(MORE INPUT NEEDED see post 126) - Does Pokemon Need to go Back to Basics?

RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

^We're talking about a complete re-design. Remove all the cards from the current format and build the game from the ground up.
They laughed at me when I suggested the rotation should have been Black/White-on. Who's laughing now?

More to the point, I'll go on. I have not read 100% of the material in this thread (though I have read a fair chunk of it), and I'd like to say the following:
If the people of the past saw what the future was like, they would not have printed Pokemon Collector. They would have reprinted Holon Mentor. Moving on.

The points that have been explained above are probably the roots of the reasons why I do not like playing in tournaments anymore. If you don't own any Terrakion, Zekrom EX, or Mewtwo EX...you don't top cut. You lose, time and time again, simple as that. (Granted, I was playing an odd hybrid meta deck and lost every game that day, but it's got nothing to do with the reason I don't like tournaments - plus I did play three VERY good games that day.)

I actually miss the days of DP-on and MD-on, really. I know there are a lot of whiners out there who don't like Luxchomp and thought it was dominating. It wasn't - not in the slightest. In those days, the player with the most skill AND the most solid list was the winner; there were plenty of opportunities for various deck ideas, and the wide pool of Trainers/Supporters/Stadiums available made for a great amount of variety in deck-building. (I wasn't around during the EX series days, but I have heard that the meta back then was much the same way.)

Here is a bit of an example - a loose one, but still pretty good. For a while back in MD-on, I ran Blastzel with a Kingdra Prime tech; the object as you're probably aware was to hit 100 every turn, BUT that one Kingdra Prime tech turned the Luxchomp matchup substantially in my favor, as it allowed me to OHKO a Luxray or a Garchomp. (I actually won more games against Luxchomp with it than I lost.) Both of those guys had 110 HP for what was effectively a Stage 1. Not bad. But Blastoise, a Stage 2, had 130 HP, plus a much stronger sniping attack than Dragon Rush. ...You get the idea. There was no one concept that was completely overbearing; the meta was rather welcoming and allowed for all sorts of new ideas.

Now let's make an example. To make things a bit less extreme, let us go back to the days of EP, right when Catcher came out. On the one hand, let's say you have Zekrom. It's got a rather impressive 130 HP - on a Basic, no less! - and two impressive attacks; one costs a mere DCE and has base 20, but it powers up the more he's damaged. The second attack costs a few Lightnings or so and does 120 damage, and he does 40 damage to himself. On the other hand, you have Gothitelle. She, like Zekrom, has 130 HP, but she is a Stage 2, and she takes a while to get out - just hope you don't get Catcher'd. Her Ability is amazing - blocks your opponent's Items while she is active, plus an attack that can do 50 (if you want to attack faster) or 90 (if you don't mind waiting). Anyone who has a working knowledge of matchups knows that Zekrom will just utterly destroy Gothitelle.

Why? I leave you to figure that out on your own.

I'll say that the HS-NV metagame was a LOT better than HS-EP. When NV came out, I had very high hopes for where the game was going. It did introduce some interesting new gigantic Basics like Kyurem, but it also introduced quite a few Evolution cards with good attacks - Vanilluxe is one of the most notable - and even better, it had a great selection of trainers available! Rocky Helmet, Eviolite, Super Rod, N...we all use these. At the time, there weren't any decks that were so completely overbearing as to eclipse everything else.

And then we got Mewtwo EX - the card with no true counters except itself. You can probably see where I'm going with this, but if you can't: oh, I won't tell you. You guys have seen the various Mewtwo debates; you can figure this out.

So why are we all ranting? The answer is that this situation does not show any signs of improving. The metagame will continue to be dominated by giant Basics - they will get larger, bigger, and stronger, and the legendary Pokemon will become overbearing. On the other hand...the Evolution cards will stay exactly where they have been. The current highest HP in the format is 180, and of those winners, there is only one card that isn't a basic Pokemon EX - that last slot goes to Wailord, out of virtue that Wailord must always have large amounts of HP. (The problem is that Wailord has terrible attacks - the EXs do not, and they tip the prize exchange heavily in their favor, despite the knockout drawback!)

