Superdoopertrooper Posted March 29, 2013 Report Share Posted March 29, 2013 It's about time poor old Mali came back to 3, yeah? He's pretty useless at 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihop Posted March 29, 2013 Report Share Posted March 29, 2013 DDraw and Mali at 3? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superdoopertrooper Posted March 29, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2013 Why not? Mali and D-Draw are mediocre as heck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mido9 Posted March 29, 2013 Report Share Posted March 29, 2013 What would you play this in anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabber2033 Posted March 29, 2013 Report Share Posted March 29, 2013 What would you play this in anyway? lolTeleDAD? Zombies with D-Engine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Althemia Posted March 29, 2013 Report Share Posted March 29, 2013 What would you play this in anyway?Tele-Tefnuit would be so much better with 3 Malicious yo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Synchronized Posted March 29, 2013 Report Share Posted March 29, 2013 Should be at 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Fascist Posted March 29, 2013 Report Share Posted March 29, 2013 DDraw and Mali at 3? No. itt lapras lives in 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Posted March 29, 2013 Report Share Posted March 29, 2013 It would be a step in the wrong direction to put this back at 3, but given how the current format is, it wouldn't make a huge difference. It should stay at 2 forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepy Posted March 29, 2013 Report Share Posted March 29, 2013 It is simply incredible. This was broken back in the day and we all knew it. TeleDAD = Tier 0 back in the day. Now I'm bumping into DAD not being AS ban worthy compared to other bosses, D Draw at 3, Teleport at 3, Stardust almost irrelevant, and the idea of Malicious coming back to 3 hardly making a difference. It is amazing because I can see this going up without that many repercussions, if any in this format. While at it, Tengu could also have that treatment really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toffee. Posted March 29, 2013 Report Share Posted March 29, 2013 Malicious 2007 rulings, were best rulings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headmaster Monokuma Posted March 29, 2013 Report Share Posted March 29, 2013 Just because something can go up without making an impact doesn't mean it should go up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newhat Posted March 30, 2013 Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 Just because something can go up without making an impact doesn't mean it should go up. Strange reasoning. Wouldn't this make a certain type of Deck playable and encourage new strategies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headmaster Monokuma Posted March 30, 2013 Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 Strange reasoning. Wouldn't this make a certain type of Deck playable and encourage new strategies? We shouldn't encourage strategies that are rooted in bad design. In an ideal game, which is what I'm talking about, we wouldn't have things like Incarnate Dragons, Spellbooks, and whatever name people are using for the deck that is obviously Merlantain. We should be regulating those decks instead of promoting other, less horribly but still pretty badly designed decks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superdoopertrooper Posted March 31, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2013 We shouldn't encourage strategies that are rooted in bad design. In an ideal game, which is what I'm talking about, we wouldn't have things like Incarnate Dragons, Spellbooks, and whatever name people are using for the deck that is obviously Merlantain. We should be regulating those decks instead of promoting other, less horribly but still pretty badly designed decks. Malicious isn't even close to resembling any of those cards/archetypes power level and he is not badly designed. Malicious is balanced at 3 because he can clog the hand and/or be drawn in multiples, is a terrible standalone monster due his paltry stats and decks using it would be mediocre, even in an ideal game state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headmaster Monokuma Posted March 31, 2013 Report Share Posted March 31, 2013 Malicious isn't even close to resembling any of those cards/archetypes power level and he is not badly designed. Malicious is balanced at 3 because he can clog the hand and/or be drawn in multiples, is a terrible standalone monster due his paltry stats and decks using it would be mediocre, even in an ideal game state. This reminds me of an argument I remember seeing a long time ago, what was it... Oh right! Tour Guide is balanced because I can draw 3 of them. Believe it or not, Malicious @3 would be about the same as Tour Guide. Just because you can draw multiples of it doesn't make it balanced. The fact that it wouldn't make an impact right away isn't important when the potential for abuse is there. It's like the entire Spellbook deck. It was fine, then one card was released that broke the hell out of it. Malicious has so many uses that even if you draw multiples of him, you can still use him as a draw engine. He would make new decks exist right away, not Tier 1 in this format considering how fucked it is, but one card being at three shouldn't make a deck. Also, great reading skills guy. I said we should be regulating those archetypes in an ideal game state, and that Malicious was a much less badly designed card that in an ideal game wouldn't be around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cute Rotten Yoshika Posted March 31, 2013 Report Share Posted March 31, 2013 disney movie villain has the right idea. malicious is problematic in its own right and "well, every other deck is worse :<" doesnt change that. also drawing multiple malicious doesnt matter. allure and d-draw will take care of that, and d-draw even sets up one from deck. just stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volcanism Posted March 31, 2013 Report Share Posted March 31, 2013 Believe it or not, Malicious @3 would be about the same as Tour Guide. This is very different from Tour Guide for just a few obvious reasons. 