Shonen Jump Indy top 16

[The Dark One]

@ BTM:

1. That is not a point. That is an assertion that has yet to be reinforced by any significant form of supporting evidence. You will notice, by the way, that I have stated no opinion about the two formats. Instead, I simply criticized your view of side-decking. I was perfectly within my rights to do so, and as of yet you have made no further statements to support your apparent view of side-decking. The burden of proof would lie on you, in this case, and you have made no attempt to pass it on to me.

 

2. Blanket statements lack specificity. Regardless of his awareness of the game or of decks, if you have a specific statement to make about a deck, it's a pretty good idea to do so. Remember that on the internet, anyone and everyone's credentials are entirely in question, and he very well might not be all that experienced with what you're talking about after all.

 

Most especially, however, I think you need to realize that Genzo disagrees with your view of the commonness of the OTK. Really, it depends on your understanding of the word. For example , Going into double DSF is an instant game-> ASSUMING that your opponent has no cards with which to stop your attacks and also that he has no monsters and has taken 200+ damage. Obviously, DSF is a problem. The thing is, though, that this, while quicker, is still not fundamentally different than, say, attacking for game with a Monarch-> ASSUMING that your opponent has no cards with which to stop your attack and no monsters and has taken 5600+ damage.

 

The popular decks can put a lot of damage on the table in one turn these days, but none of them are really OTK decks by design as, say, Demise or TundOTK was.

 

As for the appeals I was speaking of, I'll just go ahead and quote a few lines:

 

"but you would be like "LOLOLOLZ U DONT NO WUT U R TALKIN BOUT. U SUK AT THIS GAME. 3/0 IS THE ONLY WAY TO PLAY DIZ GAME, AND THUS I WONT OBJECTIVELY LOOK AT WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING."

 

"Anyone who disagrees is either A) Terrible at this game or B) Believes 3/0 is the only way to play and thus, is terrible."

 

"I'm the idiot because I have an opinion that is different than yours? Go T_T in a corner."

 

However, it's not really that big of a deal. It happens all the time on the internet (I do it to) and also, quite often in politics. (primarily the Republicans XD ) It's really only a problem when it gets out of hand and tends to displace the actual content of posts.

 

3. And "intelligent" YCMer, if you mean someone who has a thorough theoretical understanding of the game and looks past the current metagame (which can be changed by future card design) and into the greater trends and the inherent nature of any card or card combination, is not at all characterized by netspeak or by an unawareness of the metagame. The player you are speaking of much more closely matches the sycophants on YCM that TRY to be one of these "intelligent" players. Additionally, as I have earlier mentioned, you have given little or no supporting evidence for your points. It's not unreasonable to not spend the time to consider a viewpoint that has yet to be substantiated. However, I will remind you that I have yet to state an opinion favoring either you or Genzo, and likely will not do so until, or if, you elaborate on your viewpoint.

 

4. This is one of your blanket statements, by the way. It can be noted, however, that most of YCM's "core" do NOT support an entirely 3/0 list. There are, of course, cards like Mirror Force that have measurable benefits on the game in the threat of their presence, and also cards like Night Assailant that are simply illogical at any number besides one. Malicious is likely the best example we have of a semi-worthy card, but even it is under some serious doubt.

 

There's nothing wrong with looking at the banlist from a theoretical standpoint. This is because the banlist shouldn't be affected by the current metagame. Simply put, any changes to the banlist will in themselves alter the metagame, possibly making the banlist instantly obsolete. It's a much better policy to construct a banlist using logic and directly considering how a card acceptably and unacceptably interacts with other cards. The metagame does need to be controlled, but, as I have previously said, this can be done through manipulation of new cards in the card pool. Basically, it's the card designer's problem to fix the meta, not the banlist's.

 

5. If I came across as overly condescending, I apologize, but realize that you said some pretty inflammatory things, and were in fact the first to do so.

