Deck Originality

Status
Not open for further replies.
I still think the initial post was taken far too personally. Maybe he just wanted to see if there were players out there who were like minded. Usually when a challenge is issued you either accept it or decline, not scold the challenger cause you didn't like the challenge.

But that's neither here nor there now. Personally, I don't read much on Metagame that I find as original as what I see at the Collective. Again, your idea of original is new parts in an old Buick. Whereas my idea of original, is a flying Buick I built in my backyard. You add one part to ten and call it a new mix. That's fine, but is as I said, something I disagree with. Just like I disagree that a good deck equals a good player and vice versa. Original thinkers just aren't as sensitive to loosing, if it means exploring new territory. You can call them bad players if you wish. But I've never equated a players ability with his win/loss ratio. Not when he's searching for something, and willing to take the bullet if he's wrong. A player that puts himself through the mill winds up a better player in my estimation, then one who rehashes the same old hash.

But we could go back and forth forever. The best I, or should I say the CSC, can do is keep working at our philosophies, and one day, either prove you right, or prove you wrong. I know where my money lies.
 
I never said a Good Deck = a Good Player. Quite the opposite. A Good Player with a Bad Deck still has the skills to beat out other people. But putting a Good Deck in a Bad Player's hands doesn't mean they're any better than they were before.

Further, my sense of Originality is something you worked out yourself. However is it MY fault that many other people worked out the same idea? Granted there may be a lot of copying but people still had to work on it in the first place. Just because it's "popular" doesn't mean someone didn't sit down to put the effort into making it work in the first place. I'd be very willing to bet that Norleras will be a popular deck type because people love Chaos. However, it's not as straightforward as the the old Chaos decks. I'm sure though that people had playtested ideas around it (using playholders and whatnot) to see what makes it tick and what doesn't. So are they "unoriginal" for rehashing an old concept or are they original for building the decktype out of new cards that until today weren't released yet?

EDIT

And for the record, I run what I like. I don't like running something everyone else has done. I like coming up with something that isn't commonly seen at big events (like Final Countdown at a SJC and came away with a winning record). I can't claim it was an "original" deck though because well, there's only so many different ways you can go with Final Countdown, but it still was original in the sense that a) noone expected it and b) I didn't just copy someone elses deck. So there is a distinction here between "Free Thinking" and "True Originality". At the same time though, I am not going to discount running something because "everyone else is". I like Destiny Heroes. I had run them in other decks before because of the Aster Packs I run them now. It might not be the most original deck type out there because a lot of people jumped on the bandwagon (or tried to cause it still is an expensive deck) but it was "freely thought" about.
 
Sorry if i sound like i'm bringing up past things, but what exactly is originality? Two people can have the same deck and play them totally differently. Or is it the cards in your deck? I currently am running a Snipe Hunter Deck, that uses Snipe Hunter's effect to throw away Ojamagic to bring three ojamas to my hand to throw them away as well...does the fact that i'm using Ojamagic mean that ny deck is original? I also built a Macrocosmos/Burn deck using Catapult Turtle, Cannon Soldier, D.D. Scout Plane, D.D. Survivor and Graverobber's Retribution...does the startegy make that deck original? What about my Skull Servant deck? Or my Conscription Deck? What is it that makes them original or not? sorry if i wasted anyone's time, but this whole originality business has me a bit upset, if someone wishes to run a "CRUNCHY" (as we call it) deck, let them.
 
People will hate me for this, I'm sure.... but if the game creators would hopefully /really/ want originality, they'll start banning most of the always played, always overused in 90%+ deck near-"staples" that most everyone plays and reinvent them in multiple theme forms or some costs. Definitely no Snatch Steal or Ring of Destruction, no Heavy Storm, no Confiscation, no Mirror Force, no Torrential Tribute, no Call of the Haunted, no Premature Burial, etc. It won't hurt the game to let quite a large group of cards actually hit the banned list for a while, and while many of our old favorites aren't exactly overpowered in many ways, I'm one to believe if any card, no matter how crappy, or how good, gets overly played for the longest time, it can take its time on the shelf. Heck, let Sakuretsu Armor take some shelf time even and see what people do.

The thing I love most about Yu-Gi-Oh, the fact that you can use cards from any set ever printed, is also the thing that I hate the most about it. I stopped playing M:TG years ago because it's far too expensive keeping up with all the new sets, just to stay in tournament play, but there's times I definitely yearn for Konami to be a whole lot stricter on their cards...

Total person opinions. That is all. Take them as you will.
 
Ban those cards and then all that is going to happen is a new list of "broken" cards that are at 1 per deck will be staple. Then players will complain cards like Brain Control and Pot of Averice are too powerful. They are already weaker versions of banned cards, how much more can you knock them down?

In other words, banning some cards just makes players complain about other cards, like it or not. That is why ceartain cards come on and off the list. Variety.
 
