[Discussion/Debate] Building a Meta: What power levels should DP be built around?

[Major's Shadow]

*Insert Vegeta quote here*

*Insert Nappa quote here*

 

But in all seriousness guys, let's talk for a bit. I've been playing DP for well over a year now, and have been boggled at the lack of forum-based discussions revolving around the evolution and development of the "Meta" that is commonly associated with DP. This comes from my own experience, so I'm only providing reasoning, not a strong, concrete analysis. I want to make myself perfectly clear: I am not trying to make this topic out to be more of an issue than it is, even if the wording sounds broad and generalized. Some will disagree on the significance of this issue, and I am well aware. My intentions are not on creating conflict or argument, or making myself out to be a moron; I am just acknowledging this topic, and trying to garner an otherwise lack of discussion towards it. Now then, let's see what we can come up with, shall we?

 

Issue

Duel Portal is entirely community based, with individuals who vary in skill, knowledge, and investment towards YuGiOh, as well as their preferences in design based around their favorite point of the card game. We all have our reasons to come spend time developing our own cards: whether it be to replicate and preserve a lost period in YuGiOh's development and make it fresh, to try and express their creativity in the form of a tangible and expressive medium, or for no complex reason whatsoever. It's difficult to keep things cohesive, especially when each individual has free reign on their own archetypes that pertains to an individual's preferences, rather than the whole "Meta" of DP, as I will be referring to it. Let's go over some bullet points, shall we?

 

Issue #1, Causes:

• Everyone has free reign on the decks they make
• Everyone has different design choices and ideas of "Balance"
• Everyone has control over every card in DP.

Issue #1, Results:

• Cards and Archetypes are no longer made cohesive
• Cards and Archetypes vary in quality
• Cards and Archetypes are not explored deeply enough to justify an individual's sense of "Balance"

If I must accredit one thing to EVO; it's attempted to centralize an entire card bank to a single design philosophy, but even then, they had to restart from scratch to come even close to doing so, and I highly doubt it's anywhere near as perfectly balanced as they intended. So, since a majority of us are relatively comfortable with Konami's design base, we should focus on narrowing down the field, or "timeline", of cards being released. So then, the issue comes to "where"? What aspects should, and will continue to be, replicated from that specific timeline? How should these fields be regulated? What decks are feasible in a more competitive DP environment, and whom should regulate such an environment? As a user named Inkrediblex said on DP, he was fed up with the power leak, and started classifying the decks other people made as "Tier 0", being far better than his own design. It's vague, yes, but I too feel the frustration of such an issue with these styles of tournament. So, in order to put it into perspective, let me lay out some of the points that have been showing improvement:

 

Solutions (Implemented):

• Pinned Post to Submit Archetypes/Cards:

This is an incredibly significant change, and is certainly important for future hosting tournaments. It allows an individual to more thoroughly analyze a single card base, and incorporate feedback to the developers of said archetype to allow them play in hosted tournaments! This was done in previous months, but the major issue was the lack of forethought put into the analysis, as well as conflict on what power levels should be followed. Hopefully with this extra time, the individuals administrating the upcoming tourney will be more than capable of finding a compromise  for every player. However, the administrators should communicate early-on their expectations on what a deck should be capable of, and provide examples to demonstrate their decision.

 

• Users Actively Providing Feedback on Decks:

Again, incredibly important. It's a given, but should be a standard nevertheless. So long as communication is strong between each creator, we can assure a decent standard of strength, and try to replicate a similar level. After some demonstrations of decks in more User-made tourneys, I can almost assure this issue can potentially solve itself, so long as creators are willing to retain a significant amount of flexibility, if need be.

 

Solutions (Potential):

• Improving some DP Creators' Knowledge of the Game:

This one is not quite so easy to explain. See, with good knowledge comes greater design, and having a stronger fundamental understanding of the content your creations are based on can almost guarantee a more quality output of cards. There is a lot more to designing the cards than just the effect, which I've seen plenty of users with incorrect OCG and poor mechanics based on this. It's more difficult to see in heinseight what's wrong with your deck, if you're less experienced with card/game knowledge. This, I feel, should be easier accessed by a Pinned Post that outlines the essential knowledge provided by Konami, so that creators can better understand the fundamentals of the content they create. Stuff such as Condition, Cost, Effect, Timing, Chain Speed, Damage Step, Activation of Effect, Replays, etc. that some players might not know of should be outlined in a post. This can also help support the overall power levels, by giving creators the tools to better design decks that more people will enjoy playing with, and against. This is not meant to be offensive, but rather, just a more efficient method to outline the expectations of card

quality in DP.

