Discussion Making Pokemon TCG More Complex

Scraggy559

Aspiring Trainer
Member
Hey, Pokemon players! So I know that Pokemon is one of the most simplest trading card games there is to date compared to other tcg's such as Yu-Gi-Oh and Magic The Gathering. I have family that play a lot of Yu-Gi-Oh and I grew up with it around, but was never a big fan due to BS card rulings or long, overly complicated texts. When I compare it side-by-side with Pokemon, I notice there is more interaction between players in Yu-Gi-Oh (ex: interrupting opponents on their turn for trap/spell activations). So, getting to the point, I was wondering how the Pokemon community would add a little zest to make the Pokemon game just a little more complex. Now believe me, I love the way the tcg works. It's simple, easy to understand, and fun to play for anyone! Thanks for the read!
 

Otaku

The wise fool?
Member
@Scraggy559 How much research have you done with respect to the Pokémon TCG?

The designers have created a few such cards for the Pokémon TCG. Wasn't actively playing at the time, so I don't remember how well they went over. Sometimes the designers abandon something because it cannot work, other times because it does not work. The difference is pretty important because something that cannot work will never work no matter how many times you try it, while something that does not work is down to the specifics of the execution. Some things have been tried, failed, but then were tweaked and brought back and are now an established part of the game. Some have been tried, failed, and never seen again. Still others have been tried and failed, then were tweaked and retried again but failed (sometimes repeating this pattern as the designers really want to get it right).

Ask yourself something; reading your post you're frustrated by the rulings messes that often occur in Yu-Gi-Oh; might that not be because the game is needlessly complex? Pokémon needs to simplify more than it needs to become more complex; while you might catch me advocating for something like more Types or Dual Types as a "regular" thing, that is supposed to be with the caveat "Because the designers aren't going to do what we really need and overhaul the TCG Type system to simplify it." ;)
 

Asmer

Keep the High Tide on the Flipside
Member
Well, in what regard do you mean "complex"?
Do you intend to make the game more difficult in regards to the swing/state of winning and losing? For example, it becomes much more difficult to win once your opponent has a strong set-up or situation (locks, loops, etc.)?
Do you intend to create a game that is harder to understand as a general via rulings and game mechanics?

Unfortunately, what you request from us is a very broad statement. There are numerous ways that one can create a more complex game (in general and using the current state of PTCG) and if you are simply asking for various opinions, then I will state that I would love for EX Pokemon to be completely eradicated once again along side with a format with little (not zero) energy denial and no viable (or remotely viable) mill strategies (surprising if you know who I am at all btw xP). I feel this way because I feel that it forces players to play a slower, more critically important mental game of strategy that focuses on either playing around lower HP, albeit stronger, Basic Pokemon, or stronger, albeit harder to set up, Evolutionary Pokemon. That said, details would have to be worked out once more and I simply have no patience for such things (not to mention, I like PTCG as it is. That would simply be my change if there was one).

Finally, to indirectly answer your "frustration" of rulings of other games... Think about Yugioh for a moment. The game isn't well structured as a general and, coming from a person who had played it for about 10-12ish years (and is still technically part of a team who continuously plays), much of its complexities/structure has remained the same. Yugioh, however, was always and will always be a game of discovery, much like MTG. Players always find interesting ways of creating complicated locks or OTKs or situations of forcing the opponent to overextend to potentially win. That's simply how the game is and even with its silly rulings at times, that is simply how the game is going to be (Note: Don't listen to Konami and their attempts at banning various cards. There's another reason for that whole mess, but that's another topic for another time and another place). It's the same with Pokemon. The game, as Otaku mentioned, has had multiple trial periods of experimentation and this seems, at least for now, to be the best fit for a competitive format (which is what matters most to the company considering they profit off of such things etc.). Will the game change during Sun/Moon? Yes. How much? We'll see.

So, I hope that answers both your question and gives you a lighter perspective on the topic of complexity in these multiple card games. It is a fun thing to think about and, quite frankly, I'm glad you asked this question. We should all be pondering such questions when we all enjoy the same hobbies because that leads to suggestions that these companies may or may not use in the future.

