No i just want you to admit that that's your personal bias about those decks
Because it's not an objective fact, that's your personal opinion
Discussion Side decking in PTCG; yay or nay?
- Thread starter Sheimeix
- Start date
Because it's not an objective fact, that's your personal opinion
It's not personal bias or anything. I'm not gaining or losing anything by calling them jank decks. Have no contract or anything with anyone as far as I know.
Are you a moron? You clearly don't know what the definition of bias is because what you just said is complete inane.
bi·as
ˈbīəs
noun
1.
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
"there was evidence of bias against foreign applicants"
synonyms: prejudice, partiality, partisanship, favoritism, unfairness, one-sidedness; More
2.
in some sports, such as lawn bowling, the irregular shape given to a ball.
verb
1.
cause to feel or show inclination or prejudice for or against someone or something.
"readers said the paper was biased toward the conservatives"
synonyms: prejudice, influence, color, sway, weight, predispose; More
2.
give a bias to.
"bias the ball"
In my experience, bias is usually to gain or protects ones interest. I know the definition of the word but I fail to see how I'm showing any bias here. I stated my argument and gave a name to these kind of decks. I don't see what is bias about anything?
Otaku, from past post enjoys playing Night March and I can see his argument against what I said as bias. I have no invested interest in Night March or related decks. I even play a quad deck and I believe that such a concept shouldn't exist. Its like the pre-release decks when you run one EX (or GX now) you pulled and 39 Energy. People don't complain about it but its still jank. Even the T.O. in my area prevents people from making those kind of deck. I just want to know what your invested interest is?
You're wrong though. Self interests is a reason one can show bias, but not the only reason. Bias is just being prejudiced or partial, the reason does not matter.
You clearly don't know what the definition of bias is
You can't pick and choose which definition you want to apply here. I'm telling you I have no invested interest here. Nothing is on the line at all. I'm not being prejudice or partial. My whole argument is with a side deck, games tend to mellow out around certain things and things like Night March and Quad decks wouldn't exist because of a extra card pool. This is almost a fact because we don't see such things in other games with side decks.
Which does not matter. The fact that you "have no invested interest here" is irrelevant. The definition of Bias makes no distinction about the reason behind. Read the definition again.
What are you talking about? both MTG and Yugioh have had a vast history of your supposed "jank decks" in spite of the side board
I will list several prominent decks from YGO as i have experience with that game
Empty Jar
Last Turn FTK
Magical Scientist OTK
Demise OTK
Chimeratech Overdragon OTK
Royal Magical Library OTK
Dark Strike Fighter OTK
Wind Up Loop
Chain Burn
And I'm sure there were decks in MTG. Point is the side deck doesn't just remove these decks from existing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, it does matter because you act as if there is some hidden meaning behind what I think the game needs a side deck. You need to calm down. Those decks you also listed aren't all that relevant, if at all. If these decks won any event, they would have been side decked against hard, which checks those decks. I remember the Royal Magical Library OTK. I went first, and won then side decks against it so it couldn't even try. I don't even think these decks are even winning anything. haven't played yugioh seriously in some years now.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just as a general reminder - this is a discussion over a theoretical topic. There's no need to get so heated over all of it 
Please be civil in your arguing. Yes, it's possible, just keep in mind that there's really no need for any name-calling or personal attacks.
Please be civil in your arguing. Yes, it's possible, just keep in mind that there's really no need for any name-calling or personal attacks.
So today I got the opportunity to test out the "set aside your own prize cards from your deck like a side deck" idea that Otaku came up with.
My findings? It makes kill streaks a lot more effective, since if you knock out just once (especially an EX or GX) then the chances of something in your prize pile giving you a huge advantage go up substantially, leaving little room for error. Also, because you get to pick exactly what goes into your prize pile, not only do you not risk a clutch card being prized, but you also can afford to run fewer copies of more different kinds of cards and set up combos involving the prizes.