...I'm going to shut up and get to the point now, since you guys did not want to see me complain all day, but I wanted to say all the above so you could see where I was going. I honestly yearn for the days where you could have fun at a tournament and not have to rely almost exclusively on basics with 130 HP or more - or just say "screw it" and go play Durant (which, contrary to popular opinion, requires a bit more skill to play than you would believe. VVV is like that too, but I digress), trying a different angle of approach. And I know those are very odd (and somewhat-cheap) decks to play, but if I don't want to conform to the rest of the players and run decks that can do well without having to rely on big Basics...then, guys, what choice do I have?

I want to try and make the game fun for myself, and that's why I build the decks I build. Deciding to play meta for CA States was probably the stupidest mistake I've ever made (as evidenced by how much I crashed and burned, whereas playing Victini Donk at AZ States made me go 4-4) - I want to enjoy tournaments. If I just want to win, and go in with the expectation of winning, and try to make a deck for that purpose and that purpose only, some people will win and others will be thoroughly disappointed.

I am all for returning things to the way that they should be. And if PCL and TPCI will listen to us, then please, make it happen. But until a day comes where we don't need to worry about imbalanced cards comes along...I will be utterly disgusted with the tournament scene for at least another 2 years.

Pokemon cares too much about little kids to care about the rest of us - as long as they get their money, they're happy. So if you guys are reading this and you show no intention of changing...you disgust me.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

Should we bring back the old 1st player, no T/S/SD rule? I think that might help prevent things like Sabledonk and give us more options for Pokemon (ex: Sableye would be fine to play).
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

Eon said:
Should we bring back the old 1st player, no T/S/SD rule? I think that might help prevent things like Sabledonk and give us more options for Pokemon (ex: Sableye would be fine to play).
Shouldn't something like that go without saying? That gives both players a relatively even keel to start out on.
1st player can get set up faster (relatively), but the 2nd player will have the added advantage of getting some search tools early on.

In fact, the reason they allowed the first player to play Trainers on the first turn was exactly the reason why rotation happened earlier than Worlds. It wasn't entirely Sableye's fault - Sableye was made to be played in a no-Trainers-going-first game.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

Until the day I see 200 HP basics, then I won't worry about a power creep. I played the game when it first came out and it just as different as it is the same, if that makes any sense at all. It does it needs to stay fresh and current. I remember Machamp needing so much energy to do so little, how it took forever to go to stage 2 and now all you need is rare candy, baby. For me this stuff is a blessing. Aw man, sure is PokeGym in here.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

@DNA- Agreed with that whole long post. I said a lot about that whole "play what you want thing" in my OP as well.


New 1st turn rule goes without saying. I was thinking, at risk of over-complicating it:

The player who goes first does not draw a card.
Neither player can do damage to the opponent's Pokémon in any way on their first turn.
The player who goes first cannot play any trainers, supporters, or stadiums.
Rare Candy will work as it did in the ex sets, but it can not be used on either player's first turn.


Also, I was thinking more about how to draw people into a player-made version of the game, and I think it would require making a new game mechanic, if not multiple ones. If people see an entire set of fake cards that look a lot like the real cards, it's not very likely to draw them in, even if the random guy making them promises they're good.

So, I was thinking about the concept of "Player Points". It's like HP is for Pokémon, except for the player. You start the game with 40PP. If you run out, you lose. There would be various ways to add and subtract your PP and your opponent's PP, as well as ways to abuse the amount of PP you currently have. But those of you who know me know that even my simple ideas have complex layers. There would be Poke-Powers, Poke-Bodies, attacks, etc that all have effects that depend on how many PP the player or the opponent has. It would add a whole new layer to the game. Thoughts?

