Libracor Posted January 12, 2022 Report Share Posted January 12, 2022 I wasn't sure where to post this, but Rayfield Lumina seemed to think the best place for it would be here. I’ve been thinking lately about all the ways this game could be improved, and my mind keeps going to an interesting thought: The game is broken because of a few key design errors, and a reboot might be the best solution. So, here’s a thought experiment: If we, as a community, were to design a reboot of Yugioh, how would we go about it? How should we go about it? What things would we add and what would we take away in the search for a more balanced version of this game? Here’s my thoughts on the topic, separated into the four categories of Attribute, Type, PSCT 2, and Master Rule. I wanna know what people think, and more importantly what things they would suggest as core changes to the game. Attributes: Problem: There is the issue of massive overabundance of LIGHT and DARK monsters. This is largely due to three factors. When a monster doesn’t fit into any of the four elemental attributes, LIGHT and DARK represent ‘neutral’ choices LIGHT and DARK are the two more magical/mystical attributes, so almost all mystical or magical monsters get grouped into them. Nonmagical monsters that don’t fit anywhere are typically placed in EARTH, but some find their way here as well. LIGHT and DARK are catch-all elements that include such concepts as moonlight, time, dimensions, sleep, illusions, electricity, poison, and general morality, which only serves to make them more applicable to any monster that just has nowhere else to go. Solution: Introduce two new attributes to split the population of LIGHT and DARK and make their support less abusable. LIGHTNING: This should have always been a thing. A good number of LIGHT monsters are only LIGHT because they have electrical powers (Sparkman, Batteryman, Lightning Tricorn, Thunder Dragon, Sanga of the Thunder, and a large number of Psychic monsters). Furthermore, simply using Thunder-type and LIGHT attribute has had the effect of allowing clearly nonlight monsters access to LIGHT support, and also locking them out of having any other Type, like Warrior. Imagine if there were an ICE Attribute, but no WATER, and any WATER monster was simply Aqua Type but still benefited from clearly cold-themed support. AETHER: Originally I wanted to call this DREAM, since that’s the name of the equivalent Attribute in some of the GBA games, but Aether is more flavor-agnostic. Aether is a more ‘neutral’ mystical element than LIGHT or DARK, and can encompass concepts like Dreams, Illusions, moral ambiguity, moonlight or other dark lights, and general magic-flavored neutrality, which should free up LIGHT and DARK from most of their “why are these even here?” monsters. Additionally, if we’re to add new Attributes, I’d say we go all the way and add two more, just to cover the bases of everything that the game might ever need. FOREST: You could also call it NATURE. A large amount of EARTH monsters are clearly nature-themed and only land in EARTH because, as with LIGHTNING in LIGHT, there was just nowhere else to put them. The justification for including FOREST is best illustrated with an example. Black Rose Dragon is a FIRE Dragon that is supported by both Plant-type monsters and Dragon-type monsters that are all made of flower-petals. The support between these monsters could have been made less clunky by simply making them all FOREST Attribute, and giving them Attribute-based support effects. This is a somewhat specific example of course, but having a FOREST Attribute in addition to the Plant Type opens up the versatility inherent in FIRE and Pyro, WATER and Aqua, LIGHT (Or LIGHTNING) and Thunder, and EARTH and Rock, all combos which already exist. So I don’t see an argument for the exclusion of FOREST. ICE: As mentioned earlier. A large number of WATER monsters are clearly cold-themed, and it just feels odd that there’s no distinction between them besides the convention of denoting monsters made of Ice as WATER Aqua-Types. Of the four Attribute additions, this is the least-justifiable one I could think of, but I would argue for its inclusion on the grounds that LIGHTNING was originally excluded because a distinction was not necessary at first, but is necessary (I would so argue) in the modern game. I would say ICE is to WATER as LIGHTNING is to LIGHT. LIGHTNING and AETHER I would say are 100% necessary to include because they inherently nerf the two most prevalent Attributes and their support. ICE and FOREST I will argue strongly for on the basis that their exclusion from the game up to this point has been largely for the purposes of tradition, rather than because it was good game design, As Yugioh changed over the years, I feel that the increased versatility of ten total attributes is completely necessary to promote balance and varied card design. Types: I’m more open for debate on this one because to be quite frank I still don’t know where I stand on it. When I was younger I asked myself “Why is there no Beast-Spellcaster?” I propose the following three ideas for how a reboot could handle Types: Keep it the same. Why fix what isn’t broken, after all? Maybe rename some Types to be more general than specific (Cyberse to Program and Galaxy to Cosmic come to mind, as Cyberse is unique to the VRAINS setting and Galaxy is already an archetype that has nothing to do with the Galaxy Type) but for the most part keep them as-is. Allow multiple type tags. Exactly what it says on the tin. Let monsters have up to two tags. I personally don’t like this option but I figured I’d write it down anyway to see if someone could make an argument in favor. Split the tags by Tribe and Class. Each monster has a Tribe and some have a Class. Weaker search cards might search a Dragon but more powerful summoning or protection effects of more powerful monsters may require that a monster fits two tags, say Beast and Warrior. This is closer to how Magic: the Gathering does its tags. Like I said, I’m not sure which option I prefer. I think 3 is the best option for promoting Type-based support and has the most interesting implications, but the goal was to only add to the game or remove from it what is absolutely necessary, and changing the way that types work I don’t feel is super urgent. I’d probably concede to most arguments in favor of option 1, but I wanted to get some discourse going. PSCT 2, or New PSCT: PSCT was a massive step in the right direction for making card text more readable and less confusing, but while it’s easy to understand for veterans like us, it can still be frustrating for newcomers to learn about things like mandatory vs optional, if/when, Missing the Timing, Chains, Spell Speeds, etc. (Source: I recently taught my GF to play and while she did figure it out quickly, it was a daunting start.) We’re missing a couple of things that I feel are very necessary. Rush Duels have cards that explicitly state the requirements for an effect to activate, followed by the effect itself. For new players, the difference between a Cost and Effect can be rather confusing, so adding [COST] as a tag to effects that have costs might be helpful, and on that note… Adding Tags and Keywords to PSCT would make cards much easier to read. Ignition, Continuous, and other types of abilities have been official Yugioh lingo for a long time, but they’ve never been part of a card’s text. Making the type of ability into a tag that appears before the text of the effect begins would make it much easier to tell the types of effects a card might have at a glance without having to read the whole thing, very helpful when playing against a card you’ve never seen before and haven’t had the time to study. Additionally, using the OCG’s habit of numbering the effects on cards would also make it easy to tell just how many effects a card has at a glance. On this note, a FLIP monster in the current TCG would have the FLIP tag removed in the reboot, and instead it might have its effect written as [FLIP] This is the card’s ability [CONTINUOUS] Wait, hold on, FLIP monsters can more organically include non-flip abilities now?! [UNION] That’s right, I’m really making this argument. Making tags a part of a card’s text makes them searchable and targetable, so adding a FLIP or Union monster to your hand with a card effect is as simple as searching out a monster that has a FLIP or UNION effect. Spells and Traps will also have their effects written in this way. Also, we can now have Negates that negate specific types of effects, and monsters than ignore specific types. A monster that is immune to all effects except CONTINUOUS effects, or a Counter Trap that Negates TRIGGER effects that activate on Summon. Making the text of a card more readable at a glance and codifying additional tags in this way will massively help new players learning the game. Additionally, include the Spell Speed of an ability, so that there can never be confusion as to when or how an ability is allowed to be activated. Master Rule: Here we go, the controversial one. I’ll cut right to the chase, we can either limit all Extra Deck types or none of them and I will die on this hill. I don’t want to remove Link monsters, because even if I personally think the game was better in MR3, Links are an integral part of the modern game and they are here to stay, so our only choices are MR4 and MR5. I disagree with MR5’s changes, as it feels like it was made exclusively to further punish Pendulum for the sin of being Pendulum while allowing Fusion, Synchro, and Xyz off scott-free despite historically being the source of more broken combos. Here’s the thing, by starting from the ground up already knowing what Extra-Deck mechanics will be included, we can write cards that are meant to be balanced with all of them in mind. I recommend the use of MR5 rulings with the addition of Pendulum Zones outside of the Backrow. Pendulum monsters were always meant to be somewhat weaker combo monsters anyway. I think they do need to be limited in some way by a Master Rule, but I feel that limiting both their backrow and their summoning presence is a bit too much punishment, and not at all warranted. That being said, I don't consider myself to be the wisest or most unbiased arbiter of Master Rules, as I myself am a massive Pendulum fanboy, so I'm interested in hearing others' thoughts on the subject. Having read through my thoughts on the subject, I wanted to do an interest check. Would anyone on this forum be interested in helping to create a small set of proof-of-concept cards for this hypothetical reboot? I think it would be a fun exercise, even if it ultimately doesn’t go anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamazenta the OS-Tan Fan Posted January 12, 2022 Report Share Posted January 12, 2022 4 hours ago, Libracor said: I wasn't sure where to post this, but Rayfield Lumina seemed to think the best place for it would be here. I’ve been thinking lately about all the ways this game could be improved, and my mind keeps going to an interesting thought: The game is broken because of a few key design errors, and a reboot might be the best solution. So, here’s a thought experiment: If we, as a community, were to design a reboot of Yugioh, how would we go about it? How should we go about it? What things would we add and what would we take away in the search for a more balanced version of this game? Here’s my thoughts on the topic, separated into the four categories of Attribute, Type, PSCT 2, and Master Rule. I wanna know what people think, and more importantly what things they would suggest as core changes to the game. Attributes: Problem: There is the issue of massive overabundance of LIGHT and DARK monsters. This is largely due to three factors. When a monster doesn’t fit into any of the four elemental attributes, LIGHT and DARK represent ‘neutral’ choices LIGHT and DARK are the two more magical/mystical attributes, so almost all mystical or magical monsters get grouped into them. Nonmagical monsters that don’t fit anywhere are typically placed in EARTH, but some find their way here as well. LIGHT and DARK are catch-all elements that include such concepts as moonlight, time, dimensions, sleep, illusions, electricity, poison, and general morality, which only serves to make them more applicable to any monster that just has nowhere else to go. Solution: Introduce two new attributes to split the population of LIGHT and DARK and make their support less abusable. LIGHTNING: This should have always been a thing. A good number of LIGHT monsters are only LIGHT because they have electrical powers (Sparkman, Batteryman, Lightning Tricorn, Thunder Dragon, Sanga of the Thunder, and a large number of Psychic monsters). Furthermore, simply using Thunder-type and LIGHT attribute has had the effect of allowing clearly nonlight monsters access to LIGHT support, and also locking them out of having any other Type, like Warrior. Imagine if there were an ICE Attribute, but no WATER, and any WATER monster was simply Aqua Type but still benefited from clearly cold-themed support. AETHER: Originally I wanted to call this DREAM, since that’s the name of the equivalent Attribute in some of the GBA games, but Aether is more