For example, I tested this idea out with a VikaBulu deck, and among my prizes were an Energy Recycler and two Puzzles of Time. Getting a kill meant a decent chance of grabbing a card that offsets the main drawback of the strategy (namely discarding energy) AND a chance to recycle it with Puzzle of Time without having to waste a Skyla on it, making Nature's Judgement much, much more powerful.
This one simple change takes out a lot of luck factor and injects huge amounts of complex strategy. It doesn't quite fundamentally change the game, but it comes close.
My findings? It makes kill streaks a lot more effective, since if you knock out just once (especially an EX or GX) then the chances of something in your prize pile giving you a huge advantage go up substantially, leaving little room for error. Also, because you get to pick exactly what goes into your prize pile, not only do you not risk a clutch card being prized, but you also can afford to run fewer copies of more different kinds of cards and set up combos involving the prizes.
For example, I tested this idea out with a VikaBulu deck, and among my prizes were an Energy Recycler and two Puzzles of Time. Getting a kill meant a decent chance of grabbing a card that offsets the main drawback of the strategy (namely discarding energy) AND a chance to recycle it with Puzzle of Time without having to waste a Skyla on it, making Nature's Judgement much, much more powerful.
This one simple change takes out a lot of luck factor and injects huge amounts of complex strategy. It doesn't quite fundamentally change the game, but it comes close.
I always felt the Prize system should be the player who's Pokemon was knocked out takes the Prize cards instead and the player to take all their Prize cards first loses. This systems rewards the player who lost a Pokemon and not the player who is winning. Gives that player more resources and makes prizing things less of a punishment, similar how Duel Masters does it... Well I guess Kaijudo now.
IDK if I'd call it Kaijudo still, I'm pretty sure the revival bombed hard And it's still running under Duel Masters in Japan, IIRC.
I'm kind of shocked at how heated this ended up becoming! At first I kind of liked the idea of a Side Deck in PTCG, but after reading a lot of peoples thoughts on why not, I'm inclined to agree now. The huge amount of investment into a pile of cards that most decks have -do- make it turn into who can out-counter the other players counter, which isn't really how it works in YGO or (I assume) MTG.
I do also like the results @Otaku suggested and @Attix reported, it seems like a very interesting alternative that I think would be a unique twist and a happy medium.
And it's still running under Duel Masters in Japan, IIRC.I'm kind of shocked at how heated this ended up becoming! At first I kind of liked the idea of a Side Deck in PTCG, but after reading a lot of peoples thoughts on why not, I'm inclined to agree now. The huge amount of investment into a pile of cards that most decks have -do- make it turn into who can out-counter the other players counter, which isn't really how it works in YGO or (I assume) MTG.
I do also like the results @Otaku suggested and @Attix reported, it seems like a very interesting alternative that I think would be a unique twist and a happy medium.
IDK if I'd call it Kaijudo still, I'm pretty sure the revival bombed hard
I'm kind of shocked at how heated this ended up becoming! At first I kind of liked the idea of a Side Deck in PTCG, but after reading a lot of peoples thoughts on why not, I'm inclined to agree now. The huge amount of investment into a pile of cards that most decks have -do- make it turn into who can out-counter the other players counter, which isn't really how it works in YGO or (I assume) MTG.
I do also like the results @Otaku suggested and @Attix reported, it seems like a very interesting alternative that I think would be a unique twist and a happy medium.
I'm always a fan of giving players more choice. Being able to set prize cards would indeed break a few decks but Pokemon makes broken cards because its Pokemon and players seem to say "well it's Pokemon and it's different", which isn't something I ever agreed with. Different it good, sure but being different for the sake of different isn't ever good. Pokemon's card design reflects this "need to be different" so trying to add to it feels like any change will break the game. Sure, letting a player put 15 out of what, 24 cards to remove energy might seem broken. Not sure if anyone here played Naruto before they killed the game but it was the most balanced game I played that had a side deck in it. Nothing ever felt like siding in cards would break a game. MtG also seems to have a more balanced side deck mechanic and even though Yu-Gi-Oh has one, I don't like using that game as an example of anything but how to make a game fail. How that game exist is beyond me.
