Luck Vs. Consistence

[El Majishan]

So...in the game we love there are two factors that play a major role in the flow of a game, Luck and Consistence. While these terms both have very broad definition in different contexts, for the sake of discussion we are going to narrow them down to Drawing (the luck) and Searching (the consistence)

Is it better for a deck to be super consistent, allowing players to search the right cards to make the correct play. Or should the game be mostly left to luck, having to draw into cards in order to make plays.

Personally I see no issue with super consistency, searching out key cards to make smart plays. The problem arises when the consistency leads to broken ish playing played.

What is your opinion YCM?

[RoseSymphony]

Simple: Decks should be balanced. For the most part, if a Deck is extremely consistent, we consider it "broken". On the flip side, Decks that require too much luck in order to win at all we consider "bad". Decks should try to stay within the Goldilocks range, as far as I'm concerned. If Konami actually started making balanced archetypes instead of archetypes that redefine our very definition of "WTF is this bulls**t" (I'm looking at you, Inzektors), tiers wouldn't need to exist and people could play what they wanted, instead choosing between four Decks if they wanted a chance to win.

/endunrealisticperfectyugiohworldrant

[Northern Sage]

The main thing is, chance is always there. You can't build a deck that will have assured victory every time. Consistency just ups the factor.
Besides this arbitrarily obvious statement, I will say that consistency is important, which is also obvious.
I do not however see this topic leading anywhere relevant. Konami just stupidly builds some really broken cards, which may or may not be fixed up the two times a year Konami does that stuff.
And for the "no consistency" part, good god, a lot of cards would have to go. The game would most likely have to be reduced to it's earliest, simplest form.
"No luck" would make any card game pointless. Wonder how that would work though.

[This Account is Unplayable]

Luck is always a factor, but for the most part, yugioh should minimise it. That's what it's done for the longest time. The entire idea is that the most consistent decks win, it makes the game more skill-based rather than luck-based and allows for a more clear definitive of good and bad players.

[RoseSymphony]

[quote name='Chris' timestamp='1340571814' post='5961977']
Luck is always a factor, but for the most part, yugioh should minimise it. That's what it's done for the longest time. The entire idea is that the most consistent decks win, it makes the game more skill-based rather than luck-based and allows for a more clear definitive of good and bad players.
[/quote]

See, I disagree on two things: 1) The meta can hardly be called "Skill-based" when most of the Decks in it are autopilot Decks, and 2) Bad players =/= people who don't use Tier 1 Decks. This is exactly what I touched on in my first post; we've come to a point in the meta where if you don't use 1 of 4 preselected Decks you are considered "a bad player", which is absolutely ridiculous. :/

If anything, the game is money-based.

[This Account is Unplayable]

[quote name='RoseSymphony' timestamp='1340572543' post='5961984']
See, I disagree on two things: 1) The meta can hardly be called "Skill-based" when most of the Decks in it are autopilot Decks, and 2) Bad players =/= people who don't use Tier 1 Decks. This is exactly what I touched on in my first post; we've come to a point in the meta where if you don't use 1 of 4 preselected Decks you are considered "a bad player", which is absolutely ridiculous. :/
If anything, the game is money-based.
[/quote]

the current metagame sucks, doesn't mean that the overall game shouldn't be based on consistency.

I'd rather see 2 players using consistent decks and the better pilot winning, rather than 2 players using luck-based decks and whoever sacks the hardest winning.

Also, you argue as if undermeta plays any part in metagame analysis, it doesn't really play any bar being prepared to play slightly more obscure decks. In the end, the skilled players will generally want to win, or else they wouldn't have had the dedication to become good in the first place, thus those that are playing to win should win because they are better at the game than their opponent, thus consistency should be the largest factor of the game.

[Just Crouton]

They both go together in a way. Luck as in getting a good starting hand and drawing cards, and consistency in ensuring you get good draws as often as possible by running cards that don't clog the deck. Search cards like Reinforcement of the Army ignore the luck factor by giving you the desired card, but at the same time, you need some luck in drawing. Draw cards like Cardcar-D allow you another chance to draw the desired cards, and while it can make the deck more consistent, the draws are luck-based.