1. Drawing 3 Tour Guides is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM DRAWING THREE OF THESE! Tour Guide can summon from the hand. That is like the biggest different you could imagine. 2. Tour Guide is a one card play. You draw a Tour Guide and suddenly you have a play. This card needs to work with other cards to really make an impact. I'm not saying it should be at 3, I'm just saying you're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headmaster Monokuma Posted March 31, 2013 Report Share Posted March 31, 2013 This is very different from Tour Guide for just a few obvious reasons. 1. Drawing 3 Tour Guides is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM DRAWING THREE OF THESE! Tour Guide can summon from the hand. That is like the biggest different you could imagine. 2. Tour Guide is a one card play. You draw a Tour Guide and suddenly you have a play. This card needs to work with other cards to really make an impact. I'm not saying it should be at 3, I'm just saying you're wrong. He's using the same base argument for a card that has just as much utility in the hand as it does in the deck. Multiple Malicious can arguably have more utility in the hand then multiple Tour Guide. You're going to - a lot more with Tour Guides from the hand then you will with Malicious, mainly because he's a draw engine. The problem with his post I was making was he was acting like drawing multiple Malicious is an auto game loss, when it isn't. It's the same vein as drawing Tour Guides, it doesn't change how horribly designed the card is. Tour Guide can summon from the hand, Malicious is a draw engine on crack. I wasn't comparing them as cards, I was comparing them as scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Fascist Posted March 31, 2013 Report Share Posted March 31, 2013 Agreeing with Frollo here. Even though I love Destiny HEROs, this shouldn't come to 3 for being pretty much everything good ever except an attacker all in a single card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superdoopertrooper Posted March 31, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2013 This reminds me of an argument I remember seeing a long time ago, what was it... Oh right! Tour Guide is balanced because I can draw 3 of them. Believe it or not, Malicious @3 would be about the same as Tour Guide. Just because you can draw multiples of it doesn't make it balanced. The fact that it wouldn't make an impact right away isn't important when the potential for abuse is there. It's like the entire Spellbook deck. It was fine, then one card was released that broke the hell out of it. Malicious has so many uses that even if you draw multiples of him, you can still use him as a draw engine. He would make new decks exist right away, not Tier 1 in this format considering how fucked it is, but one card being at three shouldn't make a deck. Also, great reading skills guy. I said we should be regulating those archetypes in an ideal game state, and that Malicious was a much less badly designed card that in an ideal game wouldn't be around. Tour Guide is nothing like Malicious, that's a bad analogy. Tour guide is infinitely more useful than Mali even if you have all 3 in your hand. You can summon 1 and bring out sangan or night assailant from the deck for your +0 Rank 3. Then assuming you have no other Tgu targets in the deck, next turn you can normal summon your 2nd Tgu and special your 3rd one from hand to make another Xyz. Your 3 Mali's would just sit there completely dead. Mali is also strictly a combo card, you can't just normal summon him straight away like you can with Tgu. That Spellbook analogy was also really wierd. Mali being at 3 would simply allow new and creative tier 3 fun decks to be made, which is always a good thing. They wouldn't even be near tier 2 by todays standards. I also read what you said perfectly, and even in an 'ideal game', he'd be fine to have at 3. There is nothing inherently bad about Mali being at 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cute Rotten Yoshika Posted March 31, 2013 Report Share Posted March 31, 2013 superdooperbadatcardgames Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volcanism Posted March 31, 2013 Report Share Posted March 31, 2013 superdooperbadatcardgames spamisbad He makes a good point if you are willing to disagree with the majority. The question we need to ask ourselves is this one: would Malicious at three have a serious impact on the meta after the next banlist? We can't look at Malicious like it's 2008 or even like it's right now. He is suggesting that it wont and no one has given a good example of it being broken IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cute Rotten Yoshika Posted March 31, 2013 Report Share Posted March 31, 2013 and youre missing the point: its irrelevant what impact it would have. thats not the only metric you can judge cards by. from a pure design point, malicious is awful. theres no reason for it to come back. better bring back disc commander too. after all, e-dragons already draw so much it cant possibly hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superdoopertrooper Posted March 31, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2013 and youre missing the point: its irrelevant what impact it would have. thats not the only metric you can judge cards by. from a pure design point, malicious is awful. theres no reason for it to come back. better bring back disc commander too. after all, e-dragons already draw so much it cant possibly hurt. I've already stated multiple times that it's not just impact alone that should bring Mali to 3. Mali is inherently balanced. His effect is balanced for the conditions needed to use it effectively. Also, impact, while not the only thing to go by, certainly is important nonetheless. I'm not pointing at clearly broken tier 1 decks like Prophecy and E-Dragons and saying that Mali should come back because it's absolute crap compared to them, I'm actually going a big step further and saying that decks utilizing 3 Mali wouldn't even be tier 2, which says a hell of a lot. They'd still lose to Gadgets, Geargia, Sams, and pretty much every other semi-viable deck you can think of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.