Also, Otaku... you still have a lot of growing to do, it seems. <3

-Asmer
 

Otaku

The wise fool?
Member
There are numerous ways that one can create a more complex game (in general and using the current state of PTCG) and if you are simply asking for various opinions, then I will state that I would love for EX Pokemon to be completely eradicated once again along side with a format with little (not zero) energy denial and no viable (or remotely viable) mill strategies (surprising if you know who I am at all btw xP). I feel this way because I feel that it forces players to play a slower, more critically important mental game of strategy that focuses on either playing around lower HP, albeit stronger, Basic Pokemon, or stronger, albeit harder to set up, Evolutionary Pokemon. That said, details would have to be worked out once more and I simply have no patience for such things (not to mention, I like PTCG as it is. That would simply be my change if there was one).

Many have decried Pokémon-EX for speeding up the pace of the game. Looking at the actual data, I believe that it isn't the Pokémon-EX game mechanic, but the general design practices seen on all Pokémon. There are two main aspects to it, I believe. First Pokémon-EX are worth two Prizes when KO'd which does speed the game up if Pokémon-EX are able to be more quickly KO'd than two non-Pokémon-EX (worth a single Prize). However if Pokémon-EX are proportionately no faster to KO, then they will not speed up the pace of the game for this reason.

The second is how quickly a Pokémon-EX can attack for a significant amount of damage; Pokémon-EX that prove competitive often have improved damage or effects for the Energy invested in them but this is not a mechanical necessity of the design; the only thing absolutely guaranteed of a Pokémon-EX is that it is worth an extra Prize (as per the rules text on the card). Based on examples, it is also guaranteed at least a 20 HP bump (though I may have missed an exception to this) and it will either be a Basic Pokémon or a Mega Evolution. Many Pokémon-EX have better effects than we would see on their regular counterparts, but this is not guaranteed, or at least there are several Pokémon-EX that aren't particularly good and were not particularly good when they released. As such, blaming Pokémon-EX as a whole for the questionable design decisions that made certain Pokémon-EX overly powerful is incorrect; the same design principles that led to such Pokémon-EX have led to similar problem Pokémon, Trainers, and Energy elsewhere.

I do have a complaint that is specific to Pokémon-EX, but that is because when the concept was introduced it served a useful role; allowing "Legendary Pokémon" a means to be as potent as they often are in the video games while still keeping them balanced with respect to other Pokémon. Unfortunately this was abandoned in the twilight of the BW-era, and the XY-era used them to bring Mega Evolutions to the TCG. I would much rather Pokémon-EX had remained an option only for Legendary Pokémon.
 

crystal_pidgeot

Bird Trainer *Vaporeon on PokeGym*
Member
For one thing, there needs to be player interaction so more cards should be made that can be used on your opponents turn. Next thing to do is make cards less powerful. I'd also like to see streamline rules. For example, some events are best of 3 and other are just a single game. I'd also like for them to stop changing rules so much because all it does it break cards and ruins interactions between them. I'd also like to see a side deck added to the game and just card balance overall.
 

normanc

Aspiring Trainer
Member
There are reasons for these. BO3 and single-game series both have their applications- one is more suitable for a shorter, more casual tournament format while the other works better for larger tournaments. They don't change rules very often, and when was the last time a rule change "broke" a card in a way that was (at least) arguably negative for the game? Side decks don't exist likely to increase simplicity and make the game more accessible. I like that the lack of a side deck also makes card choices more important.

Balance is definitely something I wish they would work on though. Too many useless non-evolving basics!
 

Asmer

Keep the High Tide on the Flipside
Member
However if Pokémon-EX are proportionately no faster to KO, then they will not speed up the pace of the game for this reason.

Except we know that this isn't the case because balancing as a general is a very, very difficult thing for any company to do. xP

That said, I do agree with the notion of slower support in tandem to the relegation/relinquishing of EX Pokemon (as a theoretical). We would essentially go back to the beginning sets of the game if we had the draw power/energy support/energy denial as we once had (Scyther, anyone?). The game would have to go through a full re-balance, from deciding which Evolutionary and Basic Pokemon should be more/less powerful when it comes to ratios of HP and Damage etc etc. That's also why I stated I like how the game is now, but I felt it polite to answer the OP's question anyway. That said, I do like how they balanced Mega Pokemon. Losing a turn and then adding items that prevent that was a simple idea, but absolutely crucial in my opinion.