Well when it comes to banning cards, it may come down to Konami making broken card abilities, or cards that allow massive card gain advantage (e.g. Cyber Jar). Why Konami chooses to make broken cards is beyond me? So the same thing happens over and over again Konami will make a really broken card, most tournament duelists will play it then it will be banned, and people will whine about spending too much money on certain cards. The primary basis of the game is to usually win in Yugioh right?

Well, think about this most decks in Yugioh? In reality, there are three types of decks in Yugioh. Attack, Defense, and alternate win (Exodia, Last Turn, Final Countdown and a bunch of others I can remember). What do I mean by attack, mainly different variations of beatdown, or aggro, whatever it may called. But the point is that most decks are variations of beatdown and aggression. These decks are highly played, and seeing them highly used is not too much of a suprised for these reasons. The following reasons might be the primary basis of victory in Yugioh tournaments and most casual play (even though there are other ways)

1.) Gain massive card resources from your deck, mainly by drawing cards, deck thinning, a primary basis of victory in any TCG, since getting more increase probability of victory and helps in gaining a strategy.

2.) Getting monsters on the field with usually 2000 ATK or more on the field without tribute, though at first it would with 1500, then 1600, 1700, 1800, 1900 (most often to be summoned), and 2000 or more. And having that 2000 or higher ATK monster remain on the field within 2-4 turns which is usually the time takes to win most tournaments, which is why for first 4 turns are so critical in Yugioh, mainly due to Yugioh's fast pace of gameplay.

3.) Mid-level monsters are much easier to summon than two-tribute monsters.

4.) The Special Summon, need I say more. This is so very important.

5.)Having good ways to protect yourself, usually with the best Traps, like Mirror Force, and ROD.

Now when you think about this anyone would know that Konami, probably did not know what they were doing when they made cards that took away 1/8 of your deck, (like Raigeki or Tribe-Infecting Virus) or other cards like Chaos Emperor Dragon, and Black Luster Soldier. In protest I refused to play these cards because they were too broken, had little to no cost (like Pot of Greed) too expensive in price, and eventually be banned.

Konami has improved itself with making more card support for other deck themes, as well support for Fusions and Rituals (the Special Summon). They would also print cards with great abilities but with slightly more disadvantages like the Sky Scourge Cards, and the Ritual monsters with the End of the World. But then Konami screwed up with Cyber Dragon, 2100 ATK easy summon and free tribute bait for the mid-level monsters.

In most cases when it comes to bans it is actually the source of what allows the five things I mentioned earlier, that make brokeness, not the card itself. An example of this would be Last Will.

How can the problem be solved, well I my case I am becoming more and more of Traditional format duelist, and refuse to play Cyber Dragon without Cyber-Stein. I don't rush and buy overpriced cards (in which card sellers make mega bucks, and Konami makes next to nothing for individual card sales). In advanced format I play with cards that allow me to do the following five things listed above, but mainly focus on the Special Summon, thus the reason I use many Fusions and Rituals in my favorite decks. In my Yugioh career I've made over 60 possible decks, about a few them were actual decks though.
 
And as my first order of business.........ok I'm done.

Guys, I think we're missing something very important here that DJ touched on briefly. Look back to when we first got a banned list. If you'll recall, there was only one, maybe two, deck(s) that really stood a chance at a major tournament. Fast forward to today and compare.

It's why I've even considered returning to the game. Diversity in deckbuilding is at an all-time high. Granted, it's a far cry from what we idealists really want, but it's a step in the right direction concerning players nonetheless.

If you can't appreciate the game as it is now, my advice is simple: LEAVE!!! I don't mean to sound offensive or anything, but I've done it twice already. Each time I've revisited the game I come to find that it has expanded from what it once was and has become better. Trust me, a lot can happen when you leave a game for over a year. People come and go, cards get banned and unbanned, decks rise to power and then fall by the wayside. If you aren't happy with it, find something else to focus on while still keeping tabs on what's going on here. When you feel the time is right, throw back the curtain and come back on the scene.

Remember, this is only a game and it is your own responsibility to choose whether or not you play it.

Just some thoughts. Have a great day.

-bjswp56
 
Digital Jedi said:
I still think the initial post was taken far too personally. Maybe he just wanted to see if there were players out there who were like minded. Usually when a challenge is issued you either accept it or decline, not scold the challenger cause you didn't like the challenge. .

I just think its not fair to criticize when the necessary efforts are being made. I agree with you that isn't adequately diverse, but its an ongoing effort. If we start criticizing the best format we've had, well, ever, then pretty soon everyone will be getting that 'no matter what I do, its never right'-feeling.
 
We have to remember some very important things about Yu-Gi-Oh! and, particularly, online discussion groups for it. We tend to look at the boards, any boards, from our own unique perspective. "What's played", from our own personal perspective, will be shaped by what we see at our own dueling venues. Which is going to mean that different people will see different things, because each local meta is different.

