Gorz The Emissary Of Darkness

[玄魔の王]

Being able to trade very few of your own resources for wiping your opponent clean creates a slippery slope wherein the game becomes increasingy hard for them to come back. In a game state where all decks are equa that's excusable, but when one deck has insane advantages over so many other that's Just encouraging a single dominant deck. By your own assertion just now, you're telling me Chaos Yata, Dragon Rulers and and Inzektors are "how the game should be played".

[Catterjune]

If the game were balanced, I'd agree. Unfortunately, we have decks that can clear the board and deal massive damage at minimal loss of advantage. Hell, at one time decks existed that could do it at a proft *coughInzektors* Plus, exactly why is it a bad thing that people be forced to consider all possible hitches in their move?

That's a silly response.

It's like if you're in a sinking boat and rather than try to plug up the hole you suddenly decided to drop trousers and start peeing on everything. "Eh, who cares? We're all gonna get wet anyway."

I will agree that "OTKs gonna OTK", and that's all well and good but that doesn't stop lesser decks. If your argument is "stop playing lesser decks" than you've failed as a card designer and banlist makers. Your aim should be to increase diversity of the game, not decrease it so the only decks worth running are whatever's topped Nats.

Being able to trade very few of your own resources for wiping your opponent clean creates a slippery slope wherein the game becomes increasingy hard for them to come back.

Good. That's how an ideal TCG should be played. It should eliminate luck as a factor as much as possible.

[Jirachibi]

I always used to run this guy and loved him but idk how i feel about him going back to 2. It does slow the game down but...he is hard to counter so...im indifferent to it.

[玄魔の王]

I never stated lesser decks shouldn't be a thing, my point was that as long as "OTKs gonna OTK" is a thing and there's a huge power imbalance in decks there needs to be some way to help even the score. Gorz is badly-designed, and he's evil, but sadly the game has reached a state where he's a necessary evil. When decks start to become balanced again, then I'm perfectly fine with banning him.

As for luck, doesn't the deck gaining such advantage to begin with require luck as well? Opening with a good versus a shit hand is a huge factor in this game. Always has been, always will be. And creating a deck where luck is superfluous because it can engineer whatever hand it wants would be no better, because it would defeat the point in playing to begin with. Is it not hgypocritical to say we should punish the losing player by takng away their luck, but allow luck if it's on the part of the winning player?

[Yeezus]

I genuinely have no idea how people can argue that Gorz @2 is a good idea.

 

He's not always dropped when an opponent is going to OTK. He can be randomly topdecked after you're being outplayed by an opponent that is just poking with a random monster. Drop Gorz on that and you can control the game and win. It's unfair and is horrible card design.

[Premier Alexander Romanov]

I genuinely have no idea how people can argue that Gorz @2 is a good idea.

 

He's not always dropped when an opponent is going to OTK. He can be randomly topdecked after you're being outplayed by an opponent that is just poking with a random monster. Drop Gorz on that and you can control the game and win. It's unfair and is horrible card design.

Then stop arguing. :3
What you are illustrating is something called "luck". It happens in games where the deck is shuffled and an element of randomness is in play. You're basically advocating the occasional winning topdeck as completely imbalanced.

[Yeezus]

Then stop arguing. :3
What you are illustrating is something called "luck". It happens in games where the deck is shuffled and an element of randomness is in play. You're basically advocating the occasional winning topdeck as completely imbalanced.

It is completely imbalanced... It shouldn't be allowed.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Then stop arguing. :3
What you are illustrating is something called "luck". It happens in games where the deck is shuffled and an element of randomness is in play. You're basically advocating the occasional winning topdeck as completely imbalanced.

 

Except one top deck shouldn't win you a game where you've been outplayed.

 

That's what cards like Gorz do, and shouldn't be in the game.

[玄魔の王]

First of all, if somebody didn't argue an unpopular point, it would never get discussed. Actually making people justify answers is far better than just saying "stay at 1" without a reason.

We've already established Gorz isn't just dropped on OTKs. In the given example, the topdecking, fieldless player would draw and pass. From the other player's perspective, that should be a hint the card is Gorz. If they ignore that warning sign, they'll suffer for lack of due diligence. There may be no skill in topdecking Gorz, but there's also no skill in cherry-tapping somebody to death when they don't have an answer. It may have taken skill to get there, but that doesn't change the fact the game has at that point effectively become a lame duck. Lame ducks aren't good for a game either.

Your counterarguement for Gorz forcing you to think is Effectively "you shouldn't have to consider effects like that". A truly skill-based game requires you to consider all possibilities, and not forcing them to consider how ther strategy may backfire is contrary to that philosophy. If it's bad that your opponent can reverse the game by capitalising on your mistake, then why is chess considered the epitome of skill when that's 90% of that game?

