meta, it obviously isn't worth really playing, and thus, isn't a good rogue deck. That is, assuming the opportunity is not missed like with rotations.
Overall, meta is anything that is massively played. Good decks are always played a lot. Thus, meta is good. Even so, it always makes me smile to play a card, have my opponent look at me funny, and reach down to read the card.
Flyterra won german nats, that's rogue. Raybees won worlds last year... that was pretty rogue. Once again, meta wins more, but only because good decks get played often. A deck can start out quiet and end up popular. That is how the game works. A good rogue deck will go meta as soon as it is found out. If it doesn't go meta, it obviously isn't worth really playing, and thus, isn't a good rogue deck. That is, assuming the opportunity is not missed like with rotations.
Overall, meta is anything that is massively played. Good decks are always played a lot. Thus, meta is good. Even so, it always makes me smile to play a card, have my opponent look at me funny, and reach down to read the card.