Discussion Altering Prize Rulings and Going 2nd

[CaptZero]

In Pokemon's case, it has one of the largest main decks AND has the prize 6 mechanic which introduces an extra layer of luck that, to my knowledge, no other TCG has. If we can mitigate that extra layer of luck without simply deleting the prize mechanic, then this is the only sort of solution that I could come up with.

Pokemon also allows for more copies of cards than other card games. Yugioh for example only allows 3 copies (for cards that aren't limited to 1 or two copies) in a 40-60 card deck, and has very weak draw support which can be disrupted by your opponent.

I personally see drawing out of a 54 card deck to be a good thing not a bad thing, which I outlined as a benefit of altering prizes to be pre-picked and removed prior to opening 7. But since we're both looking at the same facts of "you start with a 54 card deck" and you say it's bad and I say it's good, then clearly there's nothing I can do to change your mind unless you try it out for yourself and then change your mind because you experienced it for yourself.

I'm saying that it changes the very nature of the beast that is Pokemon. A pokemon deck with 54 cards can play fewer basics and still consistently draw a basic on the opening turn (even though that's meant to be one of the downsides to playing a low basic Pokemon count.)

Every deck will become more consistent and every player will consistently have better games. When everyone has more consistent access to all of the strategies in their deck as opposed to choking on even bringing out their primary attacker (I'm looking at you stage 2 decks), I personally feel that would lead to more intense games.

Which is why stuff like Gladion exists. Just increasing consistency across the board for the sake of increasing consistency isn't a good idea. You're removing the risk/ reward of playing certain decks by doing that and leaving other decks, that are just super consistent but not as powerful, weaker in the process. It's one of the reasons why I don't like Brigette. Brigette makes setup for stage 2 decks way too powerful and open brigette has become standard for just about every deck. Hell Raichu-GX is probably a better Turbo deck archetype than Darkrai simply because of it's access to Brigette.

Maybe I'm just a bad player, but honestly for me 70% of my opening plays are just Lele -> Brigette. There's not a whole heck of a lot of strategy on your first turn. If you prize Brigette, go for N or Sycamore. If your hand would be unplayable after a Brigette, then you would identify that and go for an N or Sycamore instead as well. There's really only 3 or 4 ways to open a game and it really is not that complex.

Before Brigette was a big thing navigating yourself through your deck skillfully to get the best possible turn one setup was what separated the great players from the good players.

Anyway, we're clearly looking at the same topic from 2 different angles which is fine. As I mentioned before, people hate change and you are a good example of that. You wouldn't like it if the prize system changed even if other people think it's "better." Pokemon has no business going out of its way to annoy its fanbase since people like me are just a minority anyway.

I don't hate change, I just don't think this change is a change for the good. It's just change because there's a mechanic that you don't like.

 

[Otaku]

I just can't see a way where this works out.

Whereas I can. Let's explore that.

If you have a 60 card deck + 6 extra "prize cards"...

Stop. I realize the original post by @Duo was edited, but even if it really sounded like he was proposing a 60+6 scheme, he's said he wasn't and he's corrected his original comment to avoid further confusion. The only reasons to bring this back up are to try and impugn Duo with it in some manner... or undermine reader's confidence in yourself. Let's not go there.

If you have a 54 card deck before shuffling and drawing that significantly changes the odds.

If you wish to make such an assertion, you must demonstrate how the difference is significant. I realize it will change the odds, but I don't think the change is significant to gameplay. After all, the Pokémon TCG uses 40 card decks for Limited, and has rules (only legal for Side Events) for 30 card decks? If you think this ruins a game mechanic, you'll need to demonstrate, or at least explain it a bit better... and if you do, then hopefully I'll agree with you. XD

If you shuffle, draw, then pick out 6 prize cards you've had an opportunity to look at your deck, meaning you have to shuffle all over again. The last one is less a balance problem (though once you know what your hand is being able to pick 6 cards that you are 100% sure won't hurt your opening strategy is... questionable) and more of a flow problem.

Not sure if this one was suggested earlier; it would slow things down a bit, but probably only by the time it takes to shuffle one extra time; an issue, but a pretty minor one. I already went on the record as stating I would allow players to select their Prize cards before drawing their opening hands, so I'm not too worried about it. I am a bit worried because you once again assert something is a problem without really explaining why; I have no issue with picking out the best six cards for your Prizes becoming a necessary Pokémon TCG skill, any more than I take issue with selecting a good sideboard and knowing what to change and what to keep being an essential skill for some games.

Look any card game is partly luck. You structure your deck around making the most out of the odds that you can, but sometimes you get dealt a terrible hand. Even if we change the prize mechanic this doesn't change that fact. The real solution is to have less cards that are so heavily reliant on clunky combos, but unfortunately that also has the potential to remove much of the skill from the game.

No one is challenging that most card games involve luck; that is usually why you make something a card game, to allow for the luck of the draw. Of course, one could design a card game to avoid this, but that's a discussion for another time, and also doesn't help further the discussion. No one is arguing that there should be no luck. Duo and I both think the Prize mechanic, as it is, adds more luck than skill to the game when the game doesn't need more luck.

Pokemon also allows for more copies of cards than other card games. Yugioh for example only allows 3 copies (for cards that aren't limited to 1 or two copies) in a 40-60 card deck, and has very weak draw support which can be disrupted by your opponent.