flavor-agnostic. Aether is a more ‘neutral’ mystical element than LIGHT or DARK, and can encompass concepts like Dreams, Illusions, moral ambiguity, moonlight or other dark lights, and general magic-flavored neutrality, which should free up LIGHT and DARK from most of their “why are these even here?” monsters. Additionally, if we’re to add new Attributes, I’d say we go all the way and add two more, just to cover the bases of everything that the game might ever need. FOREST: You could also call it NATURE. A large amount of EARTH monsters are clearly nature-themed and only land in EARTH because, as with LIGHTNING in LIGHT, there was just nowhere else to put them. The justification for including FOREST is best illustrated with an example. Black Rose Dragon is a FIRE Dragon that is supported by both Plant-type monsters and Dragon-type monsters that are all made of flower-petals. The support between these monsters could have been made less clunky by simply making them all FOREST Attribute, and giving them Attribute-based support effects. This is a somewhat specific example of course, but having a FOREST Attribute in addition to the Plant Type opens up the versatility inherent in FIRE and Pyro, WATER and Aqua, LIGHT (Or LIGHTNING) and Thunder, and EARTH and Rock, all combos which already exist. So I don’t see an argument for the exclusion of FOREST. ICE: As mentioned earlier. A large number of WATER monsters are clearly cold-themed, and it just feels odd that there’s no distinction between them besides the convention of denoting monsters made of Ice as WATER Aqua-Types. Of the four Attribute additions, this is the least-justifiable one I could think of, but I would argue for its inclusion on the grounds that LIGHTNING was originally excluded because a distinction was not necessary at first, but is necessary (I would so argue) in the modern game. I would say ICE is to WATER as LIGHTNING is to LIGHT. LIGHTNING and AETHER I would say are 100% necessary to include because they inherently nerf the two most prevalent Attributes and their support. ICE and FOREST I will argue strongly for on the basis that their exclusion from the game up to this point has been largely for the purposes of tradition, rather than because it was good game design, As Yugioh changed over the years, I feel that the increased versatility of ten total attributes is completely necessary to promote balance and varied card design. Types: I’m more open for debate on this one because to be quite frank I still don’t know where I stand on it. When I was younger I asked myself “Why is there no Beast-Spellcaster?” I propose the following three ideas for how a reboot could handle Types: Keep it the same. Why fix what isn’t broken, after all? Maybe rename some Types to be more general than specific (Cyberse to Program and Galaxy to Cosmic come to mind, as Cyberse is unique to the VRAINS setting and Galaxy is already an archetype that has nothing to do with the Galaxy Type) but for the most part keep them as-is. Allow multiple type tags. Exactly what it says on the tin. Let monsters have up to two tags. I personally don’t like this option but I figured I’d write it down anyway to see if someone could make an argument in favor. Split the tags by Tribe and Class. Each monster has a Tribe and some have a Class. Weaker search cards might search a Dragon but more powerful summoning or protection effects of more powerful monsters may require that a monster fits two tags, say Beast and Warrior. This is closer to how Magic: the Gathering does its tags. Like I said, I’m not sure which option I prefer. I think 3 is the best option for promoting Type-based support and has the most interesting implications, but the goal was to only add to the game or remove from it what is absolutely necessary, and changing the way that types work I don’t feel is super urgent. I’d probably concede to most arguments in favor of option 1, but I wanted to get some discourse going. PSCT 2, or New PSCT: PSCT was a massive step in the right direction for making card text more readable and less confusing, but while it’s easy to understand for veterans like us, it can still be frustrating for newcomers to learn about things like mandatory vs optional, if/when, Missing the Timing, Chains, Spell Speeds, etc. (Source: I recently taught my GF to play and while she did figure it out quickly, it was a daunting start.) We’re missing a couple of things that I feel are very necessary. Rush Duels have cards that explicitly state the requirements for an effect to activate, followed by the effect itself. For new players, the difference between a Cost and Effect can be rather confusing, so adding [COST] as a tag to effects that have costs might be helpful, and on that note… Adding Tags and Keywords to PSCT would make cards much easier to read. Ignition, Continuous, and other types of abilities have been official Yugioh lingo for a long time, but they’ve never been part of a card’s text. Making the type of ability into a tag that appears before the text of the effect begins would make it much easier to tell the types of effects a card might have at a glance without having to read the whole thing, very helpful when playing against a card you’ve never seen before and haven’t had the time to study. Additionally, using the OCG’s habit of numbering the effects on cards would also make it easy to tell just how many effects a card has at a glance. On this note, a FLIP monster in the current TCG would have the FLIP tag removed in the reboot, and instead it might have its effect written as [FLIP] This is the card’s ability [CONTINUOUS] Wait, hold on, FLIP monsters can more organically include non-flip abilities now?! [UNION] That’s right, I’m really making this argument. Making tags a part of a card’s text makes them searchable and targetable, so adding a FLIP or Union monster to your hand with a card effect is as simple as searching out a monster that has a FLIP or UNION effect. Spells and Traps will also have their effects written in this way. Also, we can now have Negates that negate specific types of effects, and monsters than ignore specific types. A monster that is immune to all effects except CONTINUOUS effects, or a Counter Trap that Negates TRIGGER effects that activate on Summon. Making the text of a card more readable at a glance and codifying additional tags in this way will massively help new players learning the game. Additionally, include the Spell Speed of an ability, so that there can never be confusion as to when or how an ability is allowed to be activated. Master Rule: Here we go, the controversial one. I’ll cut right to the chase, we can either limit all Extra Deck types or none of them and I will die on this hill. I don’t want to remove Link monsters, because even if I personally think the game was better in MR3, Links are an integral part of the modern game and they are here to stay, so our only choices are MR4 and MR5. I disagree with MR5’s changes, as it feels like it was made exclusively to further punish Pendulum for the sin of being Pendulum while allowing Fusion, Synchro, and Xyz off scott-free despite historically being the source of more broken combos. Here’s the thing, by starting from the ground up already knowing what Extra-Deck mechanics will be included, we can write cards that are meant to be balanced with all of them in mind. I recommend the use of MR5 rulings with the addition of Pendulum Zones outside of the Backrow. Pendulum monsters were always meant to be somewhat weaker combo monsters anyway. I think they do need to be limited in some way by a Master Rule, but I feel that limiting both their backrow and their summoning presence is a bit too much punishment, and not at all warranted. That being said, I don't consider myself to be the wisest or most unbiased arbiter of Master Rules, as I myself am a massive Pendulum fanboy, so I'm interested in hearing others' thoughts on the subject. Having read through my thoughts on the subject, I wanted to do an interest check. Would anyone on this forum be interested in helping to create a small set of proof-of-concept cards for this hypothetical reboot? I think it would be a fun exercise, even if it ultimately doesn’t go anywhere. I'm sorry to say this but I'm completely against your ideas of A REBOOT Why do you want a reboot you KNOW HOW EXPENSIVE THAT WOULD BE FOR KONAMI I SAY NO TO ALL OF THESE IDEAS I'm so so sorry I came off very harsh but these ideas are trying to do major ass changes I don't wanna see Now I goona bash on this thread for it but no way can this game get a massive reboot just play Duel Links or Rush Duels if you want a more balanced expensive with YGO So long answer NO and plus it would be to Stupidly Expensive for an idea most Completive Payers would flat HATE if you told them this sure I'm all in favor for balance we got more the 2 alternative and plus the banlist already address issue with Broken cards so I don't know why you ever had this idea again its me just being flat out harsh towards you but I don't wanna see a reboot. Edit: Your not wring that's just your option I just Don't agree with you that's all we have our own options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ankh_Dev Posted January 12, 2022 Report Share Posted January 12, 2022 6 hours ago, Libracor said: I wasn't sure where to post this, but Rayfield Lumina seemed to think the best place for it would be here. I’ve been thinking lately about all the ways this game could be improved, and my mind keeps going to an interesting thought: The game is broken because of a few key design errors, and a reboot might be the best solution. So, here’s a thought experiment: If we, as a community, were to design a reboot of Yugioh, how would we go about it? How should we go about it? What things would we add and what would we take away in the search for a more balanced version of this game? Here’s my thoughts on the topic, separated into the four categories of Attribute, Type, PSCT 2, and Master Rule. I wanna know what people think, and more importantly what things they would suggest as core changes to the game. Attributes: Problem: There is the issue of massive overabundance of LIGHT and DARK monsters. This is largely due to three factors. When a monster doesn’t fit into any of the four elemental attributes, LIGHT and DARK represent ‘neutral’ choices LIGHT and DARK are the two more magical/mystical attributes, so almost all mystical or magical monsters get grouped into them. Nonmagical monsters that don’t fit anywhere are typically placed in EARTH, but some find their way here as well. LIGHT and DARK are catch-all elements that include such concepts as moonlight, time, dimensions, sleep, illusions, electricity, poison, and general morality, which only serves to make them more applicable to any monster that just has nowhere else to go. Solution: Introduce two new attributes to split the population of LIGHT and DARK and make their support less abusable. LIGHTNING: This should have always been a thing. A good number of LIGHT monsters are only LIGHT because they have electrical powers (Sparkman, Batteryman, Lightning Tricorn, Thunder Dragon, Sanga of the Thunder, and a large number of Psychic monsters). Furthermore, simply using Thunder-type and LIGHT attribute has had the effect of allowing clearly nonlight monsters access to LIGHT support, and also locking them out of having any other Type, like Warrior. Imagine if there were an ICE Attribute, but no WATER, and any WATER monster was simply Aqua Type but still benefited from clearly cold-themed support. AETHER: Originally I wanted to call this DREAM, since that’s the name of the equivalent Attribute in some of the GBA games, but Aether is more flavor-agnostic. Aether is a more ‘neutral’ mystical element than LIGHT or DARK, and can encompass concepts like Dreams, Illusions, moral ambiguity, moonlight or other dark lights, and general magic-flavored neutrality, which should free up LIGHT and DARK from most of their “why are these even here?” monsters. Additionally, if we’re to add new Attributes, I’d say we go all the way and add two more, just to cover the bases of everything that the game might ever need. FOREST: You could also call it NATURE. A large amount of EARTH monsters are clearly nature-themed and only land in EARTH because, as with LIGHTNING in LIGHT, there was just nowhere else to put them. The justification for including FOREST is best illustrated with an example. Black Rose Dragon is a FIRE Dragon that is supported by both Plant-type monsters and Dragon-type monsters that are all made of flower-petals. The support between these monsters could have been made less clunky by simply making them all FOREST Attribute, and giving them Attribute-based support effects. This is a somewhat specific example of course, but having a FOREST Attribute in addition to the Plant Type opens up the versatility inherent in FIRE and Pyro, WATER and Aqua, LIGHT (Or LIGHTNING) and Thunder, and EARTH and Rock, all combos which already exist. So I don’t see an argument for the exclusion of FOREST. ICE: As mentioned earlier. A large number of WATER monsters are clearly cold-themed, and it just feels odd that there’s no distinction between them besides the convention of denoting monsters made of Ice as