[RoseSymphony]

[quote name='Chris' timestamp='1340573749' post='5961990']
the current metagame sucks, doesn't mean that the overall game shouldn't be based on consistency.

I'd rather see 2 players using consistent decks and the better pilot winning, rather than 2 players using luck-based decks and whoever sacks the hardest winning.

Also, you argue as if undermeta plays any part in metagame analysis, it doesn't really play any bar being prepared to play slightly more obscure decks. In the end, the skilled players will generally want to win, or else they wouldn't have had the dedication to become good in the first place, thus those that are playing to win should win because they are better at the game than their opponent, thus consistency should be the largest factor of the game.
[/quote]

I think you're confusing good players and good Decks. A terrible player could run Inzektors or Exodia and beat everyone because it's an autopilot Deck and requires no thought. On the flip side, a good player can win a lot of Duels playing with a Deck that's not considered "tier", simply because of a heightened sense of logic and skill. Your Deck doesn't determine whether or not you're good at the game, your skill and your ability to predict your opponent's moves does. That doesn't come from a Deck; it comes from experience and logic.

And secondly, everyone wants to win. It's not just skilled players. It's just skilled players have a better ability to win than those that are unskilled. If only skilled players wanted to win, we wouldn't really have a game.

Anyway, for example: you have two Duelists. One is far more skilled than the other, both wanting to win, obviously. The one who is more skilled decides to use a Deck that isn't Tier 1, but still powerful in its own right, and is only amplified by the fact that he is a skilled Duelist that is good at predicting the opponent's moves. The other Duelist is not nearly as skilled, and just got used to the rules of the game, but is playing Inzektors or Wind-Up HandRape. Who do you think should win? I believe the first should win, as he is more experienced at the game and has far more skill, and is able to win without the use of broken cards. By your logic, I should assume you want the second to win, as he is using a high-tier Deck in which the cards are broken and requires no other thought or skill besides the ability to stay conscious. Does that seem right?

[This Account is Unplayable]

You obviously completely missed my point.

The victor of a duel only matters when playing to win. When playing to win, a player will choose either the best deck at their disposal or the deck they consider the best meta-call, anything else and quite frankly it shows that they're either bad or not trying to win. The meta-call option is the first sign of true skill, provided it's actually a good call. Of course, heightened consistency brings the duel very much down to just the skill level of the two players, he who can outplay his opponent using his own knowledge will win. Thus, I'm not saying it in the case of something like Scraps vs Chaos Dragons, I'm talking in terms of games like the Rabbit mirror match. Both players should be able to sit, with a consistent deck, and be able to outsmart their opponent to win. Like I mentioned, this format is awful, and while it doesn't entirely discourage skill (honestly, people that say that all the top tier decks - even Chaos Dragons - are autopilot either clearly never played Six Sam format or are just morons trying to call out other people for no reason) it discourages it to the point where it's a rock-paper-scissors format, and the top decks aren't so much down to outplaying as they are just winning from x hand. A good format is one where each deck is on level ground, and each deck is about as consistent as each other, but also consistent enough that they achieve their general goal (obviously not just 8000 damage) easily. It brings the game down to skill and not luck.

[RoseSymphony]

[quote name='Chris' timestamp='1340576863' post='5962016']
You obviously completely missed my point.