I am quoting you, CaptZero, but I hope Duo sees this as well; this isn't a good argument going either direction. Do either of you really want to compare and contrast these different games to justify your points? You're going to have to if you want an argument that holds water; being unique among games or matching conventional standards does not prove a particular mechanic good or bad, merely novel or common.

I'm saying that it changes the very nature of the beast that is Pokemon. A pokemon deck with 54 cards can play fewer basics and still consistently draw a basic on the opening turn (even though that's meant to be one of the downsides to playing a low basic Pokemon count.)

You need to demonstrate that these odds are such that it "ruins" the game. 54 is only 10% smaller than 60; if you want to make this argument, do the math and show me that it is a dramatic difference! If it isn't, then it is merely a difference, not good or bad. Don't forget, even if it is a dramatic difference, you'll still need to explain why it is bad; reducing the likelihood of mulligans sounds like a positive change.

Which is why stuff like Gladion exists. Just increasing consistency across the board for the sake of increasing consistency isn't a good idea. You're removing the risk/ reward of playing certain decks by doing that and leaving other decks, that are just super consistent but not as powerful, weaker in the process. It's one of the reasons why I don't like Brigette. Brigette makes setup for stage 2 decks way too powerful and open brigette has become standard for just about every deck. Hell Raichu-GX is probably a better Turbo deck archetype than Darkrai simply because of it's access to Brigette.

Useful to know, but it mostly sounds like we'll have to settle for "agree to disagree". This reminds me of debates about coin flips in the Pokémon TCG, at times when you usually had to flip multiple coins per turn. I bring that up because I hope that looking at a different issue in a similar manner can shed some light; if you love the coin flips, don't bother. If you don't like it when you've got to rely on coin flips, imagine a format where you had few - if any - decks that didn't require coin flips for Pokémon and for Trainers. Not all of each, but enough of both that even if you added Trick Coin to the card pool, it'd still too often dissolve into Flippymon.

I don't hate change, I just don't think this change is a change for the good.

I don't know you, so I'm not going to tell you that you hate all change. I will remind you that you've done a poor job explaining yourself, repeatedly asserting that a change is bad without backing it up with any facts. When someone is suggesting a change because they don't like a mechanic, have explained why they don't like that mechanic in some detail... is that really a good argument against them?

It's just change because there's a mechanic that you don't like.

Correct. There is a mechanic neither Duo nor I like. We have each explained why we don't like it; we feel it runs counter to the enjoyment of a good game to have yet another aspect of raw luck baked into the game. That, while overcoming bad luck with Prized cards allows one to demonstrate skill, it still means a net loss in the skill required to win. Because this seems unfair, we have argued that changing the Prize rules would be good, and have proposed changes.

How I wish you were starting to comprehend what we were saying instead of, as far as the context suggests, throwing that at us as an insult.

My apologies for the extreme length of this post.

 

[Duo]

Pokemon also allows for more copies of cards than other card games. Yugioh for example only allows 3 copies (for cards that aren't limited to 1 or two copies) in a 40-60 card deck, and has very weak draw support which can be disrupted by your opponent.

Pokemon does not allow for more copies than other card games. It allows for more copies than Yugioh. If you want me to get super picky about this, no one plays the 60 card Grass is Greener deck anymore and everyone runs 40 card decks or 41-42 with 2 to 3 pot of desires. 3 in 40 (7.5%) is already a better deck ratio than 4 in 60 (6.67%). The ratio is more important than the individual card counts.

Weiss Schwarz also allows 4 copies of a card in a 50 card deck and you still only open with the cards you need about 40% of the time, but at this point I'm digressing. As Otaku said, comparing a card game to another card game with a whole different set of rules, logic, and playstyle is basically pointless, so let's keep our discussion within the Pokemon TCG.

If you look at a starting deck of 54 cards with 4 copies, you go up from 6.67% deck distribution to 7.4%. Roughly 0.8% is not enough to fundamentally change an entire card game. And to be frank, have you even tried doing this yourself yet? I have, and even after I pick my 6 prizes and draw from 54, I can still open like crap with 2 energy, 2 choice band, 1 field blower, 1 GX Pokemon who isn't Lele, and 1 basic. Having a smaller deck doesn't mean that you're always going to open better. The game doesn't just favor your basic starter Pokemon over your choice bands, field blowers, rescue stretchers, rare candies, Guzmas, and energy cards. That's not how luck works.

I don't hate change, I just don't think this change is a change for the good. It's just change because there's a mechanic that you don't like.

You hate the change because the current prizing mechanic is a mechanic that you like, and you dislike my version of the mechanic, so it's the exact same thing. You don't want my change because you don't like it. I want change because I don't like how it is now. We're on the opposite side of the same lake which is why I originally said that we need to simply agree to disagree here.