 

• Having a Consistent Tourney Schedule (and Sometimes only Allowing Previously Designed Archetypes):

Some might disagree on this, because it essentially kills the creativity of DP, but hear me out: I'm speaking strictly on Competitive terms. From my understanding of a Competitive environment, people generally like constants. They want to gain advantage based on their skills, knowledge, and devotion of the game. They want the satisfaction of accomplishing something based on their own proficiency of the elements provided. However, if everything changes so frequently, then it becomes impossible to keep any form of consistency, which destroys any competitive potential for DP. I'm not saying people shouldn't use the archetypes they love to build, and continue doing so, but I feel there should be some sort of cap on the quantity of decks. I like the idea of developing Archetypes or designs for decks, but I also love exploring the potential of said decks, and all the interesting mechanics that can be fleshed out of each one! I want the time to key in and focus on how people develop their decks, and what expectations I should have coming in. That being said, I suggest we have card pooling for each tournament be reduced in frequency (Ex. 1 Month --> 2 Months), this way, it is more feasible to further improve the quality of specific archetypes, rather than only giving them a short period of time. Or, rather, we can have Tournaments that only allow Archetypes that have been extensively tested and developed at an earlier point in time (case in point: A Deck Swap Tourney w/ older archetypes). I love expressing my creativity, but in a competitive environment, there should be more work to reduce the quantity of factors to be manipulated, and show your creativity in the ways you play as well.

 

 

What do you guys think? What points do you Agree/Disagree with me? Would you like to see any of these changes implemented? Let's start talking!

 

[spoiler='Further Supporting Comments:']

I think that a large part of having a central level of balance between different user's archetypes is for people to have at least a vague understanding of how the other decks in the proposed metagame are intended to operate. This can be accomplished through Deck Primers, made by the archetype's creator. These would be set up like normal archetype threads, but could also include things like a sample decklist, possible out-of-archetype techs, and some of the deck's combos and plays. Examples of the sort of primer I am referring to include this Performapal guide by Black and this Scrap Factory Turbo guide by myself. Guides like these give an insight into how decks work, and even though they take time to get together (my Scrap guide was about an hour of typing) they are incredibly useful to those wanting to learn it.

 

 

The concensus of the last discussions was that we'd rather follow Konami until shaddolls & tellars, and keep in check to that power level or less, needless to say Incrediblex's plants were barely even in the same playground. < that being said whilst not ignoring the owercreep some decks here indeed have. But hey, if you see powercreep then suggest fixes.

[/spoiler]

[lecc_XD]

I have the same thoughts and questions, but kinda different solutions, but as well i think we should apply yours abd twitch thwm in the march
My only question nos is:
- What is the knowledge your wanna vive to the others?

Some ppl still have the mind in the Yusei era, when grave and fast summons are the meta
Others have the mind in the Yuma era, with the control and negation was the meta
And then the actual ygo players who have the Search Toolbox as meta
So thats what i really wanna know, what do your think is the most convenient Meta for DP?

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

I think that a large part of having a central level of balance between different user's archetypes is for people to have at least a vague understanding of how the other decks in the proposed metagame are intended to operate. This can be accomplished through Deck Primers, made by the archetype's creator. These would be set up like normal archetype threads, but could also include things like a sample decklist, possible out-of-archetype techs, and some of the deck's combos and plays. Examples of the sort of primer I am referring to include [url=http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/333176-ladies-and-gentlemen-believe-in-my-existence-post-core-2-performapal/?hl=performapal]this Performapal guide by Black[/url] and [url=http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/329645-scrap-factory-turbo/?hl=%2Bfactory+%2Bturbo]this Scrap Factory Turbo guide by myself[/url]. Guides like these give an insight into how decks work, and even though they take time to get together (my Scrap guide was about an hour of typing) they are incredibly useful to those wanting to learn it.

[Major's Shadow]

I have the same thoughts and questions, but kinda different solutions, but as well i think we should apply yours abd twitch thwm in the march
My only question nos is:
- What is the knowledge your wanna vive to the others?