The victor of a duel only matters when playing to win. When playing to win, a player will choose either the best deck at their disposal or the deck they consider the best meta-call, anything else and quite frankly it shows that they're either bad or not trying to win. The meta-call option is the first sign of true skill, provided it's actually a good call. Of course, heightened consistency brings the duel very much down to just the skill level of the two players, he who can outplay his opponent using his own knowledge will win. Thus, I'm not saying it in the case of something like Scraps vs Chaos Dragons, I'm talking in terms of games like the Rabbit mirror match. Both players should be able to sit, with a consistent deck, and be able to outsmart their opponent to win. Like I mentioned, this format is awful, and while it doesn't entirely discourage skill (honestly, people that say that all the top tier decks - even Chaos Dragons - are autopilot either clearly never played Six Sam format or are just morons trying to call out other people for no reason) it discourages it to the point where it's a rock-paper-scissors format, and the top decks aren't so much down to outplaying as they are just winning from x hand. A good format is one where each deck is on level ground, and each deck is about as consistent as each other, but also consistent enough that they achieve their general goal (obviously not just 8000 damage) easily. It brings the game down to skill and not luck.
[/quote]

Ok, I may have maybe missed your point, I admit. But I have come to realize our difference in views stems from different views on the game: You prefer to use top tier Decks that have a higher guarantee to win, while I prefer playing casually and sometimes competitively with non-tier Decks simply from the fun of it. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm not playing to win, but I digress. In terms of the latter half of the message, though, I agree.

[Toffee.]

[quote name='Chris' timestamp='1340571814' post='5961977']
Luck is always a factor, but for the most part, yugioh should minimise it.[/quote]
This.
Mostly because it annoys me.
And less, Limited, splashable game-winner cards would be nice.

[WhoAreYou?]

I prefer consistency
herpderp

[Agro]

It's always better to be lucky than good.

If you could topdeck the nuts every duel, you'd never lose.

That being said, luck isn't perfect, so to make it more likely to occur we use consistent deck designs to lower probability of drawing the wrong card.

[Sleepy]

[color=blue]Instead of deciding what is better, you have to accept that both are required to an extent.[/color]



-Idealizing a bit, I like consistency as in "you build your Deck so that your cards have some synnergy in general".

-When consistency becomes OTK potential and/or abusive and irreversible control, it can hardly be called a game anymore.

-Or to a lower extent, the type of consistency around the lines of "my Deck is build up so I can always search and recycle these 2 - 6 cards that are always good against most situations", it [b]may[/b] be not as broken, but it's awfully boring. What's the point of a game that plays by itself telling you where you have to move at every moment?


[color=blue]Luck alone is a bad factor too:[/color]

-A Deck that depends too much on luck equals: You either are guaranteed a win, or everything you do goes wrong and you miserably loose. Or in the case of some strongly luck-based Yugioh Decks: You either miserably loose out of everything going wrong, or your cards' lucky days aren't strong enough to guarantee your win anyways.
^both are bad. The loose/loose situation represents a problem in balance of the game's design. The Win/loose situation represents a problem in the player-player interaction of the game's design.



[color=blue]Meh.[/color]

Both are needed. I don't like extreme luck-based scenarios, or extremely consistent ones.
I also don't like Decks full of "search key monster > search key support > bring out key boss x2+ > gain absurd advantage.

and consistency should depend around more than "easily searchable/recyclable center"

[.Rai]

Consistency makes a meta. Luck defines it.

[Not-so-Radiant Arin]

Luck and proper deckbuilding go hand in hand, but in the end, it is always consistency that will triumph over the luck factor in any game, not just card games.

[wiithepeople]

Luck and consistency? Countdown needs both to go the distance.

[werewolfjedi]

[quote name='Chris' timestamp='1340576863' post='5962016']
. The meta-call option is the first sign of true skill, provided it's actually a good call.
[/quote]

no, not really, I got a ton of dumb asses over here playing meta decks cause they see it top and no other reason. they don't think for their selves and have done this for years. and I usually end up winning cause they rely on just the "broken combos" instead of actual skill and I stop them with a control based style deck.

[Dwarven King]

[quote name='werewolfjedi' timestamp='1340600447' post='5962225']
no, not really, I got a ton of dumb asses over here playing meta decks cause they see it top and no other reason. they don't think for their selves and have done this for years. and I usually end up winning cause they rely on just the "broken combos" instead of actual skill and I stop them with a control based style deck.
[/quote]

This.