You don't like Brigette, and I think the game absolutely NEEDS Brigette in its current state. A deck like Ho-Oh GX/Volcanion would just be tier 0 since it uses Kiawe and sometimes Brooklet Hill and not Brigette and would simply sweep set up decks who can't set up consistently without Brigette since their basics are never surviving the damage. Basic GX decks would completely take over the meta since people can just run Olivia instead for consistency and search 2 GXs and stick on fighting fury belt to withstand fire while set up decks will open a basic and watch it get KO'd on turn 3. Sounds pretty fair, fun, risk/reward to me. Assuming set up decks still find a way out of this, without Brigette, every game would just take longer on the set up phase. Competitive events are on a clock. Game mechanics that save time without breaking the game are always welcome in my book. Doesn't matter if you have 4 Ralts on bench if you have 2 Gardevoir prized, no Kirlia and no rare candy in hand. You as a player have to make playing that Brigette worth it or play around your prizes as you mentioned yourself, and if you can't do that you don't gain anything by playing the card anyway.

You don't like increasing consistency, I like increasing consistency. I'm just going to be straight up honest about this. I find it absolutely unreasonable when people say more luck improves or is better for competition. Luck and competition are literally polar opposites, which is why games like MOBAs and fighting games see some of the biggest competitive scenes. There is literally no luck outside of crit rate and minimal variance in damage calculation and you are directly and consistently rewarded for the time and effort you put into improving your skill. Luck is fun, but that's about it.

Card games thrive on the fundamental aspects of variance and gambling. Card games would not have longevity if there was literally no luck involved because every game would be identical, match ups would be purely predetermined, and people would get bored very quickly. A 30 minute match doesn't have the depth and fulfillment of, say, a 30 hour video game with replay value without the aspect of variance, and power creep can only do so much to keep people's interest (I'm looking at you Yugioh). You also have to appreciate the "spirit of gambling" in the sense that you are walking into a match expecting to draw better cards than your opponent, and whether or not you get a thrill from that kind of thing is COMPLETELY personal preference. This is the baseline for all card games, and prizing adds a bonus level of absolutely unnecessary variance. The prizing mechanic is mandatory as a win condition for the game, so as long as you don't remove prizes altogether, why does it matter whether they're random, chosen, or simply just prize tokens that you take like winning chips in Poker? (Pokemon won't do that because then it promotes gambling, law suits, etc etc) People are so used to how prizing works now that this question sounds absurd to just about everyone, but really sit down and play out a game where prizes aren't blind but still random and feel for yourself exactly how much the game changes.

If there was a point I wanted to hear you make, it would be the point that skill is already a prominent enough aspect of the Pokemon TCG, which it is. You can't explain how the same people are topping regionals, internationals, and going to worlds and topping at worlds other than by saying they have more skill and a better understanding of the game than other players. When 30% of people are playing Gardevoir GX but the same people are still topping, then clearly it's skill that separates players more than variance or prizes. Taking a hard loss to prizes is relatively rare, but the fact of the matter is because it happens to everyone, it inherently cancels itself out. All it boils down to is whether or not you prize 3 basics and auto lose at a league cup or you prize 3 basics and auto lose during top 4 at Worlds, and this is where we diverge. It seems to me that you enjoy this kind of "risk/reward." As far as I'm concerned, if I somehow magically made it to worlds, paid for my flight and hotel and planned out my whole trip just to show up and prize 3 basics, scoop, and go home, that is at the very least the most anticlimactic way to end a seasonal career.

And before you say it for me, yes if I dislike this mechanic so much then why do I still play? I don't, at least not competitively. I enjoy deck building, I like Pokemon as a franchise, and I LOVE full art supporters, but in order for me to take the TCG seriously at a competitive level, I want to see change. At the same time, Pokemon TCG isn't something that's supposed to be so complicated or difficult to get into (I love picking on Yugioh) and is the only TCG with specific age divisions, so for the 3rd or 4th time I'm going to say that I don't think prize rules will ever change. I will, however, put my foot down on this one and say that the prizing suggestions I have made make the game better than it is now - it's more fun to play casually, more consistent at a competitive level, and adds another layer of "prize building" on top of deck building which is my favorite step in the process of any TCG. I've tried it for myself and I love it, but of course I like my own idea, otherwise I wouldn't bother bringing it up. Anyone is welcome to tell me that I'm wrong and that the current game is better and that's fine. I support my own opinion just as others support theirs.

Anyway, before I make more people who have bothered to read my posts dislike me even more, I'm just going to stop here. We're going in circles and me posting any more basically has no value. I've already made my opinion clear enough so I'm done here.

 

[semurphy444]

Sadly I cant take credit for this idea, however I did hear someone propose a 13 card initial draw, where you keep 7 & prize 6. I feel this accomplishes the goals you're setting out- improve consistency, limit bad prizes, speed up play to figure out whats prized on initial search, however isn't as automatic as a guaranteed prize board.

 

[CaptZero]

Do either of you really want to compare and contrast these different games to justify your points?

I'll do a longer resupply to both of you later, but I'm at work so I just to specifically address this. I only mentioned it because the OP mentioned Pokemon having a relatively high card count for its decks. I was simply making a point that those comparisons were irrelevant.

@Duo don't forget that YuGiOh also limits powerful cards to one or two copies.

And yes, @Otaku removing 10% of your deck before drawing another 10% of your deck does makea statistically significant difference.

Honestly the way you argue your points @Otaku comes off as kinda rude. I mentioned the 60+6 again not because I had mistaken the op a second time... I was listing out variations on the same concept and pointing out my issues with each.