I'm honestly curious about how effective the GX system will be and, to further encourage your point about EX Pokemon being Legendary-only at first, I think GX Pokemon should have followed the same (I believe Umbreon of all things is a GX? I'll re-check later). I think that if they had reverted to a system that made Legendary Pokemon noticeable once more, I would have quite a wonderful feeling of nostalgia and I feel it would allow Legendary Pokemon to seem more... Legendary.
 

crystal_pidgeot

Bird Trainer *Vaporeon on PokeGym*
Member
There are reasons for these. BO3 and single-game series both have their applications- one is more suitable for a shorter, more casual tournament format while the other works better for larger tournaments. They don't change rules very often, and when was the last time a rule change "broke" a card in a way that was (at least) arguably negative for the game? Side decks don't exist likely to increase simplicity and make the game more accessible. I like that the lack of a side deck also makes card choices more important.

Balance is definitely something I wish they would work on though. Too many useless non-evolving basics!

You can have all of those things and still have a simple game. All they do is make the game better. Rules of a game should be streamline. The reason Bo3 was added was to help give a player a better change at a competitive game if they bricked game one or two. Bo3 should be standard no matter the environment - even more so when points are on the line.

The rules also change to better fit card design and this is the wrong way to do it. Cards should be designed for the rules. There is nothing wrong with attacking the first turn of the game. The problem is with the way cards are designed. Setup attacks like Call for Family should be usable by the player going first. As for side decks. All CCG's should have them. Its a way to give players options to deal with matchups they would otherwise lose in. We don't have to main deck something like Pokemon Ranger or that one of card for a match you may never see. If anything, it will be more people into the game who expect something more competitive. Card choices will always be more important but there is a difference between blaming the player for not adding what they thought they didn't need and having good rules for a game. You shouldn't expect players to act against their own interest for the sake of a matchup.
 

Asmer

Keep the High Tide on the Flipside
Member
As for side decks. All CCG's should have them.

In all honesty, I disagree and will further note that this is one of the main reasons I think PTCG is better than other competitive card games at the moment. The lack of having a sideboard forces you to not only think of options that you may need, but forces you to risk drawing in to those options in moments you may not need them. If anything, it allows for what could be extremely consistent decks to be slightly less consistent, which can make a world of difference when it comes down to being able to beat them. I would personally hate to see power-scaling decks like M Mewtwo and decks like Volcanion become much more powerful/consistent because they would no longer need to main cards like Hex Maniac, Pokemon Ranger, Garbodor, certain Stadiums, etc.

-Asmer
 

crystal_pidgeot

Bird Trainer *Vaporeon on PokeGym*
Member
In all honesty, I disagree and will further note that this is one of the main reasons I think PTCG is better than other competitive card games at the moment.

You are free to disagree if you like but I would like a reason as to why this is a better design since its a proven concept.

The lack of having a sideboard forces you to not only think of options that you may need, but forces you to risk drawing in to those options in moments you may not need them.

Why is this a good thing? To me, as a game designer, this is of bad design. You should NEVER punish a player like that. In games, you need to make sure your players have all the options they need to correctly play your game and forcing them into something is something that should be avoided whenever possible. If a player experiences a loss of control, you lose that player. Side decks are designed so a player doesn't have to risk such a thing. This is like driving a car that may stop working while you drive. You can see the issue with such a design, right?

If anything, it allows for what could be extremely consistent decks to be slightly less consistent, which can make a world of difference when it comes down to being able to beat them.

That sounds like a problem with card design, not side decks.

I would personally hate to see power-scaling decks like M Mewtwo and decks like Volcanion become much more powerful/consistent because they would no longer need to main cards like Hex Maniac, Pokemon Ranger, Garbodor, certain Stadiums, etc.

You also have options you can side against them to have a better defense. If you're scared of M Mewtwo-EX, side in 4 Mewtwo from Evolutions and things to hurt that matchup. If you want to go full mega mewtwo counter, you can run complete energy removal and win that matchup. The choice is yours.
 
Last edited:

Otaku

The wise fool?
Member
You are free to disagree if you like but I would like a reason as to why this is a better design since its a proven concept.

