An Actual Legitimate Archetype {Hyper Hives} (24/24) [ARCHETYPE]

[Premier Alexander Romanov]

[spoiler=Main Deck Monsters (7)]







[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Spells and Traps (3)]



[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Extra Deck Monsters (14)]
[spoiler=Rank 4s (2)]


[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Rank 5s (3)]



[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Rank 6s (4)]




[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Rank 7 and higher (5)]





[/spoiler]
[/spoiler]
The idea behind these is to combine elements from some of my favorite Xyz archetypes into one powerful archetype involving stunning monsters and exploiting Xyz Materials. They mainly focus on Ranks 5 and 6, but can make 4s easily, and have a Rank-Up-Magic.
Let me know if you need the text for any of them, and give plenty of critiques and feedback.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Now just trim it down to 15 and we are in business

[Premier Alexander Romanov]

Now just trim it down to 15 and we are in business

[lecc_XD]

Really, reduce it to 15 and we might talk

[Premier Alexander Romanov]

Really, reduce it to 15 and we might talk.

No.

I make cards.

And I make them however I want them to.

I tried making a smaller archetype, and basically had to build the ED myself, because there are very few Insect Xyzs.

If you want, review the tournament pool.

[VCR_CAT]

The entire problem with having such a big archetype, ESPECIALLY in the Extra Deck, is that you're trying to give them all the toolbox options they will ever need so that their archetype has access to them. This is completely the wrong way to go about it. You should instead be making a smaller, more focused selection of ED options with effects that directly focus on the strategy of the archetype you're making. Trying to cover all the bases is never something you should try to do in an archetype. You have the right idea for the maindeck options, but your Extradeck is just insane in how much there is.

Which brings another issue; you've made a design flaw if the archetype is bad without that many options. The 15-card standard is there for a reason; it's a good number for an archetype's size to be based off of so that it still gives good flexibility and options, but also so that a player can adequately run EVERY card in the archetype in a more pure build if they so wish. But there's another problem with the maindeck archetype as a whole.

But there's still other issues with the archetype as a whole. So far, the maindeck looks fairly balanced and functional, yes; but everything feels fairly dry and uninspired. You have the names and the artworks and the idea, but the cards function like random generic Xyz support-engine cards with archetype names slapped on. There's no consistent theme in the deck's overall strategy and no implicit playstyle beyond "Summon a bunch of Xyz monsters to answer your opponent". So for working on this archetype, I would suggest looking into these things:

• Figure out exactly how you want this deck to play, and what you want to make it different from the others. What do you want its gimmick and strategy to be?
• Use this strategy to focus the deck's functionality and optimize it so that it works towards those strategies well
• and doing this, shrink the archetypical extra-deck numbers down to a much more manageable level; using them as bosses that focus on the strategies and flavor of that deck.
• THEN, if you still want there to be options, create COMPLETELY generic and mostly unrelated ED monsters that IT and OTHER decks can use. 

You tried to cover all your bases, and this is a big mistake. If what you're trying to do is fill a niche, then find that niche and fill it and it alone, instead of trying to make that niche fill everything else. An archetype should never try to do everything or cover all the bases, and this is a fairly large mistake.