You hate the change because the current prizing mechanic is a mechanic that you like, and you dislike my version of the mechanic

Ugh, I hate it when people put opinions in my mouth in a discussion. I have no particular opinion on the current prize mechanic. It has its pluses and negatives. I simply think, subjectively*, that your idea is not good for the game.

 

[Otaku]

@CaptZero

Take your time, and answer back properly when you are able. The only thing I'm going to address before then is

Honestly the way you argue your points @Otaku comes off as kinda rude.

Okay. Does that make them less true? How do you think much of what you've said comes across to me?

I'll try to reign it in, which may mean dropping the discussion, as I am finding it frustrating.

 

[CaptZero]

Okay. Does that make them less true? How do you think much of what you've said comes across to me?

I'll try to reign it in, which may mean dropping the discussion, as I am finding it frustrating.

I'm looking over what i've said to you AND Duo and I can't for the life of me see where you think I might have been rude or come across as anything other than argumentative (which... is kind of the whole point of this thread... to debate on a topic).

Meanwhile my first interaction with you was:

Okay. Bye-bye*.

You're not exactly inviting conversation there...

If you wish to make such an assertion, you must demonstrate how the difference is significant. I realize it will change the odds, but I don't think the change is significant to gameplay. After all, the Pokémon TCG uses 40 card decks for Limited, and has rules (only legal for Side Events) for 30 card decks? If you think this ruins a game mechanic, you'll need to demonstrate, or at least explain it a bit better... and if you do, then hopefully I'll agree with you. XD

40 card decks are basically only used in prereleases... talking about offbeat events and side event rules is honestly irrelevant, especially considering that the last prerelease taught me just how important 60 card 6 prize games are to the TCG (Guzzlord the terrible =\).

Not sure if this one was suggested earlier; it would slow things down a bit, but probably only by the time it takes to shuffle one extra time; an issue, but a pretty minor one. I already went on the record as stating I would allow players to select their Prize cards before drawing their opening hands, so I'm not too worried about it. I am a bit worried because you once again assert something is a problem without really explaining why; I have no issue with picking out the best six cards for your Prizes becoming a necessary Pokémon TCG skill, any more than I take issue with selecting a good sideboard and knowing what to change and what to keep being an essential skill for some games.

I don't really understand why I should have to explain why it's not really a good idea to be able to pick prizes after you've seen your opening hand... Why can't you draw your next card after your opponent gets a KO before promoting a benched Pokemon to active? Having the knowledge of what you can't and can't do with your hand changes the strategy of how you'll play out your first turn. Being able to mold your deck into something that's more conducive to that strategy without playing any cards, just as part of the set up? It's zero risk, high reward.

No one is challenging that most card games involve luck; that is usually why you make something a card game, to allow for the luck of the draw. Of course, one could design a card game to avoid this, but that's a discussion for another time, and also doesn't help further the discussion. No one is arguing that there should be no luck. Duo and I both think the Prize mechanic, as it is, adds more luck than skill to the game when the game doesn't need more luck.

No matter how you design a card game some element of luck will be involved. No matter how you design any game some element of luck will be involved. As I said before what you do with this chance if what separates the best from the rest.

You need to demonstrate that these odds are such that it "ruins" the game. 54 is only 10% smaller than 60; if you want to make this argument, do the math and show me that it is a dramatic difference! If it isn't, then it is merely a difference, not good or bad. Don't forget, even if it is a dramatic difference, you'll still need to explain why it is bad; reducing the likelihood of mulligans sounds like a positive change.

10% is a significant difference... reducing the likelihood of mulligans is something that the player should've considered while making the deck. Mulligans are integral to the balance of Pokemon decks. It's that check/ balance the ensures that you are playing a decent amount of basics OR that you are risking something for shuffling your deck numerous times. Otherwise why don't we just allow people to pick their first basic every game? The answer is that that would make some decks way better than others by default (decks like Greninja for example).

Useful to know, but it mostly sounds like we'll have to settle for "agree to disagree". This reminds me of debates about coin flips in the Pokémon TCG, at times when you usually had to flip multiple coins per turn. I bring that up because I hope that looking at a different issue in a similar manner can shed some light; if you love the coin flips, don't bother. If you don't like it when you've got to rely on coin flips, imagine a format where you had few - if any - decks that didn't require coin flips for Pokémon and for Trainers. Not all of each, but enough of both that even if you added Trick Coin to the card pool, it'd still too often dissolve into Flippymon.

The difference is that no rule needed to be changed to avoid flippymon. The game naturally moved away from that mechanic and onto better risk reward mechanics. We're seeing now more interesting things being done with prizes. So far it's only Gladion and GX attacks, but who knows what the future holds?

I don't know you, so I'm not going to tell you that you hate all change. I will remind you that you've done a poor job explaining yourself, repeatedly asserting that a change is bad without backing it up with any facts. When someone is suggesting a change because they don't like a mechanic, have explained why they don't like that mechanic in some detail... is that really a good argument against them?

Come on man... this is a card game, everything is subjective. You can't say if on side is better than the other objectively because clearly we have different ideas of what makes this game work. I can't lay out formulas for you detailing why I don't like this idea, and I'm not being bullish about it and attacking you or your views on the game just because I don't agree with them... I've given what I believe to be pretty solid reasoning for my dislike of this change. I think it's a change that doesn't really add enough positive to offset what I find to be negative.

