宇佐見 蓮子@C94 Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 Alright, this is a little idea I had. Usually when we roll into tourney season we (The panel of "Expert Judges" consisting of Me, Voltex, A Bagel Character, Nai and Sakura) nerf certain problem cards or archetypes, and that is an arduous process that takes a lot of time, and the margin of error is quite frankly enormous, seeing as Breezes and Warmasters got through in this month's tournament. For the March 2015 Deckswapping tournament, I propose that we make a custom banlist for Duel Portal effective only throughout that tournament. Not a concrete banlist like the one already in DP, but just an agreement between players to not use certain cards. The basis for this banlist will be Konami's January 2015 banlist + several changes, both from already existing Konami cards and custom cards. I am accepting any and all kinds of feedback on this idea, and help in putting together the banlist would be much appreciated. [spoiler=Current ideas] Banned: Number 95: Galaxy Eyes Dark-Matter Dragon(?) Planetellarknight Ptolemaios Raigeki Rekindling Skill Drain Vanity's Emptiness ALL EVO cards Limited: Instant Fusion Book of Moon* One for One* [/spoiler] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darj Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Needless to say, I support this. Personally, I would begin with the following hits: [spoiler=]Forbidden Raigeki Soul Charge Vanity's Emptiness Limited Instant Fusion[/spoiler] DP has an outdated and inaccurate TCG banlist (e.g. One for One and Book of Moon are at 3) but it is ever fixed and updated, then I suggest hits on: [spoiler=]Forbidden Snatch Steal Limited Dark Hole Honest[/spoiler] Mercenary of the Black Chain will be removed from DP so there is no need to hit either her or Fiendish Chain. And I would rather nerf/fix Mithra before hitting her. To be honest, I would prefer if we brought/adopted some of the hits (if not all of them) from the Ideal Banlist some of us had been working on during the past months to DP, except that it has to be updated with cards both from the latest sets (CORE, etc.) AND DP cards; this list would also help in case someone desires to import a TCG top tier deck. Thoughts on this suggestion? EDIT: Because I forgot to mention them: Forbid all EVO cards, since they were designed for a different format where OCG/TCG cards are not available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VampireofDarkness Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Needless to say, I support this. Personally, I would begin with the following hits: [spoiler=]Forbidden Raigeki Soul Charge Vanity's Emptiness Limited Instant Fusion[/spoiler] DP has an outdated and inaccurate TCG banlist (e.g. One for One and Book of Moon are at 3) but it is ever fixed and updated, then I suggest hits on: [spoiler=]Forbidden Snatch Steal Limited Dark Hole Honest[/spoiler] Mercenary of the Black Chain will be removed from DP so there is no need to hit either her or Fiendish Chain. And I would rather nerf/fix Mithra before hitting her. To be honest, I would prefer if we brought/adopted some of the hits (if not all of them) from the Ideal Banlist some of us had been working on during the past months to DP, except that it has to be updated with cards both from the latest sets (CORE, etc.) AND DP cards; this list would also help in case someone desires to import a TCG top tier deck. Thoughts on this suggestion? I would be with this and most of the hits. As much as I don't think any Deck here would have Instant Fusion as a staple, there is an interesting trend of accessible Level 3-4 Tuners, which is concerning in the combos that can be done with this. The Ideal Banlist covers several things I would also say on here, but a ban on Planetellar to prevent Turn 1 Cyber Dragon Infinity would be another thing. (I would rather wait on hitting Infernoids until we see directly what the support can do, as I've heard mixed opinions on what the cards ACTUALLY do when you play them and not read them) As for Mithra, I think it is fine being limited. I am ok with the card itself, just not having it run around in multiples. Reader's Block and Repentance MIGHT be worth the limit due to their staple nature (Though definitely the latter before the former). I will continue to edit this as I think of different suggestions, but those are the first off the top of my head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BtanH Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 I think repentance deserves a limit for sure.Honestly I'm not really sure what the exactly the problem with vanity's emptiness is. Is there a specific deck that is using it? Or are people just not having a good time playing against it? It has a decent amount of counterplay.Because if we just don't like it because it's no fun to play against I'd really like skill drain to be removed. And potentially other similar cards which inhibit your ability to play the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VampireofDarkness Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 I think repentance deserves a limit for sure. Honestly I'm not really sure what the exactly the problem with vanity's emptiness is. Is there a specific deck that is using it? Or are people just not having a good time playing against it? It has a decent amount of counterplay. Because if we just don't like it because it's no fun to play against I'd really like skill drain to be removed. And potentially other similar cards which inhibit your ability to play the game. Skill Drain is banned on the Ideal Banlist actually. Emptiness