WATER Aqua-Types. Of the four Attribute additions, this is the least-justifiable one I could think of, but I would argue for its inclusion on the grounds that LIGHTNING was originally excluded because a distinction was not necessary at first, but is necessary (I would so argue) in the modern game. I would say ICE is to WATER as LIGHTNING is to LIGHT. LIGHTNING and AETHER I would say are 100% necessary to include because they inherently nerf the two most prevalent Attributes and their support. ICE and FOREST I will argue strongly for on the basis that their exclusion from the game up to this point has been largely for the purposes of tradition, rather than because it was good game design, As Yugioh changed over the years, I feel that the increased versatility of ten total attributes is completely necessary to promote balance and varied card design. Types: I’m more open for debate on this one because to be quite frank I still don’t know where I stand on it. When I was younger I asked myself “Why is there no Beast-Spellcaster?” I propose the following three ideas for how a reboot could handle Types: Keep it the same. Why fix what isn’t broken, after all? Maybe rename some Types to be more general than specific (Cyberse to Program and Galaxy to Cosmic come to mind, as Cyberse is unique to the VRAINS setting and Galaxy is already an archetype that has nothing to do with the Galaxy Type) but for the most part keep them as-is. Allow multiple type tags. Exactly what it says on the tin. Let monsters have up to two tags. I personally don’t like this option but I figured I’d write it down anyway to see if someone could make an argument in favor. Split the tags by Tribe and Class. Each monster has a Tribe and some have a Class. Weaker search cards might search a Dragon but more powerful summoning or protection effects of more powerful monsters may require that a monster fits two tags, say Beast and Warrior. This is closer to how Magic: the Gathering does its tags. Like I said, I’m not sure which option I prefer. I think 3 is the best option for promoting Type-based support and has the most interesting implications, but the goal was to only add to the game or remove from it what is absolutely necessary, and changing the way that types work I don’t feel is super urgent. I’d probably concede to most arguments in favor of option 1, but I wanted to get some discourse going. PSCT 2, or New PSCT: PSCT was a massive step in the right direction for making card text more readable and less confusing, but while it’s easy to understand for veterans like us, it can still be frustrating for newcomers to learn about things like mandatory vs optional, if/when, Missing the Timing, Chains, Spell Speeds, etc. (Source: I recently taught my GF to play and while she did figure it out quickly, it was a daunting start.) We’re missing a couple of things that I feel are very necessary. Rush Duels have cards that explicitly state the requirements for an effect to activate, followed by the effect itself. For new players, the difference between a Cost and Effect can be rather confusing, so adding [COST] as a tag to effects that have costs might be helpful, and on that note… Adding Tags and Keywords to PSCT would make cards much easier to read. Ignition, Continuous, and other types of abilities have been official Yugioh lingo for a long time, but they’ve never been part of a card’s text. Making the type of ability into a tag that appears before the text of the effect begins would make it much easier to tell the types of effects a card might have at a glance without having to read the whole thing, very helpful when playing against a card you’ve never seen before and haven’t had the time to study. Additionally, using the OCG’s habit of numbering the effects on cards would also make it easy to tell just how many effects a card has at a glance. On this note, a FLIP monster in the current TCG would have the FLIP tag removed in the reboot, and instead it might have its effect written as [FLIP] This is the card’s ability [CONTINUOUS] Wait, hold on, FLIP monsters can more organically include non-flip abilities now?! [UNION] That’s right, I’m really making this argument. Making tags a part of a card’s text makes them searchable and targetable, so adding a FLIP or Union monster to your hand with a card effect is as simple as searching out a monster that has a FLIP or UNION effect. Spells and Traps will also have their effects written in this way. Also, we can now have Negates that negate specific types of effects, and monsters than ignore specific types. A monster that is immune to all effects except CONTINUOUS effects, or a Counter Trap that Negates TRIGGER effects that activate on Summon. Making the text of a card more readable at a glance and codifying additional tags in this way will massively help new players learning the game. Additionally, include the Spell Speed of an ability, so that there can never be confusion as to when or how an ability is allowed to be activated. Master Rule: Here we go, the controversial one. I’ll cut right to the chase, we can either limit all Extra Deck types or none of them and I will die on this hill. I don’t want to remove Link monsters, because even if I personally think the game was better in MR3, Links are an integral part of the modern game and they are here to stay, so our only choices are MR4 and MR5. I disagree with MR5’s changes, as it feels like it was made exclusively to further punish Pendulum for the sin of being Pendulum while allowing Fusion, Synchro, and Xyz off scott-free despite historically being the source of more broken combos. Here’s the thing, by starting from the ground up already knowing what Extra-Deck mechanics will be included, we can write cards that are meant to be balanced with all of them in mind. I recommend the use of MR5 rulings with the addition of Pendulum Zones outside of the Backrow. Pendulum monsters were always meant to be somewhat weaker combo monsters anyway. I think they do need to be limited in some way by a Master Rule, but I feel that limiting both their backrow and their summoning presence is a bit too much punishment, and not at all warranted. That being said, I don't consider myself to be the wisest or most unbiased arbiter of Master Rules, as I myself am a massive Pendulum fanboy, so I'm interested in hearing others' thoughts on the subject. Having read through my thoughts on the subject, I wanted to do an interest check. Would anyone on this forum be interested in helping to create a small set of proof-of-concept cards for this hypothetical reboot? I think it would be a fun exercise, even if it ultimately doesn’t go anywhere. I'd definetly love to help. I always thought some of yugioh has been flawed, so I agree with what you say and I think its fair and not overdone. I definetly agree with the pendulum pint since I also am a pendulum fanboy, so still no unbiased thought. I'm not sure where we'd run this though. I can go on DB and search for all the cards there and help change them. but where we'd run this still baffles me. Maybe a collab with DB to make a new section? Anyways yeah im in. 3 hours ago, Zefra Zamazenta said: I'm sorry to say this but I'm completely against your ideas of A REBOOT Why do you want a reboot you KNOW HOW EXPENSIVE THAT WOULD BE FOR KONAMI I SAY NO TO ALL OF THESE IDEAS I'm so so sorry I came off very harsh but these ideas are trying to do major ass changes I don't wanna see Now I goona bash on this thread for it but no way can this game get a massive reboot just play Duel Links or Rush Duels if you want a more balanced expensive with YGO So long answer NO and plus it would be to Stupidly Expensive for an idea most Completive Payers would flat HATE if you told them this sure I'm all in favor for balance we got more the 2 alternative and plus the banlist already address issue with Broken cards so I don't know why you ever had this idea again its me just being flat out harsh towards you but I don't wanna see a reboot. Edit: Your not wring that's just your option I just Don't agree with you that's all we have our own options. What he said was a fan-based version run by the fans, not for konami. Maybe you shouldve read it, but whatever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loleo Posted January 13, 2022 Report Share Posted January 13, 2022 On 1/11/2022 at 6:43 PM, Libracor said: Problem: There is the issue of massive overabundance of LIGHT and DARK monsters. This is largely due to three factors. When a monster doesn’t fit into any of the four elemental attributes, LIGHT and DARK represent ‘neutral’ choices LIGHT and DARK are the two more magical/mystical attributes, so almost all mystical or magical monsters get grouped into them. Nonmagical monsters that don’t fit anywhere are typically placed in EARTH, but some find their way here as well. LIGHT and DARK are catch-all elements that include such concepts as moonlight, time, dimensions, sleep, illusions, electricity, poison, and general morality, which only serves to make them more applicable to any monster that just has nowhere else to go. I agree and like where this is Going! Solution: Introduce two new attributes to split the population of LIGHT and DARK and make their support less abusable. LIGHTNING: This should have always been a thing. A good number of LIGHT monsters are only LIGHT because they have electrical powers (Sparkman, Batteryman, Lightning Tricorn, Thunder Dragon, Sanga of the Thunder, and a large number of Psychic monsters). Furthermore, simply using Thunder-type and LIGHT attribute has had the effect of allowing clearly nonlight monsters access to LIGHT support, and also locking them out of having any other Type, like Warrior. An attribute reserved to 2 types is... hard to accept. Imagine if there were an ICE Attribute, but no WATER, and any WATER monster was simply Aqua Type but still benefited from clearly cold-themed support. splitting up water even more is off putting even if I get where you're coming from. I wish this was another type instead of attribute. AETHER: Originally, I wanted to call this DREAM, since that’s the name of the equivalent Attribute in some of the GBA games, but Aether is more flavor-agnostic. Aether is a more ‘neutral’ mystical element than LIGHT or DARK, and can encompass concepts like Dreams, Illusions, moral ambiguity, moonlight or other dark lights, and general magic-flavored neutrality, which should free up LIGHT and DARK from most of their “why are these even here?” monsters. THIS! This I love because it is needed. Additionally, if we’re to add new Attributes, I’d say we go all the way and add two more, just to cover the bases of everything that the game might ever need. FOREST: You could also call it NATURE. A large amount of EARTH monsters are clearly nature-themed and only land in EARTH because, as with LIGHTNING in LIGHT, there was just nowhere else to put them. The justification for including FOREST is best illustrated with an example. Black Rose Dragon is a FIRE Dragon that is supported by both Plant-type monsters and Dragon-type monsters that are all made of flower-petals. The support between these monsters could have been made less clunky by simply making them all FOREST Attribute, and giving them Attribute-based support effects. This is a somewhat specific example of course, but having a FOREST Attribute in addition to the Plant Type opens up the versatility inherent in FIRE and Pyro, WATER and Aqua, LIGHT (Or LIGHTNING) and Thunder, and EARTH and Rock, all combos which already exist. So I don’t see an argument for the exclusion of FOREST. I feel this ostracizes a lot of types like machine. LIGHTNING and AETHER I would say are 100% necessary to include because they inherently nerf the two most prevalent Attributes and their support. ICE and FOREST I will argue strongly for on the basis that their exclusion from the game up to this point has been largely for the purposes of tradition, rather than because it was good game design, As Yugioh changed over the years, I feel that the increased versatility of ten total attributes is completely necessary to promote balance and varied card design. There is the issue of balance to decks that profit from variable attributes, the decline of hate card (which might be a good thing), more spread out support. Aether is nessasary because Light and Dark are crowded, and neutrality would help. Types: I’m more open for debate on this one because to be quite frank I still don’t know where I stand on it. When I was younger I asked myself “Why is there no Beast-Spellcaster?” I propose the following three ideas for how a reboot could handle Types: Deul+ typing makes sense but encounters the same issue with attributes and changes Floodgates power among other things. Keep it the same. Why fix what isn’t broken, after all? Maybe rename some Types to be more general than specific (Cyberse to Program and Galaxy to Cosmic come to mind, as Cyberse is unique to the VRAINS setting and Galaxy is already an archetype that has nothing to do with the Galaxy Type) but for the most part keep them as-is. ...Maybe Allow multiple type tags. Exactly what it says on the tin. Let monsters have up to two tags. I personally don’t like this option but I figured I’d write it down anyway to see if