Yep, this discussion again [Skill Drain]

[goddamnit names are a pain]

You see, it has been said several times, and I agree with it.

It shouldn't really be at 3, 2 would be nice, but 1 might happen.

Really, it's inconsistent, limited in what it can get away with being played in, and costs LP (not a huge cost).

Sure, it ticks people off. But welcome to Yugioh.

[玄魔の王]

How is it stupid to get into these heated arguments? Arguments are one of the best things a game can create, if done by people with a brain.

Yeah, see, I've seen WAY too many arguments from people that failed that little requirement at some point.

Some people may recall the 4 or something page argument me and Jeremy had purely about Acid Golem and whether it was at all useful. It was a great thread because both sides of the debate brought reasoned points and the discussion was incredibly productive.

I can say with full sincerity I'm impressed by that. And again, I'm used to my only debate partners being people who use ad hoc and ad hominem as strategies, and who put words in people's mouths by immediately stretching their views to extremes. If this sounds sad, it is, and it's most of why I avoid those people.

I will strongly disagree with you that people with any real passion for their side of the argument are in the wrong. Your point holds very little merit, philosophically.

It's not about passion so must as bluster and machismo, which some people try to excuse as passion. Which would annoy me, if I listened to those people.

 

Anyway, having thought about Skill Drain... going to two is probably warranted, and hardly an issue seeing as most decks won't run more than that anyway.

[The Hounds Of Anubis]

There's literally no valid reason to put it to two.

[Delibirb]

Arguments are fun, so long as you remember to keep your words strictly professional and admit when you are wrong.

And this is where I think most people have the issue; because an argument can be less about debating the topic and more about making your opponent feel like an idiot for being on a side with one word/tone shift. This has happened before, and it cant stop. Which is why this argument should.

[goddamnit names are a pain]

There's literally no valid reason to put it to two.

I mean, its not overpowered, but running 3 is just a pain to deal with at times. But I kinda see your point here. I have no issue with it at 3, but 2 would not be bad.

[The Hounds Of Anubis]

I mean, its not overpowered, but running 3 is just a pain to deal with at times. But I kinda see your point here. I have no issue with it at 3, but 2 would not be bad.

Leave it at 3. Let the people playing that many suffer with their inferior deck building skills. Let them learn why it's just better to play it at 2 or less.

[玄魔の王]

There's literally no valid reason to put it to two.

The primary arguments in favour of such a move seem to be that it creates an unfair game state (and given how Skill Drain decks are, potentially creating a slippery slope) that required the opponent to intervene to regain their momentum. Arguments against are more about the weaknesses of being a Continuous Trap, requiring deck dedication and reducing consistency at anything higher than 3. At present, the card isn't overly dangerous, but it's one of those cards that runs exponentially high risks of becoming the win condition some people claim it to be as more cards to support the theme come out. There's nothing wrong with proactive banlist creation.

[vla1ne]

There's literally no valid reason to put it to two.

To show that konami is paying attention to more than just killing D-rulers? I know there are cards that deserve a hit sooner (-REKINDLING-)but skill drain @3 promotes decks that decrease interaction far too much (Barbaros/cyber end OTKs). It wouldn't kill the game @3, but 2 is where it belongs If konami is actually trying to balance this game the way their recent banlists have been implying.

I don't mind 3, since you rarely see it ran at that many, but as a matter of principle, if the listmakers want to show they're paying attention, they need to show they can fairly hit potentially unbalanced cards BEFORE they become bigger threats. (yet again, there are still cards that deserve it more atm, but in the future, it really should be handled before they release more cards that could make it a heavier threat.)

[The Hounds Of Anubis]

There is a problem when the card itself isn't doing any damage. It's the same bollocks that got Final Countdown limited and it should be kept far away from the game, and any game at that. If it proves to be too good, then get rid of it. Don't be too scared to let it do what it's always done, which is essentially nothing anyway.

[goddamnit names are a pain]

Ok, time to contradict myself and look stupid.

I have been playing TG stun for a while. Although it has been a few months since IRL, and I didn't like it too much on DN, it would argue that it is one of the few decks that can play it at 3. Not once(not saying it is impossible) has it shown to be a dead draw, but instead increased my odds of getting it in my hand. Which is something Stun decks need, of course.

Some decks really don't need it at three, but some are not hurt by it at three. 

[The Hounds Of Anubis]

So, what you're saying, as an argument to semi-limit it. Is that a single fucking deck - that isn't even good - can play 3 copies of it.

I have to seriously resist the urge to get all Frankie Boyle up in this thread.

[goddamnit names are a pain]

Nononono, I'm not that stupid.

I merely suggest that a deck can run it at three. Nothing more, nothing less.

One Deck running a card that might annoy people at three does not = put it at two. They can get over it.

Also, IF Konami for some reason puts it anywhere, it should be at 2. Whiny players tend to get their way eventually with them.

[玄魔の王]

There is a problem when the card itself isn't doing any damage. It's the same bollocks that got Final Countdown limited and it should be kept far away from the game, and any game at that. If it proves to be too good, then get rid of it. Don't be too scared to let it do what it's always done, which is essentially nothing anyway.