Alan is from Australia, and if his situation is similar to some of the things I've head Necromancer talk about, then he is in a wholly different situation then Europe or North America. It's quite probable that he isn't seeing 5 or 6 decks everywhere he goes. Or it's possible that in the three years he's been playing, a relative newcomer by the standards of some of us old-timers, then it's much harder to view 5 to 6 as diversity, when he wasn't subject to the times where there was only 1 major deck type.

Whatever the case may be, what we need to remember before we decide how to take a comment, is to remember that in a Global Meta, such as the Internet is, perspectives are going to differ based on age, location, tenure in the game, time spent on Yu-Gi-Oh! boards. Let's not disregard those perspectives or become offended by them without first taking those factors into consideration. After all, we old-timers have been playing this game so long, we really need to consider the possibility that we're so desperate for diversity, that we see any number greater then "1" as a giant leap forward.

When meals are provided for people in certain countries where starvation was the norm, they provide those meals in small portions. Maybe a small bowl of rice. Those eating consider those small portions a feast by their standards and they are happy to get them, considering the alternative. But does their appreciation for what they are getting mean that they shouldn't be curious what a Fillet Mignon tastes like? Does the sudden inclusion of what then need suddenly preclude them from ever wanting more?

That's my perspective on things. Sure, people may not put that into those words, but essentially, that's what they're expressing. It may simply come out "how come there aren't enough deck types". But at it's heart, they are simply seeing things from a different perspective. I think that we've been starved for diversity for so long, that a lot of folks see any small developments as giant leaps forward towards that goal. It may be a step in the right direction, but a step is different from a journey. I see a few new decks out there, but the mentality hasn't changed. People are not playing more decks for the sake of playing more decks. Their still going with what Metagame or Pojo or Realms etc. is teling them "works". There's no consideration of the possibility that there's other untapped potential that also works. There's only what the Top 8 players of any given tournament say there is. And there's nothing wrong with thinking, desiring and expressing that we should be able to do better then that.
 
Digital Jedi said:
Whatever the case may be, what we need to remember before we decide how to take a comment, is to remember that in a Global Meta, such as the Internet is, perspectives are going to differ based on age, location, tenure in the game, time spent on Yu-Gi-Oh! boards. Let's not disregard those perspectives or become offended by them without first taking those factors into consideration. After all, we old-timers have been playing this game so long, we really need to consider the possibility that we're so desperate for diversity, that we see any number greater then "1" as a giant leap forward.
.

I beg to differ BECAUSE this is the internet. All of us, whether we live in Australia, Europe, America, or up Kevin Tewarts rear end (pardon the french) have access to a global view of the game. Of the worldwide changes and efforts being made. So from that viewpoint you have two options, either you state it like this and justly get the backlash from those who do have the insight, or you nuance it by saying it refers to your local meta, in which case you would be correct, and neither of us would have much to remark in that regard.

I prefer a positive approach to this, like the cookieslayer collective (If I wasn't so dang lazy and filled in the registration application :p), rather than just whine more about it when its obvious positive efforts are being made, which, if they continue, will lead to a more diverse meta.
 
That's just the thing. Our view of the world is one part shaped by the things we read in forums, and it's another part shaped by the things we play in our local meta. For some, what they play is a more powerful influence over how they view the game. In my area, every time UDE or Wizards releases a new card game, people predict the end of Yu-Gi-Oh! They predicted it for WoW, Avatar, Shaman King, and as far back as Duel Masters. And here it is still going strong. The thing is, when people stop playing the game locally, then that says to them that must be what the rest of the world is doing too. The influence of the Internet just isn't as powerful as the influence of their friends.

The same thing can happen, only the views get mishmoshed, when people are playing in real life, and skimming forums on the Internet. The bits and pieces they pull from the Internet are not necessarily the whole picture. Not everyone reads every thread, just the ones that interest them. Not everyone is necessarily reading enough to get the accurate global view. They see the world through what they read and what they experience. But the viewpoint, which might be a little outside the global viewpoint, can sometimes see things we might be too close to spot ourselves.

I think it's important to not be too hasty to snap at those who share differing opinions. This forum was based on the idea that people should be able to exchange ideas without the fear of backlash from those that don't share their opinions. Disagreement is, of course, the basis for any debate. But, much like the ones we're having now, it doesn't necessarily include disparagement. We all have a right to "whine", as it were, if we're unhappy about something. Sometimes the first step to finding satisfaction with something is by first saying "I'm unhappy with it". We have to identify where our dissatisfaction is coming from. Otherwise, how do you know where to begin? The CSC wouldn't exist, if people hadn't expressed their distaste for monotony to being with. It's this same kind of "whining", done by myself included, that led to it's creation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top