Type & Attribute hate

[.codex]

Because of this: http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/305427-door-to-the-centre/?p=6252534

Should cards like Last Day of Witch exist? Fuck no, they are bad design, are luck based, doesn't involve smart play. They arn't fun to play or play againts.

[Steve The Bug]

Care to actually explain your points?  How are they luck based?  How are they bad design? What isn't fun about them?

[Aix]

Care to actually explain your points?  How are they luck based?  How are they bad design? What isn't fun about them?

Because if you topdeck them, you can turn the game around. Bad design because it creates an unfair and unbalanced game where one player has a definite higher chance of winning simply by running this card and it's luck-based.
 
All anti-meta kind and side deck of cards are like this, not just Attribute and Type hate. Macro Cosmos, Dimensional Fissure, Skill Drain and etc. all tip the odds far too much in your favor against a specific Deck.

 

Fuck no.

[Northern Sage]

Welcome to card games. Luck is an inherent factor in everything.

[Aix]

Welcome to card games. Luck is an inherent factor in everything.

Yeah, but you don't want too much luck.

[Toffee.]

Yeah, but you don't want too much luck.

If a card game has many factors that contribute to making plays based on wit, mind games, and the ability to actually play the game properly; Luck should never be the deciding factor.
(Or something like that)

[D.A._Sakuyamon]

Yes of course. 

 

 & Aix

Are you trying to say that cards shouldn't be made to answer other cards (my words not yours)? If so then that's just silly. If there are no answers to problems in your way then whats the point?

 

"Oh, that guy plays Skill Drain and gets around it in his deck so it must be a bad card cause the opponent cant get around it with his deck". Then Game 2, opp. Sides "Royal Decree" and the same guy from before says "Oh, that guy played Royal Decree and that stops Skill Drain so it must be a bad card".

 

^Above is a rather simple minded way of showing how stupid people can be. (I'm not calling you that aix just in general)

[ihop]

If a card game has many factors that contribute to making plays based on wit, mind games, and the ability to actually play the game properly; Luck should never be the deciding factor.
(Or something like that)

 

If I want a game with no luck I'll go play Chess.

[Aix]

Yes of course. 

 

 & Aix

Are you trying to say that cards shouldn't be made to answer other cards (my words not yours)? If so then that's just silly. If there are no answers to problems in your way then whats the point?

 

"Oh, that guy plays Skill Drain and gets around it in his deck so it must be a bad card cause the opponent cant get around it with his deck". Then Game 2, opp. Sides "Royal Decree" and the same guy from before says "Oh, that guy played Royal Decree and that stops Skill Drain so it must be a bad card".

 

^Above is a rather simple minded way of showing how stupid people can be. (I'm not calling you that aix just in general)

They are one-card win conditions that require little to no skill or thought to play and tips the game far too much in one direction. They touch all points of bad design: luck-based, skill-less, unfair and removing player interaction. Topdecking them pretty much guarantees you game against many Decks.

[Synchronized]

Your argument is stupid.

 

Making the argument that cards like 'Macro Cosmos' and 'Dimensional Fissure' cripple Decks unfairly can just as easily be countered by making the argument that Decks shouldn't rely entirely on the Graveyard.  If your entire Deck's goal can be shut down by just one card, perhaps it's time to re-evaluate whether investing all of your resources into that one function is worthwhile.

 

These cards are good and keep other cards in check, with Royal Oppression being the exception to the rule.

[D.A._Sakuyamon]

They are one-card win conditions that require little to no skill or thought to play and tips the game far too much in one direction, breaking all points of bad design: luck-based, skill-less and unfair. Topdecking them pretty much guarantees you game against many Decks.

Bad Design? Depends on a card to card basis Your point? Luck based? No. Skill-less? Yes. Unfair? Depends on a card to card basis.

 

Win Conditions? That's the idea, unless your playing for fun your going to want to win most of the time. 

[Aix]

Bad Design? Depends on a card to card basis Your point? Luck based? No. Skill-less? Yes. Unfair? Depends on a card to card basis.

 

Win Conditions? That's the idea, unless your playing for fun your going to want to win most of the time. 