Correct. There is a mechanic neither Duo nor I like. We have each explained why we don't like it; we feel it runs counter to the enjoyment of a good game to have yet another aspect of raw luck baked into the game. That, while overcoming bad luck with Prized cards allows one to demonstrate skill, it still means a net loss in the skill required to win. Because this seems unfair, we have argued that changing the Prize rules would be good, and have proposed changes.

How I wish you were starting to comprehend what we were saying instead of, as far as the context suggests, throwing that at us as an insult.

My apologies for the extreme length of this post.

I understand that you don't like the mechanic. I'm saying not liking a mechanic isn't a good enough reason to change it, and even if there are good reasons to change it the solutions you've put forth aren't something I personally thinking will do the game any good.

But once again here comes to rude comments... I comprehend everything that you've said. It's not that I don't understand you... it's that I don't agree with you.

Having a smaller deck doesn't mean that you're always going to open better. The game doesn't just favor your basic starter Pokemon over your choice bands, field blowers, rescue stretchers, rare candies, Guzmas, and energy cards. That's not how luck works.

Of course it doesn't mean you'll always have a better start... but being able to choose the cards that you know you don't need right now and making sure they will be kept separated from your deck sure does help, and what concerns me more than the fact that it will help the odds is that it will help some decks more than it will help others.

You hate the change because the current prizing mechanic is a mechanic that you like, and you dislike my version of the mechanic, so it's the exact same thing. You don't want my change because you don't like it. I want change because I don't like how it is now. We're on the opposite side of the same lake which is why I originally said that we need to simply agree to disagree here.

As I said in my shorter post I hate it when people put arguments in my mouth.

You don't like Brigette, and I think the game absolutely NEEDS Brigette in its current state. A deck like Ho-Oh GX/Volcanion would just be tier 0 since it uses Kiawe and sometimes Brooklet Hill and not Brigette and would simply sweep set up decks who can't set up consistently without Brigette since their basics are never surviving the damage. Basic GX decks would completely take over the meta since people can just run Olivia instead for consistency and search 2 GXs and stick on fighting fury belt to withstand fire while set up decks will open a basic and watch it get KO'd on turn 3. Sounds pretty fair, fun, risk/reward to me. Assuming set up decks still find a way out of this, without Brigette, every game would just take longer on the set up phase. Competitive events are on a clock. Game mechanics that save time without breaking the game are always welcome in my book. Doesn't matter if you have 4 Ralts on bench if you have 2 Gardevoir prized, no Kirlia and no rare candy in hand. You as a player have to make playing that Brigette worth it or play around your prizes as you mentioned yourself, and if you can't do that you don't gain anything by playing the card anyway.

I don't like Kiawe either... I also don't like Gardevoir GX much. The game as a whole is leaning a lot more towards these fast explosive games, partly because of time limits in league cups in my opinion, and I don't enjoy that aspect of Pokemon TCG right now. It takes a lot of the skill out of the game and really makes a lot of matchups about who can set up faster. Can't hit your Brigette when the other guy did? SOoL.

You say that mechanics that speed up the game without breaking it... but in my opinion setting up at this blazing fast pace is breaking the game. The barrier for entry into Pokemon right now is at the bare minimum 2 Tapu Lele GX and 1 Brigette (for most decks). Not saying that this is somehow worse than the Shaymin era, but it's certainly no better.

You don't like increasing consistency, I like increasing consistency. I'm just going to be straight up honest about this. I find it absolutely unreasonable when people say more luck improves or is better for competition. Luck and competition are literally polar opposites, which is why games like MOBAs and fighting games see some of the biggest competitive scenes. There is literally no luck outside of crit rate and minimal variance in damage calculation and you are directly and consistently rewarded for the time and effort you put into improving your skill. Luck is fun, but that's about it.

I don't like increasing consistency without purpose. If you are consistently able to get everything that you need why shuffle your deck at all?

MOBAs =/= Cards

And even in MOBAs there's tons of chance involved. Do you team up with people? or do you let matchmaking do the work for you? Do you select each and every player so you know exactly what their connection and ping is?

All it boils down to is whether or not you prize 3 basics and auto lose at a league cup or you prize 3 basics and auto lose during top 4 at Worlds, and this is where we diverge. It seems to me that you enjoy this kind of "risk/reward." As far as I'm concerned, if I somehow magically made it to worlds, paid for my flight and hotel and planned out my whole trip just to show up and prize 3 basics, scoop, and go home, that is at the very least the most anticlimactic way to end a seasonal career.

Which is why at the big event you have bo3 format. It's not always about enjoying risk/reward... but good risk versus reward is the core of any good game. You like MOBAs. In a MOBA do the heavy damage dealers also have the highest health and the strongest crowd control?

When you play a heavy hitting in a MOBA you often risk dying more often for the reward of getting more kills.

In Pokemon the risk/ reward structure is built upon set up speed. What do you risk to play these huge Stage 2 Pokemon with amazing attacks, insane HP, and silly abilities right now? The answer is consistency. By playing stage 1 or basic GXs you dish out a little less but you also have much more consistency. If you start to chip away at that dynamic... why would you ever play a Basic or Stage 1 deck unless those decks are specially designed to combat Stage 2 decks? Then that's not very good balance because every card's design is either focused on dealing with Stage 2s or supporting Stage 2s.