Choosing to play "meta" decks does not make you a skilled player. Just like choosing NOT to play "meta" decks (or sometimes simply choosing not to bandwagon), does not make you a bad player.

It's not the deck! It's the player! If you don't believe me, look at Yugi! He beat someone with a deck that wasn't even his and was thrown together by someone he had just met! O: When Yugioh becomes a game where people can run decks they enjoy and are comfortable with, I'll be happy. I'm getting tired of this "I just spent hundreds of dollars on my deck that I have never used before! Time to start auto-winning!" crap.

[This Account is Unplayable]

[quote name='werewolfjedi' timestamp='1340600447' post='5962225']
no, not really, I got a ton of dumb asses over here playing meta decks cause they see it top and no other reason. they don't think for their selves and have done this for years. and I usually end up winning cause they rely on just the "broken combos" instead of actual skill and I stop them with a control based style deck.
[/quote]

Do you know what a meta call is?

Just picking up a deck because it tops isn't a meta call, so what you said was entirely irrelevant to my point.

[.Rai]

[quote name='werewolfjedi' timestamp='1340600447' post='5962225']
no, not really, I got a ton of dumb asses over here playing meta decks cause they see it top and no other reason. they don't think for their selves and have done this for years. and I usually end up winning cause they rely on just the "broken combos" instead of actual skill and I stop them with a control based style deck.
[/quote]

Then they didn't make a meta call. I have no clue what the best deck is since I'm stupid, but I'll assume it's control decks.

If the meta is control-orientated, the only explanation for choosing a combo-orientated deck is that the player is inexperienced and is unable to make good calls on deck choice. In this case, the correct meta call probably would be to choose a faster aggro deck.

Chris meant making a call within the actual meta. How does one even choose between Rabbit, Inzektor, Dragons or whatever the hell there may be? A newbie would probably choose an autopilot deck, because there's no skill involved, but there is a reason why more experienced players can play other decks :/

[Expelsword]

The only skill that top players have over newbies is the skill to recognize that it's pointless to play anything that's not meta if you want to win.

I'm sure duels between top players can be exiting sometimes, but these days it just seems like "who gets their combo first" meta.

[.Rai]

[quote name='Expelsword - 黎明' timestamp='1340642275' post='5962364']
The only skill that top players have over newbies is the skill to recognize that it's pointless to play anything that's not meta if you want to win.
[/quote]

Wait, what?

I don't see many newbies MSTing intelligently 90% of the time, using Warnings and Veilers in the correct places, playing against your opponent's Veilers etc.

[Expelsword]

Actually, yeah, I can agree with you.
Whenever a newbie asks me for a basic deck list, I never include the Solemn cards, because I know they'll be poorly used.

[BehindTheMask]

[quote name='RoseSymphony' timestamp='1340574757' post='5961997']
I think you're confusing good players and good Decks. A terrible player could run Inzektors or Exodia and beat everyone because it's an autopilot Deck and requires no thought. On the flip side, a good player can win a lot of Duels playing with a Deck that's not considered "tier", simply because of a heightened sense of logic and skill. Your Deck doesn't determine whether or not you're good at the game, your skill and your ability to predict your opponent's moves does. That doesn't come from a Deck; it comes from experience and logic.

And secondly, everyone wants to win. It's not just skilled players. It's just skilled players have a better ability to win than those that are unskilled. If only skilled players wanted to win, we wouldn't really have a game.

