Secret Barrel

[El Majishan]

[center][img]http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120413231658/yugioh/images/thumb/9/9f/SecretBarrel-DEM1-EN-C-UE.png/300px-SecretBarrel-DEM1-EN-C-UE.png[/img][/center]

[center]Putting my hate for the Burn Mechanic aside..I find this card to have horrible design...I'm not talking about the damage itself, I am talking about the fact that the card basically punishes a player for having cards in his/her hand and on his/her field. So you are basically punished for just playing the game which is just stupid. [/center]

[center]Discuss.[/center]

[Dementuo]

Set ID = DEM1 =O

But in all seriousness, Chain Burn and nothing but.

[Expelsword]

This card is for losers.

[-Griffin]

Ok, hate to go on a bit of a rant, but gonna do it anyway:

[b]Some[/b] Yugioh players seem to talk about things like Cydra, Gorz, Torrential, Secret Barrel, ect, 'punishing a player for playing well', but cards which hurt a player who is 'ahead' more, or are only usable when you're 'behind' can have a good reason for existing:

In game design, the mechanic of hurting a player who is 'ahead' more than one who is 'behind' is called [b]Negative Feedback[/b] and is generally considered a positive thing for strategy games, or games where you want cool comebacks to happen. The opposite - cards like Solemn Judgement which do very little against a player who has strong on-field monsters, but can totally destroy a player who is behind with no monsters, is called Positive Feedback, this is considered bad in the same situations.

In a game with mechanics or elements(cards) that give more Positive Feedback than Negative Feedback, the first player to gain a lead can usually win just by playing passively or making 'safe' plays - this is really boring, and can mean that the game is 'effectively' over after the first turn or two, but drags on for a while. A game with a healthy amount of Negative Feedback will force the winning player to push their advantage and make more risky plays or risk their opponent catching up and being able to overtake them - the game is fun and only allows a win for [b]consistently[/b] outplaying the opponent. A game with badly done Negative Feedback will suffer from 'Rubber-Banding' where a player purposely gets behind to exploit Negative Feedback features, which is entirely counter-intuitive. Gorz is often an example of this.



Now, beyond my little rant, burn is terribly not-fun to play against because it's not interactive, which is a big reason why this card shouldn't exist, regardless of how all of the above applies or doesn't apply to this card.

[DL]

This card reminds me of the days when "burn" was simply a few spells or traps that did so and so damage, then vanished away to the Grave


Despite its nature, I think it's a rather fun card to use, due to the possible damage variation.

As far as burn cards go, of course.

I'd use it in a non-competitive non-burn deck. (see why I don't play yugioh much anymore? xD)

[Lunar Origins]

You guys suck, this card is amazing in its own right. Burn is a mechanic that is always going to exist, unlike Exodia.

Rewarding a player for going behind isn't such a bad thing, especially in a luck based game.

[El Majishan]

[quote name='-Griffin' timestamp='1348841962' post='6033809']
Ok, hate to go on a bit of a rant, but gonna do it anyway:

[b]Some[/b] Yugioh players seem to talk about things like Cydra, Gorz, Torrential, Secret Barrel, ect, 'punishing a player for playing well', but cards which hurt a player who is 'ahead' more, or are only usable when you're 'behind' can have a good reason for existing:

In game design, the mechanic of hurting a player who is 'ahead' more than one who is 'behind' is called [b]Negative Feedback[/b] and is generally considered a positive thing for strategy games, or games where you want cool comebacks to happen. The opposite - cards like Solemn Judgement which do very little against a player who has strong on-field monsters, but can totally destroy a player who is behind with no monsters, is called Positive Feedback, this is considered bad in the same situations.

