~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 This apparently needs its own topic to not simply be skimmed over with more "uhh celestia is fine @ 2 imo" comments. A card's either bad for the game or not, take your pick. Cards like Judgment Dragon don't suddenly become less broken just because they're put at one as opposed to being at two or three. A card's balance doesn't change by Limiting or Semi-Limiting it the vast majority of the time. It only changes when Limited or Semi-Limited if it interacts with other copies of itself, like Malicious, Stratos, Night Assailant, et cetera. All you're doing by Limiting or Semi-Limiting is reducing the chances of that card being drawn. Does that fix the card? Nope. Now your opponent just has to be a little more lucky to nuke and swing for massive damage than they did before, luck promotion being bad for the game by being counter-productive when one of the main goals here is to promote skill. If anyone still doesn't get it, all you need to do is ask any questions you might have and I'll try to clear it up for you. Oh, and if you're thinking of throwing in one of those FALL OFF M'CHAIR "tl;dr" or "cool story bro" variations, consider that it's SORTA expected these days for people to READ BOOKS. WHOLE BOOKS. MULTIPLE WHOLE BOOKS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 We needed this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Armed_Zombie Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 I think this is needed seeing as it isn't a hard concept and yet noone understands it. Personally, I agree with the system, but I still haven't seen an actual 3/0 banlist though most of the cards are obvious choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraz Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 A card's either bad for the game or not' date=' take your pick. Cards like Judgment Dragon don't suddenly become less broken just because they're put at one as opposed to being at two or three. [/quote'] JD is better for the game at one than at three. I'd like to play in a format where I can bottomless a JD and my opponent won't be able to just play another one and win. I also don't want to play in a format where JD is at 0. I want to be punished if I see heavy storm be milled and I decide to overextend on my backrow. JD's existence gives lightsworn a reason to mill cards and a reason why the archetype exists. Archetypes deserve to have broken cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Armed_Zombie Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 Archetypes deserve to have broken cards. Wait, what? A broken card is a broken card no matter where it is on the list, and btw, you may bottomless your opponent's JD but they will still nuke the field leaving you open for Lumina swarm. Even with JD gone there are reasons for LS to mill, Grag and that new LS come to mind, OH, and Lumina since is can revive pretty much any LS monster. LS also have Celestia, which granted should also be affected in some way, but you get my point. Even if the traditional LS deck were to be killed, they have so many other decks they can combine with that they would be fine. A few that come to mind are: Twilight (a deck that just won an SJC), ZombieCharge, Vayusworn, and plenty of other decks that can be speed up by the mill of LS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkest Hour Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 Must be stickied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 A card's either bad for the game or not' date=' take your pick. Cards like Judgment Dragon don't suddenly become less broken just because they're put at one as opposed to being at two or three. [/quote'] JD is better for the game at one than at three. I'd like to play in a format where I can bottomless a JD and my opponent won't be able to just play another one and win. I also don't want to play in a format where JD is at 0. I want to be punished if I see heavy storm be milled and I decide to overextend on my backrow. JD's existence gives lightsworn a reason to mill cards and a reason why the archetype exists. Archetypes deserve to have broken cards. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b0b3rt Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 I don't want Magic Cylinder at 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wizarus Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 I agree with Fraz; to a certain extent. Cards like Heavy Storm, Mirror Force, etc., needs to be in the game at 1. They're "punisher" cards, they're splashable in decks, and their main job is to keep people from overextending. Judgement Dragon is another story. He cannot be at 1, partly because he's overpowered, but mostly because he's secluded to the Lightsworns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkest Hour Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 Mass Removal is a necessity to stop overextension and loltrapz/stall to become the meta, in which everyone runs frogs or stall and every card in their deck is a trap in hopes of "God says no'ing" everything. Some of the mass removal is unbelievably one-sided, but without it, we have to run Twister and Tribute to the Doomed in 3s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Corps Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 I think searchers, battle