CrabHelmet Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 However, if it inflicted 20000 damage instead of 200 damage, it would be banworthy. How much damage can a Sparks-esque card inflict without being banworthy? Assuming that Tag Duels have distinct banlists from regular duels, is this number different in a Tag Duel setting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zelda_tp_fan Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Thats a good question... never really thought about it... I'd say 1500 would probably be the most damage that a burn card could inflict before it becomes banworthy, but even 1500 is pushing it imo... I don't know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armageddon08 Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 I think this topic was made to trap noobs. Isn't that right Crab? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted October 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 I think this topic was made to trap noobs. Isn't that right Crab? I don't need to make topics to trap n00bs. I just need to wander into the topics they make themselves, like the one about how Arcanite Magician/Buster is ridiculously overpowered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azuh Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 2000 is probably the limit. But no card should be able to inflict this much directly and must be worked for to do so (Ceasefire, Chain Strike etc) At the most. A Sparks-like card should only inflict 1000 at most. And yet, this is where Meteor of Destruction comes in. Its the highest direct damage card in the current game and should stay like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skarlet Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Correction, Final Flame inflicts 1500 damage, however, this also damages you, and ban sparks, laughable, rediculous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azuh Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Correction' date=' [b']Final Flame inflicts 1500 damage[/b], however, this also damages you, and ban sparks, laughable, rediculous You sure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonisanoob Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 1000 even tho 800 = 1/10 wich is kinda pushing it but oh well ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiro Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Let's say there is a spell card card that deals 2700 damage but requires you to discard 1 card to activate. If you happen to draw 3 of those cards on the first turn, you can use up all your resources to win the game. This is just over the limit, so the highest amount of damage for that card to deal is 2600, since it doesn't kill your opponent immediately if you play all 3 of them (though that card shouldn't be allowed when there are so many other burn cards, because then the very next card you drew would make you win). Playing another such card that doesn't require you to discard will make you lose half the amount of resources. Therefore, the highest amount of damage for that card to deal is also half the previous amount. 1300, that's how much damage spark can deal at the highest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Judgment Dragon Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 2000 is probably the limit. But no card should be able to inflict this much directly and must be worked for to do so (Ceasefire' date=' Chain Strike etc) At the most. A Sparks-like card should only inflict 1000 at most. And yet, this is where Meteor of Destruction comes in. Its the highest direct damage card in the current game and should stay like that[/quote'] Tremendous Fire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skarlet Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Wrong again retract previous statement I cant argue when it comes to burn decks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azuh Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 2000 is probably the limit. But no card should be able to inflict this much directly and must be worked for to do so (Ceasefire' date=' Chain Strike etc) At the most. A Sparks-like card should only inflict 1000 at most. And yet, this is where Meteor of Destruction comes in. Its the highest direct damage card in the current game and should stay like that[/quote'] Tremendous Fire? Everyone, please read your cards before you say stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-Max Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 I used to love using that card. 1000 to them and 500 to you. Could that be comboed with Barrel Behind the Door? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Judgment Dragon Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 You can. You can activate "Barrel Behind the Door" against Normal and Quick-Play Spell and Trap Cards' date=' such as "Tremendous Fire" or "Attack and Receive". [/quote'] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuki ni Mau Majin Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 However' date=' if it inflicted 20000 damage instead of 200 damage, it would be banworthy.[/i'] How much damage can a Sparks-esque card inflict without being banworthy? Assuming that Tag Duels have distinct banlists from regular duels, is this number different in a Tag Duel setting? I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that statement. The most I would think a card to inflict burn damage would be no more than 1500. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iAmNateXero Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Ban worthy? What if it were in spell form? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidchaor Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 sparks will never be banworthy because noone uses the card since it is useless. more people use cards like solar flare dragons to deal damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 sparks will never be banworthy because noone uses the card since it is useless. more people use cards like solar flare dragons to deal damage. Read the topic instead of just reading the topic title. <_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiro Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Ban worthy? What if it were in spell form? Dice Jar is so scary that nobody dares to run it, so banning it would be needless. :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iAmNateXero Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Its the most destructive rock monster in the game. It also is the only Single card capable of dealing 6000 in a turn. (Second to Cyber jar of course.) Thats 3/4th of any persons Life points. Not to mention, resistance is futile, "If the results are the same, both players roll again." Just because nobody uses it, doesn't mean it isn't ban worthy, It just means people haven't exploited it yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skuldur Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 no one runs it because it relies only on luck and no one wants to use this and lose 6000 LP in one turn. The risk is too high maybe for a last resort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iAmNateXero Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Unless you cheat in this game, everything is based on risk. Using "I could loose." is a cop out. P.S. Aren't we supposed to compare to team dueling? The effect states that both players roll a die. That means all 4 people roll a die. That also means you have 2 chances to score the highest roll possible. Easing some of the risk. I can see it now. Team 1, Player A rolls 6.Team 2, Player A rolls 6Team 1, Player B rolls 6.Team 2, Player B rolls 5. LOL! POOR team B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umbra Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Dice Jar + PMD = Lulz. On-topic: I would say 1000 damage at the most, without any outbalancing effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesusofChaos™ Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 All i see is people randomly pulling numbers out their anuses without proper justification. Now I know the current meta is not a good example but im going to use it anyway. Triple solemn is maindecked everywhere. Now not many games triple solemn is used but on average at least 1-2 solemns is used leaving LP at 2000-3000. Any card which inflicts this amount should be limited as a combo comprising of multiple copies is the negative effect thus one can remain. However as you get to higher amount than this the nature of duels means that towards the end both players have low lifepoints and a card like this would an instant win for whoever topdecked it. With this reasoning I would put the limit for limiting such a card at 2000 and banning at 2700 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-Max Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 I know that Life Points isn't everything but I guess that would teach tehm for playing 3 Solemns :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.