Is it a proven concept? I'm not a Magic: The Gathering player so I have to take people's word for it that Side Boards are helpful to Magic: The Gathering. Yes, I can legitimately be skeptical of it because the basic premise is instead of creating a well balanced game where my complete and total deck is never too badly advantaged or disadvantaged versus another, the designers couldn't manage that so now somehow having up to 15 cards on the side that I can swap in on games 2 and 3 is supposed to balance things out. What I do know is that in Yu-Gi-Oh, the same mechanic under a different name (Side Deck) didn't balance the game out while I played. Strong strategies became stronger because you had 15 cards to cover any chinks in their armor and/or to punish anyone for playing something that could be countered.

I view the need for a Side Board/Deck the same as I view the need for a rule that players must "discard down" their respective hands at some point during the turn; it is a patch to fix a problem in the base design of the game. Now if we start with that premise, I understand why people want a Side Board for Pokémon; I believe it would do more harm than good, but the direction of Pokémon is such that many decks wish they could swap counters for various other decks in and out. In the long run though the problem is, as stated, with the direction of the game and game design. Take what one thinks we need a Side Board to counter and ask "Wait, should this be a thing in the first place?" I'd say most of the desire stems from the abundance of filler cards, including near misses. I often find myself thinking "If only I had room for both B and C with A, because then I could cover all match-ups reasonably well!" However I don't then think I need a Side Board because once I do that, I won't just need A+B+C, but probably A+B+C+D, and maybe +E as well, because now all the competitive decks also get this same trick.
 

crystal_pidgeot

Bird Trainer *Vaporeon on PokeGym*
Member
Is it a proven concept? I'm not a Magic: The Gathering player so I have to take people's word for it that Side Boards are helpful to Magic: The Gathering. Yes, I can legitimately be skeptical of it because the basic premise is instead of creating a well balanced game where my complete and total deck is never too badly advantaged or disadvantaged versus another, the designers couldn't manage that so now somehow having up to 15 cards on the side that I can swap in on games 2 and 3 is supposed to balance things out. What I do know is that in Yu-Gi-Oh, the same mechanic under a different name (Side Deck) didn't balance the game out while I played. Strong strategies became stronger because you had 15 cards to cover any chinks in their armor and/or to punish anyone for playing something that could be countered.

I view the need for a Side Board/Deck the same as I view the need for a rule that players must "discard down" their respective hands at some point during the turn; it is a patch to fix a problem in the base design of the game. Now if we start with that premise, I understand why people want a Side Board for Pokémon; I believe it would do more harm than good, but the direction of Pokémon is such that many decks wish they could swap counters for various other decks in and out. In the long run though the problem is, as stated, with the direction of the game and game design. Take what one thinks we need a Side Board to counter and ask "Wait, should this be a thing in the first place?" I'd say most of the desire stems from the abundance of filler cards, including near misses. I often find myself thinking "If only I had room for both B and C with A, because then I could cover all match-ups reasonably well!" However I don't then think I need a Side Board because once I do that, I won't just need A+B+C, but probably A+B+C+D, and maybe +E as well, because now all the competitive decks also get this same trick.

The whole thing starts at better card design. With Yugioh, they design the cards with money in mind but they use a lot of thing wrong. Their ban list is made to make the last sets cards useless and acts as their format rather than removing unhealthy cards from the game, like how a ban list is supposed to be. I don't think I would use Yugioh as an example of mechanics working right.
 

Asmer

Keep the High Tide on the Flipside
Member
To add on the note of card design, and I just thought of this... would Sideboarding really be beneficial in a game where energy denial is so easily available and effective? I can imagine just how many people would complain about the fact that people can simply utilize cards like Team Flare Grunts and Crushing Hammers as Sideboard staples and just how ridiculous the prices are of those cards now etc etc.

Also, it has not been proven in any regard that Sideboarding is a "better" design. In the games that it is prevalent (Yugioh, Magic, Buddyfight if anyone plays that game), it is necessary because there is a massive lack of balance within the game structure otherwise. I'll use MTG since that's the game I have been most recently associated with. Without a sideboard, certain Modern decks would be out of control (Affinity comes to mind as something that would only gain more benefits from a lack of SB availability) and this is because, as both you and Otaku have mentioned, the card design itself is an issue. Affinity has the ability to essentially drop a massive amount of damage in a very small amount of time when it has a remotely decent hand and, while RNG does play against it more often than other decks, it still has the consistency to remain a viable option and has for years now. Now, imagine, and this has happen this year, the power of Affinity when it was Tier 1. Now, imagine it without any real answer available to it. Is that honestly an issue of no sideboard or an issue of card design?