Anyway, for example: you have two Duelists. One is far more skilled than the other, both wanting to win, obviously. The one who is more skilled decides to use a Deck that isn't Tier 1, but still powerful in its own right, and is only amplified by the fact that he is a skilled Duelist that is good at predicting the opponent's moves. The other Duelist is not nearly as skilled, and just got used to the rules of the game, but is playing Inzektors or Wind-Up HandRape. Who do you think should win? I believe the first should win, as he is more experienced at the game and has far more skill, and is able to win without the use of broken cards. By your logic, I should assume you want the second to win, as he is using a high-tier Deck in which the cards are broken and requires no other thought or skill besides the ability to stay conscious. Does that seem right?
[/quote]

What is an autopilot deck? You claim examples but never define it. Each deck has a set of plays, based on the cards used in the deck. If you claim are autopilot because there are obvious plays that everyone knows, that is a terrible definition. If you want to be good at this game, you should recognize the better decks plays that it can make. If you are able to recognize the amount of plays a deck can make based off the game state, and you play your cards to better reduce the amount of outs an opponent that is the best play. Notice how it is never the "auto pilot play" because of factors of your opponent. For example, say I am playing against a Rabbit player, and he has 2 cards in hand, 2 backrows with a monster set. My hand is Centipede, Dragonfly, MST(drawn), Pot of Duality, with a hornet in grave, a ladybug in grave(assume 0 other inzektors in grave), and nothing else on board. What is the "autopilot play" here? Do I MST, then summon D-fly and hope that they dont have any outs to my push so i can win? Or do I play Duality, summon centipede to bait out removal, so that next turn I can make a better push with D-Fly + removal? Do I fear the backrow, or do I have to make a move this turn, because he could draw into his Rabbits and lock me out of this game?

Every deck has plays, and some of the plays are better than other possible plays, there is no escaping this fact. To call a deck "autopilot" because it has strong, easily noticable plays is ridiculous, because the game state is rarely the same, and you should make reads based off the current game state.

[quote name='RoseSymphony' timestamp='1340578059' post='5962031']
Ok, I may have maybe missed your point, I admit. But I have come to realize our difference in views stems from different views on the game: You prefer to use top tier Decks that have a higher guarantee to win, while I prefer playing casually and sometimes competitively with non-tier Decks simply from the fun of it. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm not playing to win, but I digress. In terms of the latter half of the message, though, I agree.
[/quote]

This is a way to seem like the good guy, but still be arrogant. Why wouldn't you want to play the best deck possible at an event? If I'm traveling, spending hundreds of dollars(or even 50-70 bucks) to compete at a big event, and I want to do good, then why shouldn't I play the deck that gives me the best chance? "You prefer to use top tier Decks that have a higher guarantee to win, while I prefer playing casually and sometimes competitively with non-tier Decks simply from the fun of it." is a false dichotomy and a way to sound superior. You assume that competitive decks cannot be fun to play and you can only have fun by playing non-competitively. If you had removed "simply from the fun of it" you'd have sounded less pretentious, but by including that, it makes you seem like competitive = no fun allowed. You are allowed to have fun and be competitive, its the point of playing games.

[quote name='Agro' timestamp='1340581643' post='5962068']
It's always better to be lucky than good.

If you could topdeck the nuts every duel, you'd never lose.

That being said, luck isn't perfect, so to make it more likely to occur we use consistent deck designs to lower probability of drawing the wrong card.
[/quote]

You seem to think that Luck and Skill are completely removed from each other. You are allowed to be a) skillful and lucky, skillful and unlucky, c) unskilled and lucky, and d) unskilled and unlucky.

One of my better YGO friends was notorious for being A. He'd always win our locals hands down because he was the best player there. He could make the best reads, be able to put himself into great positions. He also rarely lost due to luck, because of the ridiculous amount of "sackyness" displayed. I watched him play in the top 8 of a regional(back when it was top 4 only got invites), and he drew One Outers for 3 turns in a row, 2 games in a row, after nearly getting beaten by a better player.

[quote name='Expelsword - 黎明' timestamp='1340643599' post='5962372']
Actually, yeah, I can agree with you.
Whenever a newbie asks me for a basic deck list, I never include the Solemn cards, because I know they'll be poorly used.
[/quote]

Thats terrible. When someone new asks for advice, you shouldnt give them bad advice. The only way they are going to learn is by being taught how to do something right. He's not going to get any benefit from not using those cards, as he will never know when to activate the cards when he "becomes better" Using the Solemn trio is all about understanding the game state and knowing when to use them.