someone could make an argument in favor. This I like but encounters the same issue as attributes. Split the tags by Tribe and Class. Each monster has a Tribe and some have a Class. Weaker search cards might search a Dragon but more powerful summoning or protection effects of more powerful monsters may require that a monster fits two tags, say Beast and Warrior. This is closer to how Magic: the Gathering does its tags. I mean you could but... I mean... yes? So all monsters would be: Attribute, name, level, Tribe, Class, Effect/gemini/normal, subtype(?), effect/flavor, ATK/DEF? Seems like too much but idk. Like I said, I’m not sure which option I prefer. I think 3 is the best option for promoting Type-based support and has the most interesting implications, but the goal was to only add to the game or remove from it what is absolutely necessary, and changing the way that types work I don’t feel is super urgent. I’d probably concede to most arguments in favor of option 1, but I wanted to get some discourse going. PSCT 2, or New PSCT: PSCT was a massive step in the right direction for making card text more readable and less confusing, but while it’s easy to understand for veterans like us, it can still be frustrating for newcomers to learn about things like mandatory vs optional, if/when, Missing the Timing, Chains, Spell Speeds, etc. (Source: I recently taught my GF to play and while she did figure it out quickly, it was a daunting start.) We’re missing a couple of things that I feel are very necessary. Rush Duels have cards that explicitly state the requirements for an effect to activate, followed by the effect itself. For new players, the difference between a Cost and Effect can be rather confusing, so adding [COST] as a tag to effects that have costs might be helpful, and on that note… Adding Tags and Keywords to PSCT would make cards much easier to read. Ignition, Continuous, and other types of abilities have been official Yugioh lingo for a long time, but they’ve never been part of a card’s text. Making the type of ability into a tag that appears before the text of the effect begins would make it much easier to tell the types of effects a card might have at a glance without having to read the whole thing, very helpful when playing against a card you’ve never seen before and haven’t had the time to study. Additionally, using the OCG’s habit of numbering the effects on cards would also make it easy to tell just how many effects a card has at a glance. On this note, a FLIP monster in the current TCG would have the FLIP tag removed in the reboot, and instead it might have its effect written as [FLIP] This is the card’s ability [CONTINUOUS] Wait, hold on, FLIP monsters can more organically include non-flip abilities now?! [UNION] That’s right, I’m really making this argument. I agree with most of this. For [cost] the current PSCT of a semicollon does that and : as activation requirement (normally written in the other order). The other key words should be key words. Heck for some Archetypes there should be a card that holds the common ability on a lot of them that can be tagged. Making tags a part of a card’s text makes them searchable and targetable, so adding a FLIP or Union monster to your hand with a card effect is as simple as searching out a monster that has a FLIP or UNION effect. Spells and Traps will also have their effects written in this way. Also, we can now have Negates that negate specific types of effects, and monsters than ignore specific types. A monster that is immune to all effects except CONTINUOUS effects, or a Counter Trap that Negates TRIGGER effects that activate on Summon. Making the text of a card more readable at a glance and codifying additional tags in this way will massively help new players learning the game. Additionally, include the Spell Speed of an ability, so that there can never be confusion as to when or how an ability is allowed to be activated. 100% probably what I agree the most with. Master Rule: Here we go, the controversial one. I’ll cut right to the chase, we can either limit all Extra Deck types or none of them and I will die on this hill. I don’t want to remove Link monsters, because even if I personally think the game was better in MR3, Links are an integral part of the modern game and they are here to stay, so our only choices are MR4 and MR5. I disagree with MR5’s changes, as it feels like it was made exclusively to further punish Pendulum for the sin of being Pendulum while allowing Fusion, Synchro, and Xyz off scott-free despite historically being the source of more broken combos. Here’s the thing, by starting from the ground up already knowing what Extra-Deck mechanics will be included, we can write cards that are meant to be balanced with all of them in mind. I recommend the use of MR5 rulings with the addition of Pendulum Zones outside of the Backrow. Pendulum monsters were always meant to be somewhat weaker combo monsters anyway. I think they do need to be limited in some way by a Master Rule, but I feel that limiting both their backrow and their summoning presence is a bit too much punishment, and not at all warranted. That being said, I don't consider myself to be the wisest or most unbiased arbiter of Master Rules, as I myself am a massive Pendulum fanboy, so I'm interested in hearing others' thoughts on the subject. Pendulum would be ridiculously broken like this, but MR 5 also limits them too much I think there should be a middle ground or something like pendulum support link monsters. Under the current rules you can make much more powerful pendulums but under the restrictions you have most pendulums should be banned or they would dominate. Having read through my thoughts on the subject, I wanted to do an interest check. Would anyone on this forum be interested in helping to create a small set of proof-of-concept cards for this hypothetical reboot? I think it would be a fun exercise, even if it ultimately doesn’t go anywhere. Yeah! Sounds fun. 21 hours ago, Ankh_Dev said: I'd definetly love to help. I always thought some of yugioh has been flawed, so I agree with what you say and I think its fair and not overdone. I definetly agree with the pendulum pint since I also am a pendulum fanboy, so still no unbiased thought. I'm not sure where we'd run this though. I can go on DB and search for all the cards there and help change them. but where we'd run this still baffles me. Maybe a collab with DB to make a new section? Anyways yeah im in. Pend best deck. but seriously there are tradeoffs. having the ability to return easily, SS 6 with 2 cards, and having split effects is VERY powerful. I want to hear some rebuttals or further arguments on a few points. BUT KEY WORDS! 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libracor Posted January 13, 2022 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2022 8 hours ago, Loleo said: An attribute reserved to 2 types is... hard to accept. My gripe with he lack of Lightning is that reserving it to the types inherently prevents card designers from being creative. You can't have Warriors who benefit from Thunder support because you can only be one or the other, and that inflexibility is the core of my argument. Further, I don't really agree with the sentiment that the presence of the Thunder Type makes a Lightning attribute redundant, since we also have Pyro, Aqua, and Rock in the game already. 8 hours ago, Loleo said: I feel this ostracizes a lot of types like machine. I wouldn't agree necessarily. You don't see nature-oriented machines in the game because there just hasn't been a way to represent them. Same as how you don't see very many Ice monsters, not because there's not as much potential, but because calling the Attribute Water leaves designers thinking about Water specifically. You absolutely could make plant-themed machine monsters, we just don't see them because there's no good way to represent them in-game as-is. Odd type combos like FIRE-Aqua are a thing, even if they are rare, and it's up to designers to take oxymoronic types and attributes and combine them in novel ways, which the limited six-attribute system simply doesn't encourage. 8 hours ago, Loleo said: So all monsters would be: Attribute, name, level, Tribe, Class, Effect/gemini/normal, subtype(?), effect/flavor, ATK/DEF? Seems like too much but idk. I wanna remove or recodify subtypes like Toon, Union, and Flip, and make those abilities into tags instead. Subtypes that carry rules baggage, like Tuner, would stay since they don't actually have abilities (I.E. there are Normal/Tuner monsters). If Union monsters were to have a standardized Union ability that all Union monsters share via rules baggage, then we could keep the tag and free up space on the card for text. Flip abilities would be best off as a tag, however, so that Flip monsters can have other effects in addition labeled separately on the card. Gemini... I think that should be rules baggage instead of card text, so the subtype would stay. There's no reason for every gemini monster to tell you how they work, we all know how they work. Toons absolutely don't need a subtype. The only reason the subtype exists is because Archetyping wasn't a thing that early on in the game, and so "A "Toon" monster" wasn't something a card could say. In the modern game with modern conventions of card design, we recognize the redundancy and can remove it. As for Tribe/Class, like I said I was just spitballing ideas. I think the Tribe/Class route is better for diversity of cards we make, but as I said before I would rather keep the original method. Even if I think a single type is kind of archaic, there's no necessity to changing it so I'm not gonna hold onto it too hard. Also thanks for the criticisms, I really appreciate that there's people taking this thought experiment seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loleo Posted January 13, 2022 Report Share Posted January 13, 2022 8 hours ago, Libracor said: My gripe with he lack of Lightning is that reserving it to the types inherently prevents card designers from being creative. You can't have Warriors who benefit from Thunder support because you can only be one or the other, and that inflexibility is the core of my argument. Further, I don't really agree with the sentiment that the presence of the Thunder Type makes a Lightning attribute redundant, since we also have Pyro, Aqua, and Rock in the game already. I don't really get what's being said here to be honest. I wouldn't agree necessarily. You don't see nature-oriented machines in the game because there just hasn't been a way to represent them. Same as how you don't see very many Ice monsters, not because there's not as much potential, but because calling the Attribute Water leaves designers thinking about Water specifically. You absolutely could make plant-themed machine monsters, we just don't see them because there's no good way to represent them in-game as-is. Interesting I can see that now. Odd type combos like FIRE-Aqua are a thing, even if they are rare, and it's up to designers to take oxymoronic types and attributes and combine them in novel ways, which the limited six-attribute system simply doesn't encourage. Suships! Yeah, alright you sold me on this one. The game is still adding new types, so this isn't too groundbreaking anyway and one more doesn't mess up the balance too much. I wanna remove or recodify subtypes like Toon, Union, and Flip, and make those abilities into tags instead. Subtypes that carry rules baggage, like Tuner, would stay since they don't actually have abilities (I.E. there are Normal/Tuner monsters). I wrote my original statement before getting that far and forgot to fix it. If Union monsters were to have a standardized Union ability that all Union monsters share via rules baggage, then we could keep the tag and free up space on the card for text. Flip abilities would be best off as a tag, however, so that Flip monsters can have other effects in addition labeled separately on the card. The standard union effect is it can equip or unequip once per turn and it can destroy itself in place of the equipped monster so already standardized and redundant. Gemini... I think that should be rules baggage instead of card text, so the subtype would stay. There's no reason for every gemini monster to tell you how they work, we all know how they work. I completely agree, but honestly if anything needs support it’s gemini and normal and thank god union got some. The best waw is probably treating them as normal in deck, give them powerful support, and to keep regular normal relevant make some TOP tier generic normal support. (I personally like the first and third options while allowing a few extra gemini staples. Toons absolutely don't need a subtype. The only reason the subtype exists is because Archetyping wasn't a thing that early on in the game, and so "A "Toon" monster" wasn't something a card could say. In the modern game with modern conventions of card design, we recognize the redundancy and can remove it. Also 100% agree no reason for that As for Tribe/Class, like I said I was just spitballing ideas. I think the Tribe/Class route is better for diversity of cards we make, but as I said before I would rather keep the original method. Even if I think a single type is kind of archaic, there's no necessity to changing it so I'm not gonna hold onto it too hard. Alright fair enough Also thanks for the criticisms, I really appreciate that there's people taking this thought experiment seriously. No problem! It’s an interesting idea. A couple more questions: 1. Do you think we really need a [cost] tag or is ; efficient enough. 