What makes a card banworthy?

[Guest Star]

' pid='1030088' dateline='1219804188']

In my opinion' date=' everything except Damages The Opponent For Playing Correctly should be taken off the list.

[/quote']

 

Suddenly and unexpectedly, you fall off of the Earth into the mysterious parallel world of Contemptus Saeculi, where the card game is different from how it is here.

 

Mirror Force does not exist. Torrential Tribute does not exist. Lightning Vortex does not exist. Even Flash of the Forbidden Spell does not exist. In fact, no Mass Monster Removal exists at all. Konami never made the cards. As a result, there's no way to punish people for summoning a bunch of monsters.

 

Swarm becomes the order of the day. The best players are the ones who put as many monsters on their side of the field as possible. We would consider it overextending, but the Contemptus Saeculians would not; since it cannot be punished and cannot harm them, it is not overextending but rather merely extending, and thus instead of a dangerous, questionable strategy it is perfectly rational and optimal. Playing in this way is Playing Correctly.

 

Then, suddenly, Konami makes Lightning Vortex, or maybe Mirror Force, or maybe Torrential Tribute. The duelists of Contemptus Saeculi cry out for them to be banned; after all, they punish the opponent for playing correctly, so obviously something's wrong with them.

 

Cards that work in multiple groups like Monster reborn and DMoC.

 

I take it you mean splashability?

 

Ban Lightning Vortex.

 

Also depending on how much uses that card has.

 

I take it you mean versatility?

 

Ban Enemy Controller.

 

I meant that punishing the opponent for playing correctly was the only good reason on the list you had.

 

It's not the only reason for a card to be banned.

[samer_13]

 

Cards that work in multiple groups like Monster reborn and DMoC.

 

I take it you mean splashability?

 

Ban Lightning Vortex.

 

Also depending on how much uses that card has.

 

I take it you mean versatility?

 

Ban Enemy Controller.

 

to your first queustion, No, i mean cards like DMoC that get back monster reborn and reuse monster reborn and build a swarm.

And to you next question, Don't ban enemy controller, Brain Controller would be baned before this. Enemy controller isn't even worth a ban. Brain you don't rid of your monsters like enemy controller.

[CrabHelmet]

' pid='1030221' dateline='1219805862']

' pid='1030088' dateline='1219804188']

In my opinion' date=' everything except Damages The Opponent For Playing Correctly should be taken off the list.

[/quote']

 

Suddenly and unexpectedly, you fall off of the Earth into the mysterious parallel world of Contemptus Saeculi, where the card game is different from how it is here.

 

Mirror Force does not exist. Torrential Tribute does not exist. Lightning Vortex does not exist. Even Flash of the Forbidden Spell does not exist. In fact, no Mass Monster Removal exists at all. Konami never made the cards. As a result, there's no way to punish people for summoning a bunch of monsters.

 

Swarm becomes the order of the day. The best players are the ones who put as many monsters on their side of the field as possible. We would consider it overextending, but the Contemptus Saeculians would not; since it cannot be punished and cannot harm them, it is not overextending but rather merely extending, and thus instead of a dangerous, questionable strategy it is perfectly rational and optimal. Playing in this way is Playing Correctly.

 

Then, suddenly, Konami makes Lightning Vortex, or maybe Mirror Force, or maybe Torrential Tribute. The duelists of Contemptus Saeculi cry out for them to be banned; after all, they punish the opponent for playing correctly, so obviously something's wrong with them.

 

Cards that work in multiple groups like Monster reborn and DMoC.

 

I take it you mean splashability?

 

Ban Lightning Vortex.

 

Also depending on how much uses that card has.

 

I take it you mean versatility?

 

Ban Enemy Controller.

 

I meant that punishing the opponent for playing correctly was the only good reason on the list you had.

 

It's not the only reason for a card to be banned.

 

I never said that you were implying that it was the only reason for a card to be banned. I was noting an ambiguity in that reason.

 

Read the story of Contemptus Saeculi again.

[dorgeismydog]

there are really no qualificatons, its really just individually by the cards themselves

[Guest PikaPerson01]

Being a card that either:

 

a) has a low enough cost and that has a powerful enough effect to essentially swing the game in ones favour irregardless of the opponent playing well or playing poorly

 

b) is involved in a combo(s) that has a low cost and that can be done efficiently, consistently and easy enough and produces a powerful enough effect to essentially swing the game in ones favour irregardless of the opponent playing well or playing poorly, and used solely in aforementioned combo(s).

 

Now that we have that, all we need to do is get to the tricky business of defining: "low cost", "powerful effect", "efficiently", "consistently", and "easy enough".

 

Which actually varies from person to person, depending on how stupid your audience is.

[CrabHelmet]

Being a card that either:

 

a) has a low enough cost and that has a powerful enough effect to essentially swing the game in ones favour irregardless of the opponent playing well or playing poorly

 

b) is involved in a combo(s) that has a low cost and that can be done efficiently' date=' consistently and easy enough and produces a powerful enough effect to essentially swing the game in ones favour irregardless of the opponent playing well or playing poorly, and used solely in aforementioned combo(s).

 

Now that we have that, all we need to do is get to the tricky business of defining: "low cost", "powerful effect", "efficiently", "consistently", and "easy enough".

