-Griffin Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Type killers are banworthy because they reduce skill by reducing the available number of options to choose between when making a deck. Same reason why a card that said "draw one card" would be banworthy' date=' it reduces skill by effectively only having people choose 37 cards when deckbuilding, thus reducing innovation.[/quote'] I never suggested that type killers weren't banworthy, in fact, I gave an explanation of why I saw them as bad for the game. Acceptable generic effects which interfere with playstyles are totally different. Reduction of the card pool's an offense? >_> HEY. LET'S BRING BACK ALL FORBIDDEN CARDS. SCIENTIST DSF OTK YEAH! i think he ment reducing the card pool un-needingly. e.g. some continus spell n traps may take skill to use to create synergy, why should they not be able to compete because of heavy storm???? and by the way heavy at three would be a type killer, to continus spells and traps, because their will be no point in using them. Eh, I'd rather have non-chainable and continuous Spell and Traps rarely played ever than being played in clusters of fours. Very much so. They're often a pain in groups. Any trap=heavy Deck I play (against) becomes a hell hole after Heavy has been used. There's nothing to lose from setting 3+ in the backrow, and instantly the game slows to a crawl. It's why I often give up a chance at gaining advantage just to stop my opponent overextending and keep Heavy in my hand until a winning turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Type killers are banworthy because they reduce skill by reducing the available number of options to choose between when making a deck. Same reason why a card that said "draw one card" would be banworthy' date=' it reduces skill by effectively only having people choose 37 cards when deckbuilding, thus reducing innovation.[/quote'] I never suggested that type killers weren't banworthy, in fact, I gave an explanation of why I saw them as bad for the game. Acceptable generic effects which interfere with playstyles are totally different. Reduction of the card pool's an offense? >_> HEY. LET'S BRING BACK ALL FORBIDDEN CARDS. SCIENTIST DSF OTK YEAH!Killing continuous spells/traps IS a type killer. There's no reason to restrict type killers to monsters, as the fundamental logic is still the exact same. Yeah, reduction of the card pool IS an offense, that's why we carefully select bans instead of banning every card that makes the slightest impact. We decide if a card's benefit to the card pool outweighs it's detraction. For instance, any good list that bans exodia, will unlimit the remaining pieces? Why not just ban all of them? Because you want to keep the card pool as large as possible, only banning things that are absolutely necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Shocker Android Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 tl;dr On-topic: Can those of us that aren't gentlemen still discuss? =( It might be crab's way to keep you out of this for whatever reason he has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted December 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 tl;dr On-topic: Can those of us that aren't gentlemen still discuss? =( Naturally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanAtlus Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 tl;dr On-topic: Can those of us that aren't gentlemen still discuss? =( Naturally. You're making the crossplayers angry. OT: When playing in tournaments, try to make sure you've got a Roar set when the opponent Storms. Then they'll be like "Fu- Bribe4game?". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Unclean One: VK Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Threat, Waboku, Raigeki break, Emergency Provision, and I can't remember anything else could be chained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiro Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Assuming that we can replace it with a more balanced card that serves the same purpose, Heavy Storm should be banned. Assuming that we cannot replace it with anything, Heavy Storm should be at three (3). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraz Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Assuming that we can replace it with a more balanced card that serves the same purpose' date=' Heavy Storm should be banned. Assuming that we cannot replace it with anything, Heavy Storm should be at three (3).[/quote'] What's the logic in that? :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Assuming that we can replace it with a more balanced card that serves the same purpose' date=' Heavy Storm should be banned. Assuming that we cannot replace it with anything, Heavy Storm should be at three (3).[/quote'] What's the logic in that? :/ 3/0, ya knuckle head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 A horrible abomination of 3/0. Admitting it should be banned on creation of new cards is admitting it's broken. Admitting it's broken means it needs to be at the number that minimizes it while preserving it's niche in promoting skill. AKA one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiro Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 A horrible abomination of 3/0. Admitting it should be banned on creation of new cards is admitting it's broken. Admitting it's broken means it needs to be at the number that minimizes it while preserving it's niche in promoting skill. AKA one. Heavy Storm, by existing, makes a threat to the opponent that should prevent him from overextending. If this threat does not exist, the game will be simplified to "Whoever draws the most answers to the opponent's cards will most likely win". This reduces skill as a factor in the game. Personally, I think that what we currently have is slightly overpowered in punishing overextending. It is possible to be careful with s/ts right now and just set 1 of them so that Heavy Storm cannot result in advantage loss, but OTKs can still easily occur, making it sometimes important to set 2 BTHs instead of one, for example. If this game wasn't so fast paced overall (a clear field can easily result in the loss of a fourth of one's starting life points by a single attack), playing this carefully would be reasonable, this is simply not the case. Setting 2 backrow cards on an empty field should not be punished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanAtlus Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Assuming that we can replace it with a more balanced card that serves the same purpose' date=' Heavy Storm should be banned. Assuming that we cannot replace it with anything, Heavy Storm should be at three (3).