2. Can I hear your thoughts on how you would rebalance pendulum. 3. Can you re explain the first quote differently? 4. Theoretically how would we do the proof-of-concept cards, we could type it but this site can’t display the design maybe you can draw a format…? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libracor Posted January 14, 2022 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2022 1. Honestly, cost tag is already in PSCT through colon use, so that would be redundant. 2. As long as we pick either MR3 or MR4 rulings and stick with it, Pendulums can be designed around it. If we decide pendulums are unrestricted by Link rules, they need to be weaker across the board, and Pendulum Archetype Ace monsters should be regular effect monsters that can be gotten out by methods other than Pendulum Summon in order to balance the stronger ones. If we choose to limit Pendulums by MR4 rulings, then individual monsters as a whole need to have better recovery or just be stronger in general to remain competitively viable. It's super difficult to say how exactly things should be balanced, especially when just talking conceptually. We can leave Pends at their current general level of power and re-extend their zones to their own place on the mat, and it would probably be okay. Tl;dr: I dunno the exact answer, and it would take a lot of planning and testing, and more opinions than just my own. 3. So first the Lightning thing. In Yugioh at this moment, all electric-themed monsters fit into the LIGHT attribute, and many are also placed into the Thunder Type. So, any electric themed monster, with few exceptions must be LIGHT and Thunder. Then there are cards like Elemental HERO Sparkman who use electricity, but can't benefit from electric-themed support because He's Warrior Type. There's no way to represent a monster that uses electricity without making its Type Thunder and/or its Attribute LIGHT. Since I'm trying to slim down the LIGHT Attribute anyways, I wanted to add a LIGHTNING Attribute in order to make a greater variety of card design possible. 4. I could make a new thread in the card workshop forums, but I don't wanna do that if there's only like three people participating. I still need to codify all of the proposed rule changes, and I'm not confident in doing that without a couple active members who can help me decide which rules should be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libracor Posted January 16, 2022 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2022 So far I think I'm settled on the following changes for certain: 1. Add the following Attributes: Aether, Lightning, Forest, and Ice 2. Remove the following subtypes completely: Toon, Flip 3. Make the following subtypes have standard rules baggage that never changes, meaning it no longer needs to be printed on the cards: Gemini, Spirit, Union (Union will still have an effect telling you when it can equip, what it can equip to, and what it does when equipped, but the explanation will be greatly shortened) 4. Make it so that non-effect Extra Deck monsters can still have lore. This isn't a gameplay change but it's such a waste to leave all that space unused when we can add delicious flavor-text. 5. Streamline PSCT with notation like effect numbers, effect types, and spell speeds, including tags such as Flip, Continuous, Trigger, Ignition, etc. 6. MR5 rules with separated Pendulum Zones. Pendulums are still limited by Link Rules, this is just to make the nerf a little less unfair to them. There are a couple things that I'd personally like to explore but am not yet convinced are truly necessary, nor that I would know exactly how to implement: 1. Allow monsters to have up to two types. This option inherently requires renaming winged-beast to something like avian and removing beast-warrior, as you could just have a beast/warrior monster. I'm still not super sure about the can of worms this would open, but I'm intrigued about the potential of designs. 2. Make card text explicitly differentiate between "an opponent" and "all opponents". Yugioh was initiallty made as a 2v2 game, but the anime and multiple games feature battle royale and tag-duel rules, which feel somewhat inconsistent with each other. With the benefit of hindsight, the reboot rules can be written to address these game modes, and card text can be made explicit in its function. Honestly, I'd almost rather take the easy route and say "If you have multiple opponents, card text only affects opponents whose cards were affected, but passages that refer to both or all players affect everyone regardless" just to make things easier. I don't think a change like this is necessary, but it could be fun. 3. Rename Cyberse to Data and Galaxy to Cosmic. I explained it in earlier posts, but I feel these are less setting-specific terms. Entirely personal preference and I'm not really gonna spend a ton of time arguing in favor if people really don't agree. As for making and testing cards, we could always use TableTop Simulator and upload custom images. The cardmaker has all the options we need to make cards without images, and after exporting the imageless cards we make on this site, we could change Attributes for cards that have the new attributes in something like Photoshop or GIMP, so attributes are kind of the only custom art stuff we would need, and I can probably get someone to make those IRL on my end. Duelingbook would be nice, but the custom card function doesn't allow for custom attributes, so if we're okay with having listed attributes not match up with what's on the image we could do that as well, but we would still need a custom format for modified MR5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepy Posted January 17, 2022 Report Share Posted January 17, 2022 As proof of an interest check, lemme say I'm very interested in the ideas of this thread but can't put all my thoughts in order until I get home and get access to my computer. Are you in to some potential back and forth? Because I agree with some concepts but not all of it, and also some stuff needs further investigation and/or elaboration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libracor Posted January 17, 2022 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2022 3 minutes ago, Sleepy said: As proof of an interest check, lemme say I'm very interested in the ideas of this thread but can't put all my thoughts in order until I get home and get access to my computer. Are you in to some potential back and forth? Because I agree with some concepts but not all of it, and also some stuff needs further investigation and/or elaboration. I love back-and forth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loleo Posted January 17, 2022 Report Share Posted January 17, 2022 On 1/13/2022 at 6:17 PM, Libracor said: 1. Honestly, cost tag is already in PSCT through colon use, so that would be redundant. Semi colon is cost collon is activation requirement, but it is redundant glad I could help. 2. As long as we pick either MR3 or MR4 rulings and stick with it, Pendulums can be designed around it. If we decide pendulums are unrestricted by Link rules, they need to be weaker across the board, and Pendulum Archetype Ace monsters should be regular effect monsters that can be gotten out by methods other than Pendulum Summon in order to balance the stronger ones. If we choose to limit Pendulums by MR4 rulings, then individual monsters as a whole need to have better recovery or just be stronger in general to remain competitively viable. It's super difficult to say how exactly things should be balanced, especially when just talking conceptually. We can leave Pends at their current general level of power and re-extend their zones to their own place on the mat, and it would probably be okay. Tl;dr: I dunno the exact answer, and it would take a lot of planning and testing, and more opinions than just my own. Agreed, Pendulums should be balanced around the rules they have to abide to. Yeah, more discussion around which set of rules, but sounds good to me! 3. So first the Lightning thing. In Yugioh at this moment, all electric-themed monsters fit into the LIGHT attribute (not true there is at least one thunder monster in every attribute except divine including several that have "thunder" "bolt" or "electric" in their name [43 in attributes other than light, 75 light), and many are also placed into the Thunder Type. So, any electric themed monster, with few exceptions must be LIGHT and Thunder. Then there are cards like Elemental HERO Sparkman who use electricity, but can't benefit from electric-themed support because He's Warrior Type. There's no way to represent a monster that uses electricity without making its Type Thunder and/or its Attribute LIGHT. Since I'm trying to slim down the LIGHT Attribute anyways, I wanted to add a LIGHTNING Attribute in order to make a greater variety of card design possible. Taking away the LIGHT attribute from a card like sparkman also messes with other synergy within heroes particularly their elemental fusions. I get that electric characters not getting electric support is annoying but this doesn't really work either. Even a recent post that @Horu made "Harrem Call?" had no way to directly indicate "female". 4. I could make a new thread in the card workshop forums, but I don't wanna do that if there's only like three people participating. I still need to codify all of the proposed rule changes, and I'm not confident in doing that without a couple active members who can help me decide which rules should be changed. Alright, I'll be around! On 1/16/2022 at 4:13 PM, Libracor said: So far I think I'm settled on the following changes for certain: 1. Add the following Attributes: Aether, Lightning, Forest, and Ice I feel strongly about Aether, but not so strongly about the others. 2. Remove the following subtypes completely: Toon, Flip 100% agreed 3. Make the following subtypes have standard rules baggage that never changes, meaning it no longer needs to be printed on the cards: Gemini, Spirit, Union (Union will still have an effect telling you when it can equip, what it can equip to, and what it does when equipped, but the explanation will be greatly shortened) Yep! 4. Make it so that non-effect Extra Deck monsters can still have lore. This isn't a gameplay change but it's such a waste to leave all that space unused when we can add delicious flavor-text. That is annoying that they don't have that a lot. 5. Streamline PSCT with notation like effect numbers, effect types, and spell speeds, including tags such as Flip, Continuous, Trigger, Ignition, etc. Sure? I want to see some proof of concept designs for some of these as I'm a little hesitant on a few, but mostly sounds good. 6. MR5 rules with separated Pendulum Zones. Pendulums are still limited by Link Rules, this is just to make the nerf a little less unfair to them. I like that, the boost is fair. There are a couple things that I'd personally like to explore but am not yet convinced are truly necessary, nor that I would know exactly how to implement: 1. Allow monsters to have up to two types. This option inherently requires renaming winged-beast to something like avian and removing beast-warrior, as you could just have a beast/warrior monster. I'm still not super sure about the can of worms this would open, but I'm intrigued about the potential of designs. the can is a problem, but I'm also curious. 2. Make card text explicitly differentiate between "an opponent" and "all opponents". Yugioh was initiallty made as a 2v2 game, but the anime and multiple games feature battle royale and tag-duel rules, which feel somewhat inconsistent with each other. With the benefit of hindsight, the reboot rules can be written to address these game modes, and card text can be made explicit in its function. Honestly, I'd almost rather take the easy route and say "If you have multiple opponents, card text only affects opponents whose cards were affected, but passages that refer to both or all players affect everyone regardless" just to make things easier. I don't think a change like this is necessary, but it could be fun. YES! 2+ players! 