"Gee, that mass on your leg looks like it could turn into cancer, but it isn't malignant yet so we shouldn't operate." And yes, that's an asinine comparison, but since none of us are mind-readers and don't know what Konami will do next (which at this point could be anything) I question whether it's worth the risk.

[Miror B]

To show that konami is paying attention to more than just killing D-rulers?

You mean like how they hit Sams pre-emptively for the attempt at a slower TCG format?

How Reborn was hit to prevent the mass use in every deck not using Necrovalley?

How they hit Royal Tribute just before the new Gravekeeper support came out?

How along with hitting Heavy Storm, they hit every generic trap that would've been boosted by not being afraid of a Storm to the face?

[The Hounds Of Anubis]

Nononono, I'm not that stupid.
I merely suggest that a deck can run it at three. Nothing more, nothing less.
One Deck running a card that might annoy people at three does not = put it at two. They can get over it.
Also, IF Konami for some reason puts it anywhere, it should be at 2. Whiny players tend to get their way eventually with them.

 
As if. The yugioh community would literally take a 20 inch dildo up its arse from Konami. There's absolutely none of this supposed consumer-understanding between Konami or their players.
 

"Gee, that mass on your leg looks like it could turn into cancer, but it isn't malignant yet so we shouldn't operate." And yes, that's an asinine comparison, but since none of us are mind-readers and don't know what Konami will do next (which at this point could be anything) I question whether it's worth the risk.

That's a completely stupid scenario. You can't compare a game to that at all. If Skill Drain ever becomes infectious to the metagame it won't be for fucking long, and you fail to see that entirely.

[vla1ne]

You mean like how they hit Sams pre-emptively for the attempt at a slower TCG format?
How Reborn was hit to prevent the mass use in every deck not using Necrovalley?
How they hit Royal Tribute just before the new Gravekeeper support came out?
How along with hitting Heavy Storm, they hit every generic trap that would've been boosted by not being afraid of a Storm to the face?

Pretty much. They've been doing a good job recently, so I've got no complaints. But if they are planning to release more monsters that search/protect traps, or work like barbarous, then I hope they remember to minimize the damage beforehand.

[玄魔の王]

 As if. The yugioh community would literally take a 20 inch dildo up its arse from Konami. There's absolutely none of this supposed consumer-understanding between Konami or their players.

Do they even make those? And sadly, you're right; the Legacy Support we've been getting isn't really what nostalgic players would actually want.

If Skill Drain ever becomes infectious to the metagame it won't be for fucking long, and you fail to see that entirely.

I don't think anybody wants it to reach that point at all, is what I'm getting at.

[The Hounds Of Anubis]

It won't. And if it does, Konami will react to that. Besides, Skill Drain is literally a card that cycles itself out of a format. If it becomes a dominant card, it's actually just useless.

[Kazooie]

Skill Drain becomes good, people begin to focus on stopping it, which makes it worse and not worth using. It's a cycle that keeps on forcing itself out of the meta and is generally at it's best when a format first starts, getting weaker as time goes.

 

Edit: And Chris posts before me.

[玄魔の王]

And if it does, Konami will react to that. 

This is the part I'm focussing on because it seems to be the prevailing opinion that being reactive simply doesn't work. Being proactive does.

[The Hounds Of Anubis]

Why steer a format on assumptions and not hard data?

[玄魔の王]

Why steer a format on assumptions and not hard data?

Foresight is the general answer. The problem for most players is while they wait for Konami to rectify a card's placement on the list, they still have to slog through games against the problem card until that actually happens, which harms their enjoyment of the game. Another reason is bad card design; it doesn't take a Madolche format to tell you why Tiaramisu and Hootcake need list attention, nor a Laval one for Rekindling.

[goddamnit names are a pain]

Why steer a format on assumptions and not hard data?

Because 

1. Konami has no idea what they are doing, or how the cards work (on a level players do)

2. Konami doesn't give a crap.

Possible answers.

 

But even hard data has is flaws and inconsistencies. I believe a balance of both data and assumptions can lead us to a stable format. But then again, stable=less money spent, a lot of times.

[玄魔の王]

1. Konami has no idea what they are doing, or how the cards work (on a level players do)

I feel this is worth pointing out, because it's actually responsible for the Wind-Up Hand Loop. Konami's playtesters apparently did not understand why Zenmaighty and Rat were a problem with Hunter, because when the Loop was explained to them they kept thinking you would Tribute Rat.

[The Hounds Of Anubis]

Yes, Konami knows nothing. Which is why their banlists come from significant data collection over literally thousands of games.

Foresight is the general answer. The problem for most players is while they wait for Konami to rectify a card's placement on the list, they still have to slog through games against the problem card until that actually happens, which harms their enjoyment of the game. Another reason is bad card design; it doesn't take a Madolche format to tell you why Tiaramisu and Hootcake need list attention, nor a Laval one for Rekindling.

Again, this doesn't actually occur with cards like Skill Drain anyway, it is physically impossible for it to be a dominant card. And bad card design doesn't matter if it doesn't affect the format, frankly.