Lastly, for you artsy people out there, is there anybody who could help me make the actual cards? I'm hopelessly terrible at using image editors. Basically, I'd give you card spoilers (like the translations on the main site), and you'd turn them into actual cards. If we make 100-card sets and we have a team of five or so people making the images of the cards, I'd think we could finish up a set in two or so weeks. Leave me a profile comment or drop me a PM if you're willing to help me out. It would be greatly appreciated. :)

PokeMedic said:
Until the day I see 200 HP basics, then I won't worry about a power creep. Aw man, sure is PokeGym in here.
Umm... 180HP basics plus Eviolite. 180+20=200. Also it's only PokeGym when people start complaining about how much people complain. ;) We're trying to take a proactive approach to fix everything, why not help out instead?
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

I basically played the TCG during the 1st (kinda), 3rd, and now 5th generations, and I have to say that the current format isn't nearly as fun or satisfying as the EX series, for many of the reasons people have brought up in this thread. The gap between decks is just insane. If you're not playing Zekeels or CMT right now, or a deck designed to counter them, you're not going to do well at all against them. If you're not playing the big beefy basics, you'll be behind. The metagame used to be much more varied, and you didn't have to play it to win. Obviously you had a better shot, but you weren't totally screwed if you didn't. I played an Aggron deck for so long and I loved it, and I always had a fair shot against other decks, never completely shut-out.

Setup during the EX sets were much more satisfying. If you got lucky and setup earlier, awesome, that's great for you. If you were a turn or two behind though, you could still come back. Not so in this format; if you don't get setup T1, with stuff like Collector (for your big basics) you're at a major disadvantage. Too bad Collector didn't have the 100 HP limit Holon Mentor had, but I suppose it was printed before basics ran rampant.

As for setting up basically our own balanced game, it sounds extremely fun, but would take a lot of effort, and who knows who would actually play it, or if Pokemon would even pay attention? I hate to say it but its pretty obvious now that they are catering to the little kids and such more than the competitive fans, and who knows if they'll change it or not. Also, I'm not sure if everyone would be able to agree with what should go into our own format. Obviously we're all on the same page on why the current format isn't very good, but how to fix it and what should go into another format could be a hundred different things by different people.

I'll end by saying this, don't know how relevant it is or not: Pokemon has definitely grown since the EX set. I remember going to Ohio States in 2007 or so, and about 50, maybe 75 people showed up to play in a conference room in a Holiday Inn. Now, this year at States, 300 people showed up to play at the Union of The Ohio State University. I'm kind of shocked that more people are playing in, at least my opinion, a format that is not as fun as it was a few years ago. I'm not saying the game isn't fun anymore, it still is, I'm just saying they've basically shut down so much of what made the game fun, and turned it into a game where the faster player playing the top deck wins.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

Oh I know this feeling, I recently played someone who made a Durant deck that was purely net-decked and had no creativity at all. It disappointed me because that's all some people ever do. They make what's winning, and pretend they know how to actually play. In my opinion, and view - if you're netdecking and just using a deck someone else made, then you don't know how to play if you can't make something out of your own thought.

It was frustrating because even though I got all my main strategies out, cards to remove my energy ran rampant in his deck, so my Hydreigons couldn't do anything to fend off durant, and due to a bad shuffle, a majority of my Garchomp stuff was sent from the top of my deck 2 turns in.

So I do feel pokemon does need to go back a step, the EX pokemon aren't appealing at all, they've ruined the game.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

Dragon Master Ryuuji said:
They make what's winning, and pretend they know how to actually play. In my opinion, and view - if you're netdecking and just using a deck someone else made, then you don't know how to play if you can't make something out of your own thought.
The reason I ran meta this past weekend was because I felt like I needed to run something meta-related to get much of anywhere. Me, of all people, thinking something like that - it's the apocalypse. (I run Victini Donk, for crying out loud.) I'm never doing that again, but I think it's a sign of how far we've sunk.

BobChao said:
Setup during the EX sets were much more satisfying. If you got lucky and setup earlier, awesome, that's great for you. If you were a turn or two behind though, you could still come back. Not so in this format; if you don't get setup T1, with stuff like Collector (for your big basics) you're at a major disadvantage. Too bad Collector didn't have the 100 HP limit Holon Mentor had, but I suppose it was printed before basics ran rampant.
Hence my comment about being able to see the future. Even back then, there were very few basics that had more than 100 HP anyway; Rayquaza ex {L} is the only one of note that I remember. (A few other basic Pokemon-ex were probably like that too.) When Collector was printed, there weren't any overbearing Basics - even SPs weren't that bad, ranging from 70 to 90 HP. Most certainly bearable.
As for your comment about not being very able to make a good comeback? I feel you.