3. Rename Cyberse to Data and Galaxy to Cosmic. I explained it in earlier posts, but I feel these are less setting-specific terms. Entirely personal preference and I'm not really gonna spend a ton of time arguing in favor if people really don't agree. I don't really care much either way. As for making and testing cards, we could always use TableTop Simulator and upload custom images. The cardmaker has all the options we need to make cards without images, and after exporting the imageless cards we make on this site, we could change Attributes for cards that have the new attributes in something like Photoshop or GIMP, so attributes are kind of the only custom art stuff we would need, and I can probably get someone to make those IRL on my end. Duelingbook would be nice, but the custom card function doesn't allow for custom attributes, so if we're okay with having listed attributes not match up with what's on the image we could do that as well, but we would still need a custom format for modified MR5. Alright sounds interesting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~British Soul~ Posted January 18, 2022 Report Share Posted January 18, 2022 On 1/13/2022 at 1:58 PM, Libracor said: Toons absolutely don't need a subtype. The only reason the subtype exists is because Archetyping wasn't a thing that early on in the game, and so "A "Toon" monster" wasn't something a card could say. In the modern game with modern conventions of card design, we recognise the redundancy and can remove it. Feel free to completely disregard my opinion, but I feel that you are forgetting the actual reason why the Toon subtype came to existence in the first place, and no it isn't because "archetyping wasn't a thing early on", that is irrelevant. Looking back at the original source material, the duel between Yugi and Pegasus, Toon monsters were formed by transforming non-Toons into Toon counterparts carrying their own set of mechanics that Konami took and adapted into the TCG/OCG, creating the subtype in the process considering it wasn't until a couple of years later that Toons would become an archetype, which at that point was when the word Toon was surrounded by quotation marks in card effect text, denoting them as a series rather than just by game mechanics as a subtype, where they were just like their original counterparts, separate monsters with no cohesive connection. I can see why you'd want to remove it in terms of the Toon support that now exists, but at the same time I didn't want to overlook their origins in the context of the source material either. Flips on the other hand, I can see the argument for the removal of the subtype, given it took over a decade for them to exist as a subtype which I feel "was it necessary" given iirc all Flip monsters released prior to the subtype's existence were all Flip effect monsters and the only two Flip monsters to exist that don't have "Flip:" effects, Aroma Jar and Deus X-Krawler didn't exist until the subtype became a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horu Posted January 18, 2022 Report Share Posted January 18, 2022 Toon is a subtype because Pegasus signature Toon monster is Manga Ryu-Ran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepy Posted January 18, 2022 Report Share Posted January 18, 2022 Zamazenta would be right about a hard reset being a bad idea if this was an official IRL thing going on that made all the playerbase's collections obsolete. It is part of why Speed Duels weren't as welcomed despite being basically Duel Links IRL.... something people were already excited about. A harder reset would hit even harder. None of this really matters though, as this thread is exploring a community activity for only the forum population, embracing the custom creation and really fully fanmade. So I DO like the idea of this thread. Oh, I just realized my statement got ninja'd up there hours ago.... still I agree with Ankh Dev here. Finally addressing the original post up there: I very much like the idea of many of these changes, although not all of them have a great solution to problems. I think the game should be a little more lax with coming up with new typings and even attributes. There is probably such a thing as "too many attributes" so that'd be the thing to look for, but other than that, GX had the "CLEAR" attribute, which is "colorless" for other card games. Ice would be cool as either a type or an attribute. I'd also like to opt for typing to be a bit more lax, as that one CAN be greatly expanded on. Things like Hungry Burger being a Warrior makes no sense, and it'd most likely fall under "Fiend" otherwise, which is too similar to too many other cards.... so as rare as it sounds, a "Food" type would be hilarious, even if vegetables got "Plant" too. Warrior is too much of a "catch all" term. Every human that's not magical in some way falls under Warrior, and although it IS a fighting game between monster cards at its core, it doesn't always fit. Then there's "metal" themes that aren't machines ("machine" being part of a more complex functionality than say, pure items that don't quite fall under "rock" like mercury). Aliens having to be Reptiles for some reason, when the otherwordly aspects of something like this would be more than just one or two arquetypes. Heck we have Wyrm as what is essentially a second "Dragon" typing.... I think other stuff warranted it more. Subtypes and Tags: Key Words in the form of tags are something many have wanted done for a while.... particularly those that have a bit of experience with it from other card games like MTG. FLIP: doesn't need to explain "if this face-down card is flipped face-up", just has 1 word in all caps and people get it. While Gemini and Union are super consistent across the board in how they work but still take 50% + of the text on a card. There's then how Konami still had to go the messy "single errata" route for Unions, updating the XYZ pieces to protect from all destruction rather than just battle destruction, and allowing you to equip more than 1 at a time. All while leaving all other old school Unions in the dust with the old issues. If they just had a keyword/tag and it was explained in a rulebook glossary, THAT is good enough. It'd even allow them to do more with the free text space they'd now have. They even still lacked 1 more update because there's like 1 Union in the entire game (which I don't recall right now off the top of my head) whose "destroy this instead" clause isn't mandatory. Toons are a little messy here because they aren't consistent, but they could be if they just had the tag and just the term Toon got updated as a whole, like the above paragraph. Right now: Some Toons can be Normal Summoned and don't require Toon World to be played. Some self Special Summon but can't be used without Toon World Some have Summoning sickness and some don't Some have a LP cost to attack and some don't Some self-destruct when Toon World on the field is destroyed, some don't..... all new ones don't. On the note of Toons, I think they need to remain as a proper subtype. Pegasus being the creator in-universe does deserve that little bit of special treatment I think. Another thing, can we coin a term for Effect Monsters that ONLY refers to the orange cards? Usually cards that say so include every mechanic under the sun but it'd be nice to just refer to the Main Deck non-special-mechanic ones in some way. This is not ideal but one thing I believe can't be encapsulated into tags is archetypes. The nature of "sometimes part of a word makes it valid for another theme" like HERO having Elemental, Destiny, Masked, Vision, Evil variations that get under the same umbrella, or the Ritual/Spiritual Beast cards, or the Roids/Speedroid, etc. It'd be great to differentiate non HERO monsters that are "Hero" but probably as is IRL is the best it can probably get for now. I wonder how you'd tackle the issue of too many typigs. Being able to technically do it doesn't always mean it'll be a good idea. We already have stuff like [Spellcaster/Synchro/Pendulum/Tuner/Effect] as is xD I'd be messy to differentiate what is Type, Sub-Type, and Card Mechanic + "Effect" although it'd probably get away with more than one set of brakets.[Spellcaster / Ice / Pyro] [Synchro / Pendulum / Effect] [Tuner / Toon / Flip ] xD IDK, that sort of thing is up for elaboration or testing out how bad/good some of these concepts might end up being xP - - - - There also has to be a specific consistent vision that everybody can agree with enough to still wanna be part of the project, yet still is assertive enough to make calls for some things down the road, but it'd be fun to try out. Needless to say, some of these ideas demand an overhaul of some graphic aspects of the game that'd be require to accomodate things better. I've got other stuff I'd wanna try out like "Level 0 exists" or traits of certain special mechanics no longer being part of them, I'm falling asleep and probably dwellving into weird and highly experimental stuff way too much by this point so I'll just leave it at that. It'd be an interesting idea to create some sort of "base". Like enough stuff for a starter deck (even if at max copies" A less change riddled version of this stuff can be tested. I suggest we can probably do a "vanilla" version of mechanics in the game, like Xyzs and Pendulums, to really find out what parts of what one likes or doesn't like about them is actually just effects surrounding them rather than the mechanic itself being too good or too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libracor Posted January 18, 2022 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2022 My thought process was that we could come up with enough cards to make two or three structure deck-style lists consisting of roughly half new cards and half old cards rewritten with the new typings, rules, and conventions in mind. Old cards being brought over with their types, attributes, and effects updated was a big part of my original idea, and I think that's probably the best way to show the potential of some of the proposed changes. The reason I'm proposing four new attributes, even though I know that it's a heck of a lot (66% increase in number from base), is because if card design ever gets to a point that a monster can't be described by an available Attribute, only "best described" by what's available to us, we're right back in with the overpopulated Light/Dark issue I'm trying to solve. It's hard to add new Attributes (which I think is weird because the game regularly adds new Types) once the game starts, so everything the game could ever need in the future needs to be accounted for now. If I set aside some time to go through the list of monster cards, God help my soul, I could compile a list of monsters whose Attributes and Types could change, and if the list is substantial enough would that be enough justification? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepy Posted January 18, 2022 Report Share Posted January 18, 2022 I'd say start by making 1, maybe 2, starter decks. You can be minimalistic (max out the copies of all pieces you intend to use in 1 deck to minimize design work at this stage as much as possible). The Attribute/Type additions would only work in the long run because early life of this hypothetical format, you'd definitely not be suffering from too many cards in any department, and it's not like we can select "LIGHTNING" from the card makers we do have available for easy card generation. Types are easier to just write down as they aren't outright logos of their own. You'd have to go for brakets for tags for now [ ] as we can't exactly do something like the highlighted effect or different in size/font separate from everything else in the text like the "ability" "poke-body" "poke'power" do in Pokemon's TCG. The deck will help provide a very very important factor: Your vision. There has to be a consistent vision to work from. In colaborative projects we can't have one side making something that rivals beast beatdown from 2005 and another member designing something with the power level of current Shaddoll or Virtual World. I personally think we should make a TEST level build that just showcases the power of Rituals, Fusions, Xyzs, Links, Pendulums, and Tribute Summon as mechanics in their purest state: vanilla-like. No fancy nothing. It's easy to say one mechanic is stronger or weaker when we are actually thinking of effects supporting them, and it isn't fair to think of "Stardust Pass" next to a full power Knightmare Extra Link formation. Here I'm gonna throw in an idea..... Can we tweak any of these that end up too weak or too strong? If a mechanic has to be cheated out via effects to be viable, it is kind of a failed thing. For example, nobody ever really Tribute Summons 2+ monster very organically. Domain Monarchs and Legendary Ocean reduce 1 Tribute and Blue-Eyes needs effects that put it out instantly (be it its support from 2015 up to now, the King Dragoon back in 2004, or Flute at pretty much the inception of the game itself), and without full dedication to it, it has NEVER been worth it. ^Maybe something similar to what Rush Duels do.... Now, I'm not super into the idea of "Normal Summon everything you want ever". I like limitations in games that effects can later work around, but maybe we could do something like "Tribute Summons that use 2+ monsters can be done without counting as your Normal Summon of the turn" or something like that.... just to name a suggestion literally off the top of my head..... What do you think? - - - - EDIT: Oh almost forgot..... What are your thoughts on "Placeholder staples"? As in, cards that some people deem necessary for the game but as the game builds on top of itself, they become too generic to keep around, and sometimes evne from their creation they get restricted. Like how Pot of Greed was THE "draw cards" card that now has dozens to hundreds of replacements in draw power. Perrsonally I'd