And before you say it for me, yes if I dislike this mechanic so much then why do I still play?

Had no intention of saying anything of the sort. It's irrelevant.

 

[Otaku]

I'm looking over what i've said to you AND Duo and I can't for the life of me see where you think I might have been rude or come across as anything other than argumentative (which... is kind of the whole point of this thread... to debate on a topic).

Meanwhile my first interaction with you was:

...not what you quoted.

I like this even less honestly. If you choose your prizes before shuffling and drawing you can create a thinner deck, which means you'll naturally have better chances of getting a good opening hand. No matter how you slice this I'm against it.

Okay. Bye-bye*.

...

You made your position clear and made sure to state that it will not change. Ever. I'm stubborn in my own ways as well, but I also know I've changed my mind about all of this over the nearly two decades I've played. It takes skill to overcome bad luck, but that doesn't mean it is something to be encouraged. If it was, should we not pack this game as full of luck as we can? By no means! Additionally, while one player has a chance to demonstrate more skill (overcoming the luck), the other player now has a chance to only demonstrate the skill of maximising the impact of a lucky break. Part of what can make Pokémon a drag (instead of being fun) is when I realize I can't own my victories. =/

Could I have done better? Yes, that's actually why there is an asterisk after "Bye-bye", I meant to include a note in case it came across too seriously. Of course, I cannot prove that is why I had the asterisk there, but even if we disregard it, hey I was being a little rude to you being a little rude. You did nail a pet peeve of mine; asserting something without actually explaining it. Sometimes you would begin to explain it, but you never would finish. You also seem to ignore actual explanations. Now, disagreeing with them is fine... but you don't disagree, you just ignore. At this point, I am done giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you're still convinced you are absolutely right, then I guess that's cause for celebration.

 

[CaptZero]

...not what you quoted.

That was the first thing you said as a direct quote to me in this thread... if you were talking to me before that then I had no idea.

hey I was being a little rude to you being a little rude. You did nail a pet peeve of mine; asserting something without actually explaining it. Sometimes you would begin to explain it, but you never would finish. You also seem to ignore actual explanations. Now, disagreeing with them is fine... but you don't disagree, you just ignore. At this point, I am done giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you're still convinced you are absolutely right, then I guess that's cause for celebration.

I fail to see how anything I said could be considered rude, but you keep laying it on thick when it comes to your attitude to me. I honestly don't know what you want out of me in general... I state my opinions, why I hold those opinions, and the reasons I give are pretty self explanatory. If you have less cards and can choose which cards you are 100% sure you WILL NOT GET then that changes the outcome of the game. I don't know why I need to write a novel about this. I haven't disregarded anyone points unless they were blatantly irrelevant. I'm not here to assert how right I am. I'm here to have a discussion. What you're doing is ASSUMING that because I've taken a stance on something that I'm rigid and unmoving. You may be frustrated because I don't like your solutions... but that's not really my fault or my problem. You and @Duo are talking about changing the game, and a drastic change at that in my opinion. You can play test this all you want with a group of friends and come to your own conclusions, but at the end of the day that doesn't actually affect how we play Pokemon. If that were the case VGC would be using Smogon tiers and sleep clause. The reality is that neither you nor Duo have put forth an idea or argument that would garner any kind of attention that mattered.

Now that I have that out of my system I'm done being told that I began this whole cycle of rudeness as well as being told what my opinions are. Enjoy your speculation and theorycrafting about a rule that is here to stay.

 

[gregt]

In my opinion, the game should adopt the following mechanics:

No prizes at all for a lot of same the reasons detailed in OP's post. It can keep track like magic the gathering or yugioh. You have 6 life, and each KO'd Pokemon deduct 1 or 2 life depending on the type of pokemon. Prizes cause superior decks and players to lose when they shouldn't due to pure bad luck. (Ex, I used a game with my metagross gx deck where THREE metagross were prized. That's literally an autoloss with that deck.)

Side decks. Lots of games do this, it's a great idea. It opens the door for more deck variety because any deck can tech without sacrificing the main decks consistency and deck mechanic.

No more type weakness/resistance. No other card game I can think of does this because it can cause a vastly superior deck to lose to an inferior deck and Pokemon just because of typing. Decks should win or lose based on the merits of it's player and deck engine, not because of typing. No other card game does this for just that reason.

Those are just my opinions though.

 

[DragonFang101]

You little girls need to stop arguing. Pokemon ain't changing its gameplay method anytime soon XD

 

[DragonFang101]

In my opinion, the game should adopt the following mechanics:

No prizes at all for a lot of same the reasons detailed in OP's post. It can keep track like magic the gathering or yugioh. You have 6 life, and each KO'd Pokemon deduct 1 or 2 life depending on the type of pokemon. Prizes cause superior decks and players to lose when they shouldn't due to pure bad luck. (Ex, I used a game with my metagross gx deck where THREE metagross were prized. That's literally an autoloss with that deck.)

Side decks. Lots of games do this, it's a great idea. It opens the door for more deck variety because any deck can tech without sacrificing the main decks consistency and deck mechanic.

No more type weakness/resistance. No other card game I can think of does this because it can cause a vastly superior deck to lose to an inferior deck and Pokemon just because of typing. Decks should win or lose based on the merits of it's player and deck engine, not because of typing. No other card game does this for just that reason.