In a game with mechanics or elements(cards) that give more Positive Feedback than Negative Feedback, the first player to gain a lead can usually win just by playing passively or making 'safe' plays - this is really boring, and can mean that the game is 'effectively' over after the first turn or two, but drags on for a while. A game with a healthy amount of Negative Feedback will force the winning player to push their advantage and make more risky plays or risk their opponent catching up and being able to overtake them - the game is fun and only allows a win for [b]consistently[/b] outplaying the opponent. A game with badly done Negative Feedback will suffer from 'Rubber-Banding' where a player purposely gets behind to exploit Negative Feedback features, which is entirely counter-intuitive. Gorz is often an example of this.



Now, beyond my little rant, burn is terribly not-fun to play against because it's not interactive, which is a big reason why this card shouldn't exist, regardless of how all of the above applies or doesn't apply to this card.
[/quote]

I agree with your rant to a degree...while come back cards are cool and exciting they are easily exploitable in YGU due to just plain bad card design. The example you gave is Gorz, which I believe was designed to give a losing player a fighting chance...but it is not used in that manner at all. I can just pass my turn and take a hit in exchange for a big monster and a token.

Torrential is not a card that fits into this category...it punishes over extension which is great for the game, a player should not be able to over extend with no risk (which is why I have a big problem with Starlight Road...but that is a discussion for another day)

Now with cards like Secret Barrel....it really does not fit into your rant (I know you gave a disclaimer at the end but since we're discussing the card I'll complete ignore that ) The card does nothing but dish out cheap damage just because I have cards...the very thing the game is played with. It punishes a player for having resources that are not even limited to a certain zone (see D.D. Dynamite, Cemetery Bomb or Just Desserts). So the only set up it requires is for you to set the card and nothing more...no interaction from the other player (Dimensional Wall) or set up by the player using the card(D.D. Dynamite)...just set it and let the good times roll. It punishes me just because I'm sitting across the table from you which is just stupid IMO.

[-Griffin]

That's the thing about burn. By winning outside of monsters, you are fundamentally removing interaction.

The following generally only work when monsters are involved:
*Monster removal (all forms, bounce/spin/ect)
*ATK/DEF modifiers
*Control changers (MCon, CSwap)
*Position Changers
*Attack negators
*Many others: (E-Veiler, CyDra, Trago, ect, ect.)

The game is built around the interaction between monsters more than any other mechanic and, fairly enough, this is what people's Decks are built for. This is why burn is fundamentally terrible for the game, especially in its current state. (Theoretically, burn could be balanced and fun if it was designed very well & carefully, and some cards were removed from the game, but I doubt that's going to happen).

The mechanic of punishing-many-cards isn't fundamentally bad. Secret Barrel is just a terribly designed example. For example, I think the following card I made in 20 seconds is far better designed:

|Theoretical Magician|
|DARK/Spellcaster|Level 4|1300 ATK|1700 DEF|
|When this face-up card is selected as an attack target, you can add 1 monster from your Deck to your hand with a level less than or equal to half the total number of cards on your opponent's hand and field.|

This card fundamentally involves more interaction. You can reduce my targets by activating cards or Synchro/Fusion/Xyz-ing, but that might not be the best move for you outside of that - or you can try and remove it another way to not trigger it, and you have to weigh up the risk that my face-down is Shrink or something, to give me a card without losing Theory-Mag. Maybe it should do something with ATK/DEF instead, or not have half, or target a specific type/attribute, but you get the idea - punishing the opponent for having cards can be a skill-based, deep mechanic. Konami just designs cards for money instead of a good game, so cards from them are stupid.

[Stan Alda]

This reminds me of the Blue Shells from [i]Mario Kart[/i]. If you're in a low position and get it, it's your saving grace. If you're in first, it's your worst nightmare. The stupid things about Blue Shells are:[list]
[*]they never miss,
[*]they take no effort,
[*]they don't provide an opening for the loser so much as hamper the winner.
[/list]
So people deliberately play poorly in order to constantly bombard the guy in first place with those weapons. A good comeback weapon/card should fulfill none of those conditions, but Secret Barrel fills all of them. It's far too easy to abuse and doesn't really solve the problem of a losing game. Secret Barrel is Chain Burn's chain gun, and playing slow just to unload with this thing (which is how most people use it) is woefully unfair and boring.

