Tag Duels

[EmpoleMew]

[quote name='Canadian' timestamp='1337220310' post='5940835']
This can't exist until we get a special banlist created for it.

And to figure out what cards to put on it would require an insane amount of testing IMO.

Like, how do you go about banning burn? It can't happen.
[/quote]

This is a good point actually. I've actually gone against a team of Chain Burn and Simochi burn and your team goes second, you lost.

[This Account is Unplayable]

Could just ban cards that serve no purpose outside of burning the opponent.

And ban alt win conditions.

After that it just becomes an insane version of the current metagame most likely, with LS probably being bumped a tier.

[Mysty]

[quote name='Chris' timestamp='1337221527' post='5940853']
Could just ban cards that serve no purpose outside of burning the opponent.

And ban alt win conditions.

After that it just becomes an insane version of the current metagame most likely, with LS probably being bumped a tier.
[/quote]

The way I've seen any kind of Team Duels best done at tournaments is that each person signs up individually and teams are randomly assigned. In such cases, there have been teams that don't work at all (Chaos Dragons and Gravekeepers), teams that work for flavor (Infernity and Dark Worlds: together, we're Team Necromancer), and quite possibly two decks that works well together but aren't the same theme (possibly Infernity and Karakuri OTK. This was never able to be tested). And so, I'll make any statements about 8000 Shared LP Team Duels with the above assumption that teams were assigned randomly, otherwise the format really is too broken.

For this format, I fully agree with banning all cards whose only purpose is burning the opponent, and probably as well any monsters whose only effect is about inflicting effect damage. Even if only one of the two people is running burn, the burn deck has very consistently inflict at least 4000 damage, and then the other deck has every other turn to inflict the rest.

Alternate victory conditions are really crappy in this format. Exodia decks only get every other turn to draw a card. If they were really going to FTK, they would have done it on their first turn anyway. Otherwise, their opponents get 2 turns to the Exodia's 1. Sure, the Exodia player has a teammate, but unless that player has a transferable draw engine (not likely), they aren't going to mean too much help for the Exodia player. Exodius also becomes much worse since the turn player only has access to their own deck, not their teammates' deck. Also, if you're playing to the absolute spirit of the format, you're getting a bunch of your teammates' monsters in your deck when you summon Exodius.

Destiny Board becomes outright nonviable, but then again, it already was.

Final Countdown gets every other turn to draw but needs stall cards for two turns. Not to mention their hand-traps only work if they're "in command". Final Countdown decks can run into a lot of trouble if their teammate can't be dedicated to a stalling cause.

Last Turn is already banned.

Vennominaga gets a bit worse since she can't be summoned by Rise of the Snake Deity if the other duelist is "in command". The chance that she'll gain ATK from the teammate is negligible, since that would mean both people are using Reptiles.

The Creator god of Light, Horakhty doesn't really change much.

All in all, I don't see any reason to ban victory conditions. As far as I'm concerned, even if you could pick your teammate, the tournaments could have teams of two players running Inzektors, Wind-Ups, Dino-Rabbit, Hieratics, etc., and then it would be the meta vs. alternate victory condition decks. And we all know who wins those games currently.

[This Account is Unplayable]

Have fun playing against a team of Final Countdown. .-.

[Canadian]

[quote name='Mysty' timestamp='1337262989' post='5941077']
Big Post
[/quote]
There is still far too many reasons to count as to why this would not work.

Sorry.

[Mysty]

[quote name='Chris' timestamp='1337263930' post='5941083']
Have fun playing against a team of Final Countdown. .-.
[/quote]

It would basically be like facing one person with Final Countdown. Do people currently beat Final Countdown decks? Yes. Explain to me why this would be any different.
And as I mentioned, I was writing under the assumption that you couldn't pick your teammate. In such a case, it would be rare for 2 people to even show up with Final Countdown, let alone get paired together.

[quote name='Canadian' timestamp='1337264021' post='5941084']
There is still far too many reasons to count as to why this would not work.

Sorry.
[/quote]

As to what wouldn't work? Tag Duels? Banning burn cards? Randomly assigning teammates? You replacing my entire textbox with "Big Post" and saying "it won't work" doesn't tell me a lot.

I wrote everything under the assumption that teams get randomly assigned BECAUSE my locals found it worked.

[Blake]

[quote name='Mysty' timestamp='1337272117' post='5941177']
It would basically be like facing one person with Final Countdown. Do people currently beat Final Countdown decks? Yes. Explain to me why this would be any different.
And as I mentioned, I was writing under the assumption that you couldn't pick your teammate. In such a case, it would be rare for 2 people to even show up with Final Countdown, let alone get paired together.



As to what wouldn't work? Tag Duels? Banning burn cards? Randomly assigning teammates? You replacing my entire textbox with "Big Post" and saying "it won't work" doesn't tell me a lot.

I wrote everything under the assumption that teams get randomly assigned BECAUSE my locals found it worked.
[/quote]
So adding a giant luck element to the game in what deck/skill of your partner you get, when things like Lightswarn are bad for the game when they promote a similar degree of super luck?