I just don't think Pokemon can be helped. I always felt trying to mimic the game's turn base game play just doesn't work. There needs to be cards that can be played during the opponent's turn so you don't feel like you lose and you could do nothing about it but because Pokemon is such a "different" game, trying to add to it will just break it mechanically. Imagine how different the game would be if you could choose your starter? It would change deck building standards. Being able to set prizes will change deck building standards. Having a side deck will change deck building standard. The problem isn't deck building but how the cards are designed in general. Why do we need so many energy removal cards?
Also, is Duel Master still around in Japan? I actually liked the game. Nice and fast pace with mechanics that reward thinking. Also, Kaijudo died hard too. I only looked at the game because it has cute small birds.
I think that PTCG being unique apart from other TCGs is a factor of it trying to replicate the video game combat, and I actually really enjoy that aspect of it. The closest to it feeling like it being "broken" that I can tell is as Otaku mentioned, it sometimes feels like they release a deck with a single card that functions as a hard counter (Greninja BREAK v Giratina). While for a while Gardevoir GX was the big, prevalent deck that was most of the top 16s while it saw play. it's not as if other decks didn't see play. The entire time I've played there were a lot of other decks that you would see to fairly well, like Buzzwole/Lycanroc, or Silvally decks. Granted, I wasn't really playing during the XY or BW era, so I can't speak to what's broken in those, but I feel like I see a lot more variety in decks in PTCG than I do in other TCGs, which I would grant to the game being -not- broken.
I do think having some cards that can be played on the opponents turn would be a cool twist as well, although they have to be really, really, REALLY careful to not let their effects get out of hand. YGO has 'Hand traps' which are cards that you can play during your opponents turn in response to specific actions from your hand, and I feel that those cards got too powerful for their own good.
Fun fact, back when I first got into actually playing PTCG for real (a couple sets before DP-Stormfront) I thought you did choose your starter (and that you take a prize card when your Pokemon is KO'd) but I think the rules we have in place right now not only have worked for the past 20 years, but also because giving the player -too much- control can be detrimental to the overall game, and can lower the skill ceiling, imo.
Being able to always start with your key Pokemon instead of relying on your deck building technique to get you that Pokemon is one example I can make for it. Giving players more options can be good, but balancing 'Giving the players options' and 'Restricting what the player can do' is what makes games like this more strategic. This extends to video games- looking at the Pokemon games, the regular games are very free, you can catch whatever Pokemon are available, train them as you see fit, etc... But people create restrictions such as the Nuclocke rules to make the game interesting and forces the player to think more before they perform an action.
Likewise with the other thing I thought, where the player whose Pokeomon gets KO'd takes the prizes. While giving the player whose Pokemon was KO'd their prize card may be more 'fair', it turns the game into a less interesting back-and-forth between the two players trading KOs, and can devolve the game state into 'whoever gets the first KO will win the game if the players trade KOs every turn', although that's a bit of an extreme. It would also make players hesitant to actually take KO's until they're 100% setup, as taking a KO would be giving your opponent more resources. Also, delving into game design as a whole (card game, video game, tabletop, etc) you want to reward the player for their accomplishments- if a player didn't get anything for taking out a particularly strong Pokemon, then they would be even less inclined to take KOs.
Pokemon definitely has room for improvement (such as eliminating the 2x weakness trend that Otaku mentioned previously), I can't say that it's a broken game by any stretch of the imagination. That could just be me comparing it to the TCG I migrated from, YGO, being a completely broken mess of a game, but I feel like most people would agree that PTCG is pretty not-broken.
(And yeah, Duel Masters is still going as far as I'm aware- I loved that game, I wish it went on longer outside of Japan...)