Those are just my opinions though.

I think you're absolutely right about the Weakness and Resistance aspect. There have been too many times when people choose not to play a whole deck just because of typing, that way there's more focus on the strategy.

 

[YuriGirl]

Personally, I'd rather see a card literally called "Prize Card". You get 6 of these with any starter deck, just as you get a coin, counters, etc. Prize Card would have 3 words printed on it: "Draw a card". They'd function exactly the same as any other card, KO a Pokemon, pick up 1 or 2 prize cards, pass the turn to your opponent. When used, they go to your discard pile, N can shuffle them back into your deck, so on and so forth. They'd also be their own unique 4th type of card. Neither Pokemon nor Trainer nor Energy, they'd just be Prizes. Drawing a Greedy Dice with a Prize Card would allow you to immediately use the Greedy Dice to draw another card. Gladion and Rotom Dex would function as normal (although probably not be very good). Town Map and Here Comes Team Rocket would be pretty useless unless used in combination with Rotom Dex.

 

[DragonFang101]

Personally, I'd rather see a card literally called "Prize Card". You get 6 of these with any starter deck, just as you get a coin, counters, etc. Prize Card would have 3 words printed on it: "Draw a card". They'd function exactly the same as any other card, KO a Pokemon, pick up 1 or 2 prize cards, pass the turn to your opponent. When used, they go to your discard pile, N can shuffle them back into your deck, so on and so forth. They'd also be their own unique 4th type of card. Neither Pokemon nor Trainer nor Energy, they'd just be Prizes. Drawing a Greedy Dice with a Prize Card would allow you to immediately use the Greedy Dice to draw another card. Gladion and Rotom Dex would function as normal (although probably not be very good). Town Map and Here Comes Team Rocket would be pretty useless unless used in combination with Rotom Dex.

Now that's a genius idea. With that kind of card, you don't have to worry about playing 1 of any card in your deck because you know it will be in your deck.

 

[Duo]

Personally, I'd rather see a card literally called "Prize Card". You get 6 of these with any starter deck, just as you get a coin, counters, etc. Prize Card would have 3 words printed on it: "Draw a card". They'd function exactly the same as any other card, KO a Pokemon, pick up 1 or 2 prize cards, pass the turn to your opponent. When used, they go to your discard pile, N can shuffle them back into your deck, so on and so forth. They'd also be their own unique 4th type of card. Neither Pokemon nor Trainer nor Energy, they'd just be Prizes. Drawing a Greedy Dice with a Prize Card would allow you to immediately use the Greedy Dice to draw another card. Gladion and Rotom Dex would function as normal (although probably not be very good). Town Map and Here Comes Team Rocket would be pretty useless unless used in combination with Rotom Dex.

This was something that I brought up briefly with the concept of "prize tokens" in a previous excessively long post, but I dismissed the idea for several reasons.

First being that this means you have your full 60 card deck. To maintain how prizes function for the game now, you ultimately have 54 cards to work with at the start of any game. There wouldn't be anything wrong with having your full 60 card deck every duel, but the fact of the matter is that prizing does help you thin that giant deck of yours. The number of times I've top decked an ultra ball or lele that I otherwise would not have drawn after prizing 6 is uncanny.

Second being that I'm looking to increase the game's consistency. It's interesting that N can be used to further disrupt your opponent by potentially shuffling their prize cards back into the deck so that they dead draw, but that takes away from the consistency and, at least in my opinion, is too much disruption and gives too much power to a card that's already run as a 4 of in standard and 2 to 3 of + 4 VS Seeker in expanded.

If I were to slightly modify this, I would say that the prize cards should function like Greedy Dice - they are played as soon as they are taken. This way you can have your cake and eat it too. Regardless of the whole N thing, it's kind of weird to not actually get your prizes until your next turn, if you catch my drift.

It's still a cool idea though. Has more ups than downs.

I think you're absolutely right about the Weakness and Resistance aspect. There have been too many times when people choose not to play a whole deck just because of typing, that way there's more focus on the strategy.

I think weakness/resistance is one of Pokemon TCG's methods of "power creep." Maybe power creep isn't the right word. It's more like their way of making sure the game is changing so that people don't just get bored playing 1 deck for a whole year. Casual players will still play whatever their favorite deck is, but competitive players will flock to the next best typing and the next best deck.

It also helps keep things in check, albeit in a sort of cheeky way. I'd say most people are thinking the new Solgaleo GX that was leaked in Japan is going to kill Gardevoir straight up. I'm certainly of that opinion, but it depends on whether or not things like Salazzle/Garbodor or Garbodor decks in general can keep that guy in check.

It's an interesting topic since weakness is pretty huge, but since this is also a card game, variance prevents any match up from being a true auto loss. I also think that it's mostly about having a triangle relationship, or larger to keep the meta interesting.

If the best deck is water, then people will run grass to counter it, which enables people to run fire to counter the counter with the risk of getting donked by the best water deck. But then let's say there's also a good dark deck which doesn't interact with any of the "big 3" on weakness and resistance, then people might start playing fighting type to challenge it. That sort of concept. It's never that black & white, especially if you look at our meta right now, but ultimately I think the relationship between the best decks and making the right "meta call" is one of the most difficult parts of being competitive.