like if possible, to avoid any "made to be banned later" designs like that, but I can see an argument for needing certain key functions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libracor Posted January 18, 2022 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2022 Regarding balance and game speed, I think that the concept of modern summoning mechanics in a game with about the level of speed of circa 2008-2009, in that sweet spot right before Zexal dropped and kicked the speed up, might be interesting. But also, I want as much representation of existing cards as possible, and I don’t want to change effects that don’t strictly need to be changed. I guess there’s two questions to ask of everyone who wants in on this: 1) How much do you want to see of old cards and how much should be strictly new? 2) What format do you want the cards to be balanced around? I don’t wanna decide to balance the game around the speed of modern day only to find out everyone just wants to play Goat Format, you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booloomer Posted January 18, 2022 Report Share Posted January 18, 2022 On 1/11/2022 at 7:43 PM, Libracor said: I wasn't sure where to post this, but Rayfield Lumina seemed to think the best place for it would be here. I’ve been thinking lately about all the ways this game could be improved, and my mind keeps going to an interesting thought: The game is broken because of a few key design errors, and a reboot might be the best solution. So, here’s a thought experiment: If we, as a community, were to design a reboot of Yugioh, how would we go about it? How should we go about it? What things would we add and what would we take away in the search for a more balanced version of this game? Here’s my thoughts on the topic, separated into the four categories of Attribute, Type, PSCT 2, and Master Rule. I wanna know what people think, and more importantly what things they would suggest as core changes to the game. Attributes: Problem: There is the issue of massive overabundance of LIGHT and DARK monsters. This is largely due to three factors. When a monster doesn’t fit into any of the four elemental attributes, LIGHT and DARK represent ‘neutral’ choices LIGHT and DARK are the two more magical/mystical attributes, so almost all mystical or magical monsters get grouped into them. Nonmagical monsters that don’t fit anywhere are typically placed in EARTH, but some find their way here as well. LIGHT and DARK are catch-all elements that include such concepts as moonlight, time, dimensions, sleep, illusions, electricity, poison, and general morality, which only serves to make them more applicable to any monster that just has nowhere else to go. Solution: Introduce two new attributes to split the population of LIGHT and DARK and make their support less abusable. LIGHTNING: This should have always been a thing. A good number of LIGHT monsters are only LIGHT because they have electrical powers (Sparkman, Batteryman, Lightning Tricorn, Thunder Dragon, Sanga of the Thunder, and a large number of Psychic monsters). Furthermore, simply using Thunder-type and LIGHT attribute has had the effect of allowing clearly nonlight monsters access to LIGHT support, and also locking them out of having any other Type, like Warrior. Imagine if there were an ICE Attribute, but no WATER, and any WATER monster was simply Aqua Type but still benefited from clearly cold-themed support. AETHER: Originally I wanted to call this DREAM, since that’s the name of the equivalent Attribute in some of the GBA games, but Aether is more flavor-agnostic. Aether is a more ‘neutral’ mystical element than LIGHT or DARK, and can encompass concepts like Dreams, Illusions, moral ambiguity, moonlight or other dark lights, and general magic-flavored neutrality, which should free up LIGHT and DARK from most of their “why are these even here?” monsters. Additionally, if we’re to add new Attributes, I’d say we go all the way and add two more, just to cover the bases of everything that the game might ever need. FOREST: You could also call it NATURE. A large amount of EARTH monsters are clearly nature-themed and only land in EARTH because, as with LIGHTNING in LIGHT, there was just nowhere else to put them. The justification for including FOREST is best illustrated with an example. Black Rose Dragon is a FIRE Dragon that is supported by both Plant-type monsters and Dragon-type monsters that are all made of flower-petals. The support between these monsters could have been made less clunky by simply making them all FOREST Attribute, and giving them Attribute-based support effects. This is a somewhat specific example of course, but having a FOREST Attribute in addition to the Plant Type opens up the versatility inherent in FIRE and Pyro, WATER and Aqua, LIGHT (Or LIGHTNING) and Thunder, and EARTH and Rock, all combos which already exist. So I don’t see an argument for the exclusion of FOREST. ICE: As mentioned earlier. A large number of WATER monsters are clearly cold-themed, and it just feels odd that there’s no distinction between them besides the convention of denoting monsters made of Ice as WATER Aqua-Types. Of the four Attribute additions, this is the least-justifiable one I could think of, but I would argue for its inclusion on the grounds that LIGHTNING was originally excluded because a distinction was not necessary at first, but is necessary (I would so argue) in the modern game. I would say ICE is to WATER as LIGHTNING is to LIGHT. LIGHTNING and AETHER I would say are 100% necessary to include because they inherently nerf the two most prevalent Attributes and their support. ICE and FOREST I will argue strongly for on the basis that their exclusion from the game up to this point has been largely for the purposes of tradition, rather than because it was good game design, As Yugioh changed over the years, I feel that the increased versatility of ten total attributes is completely necessary to promote balance and varied card design. Types: I’m more open for debate on this one because to be quite frank I still don’t know where I stand on it. When I was younger I asked myself “Why is there no Beast-Spellcaster?” I propose the following three ideas for how a reboot could handle Types: Keep it the same. Why fix what isn’t broken, after all? Maybe rename some Types to be more general than specific (Cyberse to Program and Galaxy to Cosmic come to mind, as Cyberse is unique to the VRAINS setting and Galaxy is already an archetype that has nothing to do with the Galaxy Type) but for the most part keep them as-is. Allow multiple type tags. Exactly what it says on the tin. Let monsters have up to two tags. I personally don’t like this option but I figured I’d write it down anyway to see if someone could make an argument in favor. Split the tags by Tribe and Class. Each monster has a Tribe and some have a Class. Weaker search cards might search a Dragon but more powerful summoning or protection effects of more powerful monsters may require that a monster fits two tags, say Beast and Warrior. This is closer to how Magic: the Gathering does its tags. Like I said, I’m not sure which option I prefer. I think 3 is the best option for promoting Type-based support and has the most interesting implications, but the goal was to only add to the game or remove from it what is absolutely necessary, and changing the way that types work I don’t feel is super urgent. I’d probably concede to most arguments in favor of option 1, but I wanted to get some discourse going. PSCT 2, or New PSCT: PSCT was a massive step in the right direction for making card text more readable and less confusing, but while it’s easy to understand for veterans like us, it can still be frustrating for newcomers to learn about things like mandatory vs optional, if/when, Missing the Timing, Chains, Spell Speeds, etc. (Source: I recently taught my GF to play and while she did figure it out quickly, it was a daunting start.) We’re missing a couple of things that I feel are very necessary. Rush Duels have cards that explicitly state the requirements for an effect to activate, followed by the effect itself. For new players, the difference between a Cost and Effect can be rather confusing, so adding [COST] as a tag to effects that have costs might be helpful, and on that note… Adding Tags and Keywords to PSCT would make cards much easier to read. Ignition, Continuous, and other types of abilities have been official Yugioh lingo for a long time, but they’ve never been part of a card’s text. Making the type of ability into a tag that appears before the text of the effect begins would make it much easier to tell the types of effects a card might have at a glance without having to read the whole thing, very helpful when playing against a card you’ve never seen before and haven’t had the time to study. Additionally, using the OCG’s habit of numbering the effects on cards would also make it easy to tell just how many effects a card has at a glance. On this note, a FLIP monster in the current TCG would have the FLIP tag removed in the reboot, and instead it might have its effect written as [FLIP] This is the card’s ability [CONTINUOUS] Wait, hold on, FLIP monsters can more organically include non-flip abilities now?! [UNION] That’s right, I’m really making this argument. Making tags a part of a card’s text makes them searchable and targetable, so adding a FLIP or Union monster to your hand with a card effect is as simple as searching out a monster that has a FLIP or UNION effect. Spells and Traps will also have their effects written in this way. Also, we can now have Negates that negate specific types of effects, and monsters than ignore specific types. A monster that is immune to all effects except CONTINUOUS effects, or a Counter Trap that Negates TRIGGER effects that activate on Summon. Making the text of a card more readable at a glance and codifying additional tags in this way will massively help new players learning the game. Additionally, include the Spell Speed of an ability, so that there can never be confusion as to when or how an ability is allowed to be activated. Master Rule: Here we go, the controversial one. I’ll cut right to the chase, we can either limit all Extra Deck types or none of them and I will die on this hill. I don’t want to remove Link monsters, because even if I personally think the game was better in MR3, Links are an integral part of the modern game and they are here to stay, so our only choices are MR4 and MR5. I disagree with MR5’s changes, as it feels like it was made exclusively to further punish Pendulum for the sin of being Pendulum while allowing Fusion, Synchro, and Xyz off scott-free despite historically being the source of more broken combos. Here’s the thing, by starting from the ground up already knowing what Extra-Deck mechanics will be included, we can write cards that are meant to be balanced with all of them in mind. I recommend the use of MR5 rulings with the addition of Pendulum Zones outside of the Backrow. Pendulum monsters were always meant to be somewhat weaker combo monsters anyway. I think they do need to be limited in some way by a Master Rule, but I feel that limiting both their backrow and their summoning presence is a bit too much punishment, and not at all warranted. That being said, I don't consider myself to be the wisest or most unbiased arbiter of Master Rules, as I myself am a massive Pendulum fanboy, so I'm interested in hearing others' thoughts on the subject. Having read through my thoughts on the subject, I wanted to do an interest check. Would anyone on this forum be interested in helping to create a small set of proof-of-concept cards for this hypothetical reboot? I think it would be a fun exercise, even if it ultimately doesn’t go anywhere. I love this idea! I know I'm a bit late, but here's my thoughts! I think all four attributes are good to add. Maybe change the name of FOREST to something more general, like NATURE? ELECTRIC might be a good alternative name for LIGHTNING, too. I think Option 3 is the best choice for Type, although I think we should still have those minor changes to types you listed earlier in Option 1. I'm not as well-versed in PSCT, so I can't comment. I like the idea for organic Flip and Non-Flip effects, though. On Master Rule, I think Pendulum should have the same freedoms as Fusion, Synchro, and XYZ. Really cool idea for a revamp! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepy Posted January 18, 2022 Report Share Posted January 18, 2022 My favorite format I've played personally is that bridge gap between the end of the Synchro era and the beginning of the Xyz era. Right after they limited enough of the plant engine and most other decks of the moment (BW, Frogs, LS, etc) and gave us Gachi and Utopia, but also right before Wind-up Loop came into the game and created one of the most boring and power-crept formats ever. The game had enough speed to feel like you had control and options to do "big brain" plays, but slow enough that there wasn't such a thing as "break my turn one board of omni negates". TeleDAD was still on a high pedestal of broken-ness so you can more or less expect nothing really was like that at this point. Heck I played a deck that often depended on Flamvell Firedog beating something up with its 1900 ATK so I could MP2 Synchro 1 Level 8 and pass and repeat for a couple turns until Rekindling hit. Come Xyz era and somehow I could never do it anymore. I don't think that's everybody's cup of tea, but tbh, Goat is really fun for its level, yet you kinda have to make your hands work most of the time... can't say it has the most varied of toolboxing capabilities compared to other formats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepy Posted January 18, 2022 Report Share Posted January 18, 2022 Ah, sorry for the double-posting. I forgot to address the question about how much we'd be importing from the IRL game. I personally would prefer to make it all from scratch, carefully adjusting to the needs of the pool as it grows. Though I've followed projects like this before and I know most people normally prefer to get a sizable amount of IRL cards into their format to work with. If that's what ends up happening, I guess the good about it is the familiarity of the cards making it easier to assemble a bigger picture for any strategy to be built upon. I've tried to start pools that way myself with a sort of "cube" like the old "Battle Pack" formats the IRL game did back around 2013. I think it can be done, but at some point I think the cards start feeling cluncky, like they were clearly not made to get value of mroe than 1 or 2 interactions. "If this card was a different type", "if this card had a little less DEF", etc. I guess we'll see. It's a start xP Do you have any cards in mind you'd like to see? Let's give us a stating point, shall we? What are your thoughts on say..... Fencing Fire Ferret?https://yugioh.fandom.com/wiki/Fencing_Fire_Ferret Lightning Handhttps://yugioh.fandom.com/wiki/Thunder_Hand Ayer's Rock Sunrisehttps://yugioh.fandom.com/wiki/Ayers_Rock_Sunrise Scapeghosthttps://yugioh.fandom.com/es/wiki/Scapeghost Rocket Caliberhttps://yugipedia.com/wiki/Rokket_Caliber Blowback Dragonhttps://yugioh.fandom.com/wiki/Blowback_Dragon Fusion Deploymenthttps://yugioh.fandom.com/wiki/Fusion_Deployment Keeper of Dragon Magichttps://yugioh.fandom.com/wiki/Keeper_of_Dragon_Magic and stuff like Blue-Eyes or "Angmarl the Fiendish Monarch"https://yugioh.fandom.com/wiki/Angmarl_the_Fiendish_Monarch taking into account the stuff I suggested about a Tribute Summon per turn being a small extra to the regular Normal Summon the game already gives, so as to help the mechanic a bit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libracor Posted January 18, 2022 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2022 It's funny you mention the Tribute thing. When I was working on this idea a few months ago, I came up with the same solution. I think there's two ways we can enable Tribute Summons without cheating high-level monsters out. 1) Allow the player to Tribute Summon one time in addition to their Normal Summon 2) Give on-summon effects to high-level monsters more than we do low-level monsters. This will have the added benefit of potentially enabling Xyz decks to go into more plays than just R4nk spam. Also, it would give the player a reason to use high-level Gemini monsters An idea that I had floating around was to allow monsters that require more Tributes for a Tribute summon to also count as that many Tributes. Obviously when combined with the extra Tribute Summon per turn would be a bit overkill, but as an alternative solution maybe? The Classic Frognarch-era Monarch monsters are a good example of what I mean by this, only having on-summon effects. I think a good way to balance cards in general is to look at the advantage it grants you, and nerf it if that advantage is above +1. For example, Special Summon off a Normal Summon is +1, and if the monsters you can summon can then press advantage, you get runaway meta. However, if you have to Tribute a monster to get that Special Summon, it's back to a +0. Level 7+ monsters are a bare minimum of -1 in card advantage because they take two Tributes, so they would have better effects to compensate, rather than just improved stats. On a related note, I want more focus to be on Type or Attribute support than Archetype support. I'm not saying remove Archetypes entirely, but it does get kind of frustrating when Archetype Decks have inherent synergy that Type or Attribute-focused decks can't really match. For this first hypothetical set, I think we should shy away from Archetypes for now and see where it goes until then. Regardless of which format speed (for lack of a better term) we choose, I want to make the available cards play nicely with each other as semi-generic pieces rather than a set of cards that only have synergy because their names are in the text. If I wanted to make fast, consistent archetype cards, I'll just make them for the regular game. Regarding placeholder staples, since we want to have an idea for how this format plays, we should do our best to make sure the meta doesn't fluctuate too much, so the idea of cards becoming overtaken by newer, stronger cards is less of an issue to deal with. Obviously it's not something that can always be avoided, but the fewer obsolete cards we add, the less bloated the card pool will become. I'm willing to concede on ICE as an Attribute if we collectively decide it isn't necessary. I know I'm beating the dead horse here, but my biggest concern is deciding that something is unnecessary now and finding that it has become necessary in the future when it's too late to add. It would be quite tone-deaf of me to make my argument in favor of LIGHTNING and then not at least make my case for ICE. Renaming Forest to Nature is acceptable I think, but the Kanji for Forest will look nicer on the icon. That's more aesthetics stuff we can decide on later. Finally, I forgot to mention it earlier, but I propose the following Gemini rule changes: 1) Gemini monsters are Normal everywhere except the Deck. This is so they can't benefit from cards like Summoner's Art or Unexpected Dai which search or tutor Normal Monsters from the Deck. That type of Search is too powerful to use on monsters that can have effects, but allowing them to be Normal in the Grave or Hand will let them benefit from things like Ancient Rules, which would be far less broken. 2) If an effect grants you a Special Summon from your Hand and only your Hand and your Gemini monster on the Field meets the Criteria of that Special Summon, you can grant it its effects by Special Summoning it. Thanks again to everyone for taking this thread seriously and offering your insight, I really appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepy Posted January 18, 2022 Report Share Posted January 18, 2022 I don't mind ICE as an attribute. I DID mention I think Types and Attributes should be more flexible in their ability to be added into the game, rather than making a whole festival out of it like IRL Yugioh does where it so far only happens at the start of a new era (Psychics when Synchros, Wyrms when Xyzs, Cyberse when Links). I'm not all that convinced on the "counts as extra Tributes" bit, as it does not help Level 5 or 6 at all so it doesn't support things as a whole. At least not on its own. I'm more into the "you get 1 Normal Summon + 1 Tribute Summon each turn" bit, making Level 5/6 into mid-range/investment cards that can be splashed a bit better, while making Level 7+ not necessarily cheaper but able to get out a little faster. The "counts as x tributes" option I think is worth testing out incombination, as much as you deem it overkill at the moment. I think being able to "Level up" from low to mid to high Level without adding extra bits to the equation in a couple turns sounds fun in all honesty. I could even think of some LV ideas regarding it.... Also since Level-based mechanics (Rituals/Synchros/Xyzs/Pendulums) ARE gonna be a thing, it means some amount of level modulating is gonna be going on, so you can Summon a Level 4 that can become 5 and use that same turn's Tribute Summon for a Level 7 using just that. Kind of like Kaibaman's playstyle (the card, not the character) but making use of mechanics in the rules rather than a super explicit effect..... I think I'll make something basic with IRL cards at DuelingBook and see what I can cook.... I'll gradually get rid of most of them in favor of customs but for now getting a feel is important. On the bit about LV.... umm well I actually agree with you, let's not do archetypes. The game has enough variety potential to easily avoid them for a while. Which is not to say we'd forever be against the concept, but starting generic is a good call. Gemini has proven to be a very underwhelming mechanic overall so maybe your omision of the deck is a bit much, BUT rather than argue that point, I'll actually instead suggest we try to not have Gemini as a mechanic at all for the moment. It's a very niche mechanic so at the very least let's not put too much effort into trying to make them. If an idea for one of them naturally pops up, sure xD I myself think we maybe could turn the sort of Crystal Beast's gamestyle into its own mechanic (unlike Unions, becoming a Continuous instead of Equip). Though that might be a bit niche for a start as well so for now just putting it out there. One last thing, and this might be the only part where I'd argue against something in the thread: I fully disagree with Pendulums running like Master Rule 3. If everything else around the game is gonna get re-balanced, a potential build-up of "Summon 5 from Extra Deck" is incredibly dangerous. There must be some sort of tweak that can be made on the mechanic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libracor Posted January 18, 2022 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2022 2 minutes ago, Sleepy said: One last thing, and this might be the only part where I'd argue against something in the thread: I fully disagree with Pendulums running like Master Rule 3. If everything else around the game is gonna get re-balanced, a potential build-up of "Summon 5 from Extra Deck" is incredibly dangerous. There must be some sort of tweak that can be made on the mechanic. I think there might have been some miscommunication: Pends summon with MR5 Link rules in mind, they just have their scales on their own zones again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libracor Posted January 18, 2022 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2022 There was a concept I had thought of a few weeks ago, but I wasn't sure if it was a good idea. For the sake of putting it on the table, here it is: Pendulum Summon is no longer OPT, HOWEVER any given monster can be Pendulum Summoned only once per turn. The idea here is you can Pendulum out a monster, and then either move it off the Extra Zone or use it as a mat to free up the space. I really don't think this is a great solution, but it's the only 'tweak' I can really think of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepy Posted January 19, 2022 Report Share Posted January 19, 2022 Sounds a little troublesome keeping track of which one has and hasn't because some of the mechanics will spin them back into the Extra Deck. It is kind of like having to keep track of your Summons using Ritual Beasts, except for a full mechanic this time. It also would make them the same in potency as MR3. You bring out a couple by having a Link 2, Xyz/Synchro with them using just those two to get them out of the way and Pendulum Summon others to be used for something else. One could argue coming in waves like that would make the mechanic more powerful as in the long run it'd Summon more monsters, and now it is less wary of stuff like Bottomless or Solemn because it has more than 2 shots at bringing things out. Instead of "I Summon 5" like in MR3, it'd be "I have a Link, I Pendulum Summon 2, make an Xyz and put it away, bring another 2 and repeat, bring another 2 and repeat for the 3rd, and bring another 2 to make a 4th one, and then bring a final Pendulum Summon in the last available Zone. At the end it is a total of 9 monsters that could fit instead of 5. Obviously this demands a huge setup in the Extra Deck, but it still looks to me like it is the same advantages as MR3 and then a little boost. I do recall stuff like PePe decks having Extra Deck Pendulums to spare after a couple turns. - - - - In the spirit of trying to contribute with something and not just be shooting down ideas, a random thought I had that maybe could be tested is: -Pendulum Summon multiple times per turn, but following the limitations of MR4/MR5, ALSO you have to pick a Level to Pendulum Summon specifically, and you won't be able to pick that Level again for the rest of the turn. -In addition, to take a page from Konami's latest Pendulum archetype that has pretty much exclusively low scales in the Main Deck, and some amount of work is required for the higher scales (we could make slightly bigger/harder to get out monsters be prized with slightly bigger scales so that something like "0 and 8" doesn't take the same effort as a "3 and 5" scale, helping reward for wider ranges in scales). ^That's not something I am all that sure if it is too convoluted or even a turn off, but the idea is out there..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.