Discussion Is "Weakness" Ruining the PTCG?

Green778

Green778

It's always darkest before the dawn...
Member
Hello everyone, Green778 here with another topic concerning the Pokemon franchise.

Hmm... Let me guess... You had played "Genesect/Virizion EX" and you faced a "Victini EX" with victory star or pyroar and lost or immediately conceded. Or you had that turn 2 "Lugia EX" for 3 prizes and had the game sealed in your hands and then you opponent benches the "Dedenne". Or a sudden "Raichu" KO on "Yveltal EX" for 200 damage. Or you were afraid of benching "Darkrai EX" because your opponent could 1 turn KO it with "Hawlucha". Or (lastly - admit it!) you were caught in a Mewtwo war?

Weakness was what defined the Pokemon Franchise in general. It took the easy-to-understand rock,paper,scissors mechanic and turned it into "Weakness". And in the games I am fine with it, in general. But everyone have felt "Why am I even using Shadow Circle in my Yveltal deck? Why do I always have to have a drudiggon FLF to KO a rayquaza? Or a beartic for Landorus EX and pyroar, a card which personally NEVER used in battle, although I had it in my deck.

So lets think of this. What if someone couldn't lose in a tournament because he faced the wrong matchup. A phrase that when I heard it I was like "Man nojonhs!", but when I experienced it I gave a written apology. Why does the game have to be decided in matchups and not plain and brutal strategy? Say you're a Mega Gardevoir player. Is it more fun to play a game versus P Kyogre EX, or Bronzong (metal link) ?

In conclusion, is the "Weakness mechanic" (and resistance) killing the game = taking all the fun out of it? Is it fair to lose by bare luck in a tournament, because of it and not by a brilliant opponent that just outsmarted you? I personally could wipe it out in a single second. I don't like to win by a hammerhead on Darkrai EX, but neither losing from it.

What do you guys think? Is this game mechanism so attached to the game it can't come off, or there are others that feel the same way like me and would agree?
 
RE: Is "Weakness" Ruining the PTCG

I am a Fire Emblem and Shin Megami Tensei fan, and just like in those games, Weakness is an important factor, and, like in those games, either you are prepared or you go home. Maybe weakness was a bit fairer in the DP/PT era, but, trust me, face a Toad with no Weakness and you'll regret it ;).
 
RE: Is "Weakness" Ruining the PTCG

Weakness adds balance. Without it cards would have little drawbacks and the metagame would be incredibly streamlined. Weakness is what makes most "techs" work. Weakness believe it or not is also new player friendly. It lets people figure out "counters" with relative ease unlike other TCG's where only the best players figure out counters.

Luck is a factor in any TCG. Without luck the very best players would win every tournament and it would not be as fun to the other players.
 
RE: Is "Weakness" Ruining the PTCG

I actually have thought for a while that weaknesses are a serious flaw in the way the Pokémon TCG is made. Flavor aside, weaknesses make the game more matchup dependent. Sure, you could argue that it allows for teching, but that's not the way teching should work--a tech should counter the strategy of a given deck, not "oh, I happen to deal 10 trillion damage to grass pokemon, lemme tech this in to counter all grass decks."

Of course, right now, the game sort of needs weaknesses based on the way cards are made--imagine Toad without a grass weakness lol. But I wish the game has been designed in such a way that weaknesses weren't a necessary mechanic--it feels very silly to lose matches because my deck just so happens to be weak to yours, after all, it's rare that a deck is played solely because it has a weakness advantage over another deck.
 
Weakness is not the problem, how binary the TCG has become is; either you win or lose. That shouldn't be determined before or during the match, only after. Many decks auto lose because of weakness. But going back to weakness, during the D/P era, weakness doesn't much of a problem as it wasn't always TIMES 2 and depended on what stage of evolution the Pokemon was. Basics that evolved had a weakness of +10, legendaries had x2 I believe and many Lv. X didn't have X2 weakness unless it was a legendary like Darkrai Lv. X for example.

Also, weakness isn't accurate in the TCG anyways. For example why aren't Pokemon that are ice type in the games weak to fire?

So to fix this problem, TPCI should go back to making weakness dependent on what card and Pokemon it is instead of always making weakness doubled damage.
 
I don't think weakness is a problem. It's been part of the game forever and is fundamental to Pokemon as a whole. I'd say weakness and resistance are as important as evolution with regards to the identity of Pokemon.

There are plenty of situations where a deck will overcome another despite weakness. Weakness is a big factor but I don't think it creates an autoloss. I think it's the deck's strategies that cause that.

Camoclone is right in that it's the first step to a new player understanding counters and how their deck might be countered (e.g. including a water type that is weak to metal or lightning rather than grass to lessen a grass deck's advantage)


asdjklghty said:
Also, weakness isn't accurate in the TCG anyways. For example why aren't Pokemon that are ice type in the games weak to fire?
Click to expand...

Because they are water types in the TCG. Without dual typed Pokemon, each with several weaknesses and resistances, and about 15 different types of basic energy there will never be the complexity of the video games type matchups. It's addressed by making "ice" types weak to metal or "flying" types resist fighting.
 