Seems entirely legit.

[Canadian]

Randomly assigning pairs is a bad way to try and do this. It takes the skill aspect out completely and creates a game of luck in the sense of getting paired up with a deck that boosts the power of mine vs. one that diminishes or counteracts it.

Over time, players would create decks that would generate the best % of winning and cooperating with partners decks until optimal metas have formed. This could include overpowered combos such as using machine duplication on your partners Card Trooper and summon 2 from your deck, or reborn their Stratos and search your own. (Really this is the biggest issue IMO even outside of random assortment).

In short, you'd need to refine the gamestate with banlists to prevent conflictions and the amount of time required to figure out all the kinks in an already evolved game (and constantly changing) would be, in my opinion, a waste of time.

[Mysty]

Noting how burn and alternate victory conditions are themselves also a completely different debate, I'll just agree to ban the alternate victory condition cards since they probably wouldn't be used anyway.

[quote name='Canadian' timestamp='1337273482' post='5941184']
Randomly assigning pairs is a bad way to try and do this. It takes the skill aspect out completely and creates a game of luck in the sense of getting paired up with a deck that boosts the power of mine vs. one that diminishes or counteracts it.
[/quote]

Certainly a lot more fun and interesting being randomly assigned than knowing who you'll be teamed up with and knowing that your two opponents will either have the same deck and/or will be nearly unstoppable if they win the coin flip to go first.
And, as you mentioned below, it would eventually tune the meta for people to make different decks that work well with anything, which is the part of the fun spirit of Tag Dueling.

What kind of mechanism do you suggest on regulating the combos that can be made when the duels basically start off with 10 card opening hands and the two decks work extremely well together?

[quote name='Canadian' timestamp='1337273482' post='5941184']
Over time, [b]players would create decks that would generate the best % of winning[/b] and cooperating with partners decks until [b]optimal metas[/b] have formed. This could include [b]overpowered combos[/b] such as using machine duplication on your partners Card Trooper and summon 2 from your deck, or reborn their Stratos and search your own. (Really this is the biggest issue IMO even outside of random assortment).

In short, you'd need to [b]refine the gamestate with banlists[/b] to prevent conflictions and the amount of time required to figure out all the kinks in an already evolved game (and constantly changing) would be, in my opinion, a waste of time.
[/quote]

Hmm, creating decks optimized for winning... defined meta... ridiculous combos... making banlists... don't we already do all of these things? The only real difference that I see is that now it's a different format. This kind of cycle would happen no matter what format we discuss. The only difference between the general cycle of formats and this format's cycle is a nuance specific to the format.

[Canadian]

You can, I'm just saying you will be starting from scratch and refining would take so long that its almost redundant to try.

Example, in our game that we have now, imagine there is no ban list. How do you go about refining from that gamestate? I guess its possible but I wouldn't dare trying

[Mysty]

[quote name='Canadian' timestamp='1337276995' post='5941239']
You can, I'm just saying you will be starting from scratch and refining would take so long that its almost redundant to try.

Example, in our game that we have now, imagine there is no ban list. How do you go about refining from that gamestate? I guess its possible but I wouldn't dare trying
[/quote]

If I were to look at the Advanced Format (or any yugioh format) and see all its cards without a banlist, here's a basic process I'd follow before I even begin the format:
• Look at the generic cards and define a balance level. Ban anything above that balance level.
• Look at each type and attribute and their support. If I notice anything blatantly banworthy, ban it.
• After that, look at the archetypes now modified by bans. If something else is blaringly obvious, ban it.
• get an R&D team (or a group of friends) to do a quick review to see if I missed anything.
• take the next few weeks to have said R&D team beta-test the format to see if there are many more outstanding problems.
Then release the format to the public and watch it change. Keep an open door and open mind to the players' input and either implement it or explain why such change cannot be implemented. Implement changes as the team sees fit.

That process might be a little repetitive, but it is by no means hard and could easily be split up among a group of people.

[werewolfjedi]

the konami does it is like that, except for a few things.
"is it new? yes? did we intend for this combo? yes? keep it open for now it makes us money!"
"is it old? yes? does it do something that makes the cards we are releasing bad to play? yes? does removing it f*** up the meta so they have to keep buying cards? yes? ban it! makes us more money!

[This Account is Unplayable]

[quote name='werewolfjedi' timestamp='1337282090' post='5941286']
the konami does it is like that, except for a few things.
"is it new? yes? did we intend for this combo? yes? keep it open for now it makes us money!"
"is it old? yes? does it do something that makes the cards we are releasing bad to play? yes? does removing it f*** up the meta so they have to keep buying cards? yes? ban it! makes us more money!
[/quote]

Wait, Konami are a business?

[Resident Fascist]

[quote name='Chris' timestamp='1337283392' post='5941299']
Wait, Konami are a business?
[/quote]

[s]Huh? What's a buisiness?[/s]

Basicially this. Stop bitching, peoples.
Like I feel this would take much effort and just a 4 player game would work better.

[Pchi]

f*** TAG DUELS! Battle Royale FTW!!!