Blog World Domination — An Analysis of State Championships and the New Legacy Format

So your argument is that Night March isn't fair because it's too fast because of battle compressor's, which they get from draw support, but taking Shaymin away wouldn't be fair because it'll slow it down because your draw support wouldn't be there? Sounds like you're arguing into a circle. Yes I agree without Shaymin it'll slow the game down, and not be as fun, but at the same time that's your whole arguement against Night March.

No not every deck runs battle compressor's. I've seen and played many decks that don't run battle compressors. I personally dont run them in my Seismitoad/Giratina deck, nor my Yveltal/Zoroark deck.
 
Frosstoise said:
What do other TCG's scenes look like, as a contrast to NM? Does MtG or YuGiOh maintain a large selection of viable decks in tier 1?

Or, for that matter, has PTCG suffered from a runaway experiment before, such that one build rose to the top of the meta?
Click to expand...
MtG has a similar deck called Dredge but it's kept in check by graveyard hate ie. cards that remove your opponent's graveyard/discard from the game. Dredge can win through the hate but it takes real skill on the Dredge player for sure. Without graveyard hate Dredge would dominate for sure. NM isn't as bad since it can't win in one turn or on turn 1 like Dredge can but it's certainly comparable in its effect on the metagame without splashable hate in both numbers played and effectiveness. Poketcg needs to bring back the Lost Zone or something.
Also, if this were MtG and a deck was racking up this kind of win % (in a standard format no less) Wizards of the Coast would be looking at some bans. The numbers speak for themselves
 
Very true. Wizards of the Coast bans a lot more cards than any other card game out there.
 
I would love to see a card that can shuffle X pokemon from your opponents discard into their deck, or their hand. It wouldn't have as large a blast radius as LTC, but might help cut down on the pain a bit. The recylability of Battle Compressor, though, would cut down on it's effectiveness.
 
Depends on what you consider banned. Yu-Gi-Oh limits in formats more than bans. There are formats that have forebidden cards, but are limited in other formats. I haven't seen any Yu-Gi-Oh cards that are officially banned in all formats.
 
PokeDad5 said:
So your argument is that Night March isn't fair because it's too fast because of battle compressor's, which they get from draw support, but taking Shaymin away wouldn't be fair because it'll slow it down because your draw support wouldn't be there? Sounds like you're arguing into a circle. Yes I agree without Shaymin it'll slow the game down, and not be as fun, but at the same time that's your whole arguement against Night March.

No not every deck runs battle compressor's. I've seen and played many decks that don't run battle compressors. I personally dont run them in my Seismitoad/Giratina deck, nor my Yveltal/Zoroark deck.
Click to expand...
This is why I argue to ban the Night Marchers. Also, most YZG runs compressor. MegaMan does. ToadTina and Trees are probobly the only decks that don't abide it, and even then, Trees use it.
 
Id rather see them add a card that slows down night march rather than ban a card that will completely destroy a deck just because it's popular. If anything this conversation and NM is great for this card game. There are so many people trying to find and make decks to counter NM. Id rather see people build competitive decks that shutdown the prominent decks than ban cards. Maybe it's just my personal preference but I do not like seeing cards banned.
 
I don't like to see cards banned either, but there are no hard counters to Night March, IMO. Now granted, I also hate Item Lock, and that is a popular Night March counter attempt.
 
PokeDad5 said:
Id rather see them add a card that slows down night march rather than ban a card that will completely destroy a deck just because it's popular. If anything this conversation and NM is great for this card game. There are so many people trying to find and make decks to counter NM. Id rather see people build competitive decks that shutdown the prominent decks than ban cards. Maybe it's just my personal preference but I do not like seeing cards banned.
Click to expand...
Bannings never happen just because something's popular. There's usually a crazy win % behind it to (if a deck has a 50% win rate vs the majority of decks in the format it's time for a good, hard look). Bannings don't have to be a bad thing either. Hell, NM mons are cheap as dirt. Just build something else. Just don't completely ignore the numbers involved because you personally think the deck is fine
 
I'm not ignoring the numbers, but again I'll go back to what I said before. If 50% of people play a deck in any tournament, the chances of seeing that deck in the top 8 and winning is 50%. But that goes with any deck. If 50% start to play Trevenant the same results will happen
 
PokeDad5 said:
I'm not ignoring the numbers, but again I'll go back to what I said before. If 50% of people play a deck in any tournament, the chances of seeing that deck in the top 8 and winning is 50%. But that goes with any deck. If 50% start to play Trevenant the same results will happen
Click to expand...
I agree with that part but that's not the same as having a 50% WIN RATE. The top might be infested with trees but Trevenant's WIN RATE would not be as high as NM. Get it?
 