Sorry but i dont agree. Your concerning yourself with only a part of the game. There are numerous aspects that go into something of this nature that im sure the manufacturer tries and tests considerably before releasing to the public. You must realize that yes, when playing a casual game against friends or at the lcs on saturday the specific of weakness is enhanced to be somewhat more unfavorable. But when playing league or competition it balances itself out (provided you dont have too much info prior on what ithers are specifically playing) There ends up being an array of decks to match up against, some of what could possibly include weakness. Its the same as talking about not.drawing the "right cards" straight up or early in a match, sometimes it just happens and one needs to find it within themselves to come to this realization. There are just way to many variables in ptcg to justify wheather any one situation is right or wrong.
 
No, in fact weakness can help you make a lot of budget decks.

The real problem is resistance.

Not enough Pokemon have it, and it's seriously a huge issue that too many cards lack it. This game would be way more balanced if they did.

If people are sick of their super expensive cards getting smacked down by something with less rarity, then they should be looking at their own skill in the game, not the cards themselves.
 
Hmmm now that I think of it, maybe weakness could be more of the D/P era ? The "x2" is the main problem it seems. If it was +30 or +20 then I'm fine with it. I am fine as long as the "fun" isn't taken out of the game from unfair factors.
 
Green778 said:
Hmmm now that I think of it, maybe weakness could be more of the D/P era ? The "x2" is the main problem it seems. If it was +30 or +20 then I'm fine with it. I am fine as long as the "fun" isn't taken out of the game from unfair factors.
Click to expand...

Seismitoad EX is a good example as to why we need weakness at x2 Many EX Pokemon are a good example as to why we need it at x2.

But the thing is weakness isn't the problem.

It's poor card design mechanics that are the problem. Seismitoad EX is ruining the game, Gardevoir EX/Yveltal EX are a second coming of Mewtwo EX, then there's steel type decks which limit things,and obviously use Aegislash EX which makes many decks unusable if they rely on DCE.

I've honestly considered after set rotation hits, to simply play expanded format. Because unfortunately we get so many cards with great potential and the only thing stomping that potential out is an EX-Dominated format.

We need like, a pauper format for Pokemon or a non-EX format.
 
TokenDuelist said:
Green778 said:
Hmmm now that I think of it, maybe weakness could be more of the D/P era ? The "x2" is the main problem it seems. If it was +30 or +20 then I'm fine with it. I am fine as long as the "fun" isn't taken out of the game from unfair factors.
Click to expand...

Seismitoad EX is a good example as to why we need weakness at x2 Many EX Pokemon are a good example as to why we need it at x2.

But the thing is weakness isn't the problem.

It's poor card design mechanics that are the problem. Seismitoad EX is ruining the game, Gardevoir EX/Yveltal EX are a second coming of Mewtwo EX, then there's steel type decks which limit things,and obviously use Aegislash EX which makes many decks unusable if they rely on DCE.

I've honestly considered after set rotation hits, to simply play expanded format. Because unfortunately we get so many cards with great potential and the only thing stomping that potential out is an EX-Dominated format.

We need like, a pauper format for Pokemon or a non-EX format.
Click to expand...

To be honest I don't have a problem with EX's. I really find them pretty nice. They have awesome designs and cool moves. Now, I am 100% sure that seismitoad EX should be banned, as I have posted my opinion in "Should Seismitoad EX be banned?". BUT I agree with you that we live in a "EX" world right now. Personally speaking, I find the most balanced decks in favour of Stage 1-2 and EX's to be Blastoise, Landybats, Fairy. I always believed that stage 1-2 should act as support pokemon to the "big guns (aka Exs)" and that the D/P was the most deep and exciting format, but remember how the "SP" pokemon from that time dominated the format: They were "basic". As long as strong basic pokemon exist things will remain the same.
 
We have a thread for discussing Seismitoad's "banning". Please discuss it there unless you are focusing on the weakness aspect to it. Thanks :D!
 
Seismitoad seems to be the only thing people are considering about when talking about why we need weakness. But what about the Megas and Primals with 200+ HP? The Primals are insanely hard to take down without grass types, M-Manectric would rule if it wasn't for [F] types as it survives basically every other attack, and the upcoming Mega-Ray would be ridiculous without the weakness (as we probably will see with use of Altaria).
 
They could always leave EX weakness at 2x, but start printing some cards that are merely +20 or +30 going forward.
 
Spiffo said:
They could always leave EX weakness at 2x, but start printing some cards that are merely +20 or +30 going forward.
Click to expand...

That's a great idea! Or have again +20, +30 and a card effect or stadium which will make it x2
 
If you took out weakness, the game wouldn't have much reason to have different types. The only things types would be for are limiting how many different Pokemon you could easily play in a deck together, or stuff like Dive Ball.

The thing about weakness is, when done correctly, it gives decks a way to prepare for their bad matchups. If you're playing a deck that has a bad matchup against Seismitoad (Say, Night March/Flareon), without weakness, you'd be stuck with a pretty solid auto-loss. With Weakness, you can easily splash Leafeon in there, and hit back hard enough to make it a fighting chance. At least one of those scenarios you listed was "I'm winning way faster than should be reasonable, but my entire day is ruined because someone can take two prizes in one turn when I've already taken three." The way I've seen most weaknesses used, is to tech against bad matchups.