[/quote'] Then Storm should be at 0? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 A horrible abomination of 3/0. Admitting it should be banned on creation of new cards is admitting it's broken. Admitting it's broken means it needs to be at the number that minimizes it while preserving it's niche in promoting skill. AKA one. Heavy Storm' date=' by existing, makes a threat to the opponent that should prevent him from overextending. If this threat does not exist, the game will be simplified to "Whoever draws the most answers to the opponent's cards will most likely win". This reduces skill as a factor in the game. Personally, I think that what we currently have is slightly overpowered in punishing overextending. It is possible to be careful with s/ts right now and just set 1 of them so that Heavy Storm cannot result in advantage loss, but OTKs can still easily occur, making it sometimes important to set 2 BTHs instead of one, for example. If this game wasn't so fast paced overall (a clear field can easily result in the loss of a fourth of one's starting life points by a single attack), playing this carefully would be reasonable, this is simply not the case. Setting 2 backrow cards on an empty field should not be punished.[/quote'] ...That sounds like you're agreeing with me in saying it should go to one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonisanoob Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 by 3/0 logic storm should be at 0, the trp here is crab suggested it should be limited on a 3/0 list when in actual fact it should as at 3 it basically denies the existance of a specific type of card, therfore unfair giving too much advantage in 1 card reducing skill in game in the current format, storm is good to have as it promotes skill, by making you play better as you dont wanna get -2ed or even more, it forces you to think on your toes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Unclean One: VK Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Plus, you gotta worry if you set too much or something. You always gotta ask yourself, should I set these cards? Does he have dust? Does he hast MST? Does he has storm? Always be on guard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 by 3/0 logic storm should be at 0' date=' the trp here is crab suggested it should be limited on a 3/0 list when in actual fact it should as at 3 it basically denies the existance of a specific type of card, therfore unfair giving too much advantage in 1 card reducing skill in game in the current format, storm is good to have as it promotes skill, by making you play better as you dont wanna get -2ed or even more, it forces you to think on your toes[/quote'] 3/0 doesn't mean you put every card at three or zero. I thought we went over this already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanAtlus Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Me thinks Konami should ban Storm just to see how the game would evolve then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonisanoob Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 by 3/0 logic storm should be at 0' date=' the trp here is crab suggested it should be limited on a 3/0 list when in actual fact it should as at 3 it basically denies the existance of a specific type of card, therfore unfair giving too much advantage in 1 card reducing skill in game in the current format, storm is good to have as it promotes skill, by making you play better as you dont wanna get -2ed or even more, it forces you to think on your toes[/quote'] 3/0 doesn't mean you put every card at three or zero. I thought we went over this already. the only thing that isnt at 3 or 0 is card that interact badly with multiple copies why duloren is at 2and night assailent at 1 heavy storm at 1 on a 3/0 list dosnt increase skill it just increases luck due to the power of storm in a 3/0 why cant people see this trap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanAtlus Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Me thinks only few players would actually care about Storm getting banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JG. Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Heavy is fine at 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 by 3/0 logic storm should be at 0' date=' the trp here is crab suggested it should be limited on a 3/0 list when in actual fact it should as at 3 it basically denies the existance of a specific type of card, therfore unfair giving too much advantage in 1 card reducing skill in game in the current format, storm is good to have as it promotes skill, by making you play better as you dont wanna get -2ed or even more, it forces you to think on your toes[/quote'] 3/0 doesn't mean you put every card at three or zero. I thought we went over this already. the only thing that isnt at 3 or 0 is card that interact badly with multiple copies why duloren is at 2and night assailent at 1 heavy storm at 1 on a 3/0 list dosnt increase skill it just increases luck due to the power of storm in a 3/0 why cant people see this trap Dewloren would NEVER be at two in a 3/0 list. No, there is another condition for things to be limited in 3/0: Things that have banworthy effects, but promote skill in a way that necesitates keeping them around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Armed_Zombie Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Except that the Dewloren FTK can still be done on the 3/0 list if Dewloren is at 3, it's called Mass Driver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polycarp Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 If Storm ever goes to 0. Do you think this card would ever see play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted December 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 If Storm ever goes to 0. Do you think this card would ever see play? Of course, just like Enraged Muka Muka started seeing play after Delinquent Duo was banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polycarp Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 If Storm ever goes to 0. Do you think this card would ever see play? Of course' date=' just like Enraged Muka Muka started seeing play after Delinquent Duo was banned.[/quote'] =D My exact thoughts too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.