Well farewell, even though I don't know you.
Why I'm Quitting the TCG
- Thread starter Empoleon_master
- Start date
I understand completely where most of yall are coming from. I started back playing almost a month ago since 2010 hiatus and realized fast how stale, unbalanced and boring this meta is compared to 6 years ago. I was so frustrated I decided last minute to not compete at spring regionals. Why? Nothing but the same few decks that involeve the same mechanics. I realized what a mistake I made coming back, I'm better off playing the VG competitively smh.
Last edited:
Not so sure about that. Be wary of the rose colored glasses of nostalgia tinting things.
I was not Active during most of the DP-era. I missed out I think entirely on the PL-era (though not for lack of trying), and didn't try to come back until the late HS-era or early BW-era. Which for various reasons didn't even stick so it wasn't until I could reliably accumulate and test cards with the XY-era (simply because I could finally get the PTCGO working on my home computer) that I made a more or less full return. Going back and looking at what I missed, 2010 looks an awful lot like 2016, but with new names and faces (and re-branded/tweaked mechanics).
Even if I am wrong, what I do know is that the collective player base as well as the information infrastructure of the Pokémon TCG is six years more mature than 2010. I've already had to admit to myself that what I remember as the best years of the game not only could be general nostalgia for that time in my life, but that may have only happened because that was a less advanced collective player base and it was more difficult to come across quality deck lists and strategy articles. In short I have the feeling if some weird time warp had us experiencing the older formats but with the access to information we have now (especially modern attitudes about sharing/copying decks), you'd see more consistent results topping tournaments.
Better off not playing either, frankly. As much as I gripe about the TCG, I abandoned the video games far sooner, even "for fun". They can't seem to make up their minds between going abstract and going detailed, going random or going reliable.
Now I agree that it was probably a mistake to come back. I do not encourage most people to return to the TCG. 10 years ago I couldn't wait to introduce new people, especially family and friends, to the Pokémon TCG. Now I discourage it.
Yeah, Pokemon is now a unbalanced mess. The problem for me is I like Pokemon far more than I do MtG or Yu-gi-oh so I hate it when I can't play because the developers dont know how to handle their game. I'll fix Pokemon for them for free just so its fun to play again.
Last edited:
Financial reasons are why. I'm going to university this Fall and want to get back into PC gaming/sports.
In response to Otaku....I wouldn't say it's rose colored glasses, I tend to give things a try and the benefit of the doubt. I grew up with the game so i don't give up too easily. I also play Modern in Mtg and I have to say my love for pokemon is still there....when I say compared 2010 becuse you didn't have stupid mechanics like item lock as bad except dialga g, which was ok becuse he only hit for 10 and supporters search ewas more prominent (12-16) supporters in a deck easy. I only quit because of problems with a ride to nats, but the format had many more decks and allowed for creativity compared to now, I left on a good note, just came back on a bad. No interactions between players when item locked turn 1-2 and besides this games isn't catered to creative people anymore, it's for kids who like big shiny cards to do alot of damage and the other 60% of the card pool is meaningless and just card stock-end rant!
Yo you forgot the VileGar. T1 Vileplume baby! Haha even worse because the only counter was Dialga G Lv. X. If you think T1 Item lock or Quaking Punch is bad, no offence you really need to git gud. Item lock is the least of the problems of the TCG now because it's manageable. The problems are stuff like Night March or ArchieStoise. And I'm not even talking about playing a certain deck to counter Item lock. Just pick a versatile deck and build it well. You'll see that Item lock isn't scary to face.
BTW, I played from 2009-2011 and 2014-present.
Last edited:
I can't handle Item lock, but find Night March manageable. Ever think that instead of people needing to "git gud", it is because the game is out of whack so players have to pick their poison? You can build your deck to handle X, you can build your deck to handle Y, but you're in for one-sided matches against an entire class of decks.
Last edited:
Exactly. I have created a competent deck against NM, and it does decent with item lock (Supporter-heavy, if I can get my Pokemon out fast enough), but it's absolutely obliterated by decks like M-Mewtwo and Greninja and anything with Bats. Heck, the other day I lost to a Ho-Oh-EX deck (yes, that Ho-Oh-EX).