You mentioned Mewtwo EX as well; if Mewtwo didn't have a weakness, what would have been able to stop a Mewtwo with a ton of energy before it takes 2-4 prizes? I'm assuming you're talking about the format where Mewtwo wars were common, which was really before much else could hit for 170 in one turn. The only thing I can remember back then that could was Magnezone Prime. Mewtwo "wars" were a necessity back then, because it was one of the very few ways to fully stop a rampaging Mewtwo. Think of the decks that focused on Mewtwo because of its attack, not the fact that it could KO another Mewtwo. The decks that started the trend of Mewtwo becoming popular. They didn't use Mewtwo because it hit something for weakness. They used it because it hit efficiently with as many energy as you could throw on it. Pretty much any deck could throw a Mewtwo in it to at least wipe several energy off the board with little effort, to at least slow down a Mewtwo-focused deck. For example, that's how I ran Typhlosion back then. I stopped an over-energized Mewtwo with my own, then when my Mewtwo gets return KOd, I send out Typhlosion to eat away at the energy on the new Mewtwo. Typhlosion would almost always get a favorable prize trade due to the opponent not being able to attach 4 energy in one turn. If I didn't have that Mewtwo to wipe their first one, my deck couldn't have functioned like that.

Overall, weakness stops any one deck from becoming *too* powerful, if it's used properly. When one deck becomes too strong, it doesn't take everyone building new decks to stop it. It just takes a few decks adding a Pokemon or two that can hit for weakness to drop that deck's effectiveness.
 
Personally I think weakness needs to exist, but that 2x is way too much. In the video game 2x weakness is fine since people aren't going to run 6 pokemon of the same type (I mean you would have the same kind of problem as is discussed here if people were forced to use 2 types max in the video game and dual types didn't exist). However in TCG you really can't run all different types in the same deck as you need all different types of energy to power it and that would take up too many cards. Because of this weakness should probably be reduced to +30 instead of 2x damage similar to D/P. I like the idea of weakness policy with the pokemon losing its weakness, but it is too situational as it will be useless in most decks you face and since it only works on 1 pokemon, it won't make much of a difference if you are facing a team you are weak against. What I would love to see however is a stadium similar to Magnetic Storm (all resistances are removed) where all weaknesses are removed. First this affects all pokemon so it would have much more affect than Weakness Policy as if it stays in play all game you are set. Also it adds much more incentive to play a sort of risk reward strategy with it. Yes it might be useless in 80-90% of your games but it will actually have the potential to be useable in a deck and win you games, unlike Weakness Policy.
 
Last edited:
One of the problems is that Resistance is a paltry -20, compared to x2 weakness, and most cards printed recently don't even resist anything. Usually the only resistances you see are the Colorless Flying-types resisting Fighting, Fairies resisting Dark, Electric resisting Steel, and the occasional Ghost-type resist Fighting and Dark resisting Pyschic. Quick look through Roaring Skies, Grass, Fire, Water, Psychic, Fighting, Dragon, and Normal have no resistances. So only two types automatically pack resistance, while 7 do not have any. Almost every card, save Shedinja, has a weakness.

So weakness is more widespread and way more powerful than resistance, so the advantage of picking a type of Pokemon, is to hit for weakness, not resist particular types.
 
Snyder005 said:
Quick look through Roaring Skies, Grass, Fire, Water, Psychic, Fighting, Dragon, and Normal have no resistances. So only two types automatically pack resistance, while 7 do not have any. Almost every card, save Shedinja, has a weakness.
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken there haven't been any cards printed that resist water in the XY block. I find it interesting that resistance is the one attribute of a card that hasn't creeped in power as well, especially considering many cards in base set had -30 resistance.
 
I think that the fact that most cards aside from the EX cards in every set are near unplayable is what is throwing the tcg out of balance. At least in gen 3 you had to evolve into your EX cards. I have had this discussion countless times with competitive and casual players and i have to say, i think EX cards can have a place in the game, but the way Pokemon prints their TCG sets over the last year and a half especially, its making the game very reliant on 10 percent of the card base and the other 90% of the cards are suffering. This is the 3rd generation in which Pokemon has implemented the EX card, and I personally feel like after roaring skies they should be done away with. I do not think that you would necessarily see more diversity in the metagame, but i feel like certain cards, a la Toad and Lugia EX, kind of detract from the overall quality of the game by the strength of their printing. Im sorry, but no one should be able to take more than 2 prizes at a time within the first couple turns of the game. its kind of ridiculous. That all being said, i think the EX's are well balanced between each other, just not balanced well with the rest of the cardpool. I get that not all cards were meant to be playable, but a good 60-70% of them should be, and thats not the case these days. Weakness has nothing to do with why the game is imbalanced, it is an important mechanic of the game that has been around since its inception and should not be eliminated by any stretch. I do also agree with some of the above comments, I feel that resistance needs to be brought back to some extent, it gives cards that weren't originally that strong a much better chance, and it helps balance typing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top