[mido9]

[quote name="TheFinalFan" post="6255793" timestamp="1376334147"]

Then stop arguing. :3

What you are illustrating is something called "luck". It happens in games where the deck is shuffled and an element of randomness is in play. You're basically advocating the occasional winning topdeck as completely imbalanced.

[/quote]

 

It should be minimized as much as possible even if it cant be removed. Gorz dying helps that.

[Airride]

1 Gorz I think was healthy, because it encouraged a bit more careful playing, and made you think about things.

 

2 Gorz is just freaking stupid and encourages NOT playing stuff.

[Althemia]

You're basically advocating the occasional winning topdeck as completely imbalanced.

No-one thinks that winning topdeck cards are a good idea. That's why nobody wants BLS to be a card.

I would like to bring up a point that is actually brought up a lot on dgz, if only because you really should take this in mind: lurk before posting. I don't think you know enough about the game to comment on the healthiness of having more Gorz in the metagame.

[Zeppeli Gyro Supreme]

Dropping Gorz on your opponent's first attack of the duel will become increasingly more popular if it's at 2. You lose a sense of value behind the card when you know you have another you can get later.

[玄魔の王]

If I may, I'd like to hatch a thought experiment: if the two damage effects were reversed on Gorz, would that change how people feel about him?

[mido9]

Dropping Gorz on your opponent's first attack of the duel will become increasingly more popular if it's at 2. You lose a sense of value behind the card when you know you have another you can get later.

Nobody would actually use it at a not-optimal time in a "OH IT'S OKAY ILL JUST /MAYBE/ GET ANOTHER ONE!" kind of way. Like, at all.

[Zeppeli Gyro Supreme]

Nobody would actually use it at a not-optimal time in a "OH IT'S OKAY ILL JUST /MAYBE/ GET ANOTHER ONE!" kind of way. Like, at all.

Did I say they would use it when it's a bad idea? I said that they would be more inclined to drop it. Especially considering if they run 2 they will never drop the other one if they take too much damage.

[Wizarus]

First of all, if somebody didn't argue an unpopular point, it would never get discussed. Actually making people justify answers is far better than just saying "stay at 1" without a reason.

We've already established Gorz isn't just dropped on OTKs. In the given example, the topdecking, fieldless player would draw and pass. From the other player's perspective, that should be a hint the card is Gorz. If they ignore that warning sign, they'll suffer for lack of due diligence. There may be no skill in topdecking Gorz, but there's also no skill in cherry-tapping somebody to death when they don't have an answer. It may have taken skill to get there, but that doesn't change the fact the game has at that point effectively become a lame duck. Lame ducks aren't good for a game either.

Your counterarguement for Gorz forcing you to think is Effectively "you shouldn't have to consider effects like that". A truly skill-based game requires you to consider all possibilities, and not forcing them to consider how ther strategy may backfire is contrary to that philosophy. If it's bad that your opponent can reverse the game by capitalising on your mistake, then why is chess considered the epitome of skill when that's 90% of that game?

 

If draw and pass is actually considered a decent move that you have to respect now, then there is a problem. There is nothing that counters Gorz that's commonly run outside of Warning which is limited, so you can't even say "you should have had X to counter Gorz". Gorz forces you to run cards that don't help(potentially even hinders) you until Gorz actually happens, or punishes you for doing what you're suppose to do.

[Yeezus]

Your counterarguement for Gorz forcing you to think is Effectively "you shouldn't have to consider effects like that". A truly skill-based game requires you to consider all possibilities, and not forcing them to consider how ther strategy may backfire is contrary to that philosophy. If it's bad that your opponent can reverse the game by capitalising on your mistake, then why is chess considered the epitome of skill when that's 90% of that game?

Yeah, but the possibility Gorz creates is bad for the game and shouldn't be allowed... 

A player shouldn't have to think about a card that can literally turn the tables on a game on it's own. 

[Cute Rotten Yoshika]

gorz is stupidly unfair ESPECIALLY when we already have multiple otk stoppers that each have their own benefits and drawbacks in cards like trag, scarecrow, fader, t-roar, etc. to say that the most degenerate one that rewards you for passing your first turn if you have it in hand or setting a single chainable emergency backrow in case they put more damage than you can handle on board is in any way "good" for the game is stupid. also, gorz doesnt do much to slow games. its a momentum robber but the player who drops it will likely be able to play as quickly once its out as the person who triggered it. thats not slowing anyone. lmfao.

[玄魔の王]

@Wizardus: you don't have to answer Gorz by negating the summon. It's perfectly reasonable to address it once it's on the field, which most decks are capable of doing. Several decks even answer is naturally: Bijun running Emptiness and Evilswarm Ophion, for example. Is it harder for weaker decks? Yes, but you should be aware of that on your own, and you can't tell me it's unfair to punish a player for not knowing What their deck can and cannot do.