 

How are they not luck-based when drawing them pretty much guarantees you game? Luck = bad design. Skill-less = bad design. If one card is a win condition on its own, then it's doing too much. One card doing too much = bad design. Unfair? Zombie player going against a Macro matchup is almost definitely going to lose, the duel is almost decided before it started which is utterly unfair. Unfair = bad design.

 

Many of these cards also stop the other person from doing anything, and thus they are unable to interact. No player interaction = bad design.

[D.A._Sakuyamon]

How are they not luck-based when drawing them pretty much guarantees you game? Luck = bad design. Skill-less = bad design. If one card is a win condition on its own, then it's doing too much. One card doing too much = bad design. Unfair? Zombie player going against a Macro matchup is almost definitely going to lose, the duel is almost decided before it started which is utterly unfair. Unfair = bad design.

 

Many of these cards also stop the other person from doing anything, and thus they are unable to interact. No player interaction = bad design.

 

They don't pretty much guarantee the game. Unless they literally say "You win the game during your next Standby Phase". 

Luck = Rather subjective saying drawing them means you'll be playing the card. It doesn't. There are situations were you will not want to draw them and instead want an answer right then and there. Many a times have I drawn Skill Drain and been like "Fuuuuu". Skill-less == bad design? Is Lance bad design because it doesn't take skill to play? Is the same said for Evac?

 

One card doing to much = Bad design? I'll concede this point.

 

For Your Example, I disagree. They still can do stuff in that situation. It's not like hey, I dont have monsters I cant play, or I cant make my xyz's anymore cause of that card. It stops their functions but they can still do things just harder.

[ihop]

Almost every deck has a certain counter that makes it almost impossible to win if said counter is not dealt with, Gadgets and Prophecy have Thunder King, Wind-Ups have Gozen Match, Dragon Rulers have Vanity's Emptiness, Mermails have Macro Cosmos etc etc. If the deck can't win through these counters e.g. a Spellcasted-based deck not being able to play through Last Day of Witch or a DARK-based deck not being able to deal with a consecrated light that's the fault of the deck.

[Wildflame]

I don't think they are bad design per se, but they are probably a bit lazy, and a one trick pony. I prefer cards that can do other stuff besides acting as a counter against a very specific threat.

[evilfusion]

Cards like Last Day of Witch are pretty harmless. At worst, they're a very specific Raigeki, but Raigeki's problem wasn't that it destroyed all the opposing monsters, it was that it destroyed all opposing monsters completely indiscriminately, and any Deck could run it without hurting themselves. Type killers aren't nearly that indiscriminate.

 

However, Tribe-Infecting Virus is an exception, because it can choose to kill ANY Type at will and do so more than once per turn. Its cost only makes it a Lightning Vortex with the potential to backfire on your monsters, too. Plus, it has a solid 1600 body and therefore can do damage from attacks, something most Type Killers like Witch can't do.

[Sora1499]

[quote name="+Gray Fullbuster" post="6252595" timestamp="1375893225"]Your argument is stupid.   Making the argument that cards like 'Macro Cosmos' and 'Dimensional Fissure' cripple Decks unfairly can just as easily be countered by making the argument that Decks shouldn't rely entirely on the Graveyard.  If your entire Deck's goal can be shut down by just one card, perhaps it's time to re-evaluate whether investing all of your resources into that one function is worthwhile.   These cards are good and keep other cards in check, with Royal Oppression being the exception to the rule.[/quote] So, what you're saying is that entire decks and deck types simply shouldn't exist because of one card that shuts them down? Does that one card take priority over a unique and fun deck type? Seems like silly logic to me.

[D.A._Sakuyamon]

So, what you're saying is that entire decks and deck types simply shouldn't exist because of one card that shuts them down? Does that one card take priority over a unique and fun deck type? Seems like silly logic to me.

 

No what he's saying is that if you made your deck to where if one card was completely able to shut it down without you having any counters to it, then you built your deck & side deck wrong.