 

[gregt]

If the best deck is water, then people will run grass to counter it, which enables people to run fire to counter the counter with the risk of getting donked by the best water deck. But then let's say there's also a good dark deck which doesn't interact with any of the "big 3" on weakness and resistance, then people might start playing fighting type to challenge it. That sort of concept. It's never that black & white, especially if you look at our meta right now, but ultimately I think the relationship between the best decks and making the right "meta call" is one of the most difficult parts of being competitive.

This is how I look at it, Pokemon is essentially juat a mirror of MTG. The colors got changed to types, and instead of a mana pool the mana get attached directly to the Creature/Pokemon. Like with magic, color doesnt really matter, its just to help manage mana and create cohesion amongst similar strategy cards. If a deck is good, it wins because it is good, and something like weakness isn't needed.

 

[Duo]

This is how I look at it, Pokemon is essentially juat a mirror of MTG. The colors got changed to types, and instead of a mana pool the mana get attached directly to the Creature/Pokemon. Like with magic, color doesnt really matter, its just to help manage mana and create cohesion amongst similar strategy cards. If a deck is good, it wins because it is good, and something like weakness isn't needed.

I think that's kind of how the game is working right now.

Gardevoir is weak to metal which means Metagross should be doing well, but since we also have Volcanion decks slaughtering literally everyone, Metagross can't stay around. That, and the fact that Sylveon GX makes the deck more consistent than Metagross with Ribbon and it can simply deny 2 Metagross with its GX attack means that Gardevoir doesn't auto lose to Metagross.

Bulu/Vikavolt is in that weird spot where it has no weaknesses, but its HP is pretty low and it relies on a stage 2 to deal consistent damage.

Greninja is still alive because shadow stitching on a 1 prize attacker is universally good, assuming you can even reach BREAK. But 2 regionals ago, a Volcanion list beat Greninja and they didn't have Ho-Oh GX, which I would say further reinforces fire decks as being a tier 1 seat since they can overcome their weakness without even relying on Giratina Promo. I don't know how that match up played out, but it happened so it's possible.

I say it a lot in the deck garage section when talking about card choices for people's lists, but I think that it is universally true that if you can OHKO your weakness, then you have a winnable match up. Volcanion vs Greninja is exactly that. Turtonator GX with FFB can OHKO Greninja BREAKs without a single steam up, and Greninjas can OHKO Turtonators and Volcanions with Moonlight + Choice Band. Actually, with FFB in play, Greninja would need either a Shadow Stitching the turn before or a Giant Water Shuriken to even OHKO with that since Turtonator with FFB is 230 HP and Moonlight + Choice Band is 110 at best, weakness for 220 so it's not an OHKO. I'd say Volcanion wins simply by vitrue of being a basic deck instead of a Stage 4.

We are very much currently in an OHKO mentality meta where all the best decks either OHKO or 2 hit KO with Garbodor, and Garbodor just serves to shut down abilities on the OHKO decks so that they are similarly forced to 2 hit KO with a less efficient 2 hit KO engine.

At least right now, I'd say our meta is in a state where weakness already doesn't matter.

 

[gregt]

But when weakness comes into play, you get good decks losing to bad decks because they were handicapped from the starts, and good decks overkilling in matches that was already in their favor because the already weaker deck was hobbled.

If a deck is good, it will win because it is good. It's a fact that resonates in every other card game community.

 

[gregt]

Weakness makes sense in the video game because your team consists of varying types so you can work around it. In the card game, your deck typically stays one or maybe two types, so when you encounter weakness you're just stuck. Imagine playing against a tough water gym in the video game and you can only bring fire Pokemon. The concept doesn't translate well to the cards.

 

[CaptZero]

Personally, I'd rather see a card literally called "Prize Card". You get 6 of these with any starter deck, just as you get a coin, counters, etc. Prize Card would have 3 words printed on it: "Draw a card". They'd function exactly the same as any other card, KO a Pokemon, pick up 1 or 2 prize cards, pass the turn to your opponent. When used, they go to your discard pile, N can shuffle them back into your deck, so on and so forth. They'd also be their own unique 4th type of card. Neither Pokemon nor Trainer nor Energy, they'd just be Prizes. Drawing a Greedy Dice with a Prize Card would allow you to immediately use the Greedy Dice to draw another card. Gladion and Rotom Dex would function as normal (although probably not be very good). Town Map and Here Comes Team Rocket would be pretty useless unless used in combination with Rotom Dex.

This is an interesting idea, but maybe prize cards could have more effects than just draw a card. In Pokemon a single or even a double draw isn't that good, and, in some rare cases you could end up in a scenario where you deck yourself out by prize drawing (unless the effect of the prize card can only be used on your turn, in which case maybe acquired prizes shouldn't be considered part of your normal hand?)

Weakness makes sense in the video game because your team consists of varying types so you can work around it. In the card game, your deck typically stays one or maybe two types, so when you encounter weakness you're just stuck. Imagine playing against a tough water gym in the video game and you can only bring fire Pokemon. The concept doesn't translate well to the cards.

Types and weaknesses would make more sense if a) they werent x2 but +30 our something and b) if they were more varied. Like golisopod gx should NOT be fire weak