though is getting really out of hand, from what I have observed and done. It gives certain cards as well powers they should never be granted. Drain does the same, but on a much smaller scale in the DP Format versus Emptiness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darj Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 I think repentance deserves a limit for sure. Honestly I'm not really sure what the exactly the problem with vanity's emptiness is. Is there a specific deck that is using it? Or are people just not having a good time playing against it? It has a decent amount of counterplay. Because if we just don't like it because it's no fun to play against I'd really like skill drain to be removed. And potentially other similar cards which inhibit your ability to play the game. I agree on a hit on Repentance, or perhaps a nerf. As Grandmaster pointed out, the Ideal banlist addresses Skill Drain, and for a similar reason that you state. Regarding Mithra, now that I think about it, Limiting wouldn't hurt it that much, since I believe most decks main just 1 anyways in favor of other Rank4s for more utility. Plus, usually 1 is enough to hurt the opponent. Again, I would rather fix it and make her fair before putting her on the list. By the way, Ptolemaios is actually another of the cards I believe deserves a hit, if not outright ban. In my opinion it is too dangerous because it grants Rank4s access to Rank5s and enables power plays such as the often mentioned here in YCM CyDra Nova --> Infinity play. Also in a way it restricts card making as now any Rank5 you make and submit to DP will be accessible through Ptolemaios, and if that Rank5 is strong, then it will happen the same as with CyDra Infinity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VampireofDarkness Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 I agree on a hit on Repentance, or perhaps a nerf. As Grandmaster pointed out, the Ideal banlist addresses Skill Drain, and for a similar reason that you state. Regarding Mithra, now that I think about it, Limiting wouldn't hurt it that much, since I believe most decks main just 1 anyways in favor of other Rank4s for more utility. Plus, usually 1 is enough to hurt enough the opponent. Again, I would rather fix it and make her fair before putting her on the list. By the way, Ptolemaios is actually another of the cards I believe deserves a hit, if not outright ban. In my opinion it is too dangerous because it grants Rank4s access to Rank5s and enables power plays such as the often mentioned here in YCM CyDra Nova --> Infinity play. Also in a way it restricts card making as now any Rank5 you make and submit to DP will be accessible through Ptolemaios, and if that Rank5 is strong, then it will happen the same as with CyDra Infinity.1 Mithra enables basically a 1-Shot at punishing defensive walls with a middle finger to excessive backrow, similar to Vivyzian against HAT esque Decks. I only don't approve of it at multiples because of the fact that it promotes such design, and having Decks use it like they use Beelze is a little silly, but is entirely possible. In terms of actual power, I think it is very overrated, as Absol, Fiendish Joker, and arguably Constellar Omega do the high pressure beatstick job better for DARK and LIGHT Decks respectively, but I can't deny that it is pretty damn good as I have mentioned. In fact, more that I think about it, it's exactly the comparison of Beelze vs. Void Ogre Dragon. Whereas Beelze requires no effort but makes the opponent insantly remove it, Void Ogre requires setup but puts a lot more pressure on board. The only nerf I would consider is making it detach 2 to activate since it is such 1 shot as I drawed on about earlier. Also, as Voltex mentioned, Planetellar basically means none of us can make a Rank 5 based Deck or a Rank 5 Xyz with any value, as any Non Number cards in it could be abused by Ptelmaois. Cards like this and Number 95 should also be hit, a card that basically says no one can make a Dragon Deck. There are other examples I can think of (Rekindling is the first I know of), but I'm not sure if any of them are actually necessary for now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BtanH Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Hmm yeah, removing things like rekindling is actually a really good idea.I'd also like to say I personally want Limiter Removal gone. I don't think it adds anything of value, and just gives people the ability to pull out wins for no reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VampireofDarkness Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Hmm yeah, removing things like rekindling is actually a really good idea. I'd also like to say I personally want Limiter Removal gone. I don't think it adds anything of value, and just gives people the ability to pull out wins for no reason. The point of this list tho is impact and if that card says "You can't make this cause this card is legal". For example, with Rekindling, you can't make FIRE monsters with 200 DEF to get Flamvell support because then Rekindling would be live in the Deck. You can't make Dragon archetypes that use Rank 8s because Number 95 would decimate the opponent. You can't make a good Rank 5 cause Plantellar will abuse it. That's what hitting these kinda cards is about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cirrus Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Let's not get too ahead of ourselves here. A ban on overwhelming floodgate cards such as Skill Drain and Vanity's Emptiness should occur, imo, only after the other parts of the banlist