Some ppl still have the mind in the Yusei era, when grave and fast summons are the meta
Others have the mind in the Yuma era, with the control and negation was the meta
And then the actual ygo players who have the Search Toolbox as meta
So thats what i really wanna know, what do your think is the most convenient Meta for DP?

No offense man, but some of the words I couldn't understand, so spellcheck plz. Anywho, let me try and answer your points:

1. Knowledge of the fundamentals of the card game, and fundamentals of the DP meta (as it develops). I hope I made this clear enough, but basically, anything related to the Official Konami Rulebook, and any major developments made for significant decks in DP tourneys.
2. Convenient is not a very effective word to describe it, but if I could try and explain it, I would effectively say "What works?". Basically, when I mean Meta, I refer to what elements are the most effective in a given set of decks, and how this most effective deck pairs up to the actual TCG meta. So if something works, we need to discuss the reasons why it works, what can be incorporated to make said strategy more/less effective, and if we want to focus on those elements in the design aspect of specific decks. Certain elements (like consistency, speed, resources, etc.) are universally strong as well, so those elements can be taken into compromise. It's not quite as straight forward, but it's feasible, and the results can speak for themselves a good deal of the time.

 

I think that a large part of having a central level of balance between different user's archetypes is for people to have at least a vague understanding of how the other decks in the proposed metagame are intended to operate. This can be accomplished through Deck Primers, made by the archetype's creator. These would be set up like normal archetype threads, but could also include things like a sample decklist, possible out-of-archetype techs, and some of the deck's combos and plays. Examples of the sort of primer I am referring to include this Performapal guide by Black and this Scrap Factory Turbo guide by myself. Guides like these give an insight into how decks work, and even though they take time to get together (my Scrap guide was about an hour of typing) they are incredibly useful to those wanting to learn it.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Excellent point made by this fine gentleman here! Again, this falls into the category of informative resources accessible more easily to more people, except specified more. Nothing to say against this, I just agree.

[Marco Polo]

I'll not comment on the actual subject because I don't have much time. Just wanted to notify you that there were indeed quite a few discussion about the DP meta and there was at least 1 thread I know about that discussed exactly that.
So there is no actual lack of discussion here

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Also, to be completely honest, I think we should only bother with the metagame for the tournament format. It has a banlist (in the works), it has at least some level of quality control, and it doesn't include a ton of old, random, weird cards that limit future design.

[Darj]

Also, to be completely honest, I think we should only bother with the metagame for the tournament format. It has a banlist (in the works), it has at least some level of quality control, and it doesn't include a ton of old, random, weird cards that limit future design.

 

I second this. Trying to establish a metagame on DP overall is just too much work considering how people randomly show up with their new cards and/or archetypes that may be underpowered, overpowered, etc. and mess almost entirely whatever progress was being done.

[Major's Shadow]

Also, to be completely honest, I think we should only bother with the metagame for the tournament format. It has a banlist (in the works), it has at least some level of quality control, and it doesn't include a ton of old, random, weird cards that limit future design.

 

I second this. Trying to establish a metagame on DP overall is just too much work considering how people randomly show up with their new cards and/or archetypes that may be underpowered, overpowered, etc. and mess almost entirely whatever progress was being done.

 

I believe that is one of the points that I emphasized later in the post, as a "Competitive" environment. I didn't mean to reflect that point on DP, treating it as a whole competitive entity, there is certainly more there. I'm just referring to that specific aspect, and how the potential of said aspect could be shattered without a more strict focus. Did I get that point across well enough?

 

 

I'll not comment on the actual subject because I don't have much time. Just wanted to notify you that there were indeed quite a few discussion about the DP meta and there was at least 1 thread I know about that discussed exactly that.
So there is no actual lack of discussion here

The concensus of the last discussions was that we'd rather follow Konami until shaddolls & tellars, and keep in check to that power level or less, needless to say Incrediblex's plants were barely even in the same playground. < that being said whilst not ignoring the owercreep some decks here indeed have. But hey, if you see powercreep then suggest fixes.

Certainly! I've heard of this before, but based on the amount of varied feedback I received after speaking with people and their positions on certain card(s) or effect(s) or archetypes, it's tough to tell. I feel that, rather than labeling it with a single ideal, we should effectively monitor the decks, and try to regulate the next tournament based on that ideal power level. I consistently see power leaks, yes, but there is more to that, as I mentioned before. I just mostly concern about the competitive environment with these kinds of discussions, rather than a casual one.