[Mysty]

http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/231964-on-card-design/

 

This is what I imagine .codex's reference is, due to the paragraph:

"My favourite writer on game design and one of my favourite game developers, Sirlin (whose articles you should read if you find this interesting), spends a lot of time during development making sure that all his game's match-ups are fair, and often stresses the importance of in-match and out-of-match decisions. The rule here is that when you start a match in a fighting game, both players should have as close to a 50% win chance (if equal skill) as possible.
It's important to note how this does and does not translate to Yugioh. In Yugioh, I believe there might as well be more theoretically constructable Decks than there are atoms in the universe. I am not proposing that you balance all of those against every other one. People should be able to make losing Decks. Where this does apply is when two good Decks are matched up with each other. This means that if both players are equally good and have equally good Decks, a match shouldn't start as a lame Duck.
That means that Zombies and Macro shouldn't both exist in the same game - zombies are playing a Lame Duck game from turn 1 a lot of the time. That doesn't mean you can't have Graveyard effects and RFG effects in the same game - but no archtype should have every monster RFGing stuff from the opponent's Graveyard in the same format that the Graveyard is useful. In the TCG, Macro vs Zombies isn't much of a problem because Zombies won't face Macro that often and it can often be blown away with MST or something. The time this is a serious problem, though, is anti-cards. Yes, Chimeratech is the worst offender here. If someone has a Cyber Dragon in their Main Deck and Chimeratech Fortress Dragon in their Extra Deck when the game starts, a Machine-using opponent can start at an unfair disadvantage. Avoid anything like this that puts players at too much of a disadvantage from turn 1. It's unavoidable sometimes, but do your best."

 

The blue bolded part is the part most pertaining to the topic at hand. Solid Type/Attribute/strategy hate are bad design on the basis that they put the opponent on a Lame Duck scenario and add more luck to the game.

[Airride]

Cards that punish a mechanic, I'm okay with, since they actually require you to make your deck to fit with them. Like, you can't play something like Mermails with Macro, for example, or Dragon Rulers with Imperial Iron Wall (Though IIW is kind of a bad example here, since Banish manipulation is scarcer than Grave Manipulation)

 

Cards that punish a type or attribute are stupid because they can be thrown into anything that doesn't use them, or in some cases, even DO use them (See: Fortress Dragon).

 

That's how I see it.

[El Majishan]

"Anti-Meta" cards become a problem when they shut down an entire game mechanic (Royal Oppression) at little to no cost. While "racist" cards (as I like to call them) are annoying they are relatively harmless and more so of an announce. The only cards I can see being problem are cards like Rivalry of the War Lords and Gozen Match...and I'm not even sure if that's just me being bias due to my personal dislike for those cards in particular or if they are actually bad design. 

[Dog King]

I think its good we have these cards because then we find new good side deck cards against op decks konami makes

[joshyago17]

Welcome to card games. Luck is an inherent factor in everything.

Given to you on a silver plate!

[Darthakin]

I think you guys are exaggerating this... 

I mean after all; these cards are all easy to counter. 

If, bye example, you wanna bully an opponent that uses something like "sanctuary in the sky" play DNA surgery. It's hilarious. 

[Rawkobo]

I think you guys are exaggerating this... 

I mean after all; these cards are all easy to counter. 

If, bye example, you wanna bully an opponent that uses something like "sanctuary in the sky" play DNA surgery. It's hilarious. 

Not exactly.

 

If you've ever given a good look at the majority of metabuilds, people don't build to counteract antimeta cards. They build to counteract the meta. Because if you can side in something in Prophecy that gives you an immediate edge over your current matchup, you're sure as hell going to do it, because it's how you plan to win.

I think the exaggeration comes in when people think these cards should be outright banned or limited instead of learning to play around them. Because why should they take effort in solidifying their pride and joy when they can just cry out "bad design" and demand that their needs get catered to?

Do I think that should justify the continuation of Konami designing splashable hate cards that put more luck and less skill into the game? No, I think Konami needs to get their shit together before everyone finally decides it's not worth it. This new format was a good start to that.

Do I think people should stop whining over anti-meta being a thing that exists? Yes, because it's your own fault for limiting your own resources because you think you're going to face nothing but the meta every day of the week. All the good players I know actually play around playstyles, not specific cards. And if no one adapts, they have no bloody excuse.