 

______________________________

 

Unfortunately, there isn't a very good tldr summary of this post, so I can only hope that people will bother to take the time reading it. ;)

[GenzoTheHarpist]

@ Genzo: Neither is it the banlist's job to determine a format in which diversity is encouraged. In an ideal world' date=' this would be achieved through card creation. However, it must be conceded that an illogical banlist under which multiple deck types flourish is superior to an illogical banlist in which they do not. Still, remember that regardless of this superiority, it is still an illogical banlist. Konami is in no position to be receiving congratulations on a job well done, because the job is not at all well done.

[/quote']

That is nonsense. No matter how logical a banlist is, if it makes the game no longer fun it has failed as a banlist.

 

That's the thing though, a good banlist is fun to play. Any imbalances (such as domination by a single deck) would then be corrected by the creation of new cards.

That is a different issue entirely. Regardless of what list was instated, you would need people who had balance in mind when creating cardsets, not a skill Konami is known for. If card creation was perfect, there would be no need for a banlist of any kind.

 

You claimed that diversity meant nothing in respect to a good list. I disagree, as from my experience diverse lists have always been much more fun than lists that only allowed single expensive decktypes. It IS a banlists job to encourage diversity, inasmuch as it is a banlists job to keep the game accessible and fun to it's players.

 

Konami deserves congratulations on this banlist because it was a significant improvement over previous formats. You can cry their list was illogical, but it did the job.

[Dark_Armed_Zombie]

 

The problem with YGO is that every one "Net Decks". As soon a deck type tops every one runs to make it' date=' only a few people actually build original decks. Even when someone comes up with a great deck idea for a deck and it tops a Nat/Jump/Regional, everyone runs to their local card shop and tries to build it instead of trying to find ways to upgrade their own deck to play better and become more competitive. No they just break down their deck and make the new meta deck.

 

Key example are GB. I stopped playing YGO for two years and only got back into is when I read up on GB and they interested me. So when Gladiator Assault finally came out I built myself a deck. I was the only one at my school who ran it for a good 2-3 months, but as soon as it topped at a Jump/Nat and became meta everyone at my school and locals ran it. I got so mad and bored I broke it down and started Running my current IRL (Plasma Synchro).

 

Every one says they have no idea why my deck works or what to side against it because its "random". No it's not random, every card in my deck serves a purpose, its just that my deck is not meta so they don't know the playbook so they can't play by script to beat it.

 

Anyway that's just my 2 cents

[/quote']

 

Piggy Banked! However I disagree. i don't think people net deck any more. I mean I know a few do, but there just bad. Its not a bad thing to try what works. What people complain the most about is originality. People believe originality in yugioh is dead, Id like to think it never existed. There is no way with a limited card pool as yugioh to build a deck that NOBODY has already thought of. Its almost impossible. The only thing you can do is take one idea, and try to better it. That is how I think yugioh is played, and I don't belive people should be hassled for doing just that.

 

I understand what you're saying, the whole take an idea and make it better thing is all fine and Dandylion (really lame pun). But it becomes a problem when everyone tries the same idea. Take this for example. Before the new list and pack even came out everyone is predicting that VayuTurbo will be meta and what do you see? Everyone rushing to get their hands on a playset of Vayu so they can build it, based on a prediction. Its just annoying to see people scramble to make the top deck type instead of trying to come up with something o their own.

But thats just it. The "Turbo" died with DSF, now people are taking the same swarm idea, and trying to make the deck work with their own twist. The idea will never go anywhere, but how you bring it to life matters the most.

 

Me, I was going to build Vayu with LS to rape, but its expensive.

 

 

This is why I want to run Morphs, I would seriously take it to a tourney and duel with it (and probably own their butt) and they would be like "WTH random crap is that" as I kill their sorry behinds... also, Morphs are fun to play. Tier 3 ftw

 

"Random Crap" FTW

 

This.

 

We need more vaguely original ideas in this game.

 

Yeah, it's so freakin true. Both Tele-DAD and Syncat were original ideas and OWNED the meta for petes sake. While Syncat wasn't unbeatable, for the most part it won. My PTD Morphs idea isn't completly original, but the only unoriginal part of it is the fact that I got the "PTD in Morphs" idea from another guy. The actual deck list itself is pretty much original.

 

Edit: An idea can be original and yet not be new. It's better to develop a deck on your own to end up finding out that it is not a new idea than to go the other way around, some leyway given.