I do think having some cards that can be played on the opponents turn would be a cool twist as well, although they have to be really, really, REALLY careful to not let their effects get out of hand. YGO has 'Hand traps' which are cards that you can play during your opponents turn in response to specific actions from your hand, and I feel that those cards got too powerful for their own good.
Fun fact, back when I first got into actually playing PTCG for real (a couple sets before DP-Stormfront) I thought you did choose your starter (and that you take a prize card when your Pokemon is KO'd) but I think the rules we have in place right now not only have worked for the past 20 years, but also because giving the player -too much- control can be detrimental to the overall game, and can lower the skill ceiling, imo.
Being able to always start with your key Pokemon instead of relying on your deck building technique to get you that Pokemon is one example I can make for it. Giving players more options can be good, but balancing 'Giving the players options' and 'Restricting what the player can do' is what makes games like this more strategic. This extends to video games- looking at the Pokemon games, the regular games are very free, you can catch whatever Pokemon are available, train them as you see fit, etc... But people create restrictions such as the Nuclocke rules to make the game interesting and forces the player to think more before they perform an action.
Likewise with the other thing I thought, where the player whose Pokeomon gets KO'd takes the prizes. While giving the player whose Pokemon was KO'd their prize card may be more 'fair', it turns the game into a less interesting back-and-forth between the two players trading KOs, and can devolve the game state into 'whoever gets the first KO will win the game if the players trade KOs every turn', although that's a bit of an extreme. It would also make players hesitant to actually take KO's until they're 100% setup, as taking a KO would be giving your opponent more resources. Also, delving into game design as a whole (card game, video game, tabletop, etc) you want to reward the player for their accomplishments- if a player didn't get anything for taking out a particularly strong Pokemon, then they would be even less inclined to take KOs.
Pokemon definitely has room for improvement (such as eliminating the 2x weakness trend that Otaku mentioned previously), I can't say that it's a broken game by any stretch of the imagination. That could just be me comparing it to the TCG I migrated from, YGO, being a completely broken mess of a game, but I feel like most people would agree that PTCG is pretty not-broken.
(And yeah, Duel Masters is still going as far as I'm aware- I loved that game, I wish it went on longer outside of Japan...)
Pokemon TCG is the only game of the major TCGs out there that cannot be played multiplayer battle royale because once one player takes all prize cards, then they are technically the winner, and the game is over. In the case where the person who gets KO'd takes the prize card instead, when that person gets the last prize card, they get eliminated instead, and play resumes with the remaining players.
I also think it is much better if the player whose Pokemon gets knocked out should be the one taking the prizes to even up the playing field. Yeah sure, your opponent has more resources, but they are that much closer to losing. If they knock out your pokemon, you get more resources. The current setup means that whoever knocks the pokemon out first gets a better advantage as the game progresses. I think the game should make it harder for the player to knock out that last Pokemon, not easier.
We all know what revive does. I would change it so that along with the reverse prize card rule, revive, instead of only bringing a Pokemon from discard pile to the bench, you may choose to put the top card of your deck into the prize area.
The 6 prizes are supposed to simulate knocking out the 6 pokemon in the video games. If you have 3 pokemon left, and you revive a pokemon, your opponent will have to knock out 4 pokemon. In the TCG, if your opponent knocks out 3 of your pokemon, and you revive one of them, your opponent still has 3 prize cards remaining, and thus 3 knock outs to win the game, while in the video games, you need to knock out 4.
With trainer card that put cards back into the prize card area, along with the reverse prize rule, it is no longer about back and forth knock outs, and whoever gets the first knock out generally wins, because you may play first and in the end, when you both have one prize card left, your opponent may play a "revive", and place a card from the deck into a prize card area, now your opponent has 2 prizes, and you have 1, and even though you knocked out your opponent's pokemon first, and thus, if it went back and forth, you should be knocking out your opponent's last pokemon, it is your opponent who will be knocking out your last pokemon.
Unless all 60 cards in your deck are relevant in all phases of the game, you are probably going to have at least one prize dud. In the reverse prize method, if your pokemon gets knocked out, and you pull a dud that won't help you, then it isn't as back and forth. It is only back and forth if the prize you draw actually helps you.