are fleshed out. I can understand the reason for banning stuff like Rekindling because they clog up design space, but I would also definitely wait to see if every deck runs Planetellarknight -> Rank 5 or if the combo is too overbearing in the decks that do run it. It does seem a little more difficult to disrupt than desirable, but I advocate for giving cards reasonable benefit of doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VampireofDarkness Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Let's not get too ahead of ourselves here. A ban on overwhelming floodgate cards such as Skill Drain and Vanity's Emptiness should occur, imo, only after the other parts of the banlist are fleshed out. I can understand the reason for banning stuff like Rekindling because they clog up design space, but I would also definitely wait to see if every deck runs Planetellarknight -> Rank 5 or if the combo is too overbearing in the decks that do run it. It does seem a little more difficult to disrupt than desirable, but I advocate for giving cards reasonable benefit of doubt. The shenanigans have already started, don't get me started. The problem is that as a result of the card, specifically, DARK Decks no longer have a chance in the meta cause now you can run this with Constellarknight Diamond. Remember, at the EP you get a mat and during EITHER player's turn you can rank up. On top of Cyber Dragon Infinity and Constellar Plieades being a thing. I literally would rather sit out than try to play my Deck with Ptelmaios being in everybody's Extra Deck and making Turn 2 Diamond, taking me out of the game outright Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cirrus Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 I know about the speed thingy, but I didn't think Infinity was that broken as you have ample time to respond. However! Sacred Dia and Pleiades are. So out it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self-Destruct Button Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 If we use an agreement of not using cards instead of a banlist then Preparation of Rites has to be hit in some forme, b/c it's OP. (arguably) Also banning Skill Drain might not be necessary, there are not any decks that aren't hurt by it on DP, and almost no Deck at all can function well under it. Leading to no one being able to even playing, THIS again leading to us not being able to see if it really impacts everything as much as we thought, seeing how MST and its kin are so relevant in the DP meta because so many decks rely on a specific Spell or just a load of backrow. Though, in advance, if there will ever be a Deck that can play it, a ban would make sense. Vanity's Emptiness is a double-edged sword for me. For a card that has this much counterplay built-in, it should not get hit out of sheer hate. I would much rather see a format with Vanity's and one without and compare which one is healthier. Certain Decks like Breeze, Mikos or Dread Angels (looking at you, Rose) just cannot be stopped once they get rolling, so having that crucial Vanity's Emptiness in the back to stop these can balance out those decks. But that requires testing, as said. Also, why would Instant Fusion ever be hit? It's just one mat for an Xyz or Synchro for 1k LP, that's nothing overwhelming. It gets some decks going. Elder God Noden however just provides free pluses and is a 1-card-Xyz/Sync in itself with Instant Fusion, so that card should rather be taken out than Instant Fusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cirrus Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Rites isn't particularly OP unless there is an archetype that can abuse it. It can go to 1 if necessary. I agree completely with the above sentiment - Vanity is a very balanced card and affects formats in a generally healthy way (as in, it tests skill and generally helps to tone down things that are bad for a format and/or helps it move towards a better direction). Plus we have Galaxy Cyclone now to doubly hate on Vanity's; it doesn't deserve hits. As to the debate of whether Skill Drain is OP or not... why not try testing Dark Worlds against DP cards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darj Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Well, Skill Drain and Emptiness were already somewhat discussed in the Ideal Banlist thread, which is why I straight out suggested to ban them here on DP instead of leaving them open to discussion. But sure, I'm fine with testing the Skill Drain with DWs, and different hits on Emptiness (Semi-Limit, Limit) before dropping the axe on them. As for Rites, there is Triky's Rituals who already take advantage of it and at one point used it as effectively as Necloths, so I would be fine with Limiting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cirrus Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Why does Emptiness need to be hit at all? What does it do that's inherently unfair? A poorly played Vanity's helps no one and only serves to make you lose resources, and it's not nearly as oppressive as, eh, Royal Oppression was. I agree wholeheartedly with SDB on the point that it should not get hit only because of hate, as we have a dearth of useful defensive backrow as it is with the TCG list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self-Destruct Button Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 The only thing against Vanity is that you can setup your board, set the Vanity and then when your opponent tries to counteract your board, you just flip Vanity and then it's either MST or game. Other than that I'm, as I said, completely