I feel like "pick your poison" is an accurate summation of the current format; I for one ask myself just that as I sit down to make a deck: "Which one deck do I want to beat?"
On that last point; how could it be any different? If you could create one deck that could win against all others, would it not then be BDIF, and just kill NM and assume the throne? While I agree that NM is insane, and that there's a bit of an ouroboros of decks going all rock/paper/scissors on one another, there is a bit of diversity in that set. Marowak and Karen are examples of TPCi trying to tweak without creating another pumpkin spider lamp monster, so there is at least movement on the balance front.
I think there is some mistake about where @Purrloin and myself are coming from with regards to this situation. I cannot speak for Purrloin, but I would very much prefer a format where it wasn't rock-paper-scissors, just a lot of mostly even match ups. Especially given the history of TCGs, it just seems like trying to force Deck A > Deck B > Deck C > Deck A scenarios never works out as planned, at least for long. Nothing should remotely approach an autowin if both decks are competently built. If a good deck has a bad build or an incompetent player, then the loss is earned.
There is the secondary aspect of the game feeling like solitaire. You have decks make this practically a one-player game because they set up rapidly and reliably, and once that happens they either
1) Steam roll you with big attackers you can't hope to KO or small ones that they can afford to lose, with either meaning that while you can still play your actions become almost totally irrelevant
or
2) Proceed to lock down at least one key deck resource (often multiple) so that most of your deck is now dead draws and you spend most turns draw/passing. What few things you can do often don't matter because by locking you down like this, your opponent either rushes forward with pure offense or maintains careful control. I mean when you're not having to constantly replace attackers and your opponent can do next to nothing, you can spend resources to increase your level of control.
I will also ask that you look at those two counters (Karen and Marowak) and how they stand starkly in contrast to each other.
I don't mean to say I want a deck that can beat all. But rather, I want no decks to exist that can beat all. I crave a format where I can't predict with high accuracy what deck(s) the top 8 placers use, which just leads to people having no choice but to make counter decks (or use those decks themselves).
Basically I rarely feel like I can use the decks I want to use, at least competitively. The metagame decides for me, which is not a creative atmosphere at all.
In response to "getting good item lock" that makes absolutely no sense no offensce,it's like saying gett good at supporter lock during the bebes search/Roseanne era...she 95% of decks use items to search you can't get good at being inconsistent with relying on draw o forced to play EX's and use collectors or Bridgette. Think about this way on how unbalanced things are, toad is easy to get out yet locks turn 1, trev locks turn 1-2 depending on ascension or wallys, the hardest one to get out is vileplume and it' affects both players, that comparison alone tells you how twisted the format is becuse your forced to play that select 20% of cards that are playable to due to being able to get past that lock....we can throw alot of factors that have made me lose love for the game....this weekend's regionals being allowed to play FC and not t he past two weeks, and Japan getting stuff ahead of us and better stuff I might add...I agree with alot of the articles baby Mario and erik nance wrote...this game is bottom line not the one I loved back in2007-2010. It's lost most of its creative aspect and appeal to taking away the defining parts of the game (evolving)....I'm gonna end with this ; the game really began to be unbalanced when the errated rare candy that was one of the worst decisons they could have made and led to more bad decisons up to now. You took away what has been aroumd since the beginning; from breeder to candy then poof! Ruined it for stage 2s to compete in the same spot light, smh-end rant!(ignore mispellings im writning fast on my phone haha)
Reading all of this opened my eyes to the corruption of the TCG. The metagame basically DOES choose what to play. The only response I have to this myself is: pick one of the Pokemon YOU like, then slowly build it into a list, then slowly incorporate a way to both BE competitive, and BEAT competitive decks. In my opinion, things like NM, and Toad were fun when they were used creatively, and fun. Rather than how they're used now.
Karen
Marowak
Personally i like collecting much better so i can get the shiniest binder possible xD
Marowak doesn't stop Trevenant.
It's funny that people think Karen will get played.