How do you know? It's all statistics. Your chances of win rate increases the more people play it. Right now winning states NM is sitting a lil above 50%. I bet people play NM 50% or more in each states. So the statistics are real. If you flipped that around and 50% or more played another deck the outcome would be the same. 50% of state wins would be from that deck. It's simple math.
 
PokeDad5 said:
If 50% of people play a deck in any tournament, the chances of seeing that deck in the top 8 and winning is 50%. But that goes with any deck.
Click to expand...

Let's say that 50% of a tournament population is playing Vespiquen / Vileplume, and the other 50% is playing Metal (with heavy Aegislash). Supposing that that statement is true, we'd expect to see a top 8 of about 4 Vespiquen / Vileplume and 4 Aegislash. However, the Metal matchup for Vespiquen is essentially an auto-loss. Assuming a 5%/95% match up, the odds of a Vespiquen deck going undefeated in a six round tournament disregarding player skill is .05^6 = 1.56*10^-8 = .00000156% = ~.000002%. Thus we actually wouldn't expect to see any Vespiquen make cut.

I do think that how many people play the deck has an impact on how well that deck does at a tournament, but it's certainly not the only factor.
 
Your complicated math is appreciated Mora, especially when you could say some match-ups are swayed in the way of one deck.
 
But you math is unrealistic. It's very probable that 50% of players are playing NM. Fortunately for NM it's so versatile that it is favored in most matchups. Why not compare Seismitoad/Giratina vs NM for statistics instead of swaying the results with what you chose to compare?
 
PokeDad5 said:
But you math is unrealistic. It's very probable that 50% of players are playing NM. Fortunately for NM it's so versatile that it is favored in most matchups. Why not compare Seismitoad/Giratina vs NM for statistics instead of swaying the results with what you chose to compare?
Click to expand...

I choose to compare those two match ups for that exact reason. It clearly illustrates the point that it's not just about how many people play the deck--that lots of players playing Night March doesn't imply that top cut is going to be filled with Night March. There exists at least one scenario in which that statement is not true. It's a counter example, so the statement as a whole is false, even if it is true for a particular example.
 
But to your point of a counter example, NM doesnt have a good counter where you could get those numbers. NM is just so consistant and good that when you see <50% of people playing it there's going to be at least 50% in top 8. Now of course I dont have those numbers nor do I know the metagame of each state to be able to say that <50% of people are playing NM. It could be that NM is just that darn good. But I still feel from what I've seen and the people I've talked to that there are a lot of NM players and thats why you see a lot of wins from NM. But everything is subjective. Depends on your area's meta, depends on your NM variants, depends on what other decks are playing, depends on your draw and depends on the cards you get. There's so many variables that have to take place to prove or disprove your point and mine. I'll find out Ohio's meta this weekend at states. But I'll tell you that I'm not playing NM tomorrow.
 
If 50% of the decks in play were silly decks the deck would not automatically get into the top 8 by number alone.
It has to be a consistent strong deck!
We are not talking about play rate. We are talking about win rate.
Play rate DOES NOT win rate!
No other deck has a win rate as high as NM. Full stop! I don't care how cheap it is to play or how many people play it... It is a deck that throws out the balance!
 
So I think I disproved my point. I re-looked at every state tournament top 8. NM is NOT 50% of the top 8 in most state championships. In most they're 25% or 37% of the top 8, so 2 or 3 decks are NM in top 8. What continues to throw the numbers off is that when NM doesnt win, the winning decks are not consistant at all. It's ususally a ramdom deck or a deck that no one else is playing in the top 8. So reguardless of the numbers I dont like NM, just because I get annoyed playing against the same deck over and over. It was like this when Trevenant first came out. I feel like every other deck I played against was Trevenant. They could take Lysandre's trump card out of retirement to solve this issue :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top