immunities, and cards like that can be semi'd or limited under the regard that one or two of them is fine but repeatedly running into them can hinder decks to a point that dedication is needed to stop them. But I'm basically a 3-0 kinda guy, as the list still has its semi's and its limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraz Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 While I do disagree with the 3-0 ideals, I would like konami to impliment a 3-0 format like they did with pegasus league format. I'd totally like a 3-0 Nats to happen. I think you'd find most who are completely against this format are so because if it came to happen it would mean they would have to replace it with their current list. If we had both as actual formats youd find people would be a lot less willing to dismiss it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azuh Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 Its too bad Konami doesn't have opinion polls to ask us what cards are bad for the game, and create a banlist that suits the public. Yes, this might have flaws, but it at least can help them build a better banlist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraz Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 Contact Julia or Kevin and ask them for contact info of someone who would be in charge of something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azuh Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 Contact Julia or Kevin and ask them for contact info of someone who would be in charge of something like that. As if they'll listen =/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Lightray Daedalus- Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 Question 3/0 list are suppoused to work over which cards are problematic and which are not right?...and limit/semi limit those who interact with themselves in a abusable way....but where come the cards that are semi problematic...you know cards that at 3 cause a sightly advantage....not as much as ards that need to be at 0 but...but yet enough to make it bad at 3.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toffee. Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 Its too bad Konami doesn't have opinion polls to ask us what cards are bad for the game' date=' and create a banlist that suits the public.[/quote'] Azuh... you need to think about that for a minute.Since there will always be those noobs who are like: "FLAME WINGMAN IS UNBEATABLE! CRYSTAL BEASTS ARE TEH BEST ARKTIPE!1111 B& DEM KONAMEE!!!111" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Fat Guy Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 This overlooks a very common reason a card is semi'd or limited:Interaction with cards of the same name.Malicious, for example, shouldn't be unlimited, as it's too abusive at 3. It has nothing to do with probabilities of drawing, it's just that a +2 to the field at no real cost is pretty bad.Night assailant is another great limit. Even at semi, Night Assailant would be capable of an infinite loop with itself, allowing for free discards. Cards like that aren't broken at one or two, period. I don't have a problem with mali at 2, nor with night at one. I think night is pretty balanced at one. At any more and he becomes a problem. I don't think either needs to be banned, and unlimiting them would cause problems. This is the only exception to the 3-0 rule I see. /Tronta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flame Dragon Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 you missed another reason for a card to be at 1. If it can provide good for the game at that number. Mirror Force is a great example. At 0 people can overextened without fear, but at 3 your opponent won't even attack for fear of a MR. I like how Crab said it a long time agoPROHIBITED Category 1) The card gives too large a reward too easily for too small a cost. Most of these cards are splashable' date=' but not all; a theme support card that lets you draw 7 cards for no real cost would be banworthy under this, despite not being splashable. Example: Raigeki. Category 2) The card enables one or more OTK's and/or FTK's to be accomplished easily. Often, these cards are used solely for the purpose of OTK's and/or FTK's. Example: Magical Explosion. Category 3) The card invalidates a basic mechanical part of the game by effectively preventing it from ever being used with any merit; a good game does not turn its back on its basic mechanics. Example: Nobleman of Crossout (invalidates Flips). Category 4) Similar to number 3, the card invalidates a certain playstyle that would otherwise contribute to the game. Example: Cyber Dragon (invalidates Stall). Category 5) The underlying idea of the card's effect is, as a matter of principle, completely unacceptable in any form. Example: Victory Dragon. LIMITED Category A) The card cannot remain at 3 due to one or more of the banning conditions (probably Condition 1) but provides some benefit to the game at 1 that allows it to remain. Example: Mirror Force. Category B) The card cannot remain at 3 due to an unacceptable interaction with another copy of itself; at 1, however, it cannot interact with itself, and thus can remain legal. Example: Night Assailant. Category C) The card cannot remain at 3 for purely mechanical reasons that make multiple copies of it