You know what? Scrap the prize system. Use counters instead. The only advantage one gains for knocking out a Pokemon is being that much closer to winning. With the prize system, you only start out with a 54 card deck anyway, considering take away 6 cards from your deck for prizes.
Did I mention that with the way this game is currently set up, battle royale last trainer standing format is impossible?
I totally forgot one other thing. In the TCG, you have 5 bench spots, and your active pokemon. This is to simulate the 6 pokemon in your party in the video games. If your pokemon faints, you would have 5 pokemon remaining in your party, and unless you revive a pokemon, you are always going to be stuck with 5 usable pokemon. To simulate that, along with the reverse prizes rule, when your pokemon gets knocked out, you take a prize card and you lose a bench space. The number of benched pokemon equals to the number of cards in your prize zone, so you gain extra cards, but you lose spots to put your pokemon.
EX and GX card would work differently. Rather than drawing 2 prize cards and losing 2 bench spaces for getting your GX or EX knocked out, you draw your prize card, lose a bench space, your opponent places top card of deck into prize area, and gains a bench space.
I also think it is much better if the player whose Pokemon gets knocked out should be the one taking the prizes to even up the playing field. Yeah sure, your opponent has more resources, but they are that much closer to losing. If they knock out your pokemon, you get more resources. The current setup means that whoever knocks the pokemon out first gets a better advantage as the game progresses. I think the game should make it harder for the player to knock out that last Pokemon, not easier.
We all know what revive does. I would change it so that along with the reverse prize card rule, revive, instead of only bringing a Pokemon from discard pile to the bench, you may choose to put the top card of your deck into the prize area.
The 6 prizes are supposed to simulate knocking out the 6 pokemon in the video games. If you have 3 pokemon left, and you revive a pokemon, your opponent will have to knock out 4 pokemon. In the TCG, if your opponent knocks out 3 of your pokemon, and you revive one of them, your opponent still has 3 prize cards remaining, and thus 3 knock outs to win the game, while in the video games, you need to knock out 4.
With trainer card that put cards back into the prize card area, along with the reverse prize rule, it is no longer about back and forth knock outs, and whoever gets the first knock out generally wins, because you may play first and in the end, when you both have one prize card left, your opponent may play a "revive", and place a card from the deck into a prize card area, now your opponent has 2 prizes, and you have 1, and even though you knocked out your opponent's pokemon first, and thus, if it went back and forth, you should be knocking out your opponent's last pokemon, it is your opponent who will be knocking out your last pokemon.
Unless all 60 cards in your deck are relevant in all phases of the game, you are probably going to have at least one prize dud. In the reverse prize method, if your pokemon gets knocked out, and you pull a dud that won't help you, then it isn't as back and forth. It is only back and forth if the prize you draw actually helps you.
You know what? Scrap the prize system. Use counters instead. The only advantage one gains for knocking out a Pokemon is being that much closer to winning. With the prize system, you only start out with a 54 card deck anyway, considering take away 6 cards from your deck for prizes.
Did I mention that with the way this game is currently set up, battle royale last trainer standing format is impossible?
I totally forgot one other thing. In the TCG, you have 5 bench spots, and your active pokemon. This is to simulate the 6 pokemon in your party in the video games. If your pokemon faints, you would have 5 pokemon remaining in your party, and unless you revive a pokemon, you are always going to be stuck with 5 usable pokemon. To simulate that, along with the reverse prizes rule, when your pokemon gets knocked out, you take a prize card and you lose a bench space. The number of benched pokemon equals to the number of cards in your prize zone, so you gain extra cards, but you lose spots to put your pokemon.
EX and GX card would work differently. Rather than drawing 2 prize cards and losing 2 bench spaces for getting your GX or EX knocked out, you draw your prize card, lose a bench space, your opponent places top card of deck into prize area, and gains a bench space.
Last edited: