Well it all depends whether your making your own rougue deck or just using someone elses archetype decklist like G&G.
TCG - More strategy involved than the games?
- Thread starter Ariadosguy
- Start date
lee_sonny said:
...Items have no effect on multiplayer... in-game there is no need for strategy whatsoever...
Blazing_Monkey said:
I wouldn't know... I've never played archetypes and I haven't been allowed on any forums until late this season...
I'm likely not posting here anymore so please do not direct any more posts towards me...
lee_sonny said:
You can't use items over wi-fi....
In the game, there's a lot more strategy IMO. There's the IV's you find out, the ev's, all the natures, and all the pokemon, plus all of their typing as well, and what moves are best against them. Also, you can't just throw together a random team of 6 pokemon and expect to win. You need counters just like the TCG, and combos to go with it. There's not only almost double the typing in the game, but there's many many different sets for each pokemon. You have to predict future moves, set up your strategy or whatever you are doing in the game, etc. There's also many more team possibilities, ev possibilities, moves, IV's, and more during a game than playing TCG. Even before you get your team, there's thought. what works best, what are the weaknesses of this team, etc. I know that the TCG has this too, as I do TCG, but there's so many more possibilities involved within the game that I think it's much harder. No, throwing together a random deck won't work, but there's not as many moves, types, etc. as there is in the game.
So overall, I think that the game is MUCH more difficult than the TCG, even if deck building isn't that easy, neither is team building in game. That's my opinion on the topic.
z-man said:
Neither are easy. The TCG takes lots of knowledge of the game and cards. You have to track down good cards and figure out combos. It takes strategy to plan out what will work well together. The game has so many hidden mechanics, like Evs. It takes many hours sometimes even many days to Ev train your Pokemon. I would say they are pretty equal.
It depends on how you look at it. Case closed.
When you're actually playing against someone else, I would say that the video games contain much more strategy for the reason that you know less about your opponents than you would playing against someone in the card game. There are two reasons for this:
1. A single Pokémon is much more diversified than in the card game. In the card game, everything it can do is laid out for you on the table. You can figure out what you need to do next, or if you don't think you can win, what you need to change in order to win against that deck. In the video games, however, you're simply told there's a Pokémon out there. The most striking example is Lucario. It can be a physical attacker, a special attacker, it has good stats, can combo in a million ways, and can fulfill many different roles in a team. Thus, you must figure out what that Pokémon is up to--one-sixth of your opponent's team, as opposued to the strategy behind a full deck--with extremely limited clues.
2. The trading card game is far more crystallized than the video games. There are a few archetypes that dominate the tournament scene, and the number of rogue decks that do well are depressingly low. If you don't use one of those archetypes, you're usually doomed to the middle or lower ranks of a tournament. The video games are not as rigid in that the difference between Pokémon considered "strong" and "weak" are not as far apart. In fact, I use large numbers of UU Pokémon, the equivalent of rogue decks, and I get a pretty high win rate against people I play online against people who play with supposedly superior Pokémon. The balancing act was handled much better in the video games than in the TCG.
1. A single Pokémon is much more diversified than in the card game. In the card game, everything it can do is laid out for you on the table. You can figure out what you need to do next, or if you don't think you can win, what you need to change in order to win against that deck. In the video games, however, you're simply told there's a Pokémon out there. The most striking example is Lucario. It can be a physical attacker, a special attacker, it has good stats, can combo in a million ways, and can fulfill many different roles in a team. Thus, you must figure out what that Pokémon is up to--one-sixth of your opponent's team, as opposued to the strategy behind a full deck--with extremely limited clues.
2. The trading card game is far more crystallized than the video games. There are a few archetypes that dominate the tournament scene, and the number of rogue decks that do well are depressingly low. If you don't use one of those archetypes, you're usually doomed to the middle or lower ranks of a tournament. The video games are not as rigid in that the difference between Pokémon considered "strong" and "weak" are not as far apart. In fact, I use large numbers of UU Pokémon, the equivalent of rogue decks, and I get a pretty high win rate against people I play online against people who play with supposedly superior Pokémon. The balancing act was handled much better in the video games than in the TCG.