Celebi23 said:
@DNA- Agreed with that whole long post. I said a lot about that whole "play what you want thing" in my OP as well.
Indeed, I noticed; I was saying that I definitely agree with you. I want to see more variety in decks nowadays. I would like to see a deck that does not include Terrakion, Cobalion, Eelektrik, Durant, or Mewtwo-EX in it. You're struggling to think of one, aren't you? I thought so.

Celebi23 said:
So, I was thinking about the concept of "Player Points". It's like HP is for Pokémon, except for the player. You start the game with 40PP. If you run out, you lose. There would be various ways to add and subtract your PP and your opponent's PP, as well as ways to abuse the amount of PP you currently have. But those of you who know me know that even my simple ideas have complex layers. There would be Poke-Powers, Poke-Bodies, attacks, etc that all have effects that depend on how many PP the player or the opponent has. It would add a whole new layer to the game. Thoughts?
Looks like a good idea on paper. Of course, I'd definitely like to see a more practical application of how that would work. But if we add too many twists, wouldn't we just be creating a whole new card game? A whole new format, yes that's good, but are we creating a whole new card game while we're at it?

Celebi23 said:
Lastly, for you artsy people out there, is there anybody who could help me make the actual cards? I'm hopelessly terrible at using image editors. Basically, I'd give you card spoilers (like the translations on the main site), and you'd turn them into actual cards. If we make 100-card sets and we have a team of five or so people making the images of the cards, I'd think we could finish up a set in two or so weeks. Leave me a profile comment or drop me a PM if you're willing to help me out. It would be greatly appreciated.
I couldn't make art or anything like that, but my forte does lie in creating spoilers. I'd have to see several of yours first before I make up some of my own, but cranking out new card ideas is something I've been doing for years.

Celebi23 said:
I was thinking, at risk of over-complicating it:

The player who goes first does not draw a card. Partially agree
Neither player can do damage to the opponent's Pokémon in any way on their first turn. Agree, to prevent donks
The player who goes first cannot play any trainers, supporters, or stadiums. Agree, obviously
Rare Candy will work as it did in the ex sets, but it can not be used on either player's first turn. Agree
Does that mean we'll get things like the infamous "surprise Dusknoir" coming back? That would be fun.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

Yeah, I haven't come up with practical applications yet. I like to think of the Player Points as a layer in the game that creates a new way to balance cards. In order to make it so that there isn't a new win condition, maybe we should reverse it and give a player a certain number of Player Points during their turn that they can spend in different ways. Like Mana in magic, as Zero said when we talked about the idea. That way it just adds a new layer, not a new win condition. You'd still have to win by taking six prizes.

What's surprise Dusknoir?
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

Celebi23 said:
What's surprise Dusknoir?
The constant looming threat of a 1-0-1 Dusknoir Dark Palm. It was big during the latter half of DP-on; everyone had to play cautiously, as once that guy hit the field, you were basically restricted to 3 Benched Pokemon.

You could drop a Duskull out of nowhere, Rare Candy it that turn, and then BOOM, your opponent would be down a Claydol or benched attacker.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

I think the way to make a format best is to take away all energy acceleration. It gives certain types an edge and speeds up the format a lot.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

Cinema said:
I think the way to make a format best is to take away all energy acceleration. It gives certain types an edge and speeds up the format a lot.
There was barely any energy acceleration in DP-on and MD-on, and even the decks that had some did not have any remarkable advantage over those that did not.
I'm interested as to where you're getting this idea, other than the fact that Eelektrik and Celebi are everywhere.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

Deus: Nightmare Autarch said:
There was barely any energy acceleration in DP-on and MD-on, and even the decks that had some did not have any remarkable advantage over those that did not.
I'm interested as to where you're getting this idea, other than the fact that Eelektrik and Celebi are everywhere.