The tricky part about this whole argument is that Sideboarding was an answer to a lack of balanced and proper card design to allow these companies to continue to create variant cards for profit purposes. The big thing is that Pokemon really doesn't need this form of balance at all. The game, believe it or not, has run rather smoothly since BW with the exception of Pokemon Catcher being such a massive deal (pre-nerf) and you can argue, to an extent, Night March, but even that was not impossible to beat. Neither truly require something such as a sideboard.

Also, I have a feeling I'll be missing points I want to make (lack of consistent sleep does that). I'll do what I can to fill in details once I realize what I'm trying to fill in.

-Asmer
 

Asmer

Keep the High Tide on the Flipside
Member
The whole thing starts at better card design. With Yugioh, they design the cards with money in mind but they use a lot of thing wrong.

You literally made the point I was trying to make. Dang it...
But, if you understand this as a concept... why would you argue in favor of sideboarding? It's the same concept amongst all the games that utilize this method/formula.

Also, please try not to argue that WotC and other various companies do not try to design cards based around making money. That is a clear lie and I would rather not go in to Corporate 101.
 

crystal_pidgeot

Bird Trainer *Vaporeon on PokeGym*
Member
You literally made the point I was trying to make. Dang it...
But, if you understand this as a concept... why would you argue in favor of sideboarding? It's the same concept amongst all the games that utilize this method/formula.

Also, please try not to argue that WotC and other various companies do not try to design cards based around making money. That is a clear lie and I would rather not go in to Corporate 101.

Money is always a factor since they want to sell cards but Yugioh uses their ban list for this reason. ban last "seasons" top cards and boss cards to sell the next top and "boss" cards. MtG is always bought up because they understand how to design cards and they are normally a good standard when referencing mechanics. MtG doesn't use their ban list the same way Yugioh does (at least to my knowledge). Yugioh designs cards with the ban list in mind, which isn't how this should work. Cards should be designed around the games mechanic.

With Pokemon moving into a more evolution based format, the design of decks will change, moving back to 20+ Pokemon in a deck since boss Pokemon will more than likely be stage 2 again. Having a side deck means you can have a better designed deck and this is what I'm hoping for with S/M format. As it stands now, we will have BW/XY cards interacting with SM cards and this is going to end up being a mess. We will have old mechanics and new mechanics mixing.
 

Asmer

Keep the High Tide on the Flipside
Member
Money is always a factor since they want to sell cards but Yugioh uses their ban list for this reason. ban last "seasons" top cards and boss cards to sell the next top and "boss" cards. MtG is always bought up because they understand how to design cards and they are normally a good standard when referencing mechanics. MtG doesn't use their ban list the same way Yugioh does (at least to my knowledge). Yugioh designs cards with the ban list in mind, which isn't how this should work. Cards should be designed around the games mechanic.

Fair. Konami is infamous for utilizing the ban list to influence new product sale.

With Pokemon moving into a more evolution based format, the design of decks will change, moving back to 20+ Pokemon in a deck since boss Pokemon will more than likely be stage 2 again. Having a side deck means you can have a better designed deck and this is what I'm hoping for with S/M format. As it stands now, we will have BW/XY cards interacting with SM cards and this is going to end up being a mess. We will have old mechanics and new mechanics mixing.

I suppose, but I feel that the current formula isn't necessarily stale enough to warrant the addition of a sideboard. Also, that's going to cause major issues in Expanded, which, unlike Standard, would be forced to go through major changes as far as bans etc. That seems like it would cause more than good. That said... I cannot predict the future, so perhaps there will be a time for sideboards to be introduced after all.
 

crystal_pidgeot

Bird Trainer *Vaporeon on PokeGym*
Member
Fair. Konami is infamous for utilizing the ban list to influence new product sale.



I suppose, but I feel that the current formula isn't necessarily stale enough to warrant the addition of a sideboard. Also, that's going to cause major issues in Expanded, which, unlike Standard, would be forced to go through major changes as far as bans etc. That seems like it would cause more than good. That said... I cannot predict the future, so perhaps there will be a time for sideboards to be introduced after all.