fine with the card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cirrus Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 I agree with that theoretical case. That's only the case with fast decks, though, right; you can counter with setting up with your own backrows if you're a slower deck. I would be more inclined to focus on that case if we didn't just get Galaxy Cyclone. I think ultimately it promotes more counterplay in matches and deckbuilding; ultimately it is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VampireofDarkness Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 If we use an agreement of not using cards instead of a banlist then Preparation of Rites has to be hit in some forme, b/c it's OP. (arguably) Also banning Skill Drain might not be necessary, there are not any decks that aren't hurt by it on DP, and almost no Deck at all can function well under it. Leading to no one being able to even playing, THIS again leading to us not being able to see if it really impacts everything as much as we thought, seeing how MST and its kin are so relevant in the DP meta because so many decks rely on a specific Spell or just a load of backrow. Though, in advance, if there will ever be a Deck that can play it, a ban would make sense. Vanity's Emptiness is a double-edged sword for me. For a card that has this much counterplay built-in, it should not get hit out of sheer hate. I would much rather see a format with Vanity's and one without and compare which one is healthier. Certain Decks like Breeze, Mikos or Dread Angels (looking at you, Rose) just cannot be stopped once they get rolling, so having that crucial Vanity's Emptiness in the back to stop these can balance out those decks. But that requires testing, as said. Also, why would Instant Fusion ever be hit? It's just one mat for an Xyz or Synchro for 1k LP, that's nothing overwhelming. It gets some decks going. Elder God Noden however just provides free pluses and is a 1-card-Xyz/Sync in itself with Instant Fusion, so that card should rather be taken out than Instant Fusion. First off, Dark Dimension abused Preparation of Rites heavily while it was legal. When me and Voltex played a mirror match, it was first Prep of Rites wins. As for Skill Drain, I think Cirrus made an archetype that benefited off of SD already, so I think it just needs the hammer before someone discovers such or some other archetype becomes fond of it. Instant Fusion - The only reason I didn't see this card during the tournament was someone kept deleting it. With all of the Level 3-4 Tuners, even just Panzer Dragon or Kamionwizard as targets opens up ED Plays like Void Ogre Dragon for Cherodei and Star Eater in Guardians. I would think we would rather not open up the door to such things being perfectly normal. It's not what it can do, it's what it enables Vanity's Emptiness - Am I the only one who realizes Rose only works during the first of your opponent's turns after dropping it, and then when my turn ends they do can whatever the hell they want with it? Not once in the entire tournament did I make a Turn 1 Rose play, let alone won because I summoned Rose. Hyperion, Mithra and Tempted Swords did a lot more damage, the latter being the only one to finish a game. That aside, Vanity if you ask me promotes and rewards overextension by taking your opponent out of the game for doing so. I'll admit, Vanity is the only reason I came close to winning in any of my matches, but I shouldn't have to clutch onto such a card to win. By keeping Vanity legal, you're basically saying as long as it's around everything is ok, but then Decks like Shaddoll and Diva Zombies with Oppression proved you can use it to keep every lower tier Deck out of the meta. That's why I stand strongly by the statement that Vanity should not be legal in a stable format. Even in our format, Decks like Miko and Breeze are quite functional under Vanity, and as one of my matches proved, I fold to that instantly. It's one way or the other, and I don't see a happy medium anytime soon. As a result, it's gotta go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darj Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Now that you mention it, personally I don't like the concept of Galaxy Cyclone because it is a "2 cards in 1" and it kind of screams of powercreep. But the idea here is to not suffer from the powercreep as much as OCG/TCG, and Cyclone could end up a card that is a bit too good for DP. I would hit both Emptiness and Cyclone, but we have not even tested the latter in DP yet so I'm fine with giving it a try first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VampireofDarkness Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 I agree with that theoretical case. That's only the case with fast decks, though, right; you can counter with setting up with your own backrows if you're a slower deck. I would be more inclined to focus on that case if we didn't just get Galaxy Cyclone. I think ultimately it promotes more counterplay in matches and deckbuilding; ultimately it is what it is. Infernoids are the only Deck considering Cyclone. It's not a staple. At the very least, Vanity is a free Solemn Warning. If you're expecting me to run 3 MST and 3 Cyclone because my Deck and most Decks I make fold to Emptiness, I got a lot of questions to bring. We have Solemn, Black Horn, and Reader's Block. Isn't that good enough of Special Summon negation? Now that you mention it, personally I don't like the concept of Galaxy Cyclone because it is a "2 cards in 1" and it kind of screams of powercreep. But the idea here is to not suffer from the powercreep as much as OCG/TCG, and Cyclone could end up a card that is a bit too good for DP. I would hit both Emptiness and Cyclone, but we have not even tested the latter in DP yet so I'm fine with giving it a try first. It's a Normal Spell, which makes it significantly worse. It only strongly benefits a Deck like Infernoids, where you have a chance of milling said MST and losing out on it, whereas Cyclone says "Nahhhhhh, you got this". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cirrus Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 I actually see Cyclone as much superior Twisters. In my opinion they should be considered as such, and are especially effective as floodgate removers because decks that manage to back up a floodgate generally run higher amounts of backrow. Of course MST is more effective in the main deck because you can sweep backrows during the End Phase, but I often sided in my Cyclones during game 2 and 3 over my MSTs simply to have more insurance against floodgates and backrow. If you are a fast deck, you should consider Vanity's Emptiness (and most of the decks you make are indeed fast decks). This is not a design flaw of Vanity's Emptiness. If you are a slow deck, just playing the game will get rid of your opponent's Vanity's Emptiness. You have backrows! Your opponent can't play backrows because Vanity will die! Killing any front row monster will make Vanity's die! There is ample amounts of counterplay, and once again, this is not a design flaw of Vanity's itself. If you are saying the decks that flip Vanity's accumulate overwhelming advantage before flipping the Vanity's ... that's the deck's problem, not Vanity's. Vanity isn't a free Solemn Warning in most of the cases it's activated in. It doesn't destroy the card it negates, and thus only strongly benefits when your opponent plays, say a Normal Spell that Special Summons something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love of Ghibli Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 While I proceed to engage with Cirrus on a slew of other matters I can't help but note that I have never agreed more than the following statement: If you are a fast deck, you should consider Vanity's Emptiness (and most of the decks you make are indeed fast decks). This is not a design flaw of Vanity's Emptiness. If you are a slow deck, just playing the game will get rid of your opponent's Vanity's Emptiness. You have backrows! Your opponent can't play backrows because Vanity will die! Killing any front row monster will make Vanity's die! There is ample amounts of counterplay, and once again, this is not a design flaw of Vanity's itself. If you are saying the decks that flip Vanity's accumulate overwhelming advantage before flipping the Vanity's ... that's the deck's problem, not Vanity's. Vanity's is so open to destruction that it should not readily impact the game. The problem is that DP archetypes (well the vast majority anyway) are spam engine monster generators that at there worst don't promote anything than overwhelming spam slaughter. And not the good kind of spam slaughter like arguably Fire Fist in their hayday the bad kind where you set oppressive conditions or that your spamming translates into minuses for your opponent. Therefore you get shutdown by Vanity's. This is not Vanity's fault...this is your fault for making such a horribly linear concept that you can't participate in a gamestate that has slowed down slightly. That card designing is what has to be addressed not Vanity's as a card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VampireofDarkness Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 While I proceed to engage with Cirrus on a slew of other matters I can't help but note that I have never agreed more than the following statement: Vanity's is so open to destruction that it should not readily impact the game. The problem is that DP archetypes (well the vast majority anyway) are spam engine monster generators that at there worst don't promote anything than overwhelming spam slaughter. And not the good kind of spam slaughter like arguably Fire Fist in their hayday the bad kind where you set oppressive conditions or that your spamming translates into minuses for your opponent. Therefore you get shutdown by Vanity's. This is not Vanity's fault...this is your fault for making such a horribly linear concept that you can't participate in a gamestate that has slowed down slightly. That card designing is what has to be addressed not Vanity's as a card.As much as I have been standing by the fact that Vanity should go, I can't lie that this is a problem. Although it helps that we have rather strong ED bosses, another main issue is not many monsters anymore are made to stand on their own, and this is why such Fire Fist tend to be better about this then say tellarknights. The basic philosophy of a lot of these tellar 2.0s is everything is lower attack monsters that get your Extra Deck plays going. Perhaps this principle overall is not meant for DP Format, and we can take a few tips from our fellow past on how to work with otherwise. Geargiarmor and Bear would be good example of this, and in DP, my own Gate and Moon. You gain slow advantage, and you have something with an ok amount of ATK (Or in Gate's case, a decent protection) so you don't get swamped if Vanity or Vanity-esque card sweeps you off your feet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BtanH Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Or you could just have any kind of removal in your deck, which readily gets rid of vanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.