[DL]

[quote name='Stan Alda' timestamp='1348846389' post='6033834']
This reminds me of the Blue Shells from [i]Mario Kart[/i]. If you're in a low position and get it, it's your saving grace. If you're in first, it's your worst nightmare. The stupid things about Blue Shells are:[list]
[*]they never miss,
[*]they take no effort,
[*]they don't provide an opening for the loser so much as hamper the winner.
[/list]
So people deliberately play poorly in order to constantly bombard the guy in first place with those weapons. A good comeback weapon/card should fulfill none of those conditions, but Secret Barrel fills all of them. It's far too easy to abuse and doesn't really solve the problem of a losing game. Secret Barrel is Chain Burn's chain gun, and playing slow just to unload with this thing (which is how most people use it) is woefully unfair and boring.
[/quote]

I mostly like to use it at the very beginning of duels

No way am I gonna lower my playing level just to let my opponent set up just to use this thing

Of course the issue is, if I don't draw it in the beginning.....o3o

[El Majishan]

I understand your point and I agree. If burn cards are well designed, it can be a fun mechanic. Back in le olden days my fave deck was D.D. Burn. It was terrible...but so much fun.

A lot of these come back cards would have been balanced if they had some more limitations. If Gorz read "you can only summon this card this way if you have 4000 or less life points" it would have been fine

[quote name='-Griffin' timestamp='1348845458' post='6033828']
That's the thing about burn. By winning outside of monsters, you are fundamentally removing interaction.

The following generally only work when monsters are involved:
*Monster removal (all forms, bounce/spin/ect)
*ATK/DEF modifiers
*Control changers (MCon, CSwap)
*Position Changers
*Attack negators
*Many others: (E-Veiler, CyDra, Trago, ect, ect.)

The game is built around the interaction between monsters more than any other mechanic and, fairly enough, this is what people's Decks are built for. This is why burn is fundamentally terrible for the game, especially in its current state. (Theoretically, burn could be balanced and fun if it was designed very well & carefully, and some cards were removed from the game, but I doubt that's going to happen).

The mechanic of punishing-many-cards isn't fundamentally bad. Secret Barrel is just a terribly designed example. For example, I think the following card I made in 20 seconds is far better designed:

|Theoretical Magician|
|DARK/Spellcaster|Level 4|1300 ATK|1700 DEF|
|When this face-up card is selected as an attack target, you can add 1 monster from your Deck to your hand with a level less than or equal to half the total number of cards on your opponent's hand and field.|

This card fundamentally involves more interaction. You can reduce my targets by activating cards or Synchro/Fusion/Xyz-ing, but that might not be the best move for you outside of that - or you can try and remove it another way to not trigger it, and you have to weigh up the risk that my face-down is Shrink or something, to give me a card without losing Theory-Mag. Maybe it should do something with ATK/DEF instead, or not have half, or target a specific type/attribute, but you get the idea - punishing the opponent for having cards can be a skill-based, deep mechanic. Konami just designs cards for money instead of a good game, so cards from them are stupid.
[/quote]

[-Griffin]

I never like to reference Life Points, personally. They're 1 thing which I think should always be good to have, and it should always be good to reduce your opponent's.

Other ways to balance Gorz would be something like your opponent drawing a card, or discarding a card to Summon it, or Gorz just having lower base stats would have been a good option.

[Great Unclean One: VK]

Along with Simochi, Cementary Bomb, and a few others, this is one of my favorite cards. Even better when I use it with my stall deck.

[Wildflame]

I had to blow up my own field in order to avoid losing to this against Chain Burn..., it worked.

[El Majishan]

[quote name='Wildflame' timestamp='1348852979' post='6033892']
I had to blow up my own field in order to avoid losing to this against Chain Burn..., it worked.
[/quote]

And I'm sure that made you very sad.