@B.I.G.: if a card exists in the game which would cause your attempted strategy to kill you, it forces you to wegh the pros and cons of going in for the kill now Versus maybe waiting a turn and collecting more resources. I don't like to enable lucky wins, but I absolutely hate enablng bad decision-making and thoughtless play.

[Resident Fascist]

Konami, you're supposed to balance the game with the banlist, not break it, lol. To 0 for reasons aforementioned, but this format is shaping up to look pretty... uhh...  Banlist looks good except for several stupid hits and unhits. I still kinda don't like it because of 3 changes, though ._.

[Yeezus]

@B.I.G.: if a card exists in the game which would cause your attempted strategy to kill you, it forces you to wegh the pros and cons of going in for the kill now Versus maybe waiting a turn and collecting more resources. I don't like to enable lucky wins, but I absolutely hate enablng bad decision-making and thoughtless play.

yes but you keep using the argument as if Gorz is stopping an OTK. Which is stupid.

Gorz should not have been made as it's unfair. Just like a derp derp OTK I agree (not all random OTKs are like this).

 

But the answer to stop the OTKs is not to make people allowed more Gorz... It should be to ban/limit the OTK pieces.

[Aerion Brightflame]

@Wizardus: you don't have to answer Gorz by negating the summon. It's perfectly reasonable to address it once it's on the field, which most decks are capable of doing. Several decks even answer is naturally: Bijun running Emptiness and Evilswarm Ophion, for example. Is it harder for weaker decks? Yes, but you should be aware of that on your own, and you can't tell me it's unfair to punish a player for not knowing What their deck can and cannot do.

@B.I.G.: if a card exists in the game which would cause your attempted strategy to kill you, it forces you to wegh the pros and cons of going in for the kill now Versus maybe waiting a turn and collecting more resources. I don't like to enable lucky wins, but I absolutely hate enablng bad decision-making and thoughtless play.

But Gorz will also enable thoughtless play on behalf of the other player, when they can just pass a turn without doing anything because they can psych you out with Gorz. That shouldn't be a play in a game like YGO, because it's not showing your skill.

 

Why should they be rewarded for playing badly by getting a 2700 and token.

 

And having an answer to the card doesn't make it fair in anyway, which you seem to be implying. If the fact Vanity stops Gorz or we can have ways to answer it justifies moving Gorz up to a higher number, why don't we do the same to Dark Strike, or CED? Having a answer some of the time doesn't change what a card does, nor how degenerate it is.

 

An OTK stopper should do exactly that. It should stop an OTK. It should not deal with an OTK field, the rest of your deck should do that.

[D.A._Sakuyamon]

This isn't at Gorz but bluffing in general.

 

To say bluffing has little to no skill is silly. Some people may have terrible hands but can bluff their opponent to think they drew godly. The game is as much mind games as it is actually using cards.

 

As for Gorz, it's possibly going to be interesting at 2 but really it should stay at one.

[evilfusion]

Now then, I want to bring up a different point, which may be why Gorz is being allowed at 2.

 

What Decks will probably be top-tier in the wake of the list? Fire Fist? Non-cheap Prophecy? Glad Beasts? Mermails?

 

Keeping in mind that Heavy Storm, the primary backrow clearer, may be banned now, how many of the above Decks keep a clean Field? Fire Fists rely on their Continuous cards. Prophecy use Continuous cards and a Field Spell. Glad Beasts are heavy backrow. These Decks are unlikely to have a clean Field, making Gorz a dead-draw to them, especially at 2.

 

Other Decks will probably not have as much CRUCIAL investment to the Field, even with the main clear card gone. These Decks can run Gorz, and the top Decks have answers to Gorz. Whereas Gorz will help the weaker Decks to fight back against the higher Decks, they will not usually outright annihilate those Decks by having Gorz.

 

Is this a GOOD way to make a banlist? Not really. But it could be a justification for the change. If you draw Gorz and you have Continuous or dead Set cards clogging your Field, Gorz is beyond worthless. If you have Gorz and your LP can't take a hit, Gorz is useless. The idea may be that Konami wants to hint towards a format where you don't mindlessly blast every facedown card on the Field and then swing for game. They may be trying to advocate a style of play where the risks of a facedown card are worth challenging as opposed to just killing it regardless of whether it's good or not.

 

While a topdecking player "draw and pass" seems to be a tell for Gorz, it's not. It could be they drew an S/T that isn't worth committing to the Field, especially if it's a chance to turn the game around. I once Set a bluff S/T and then drew Gorz next turn. I was not amused.

 

Do I think Gorz belongs at 2? No. Is it possibly the worst banlist change? Yes. Will it make an impact?

 

...Jury's still out.