impossible; however, it can remain at 1, where there are no other copies with which to conflict. Example: Twin-Headed Behemoth. SEMI-LIMITED Category X) The card cannot remain at 3 due to an unacceptable interaction with two other copies of itself; at 2, however, it cannot interact with two other copies of itself, and thus can remain Semi-Limited. Example: [none available'] Again, these classifications reflect the logic, and not the other way around; furthermore, each card is an individual case, so even if a card might seem to fall into a category, it might not belong in that place on the list - or even on the list at all. They're simply there to describe trends in logic, not set concrete policy. Category C is an example of this, since it was created specifically to reflect the treatment of one specific card, and applies to no other cards in the card pool; it was not decided on in advance and then used to determine the fate of Twin-Headed Behemoth. Because each card is handled individually, it is impossible to give an accurate summary of the reasoning involved without delving into each individual card on (or not on) the list. The above categories are the best I could do to give a general idea of what the logic typically involved.Again, that is old so some things have changed. Question 3/0 list are suppoused to work over which cards are problematic and which are not right?...and limit/semi limit those who interact with themselves in a abusable way....but where come the cards that are semi problematic...you know cards that at 3 cause a sightly advantage....not as much as ards that need to be at 0 but...but yet enough to make it bad at 3....Name some cards. Remember their is a difference between good an broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Lightray Daedalus- Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 For Instances I got a complain with 2 cards...Magic Cylinder and Furure FusionFirst one: It is treated as crap yet it is Limited since forever why a card that see No absolute use still remains limited?...I consider it campared with the other massive burn card limited that is Ceasefire but ceasefire has many points over MC like chainabilty and the fact it negate flip effects and the damage it can inflict if superior and easier to pull that cylinder one. Cylinder then is not chainable, it depends on what the opponent use to attack you and punish massive attackers and OTks...then...Second one: We know that with all the Anoying fusions (the ones that let this card turbo through decks easily) banned the card has a very inconsitent use at 1...yet at 3 it will fall in the same case as when it was at 1 with the before mentioned fusions...that would be some especific cases I got a complain with...there are more...but I can think of any of those now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkest Hour Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 Cards should be made to be at 3 or 0. We need 3 mirror forces, that way we don't have to waste time pulling type-specific ones from packs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraz Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 Its too bad Konami doesn't have opinion polls to ask us what cards are bad for the game' date=' and create a banlist that suits the public.[/quote'] Azuh... you need to think about that for a minute.Since there will always be those noobs who are like: "FLAME WINGMAN IS UNBEATABLE! CRYSTAL BEASTS ARE TEH BEST ARKTIPE!1111 B& DEM KONAMEE!!!111" They do the banlist poll things in Japan. They ask the players who are topping their Nats, Worlds and large locals/regionals this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flame Dragon Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 Magic Cylinder and Furure FusionFirst one: It is treated as crap yet it is Limited since forever why a card that see No absolute use still remains limited?...I consider it campared with the other massive burn card limited that is Ceasefire but ceasefire has many points over MC like chainabilty and the fact it negate flip effects and the damage it can inflict if superior and easier to pull that cylinder one. Cylinder then is not chainable' date=' it depends on what the opponent use to attack you and punish massive attackers and OTks...then...[/quote']Should be banned. you can't punish your opponent for attacking with a big monster because that is a key part to the game. Second one: We know that with all the Anoying fusions (the ones that let this card turbo through decks easily) banned the card has a very inconsitent use at 1...yet at 3 it will fall in the same case as when it was at 1 with the before mentioned fusions...that would be some especific cases I got a complain with...there are more...but I can think of any of those now...Ban problem fusions. Problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkest Hour Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 What are the problem fusions besides everything involving Cyber Dragon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flame Dragon Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 What are the problem fusions besides everything involving Cyber Dragon?F.G.D is one. After that I can' think of any. Also your asking the wrong person since i want to know which ones Đædalus was talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.