(Even though it worked)

[.Rai]

Griffin made a great point on design there. Negative feedback's a big thing for designers. Problem with Secret Barrel is that it's difficult to respond to, do something about it, or generally interact with it.

Burn is a fundamentally extremely effective and straight forward mechanic in all TCGs with it. It's hard to perfect regarding interaction, and usually they're just overly cold and non-interactive, no matter how you try to design them. You can get close though.

[shadowferret]

I actually like forcing this card to do more damage with stuff like Morphing Jar and Book of Eclipse...
but lolThat'sBad

[Ranma 1/2]

[quote name='✖C.C.✖' timestamp='1348843186' post='6033814']
You guys suck, this card is amazing in its own right. Burn is a mechanic that is always going to exist, unlike Exodia.

Rewarding a player for going behind isn't such a bad thing, especially in a luck based game.
[/quote]
Mind telling us how the game is based on luck and not speed and consistency? Especially in a format where burn decks are hardly used, and whenever they are, they just lose most of the time?
And Exodia, well.... That's a different subject.

[DL]

[quote name='YugiohAbridged' timestamp='1348898917' post='6034380']
Mind telling us how the game is based on luck and not speed and consistency? Especially in a format where burn decks are hardly used, and whenever they are, they just lose most of the time?
And Exodia, well.... That's a different subject.
[/quote]
It IS quite a luck-based game.

There is definitely skill involved, of course but there is also a fair amount of luck.

A good player, can have terrible luck, and lose against a meh player, who has great luck.

etc.


[quote name='.Rai' timestamp='1348860550' post='6033964']
Griffin made a great point on design there. Negative feedback's a big thing for designers. Problem with Secret Barrel is that it's difficult to respond to, do something about it, or generally interact with it.

Burn is a fundamentally extremely effective and straight forward mechanic in all TCGs with it. It's hard to perfect regarding interaction, and usually they're just overly cold and non-interactive, no matter how you try to design them. You can get close though.
[/quote]
I personally think Backfire is quite an interactive Burn card, since it's basically a reaction to every time your opponent destroys one of your FIRE monsters. Also one of my favorite burn cards to use in FIRE decks. (rather, back when I USED FIRE decks~)

[Sleepy]

[quote name='Darklink401' timestamp='1348915875' post='6034426']
It IS quite a luck-based game.

There is definitely skill involved, of course but there is also a fair amount of luck.

A good player, can have terrible luck, and lose against a meh player, who has great luck.

etc.



I personally think Backfire is quite an interactive Burn card, since it's basically a reaction to every time your opponent destroys one of your FIRE monsters. Also one of my favorite burn cards to use in FIRE decks. (rather, back when I USED FIRE decks~)
[/quote]

I remember that version of FIRE decks back in the day.
I remember hating how much it liked stall with Solar Flame Dragons.
Now I actually miss it. It's arguably a lot more interactive and moderated than most other forms of burn we've ever had a Deck focus around.
It just doesn't compare with Dark Strike Fighter BS, Frog FTK, Spell Counter FTK with Tempest Magician, Infinite burn with Butterfly Dagger Elma (and in a more inconsistent way, Flint), Self Destruct Button OT.... tie?, Chain Burn, Magical Explosion FTK, and who knows what else.


Burn has always been done in one of three ways:
-FTK/OTK based. Broken, and uninteractive.
-Super stall-oriented. Not really interactive, but with enough stupid stall options to not need to be an OTK/FTK.
-None of the above, in which case, people don't use them because it goes nowhere. It does not FTK/OTK, or lock your opponent well enough to be viable, and mostly can't even win a decent amount of the time. On top of not even giving the fun of interaction. Such is the case of "Sparks" (which should have been an Ultra Rare or Secret Rare in LC3 btw)

Though I admit, burn is hard to create properly.