As for Expanded. That is a format they should remove all together.
 

Otaku

The wise fool?
Member
I was wondering how the Pokemon community would add a little zest to make the Pokemon game just a little more complex.

In the spirit of the original post, I remembered a direction I would like to see the game take. You know where I would like to see a little more complexity?

HP Scores and coin flips... which can be taken very differently than I mean, so I'll unpack this a little.

For HP, I just mean that while keeping damage output consistent, HP scores need to increase. The range of possible HP scores from the video games, even after adjusting for the TCG being increments of 10, is more vast than we have in the TCG and I believe this constrains TCG design. When it comes to balancing effects, having less HP or doing less damage is a pretty obvious method but with a range of 30 to 250 (did S&M raise it?) that actually acts like a range of 3 to 25, it is harder on TCG design in general and in adapting things from a video game where that range can be like 1 to 700+. As I believe current damage output (for the investment) is too high as well, this can be a way to combat power creep; a generation of cards that are slower against each other, but thanks to their higher HP but more modest damage output, end up roughly even with older (but still legal) cards that have lower HP but higher damage outputs.

I was a bit worried about tracking more HP, but then I remember how some people already use their local coinage as damage counters; it might not work as well with six sided dice, but tracking damage with stuff like pennies, nickels, and quarters (skip dimes and other values) would allow tracking of HP ranges even a bit above the games (say <1000) without it becoming too messy. Also would add a valuable skill for those with a matching local currency.

The other, and I'll try to keep it brief since I made the former so long, is that "tails fails" needs to go. It isn't the "fails" part that bothers me as much as the "50-50" chance. I'm used to tabletop RPGs where I'm chucking dice and there is always a risk of failure (even a "critical failure" where you get an extra bad result). Rarely will you have something "important" to roll at the 50% success level. We've seen cards that were "tails fails" be horribly broken because while they did nothing half the time, the other half they basically won games. As someone opposed to set filler (and begging for some later release to break it) I'm not thrilled with the cards that are "tails fails" and basically wastes of space either.

My understanding is that Japanese culture associates dice only with gambling. Then again I'm not that kind of otaku so I could easily be mistaken. Assuming we are stuck using coin flips, however, then I would just like to see future effects never have you flip less than two coins. Even if the card is designed to have just have two obviously opposite effects, like "succeed/fail", the card should be balanced with a 75/25 split. Plus people who like flipping coins/rolling dice get to do it even more this way.
 

Asmer

Keep the High Tide on the Flipside
Member
As for Expanded. That is a format they should remove all together.

Well, why do you feel this way? I personally prefer Standard as well, but I also personally feel Expanded is fun.

Assuming we are stuck using coin flips, however, then I would just like to see future effects never have you flip less than two coins.

My ONLY complaint with this is that I swear my PTCGO account is cursed when it comes to coin flips (okay, I don't really, but I do get tails an awful lot xD). That said, I agree that if we're going to be playing with Probability, it should at least be based around multiple instances in tandem. I hate that Sleep relies on a single coin flip during the in-between turn of your Opponent passing to You. While you can wake up during the other Turn Passing, you are typically either A. Dead on your Opponent's next turn or B. Put back to sleep. Both are frustrating to deal with, especially when that Pokemon has the ability to unconditionally cause Sleep.

It makes me wonder just what direction The Pokemon Company (or whoever is directly involved with RnD) really wants to take this game. I can only hope it's a positive direction from this point forward.

Also, I missed my last Name Sig Thingy...so two for this post~
-Asmer
and...

-Asmer
 

crystal_pidgeot

Bird Trainer *Vaporeon on PokeGym*
Member
@Asmer

I feel that way because rotation is supposed to removed cards from the card pool to keep the standard format going and allowing players to make new deck and Expanded ruins this. I would care less if Expanded wasn't sanctioned but it is, meaning there are tournaments that exist that you can earn play points while using cards I would considered unlimited 2.0. It doesn't create anything new and decks in that format tend to be very toxic. I was happy for rotation because it means I don't have to play against Night March or Trev anymore but Expanded keeps them around. It just isn't a fun format, for me at least.
 
Top