In every format the dominant deck are either energy accel or have very low costs. In a format with neither of these things, games would slow down immensely and energy drops would be more important.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

Actually, the BDIF about 3 (?) formats ago (Holon Phantoms-on) was Plox, and it had neither of those things. Of course, back then there were all sorts of Special Energy around, but I think that was besides the point; most things back then had roughly the same energy requirements for their attacks.
Even during a few of the EX series metas, I don't think low energy/energy accel were the issue either. That's why I'm confused as to how you're getting this idea.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

To avoid Donks, we could do something like Vanguard, where your active Pokemon doesn't get KO'ed, but takes damage. Since it would be impossible to do six attacks on the first turn, Donks would be eliminated.
Although, then we would have to do some kind of heal type card, so that the first player doesn't win in six turns XD
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

We need eitther smaller average numbers, or bigger average numbers. So we don't have 40 HP Seedots and 180 HP EXs.
It would be nice to have a lot more skill involved in the game, and a great mix of strong basics, (like SP) and strong Stage 1/2s. And what really gets my goat is that in our current format, Stage 2s have 140 HP and basics have 180.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

I completely agree, and while I haven't been playing the Pokemon TCG for over a year, I've been playing all sorts of TCG's for years and could give a different perspective. I'd love to help out.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

Cinema said:
I think the way to make a format best is to take away all energy acceleration. It gives certain types an edge and speeds up the format a lot.

If you ask me I'd say unerf Rare Candy, give Stage 2's a chance to be competitive again so that the majority of decks played at high level events aren't just all Basic or Basic and Stage 1 decks. The game has gotten so bad that J-Wittz quit the Pokemon TCG to become a video game journalist, It could be that he didn't have time to play anymore not about how bad the game has gotten in terms of power creep.

Don't get me wrong there's alot of diverse decks in the meta right now, my argument is that the Pokemon TCG shouldn't be anti-Stage 2 anymore. Magnezone isn't able to keep up with the format anymore, Vileplume gets hurt by CMT/CTM, Reuniclus and Truth decks are non-existant, yeah for Stage 2's it's THAT bad. Dark Explorers does open the format up with some interesting new decks but it's very limited at best.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

Saw this last night but didn't have time to respond until now.

I agree with a lot of what's been said and would personally love to play a format created for diversity and skill. This is coming from someone who has/is quitting the current format. One problem I see with our format now compared to the original ex format is that back then Basic exes had about the same hp as a stage 2. Now Basic EXes have 50 more hp than some Stage 2s! If ever EXes are incorporated in the new format we plan on creating, they would have to have roughly the same hp or less than Stage 2s.

I personally dislike BTS and to some extent the un-nerfed Rare Candy; in my mind it turns Stage 2s into basics because they can be dropped in a turn and that doesn't help at all. The real thing Stage 2s need is a distinct advantage over Basics. If their power is enough to justify 2-3 turns of setting them up, you don't need BTS or un-nerfed Candy. The problem we have now is that we have Basics that can not only take 3+ hits from most Stage 2s, but they can OHKO them back.

I too have experienced the horrors of missing a turn 1 Collector when you run 4 of them...every game in a tourney. To fix this I propose two adjustments: The first is changing Collector so that it lets your opponent search for a basic. The second is adding this card:

MetagameFixer1 {C} 60 hp
Basic

Pokepower: Once during your turn, you may discard this Pokemon on your bench (this does not count as being Knocked Out). Search your deck or discard for a supporter and add it to your hand.

I feel that this card would be wonderful for the metagame. It would have uses throughout the entire game, letting you pull off a t1 Collector easier to make it more your deck list's fault and not your luck; making you play knowing that there is a much greater chance of the opponent being able to drop a Judge/N, etc.

I agree that Claydol over centralizes the game too much. I too would prefer a more Uxie-like draw; however, I feel that this could add to donking potential. Maybe change it so that if you use Uxie, you cannot use any other Pokepowers for the rest of the turn? This prevents you from using multiple Uxie and burning through your deck extremely fast and also provokes more thought about how to time the use of the card. Those are just a few of my thoughts. Also, all of this is based on the assumption that we are splitting Abilities back in Pokepowers and Pokebodies.
 
RE: Does Pokémon Need to go Back to Basics?

I like the Elder idea, but it would be like rebirthing. But lets not try to change the rules to prevent donks. But make it so you cant donkey.
 
Back
Top