 

Which actually varies from person to person, depending on how stupid your audience is.

[/quote']

 

I spy with my little eye something that rhymes with "Victory Wagon".

[Guest PikaPerson01]

Eh, forgot one. So sue me. >_>

[iAmNateXero]

I was playing a game of Hearts this summer. This guy won the first Clubs trick' date=' then lead the Ace of Spaces. He didn't have the Queen of Spades in his hand. He wasn't trying to shoot the moon; in fact, he had only one Heart, the Two of Hearts, in his hand. He just failed at Hearts.

 

Now, if it's possible to fail at a game that only requires 52 pieces of inexpensive cardboard to play, then it is possible to fail at a game that only requires 80 pieces of expensive cardboard to play.

 

I say "80" because, unless you're playing a Solitaire FTK deck, you're going to need to have two 40-card decks available in order to play.

 

But if you really want a disproof of your assertion that it is impossible to fail at this game, just march on over to the Traditional Deck section and pick a random topic. Odds are, a counterexample will appear on your screen.[/quote']

 

Ill get back to you about that. EDIT: Im back, okay one, Traditional Section let me down a lil, 2. Your mixing up a Classic system that's been around longer than you or me. Ive personally never played Hearts, But im pretty sure there arent special effects listed on the cards that would normally break the original rules of the game. Tell me, did The Jack of spades gain 1900 more spades? o.O

 

Here' date=' you assume - falsely - that the only factors involved in determining whether [b']Pot of Greed[/b] is banworthy are:

 

1) The raw alteration it causes to your net card advantage.

2) The presence of a specific three-word phrase somewhere on the card text, regardless of all other text on the card.

 

Now, maybe that is what makes a card banworthy. I'll add that to the list. I'm sure there are a few people out there who are as bad as you at this game that will rally behind your conclusion. Several of them go to TCGPlayer.

First fixed. Second, My only addition to the list that should be taken from all of this is abusable. If ya just go back to my post before PoG was even mentioned, you will clearly read it.

 

 

Oh' date=' indeed. Other than to perhaps make things like Shadowpriestess FTK a bit better, it wouldn't make much difference at all in what decktype would become dominant. However, it would negatively impact the game by shifting the game's emphasis away from skill and toward luck. [/quote'] The only fate this game has left. I mean with the meta the way it is, ya either go glad beast, or you gamble with any other deck.

 

Konami's banlists always suck.

 

Since you want Pot of Greed legalized' date=' I'm guessing that any list you construct would be of comparable quality.[/quote'] Not exactly, our game was in a very bad state before the ban list, thus the idea and creation of a ban list. It was ideal for fixing problems slowly but surely. It is so slow in fact that it actualy fixes nothing any more. The creation of the word meta was a spawning of the list. Honestly we cant have a bad meta without a list. So now were in a damn'd if we do, damn'd if we don't state with the game. The only way to bring this game back to normal would be to eliminate all problems all at once, and just wait for new problems to spawn, or simply play another game. Idk, but apparently, Im adicited to bad gaming all around.

 

This game is just a bad game, no point in denying it. Either we play Traditional, and every deck is a ftk deck, OR we play advance and play one type of deck until its crippled to the point of non existence. So decide, Luck sack, being who ever goes first wins, or playing mirror matches at least 8 out of a possible 10 rounds.

[Orochi]

hmmm...

 

the banworth of a card or a group of cards will always depend on the card pool and the current meta, when a deck is getting too dominant in an unfair way it must be controlled somehow...

 

that's how locks and FTKs were taken off the list by banning yata, CED, BLS, etc... then cards that can become an individual advantage for themselves, like raigeki, harpie's feather duster, etc...

 

konami will keep making cards that in some moment will become banworthy, if DAD doesn't have so much support and a ridiculous cost, it won't be banworthy...

[JesusofChaos™]

Cards which allow players to overextend without risk (e.g. CoSR)

[Deucalion]

I'm going to do something that will probably invoke great criticism from Crab and all the others, and hazard a guess using the information I know from competitive Pokemo gaming.

 

The aim of a metagame is for variety. In the perfect metagame, every card can be used with equal viability - everything is balanced, ie, nothing is stronger than the other. Therefore, the hallmark of a broken card is one which is used so often that other cards are used less, or one that changes the metagame in a way which means other cards are used less. For example, Breaker reduces the variety of the metagame, because for a Level 4 monster, he is a) an excellent beatstick, and b) an MST on legs. Because of this, he is very splashable, and would be used in most decks if he was unlimited, meaning the variety in the metagame has been reduced, as less different types of cards are being used.

 

So, do I get a pat on the head and a biscuit, or a decapitation and disembowelment from Crab?

 

EDIT: I believe this covers all of the points made by various people. Seeing as there is no way to quantify what makes something "efficient to summon" "powerful", etc, this doesn't need to. For example, at the moment, Gladiator Beasts are pwning the metagame. They are being used so much (because they are broken) they are reducing the variety of the metagame. Therefore, you can tell that one or more of the Gladiator Beasts needs banning. This means you don't need to look at what causes a card to broken, as essentially, that isn't important - it just is broken, and that is all the banlist needs to know. That is what this method does.

[Exiro]

I'm going to do something that will probably invoke great criticism from Crab and all the others' date=' and hazard a guess using the information I know from competitive Pokemo gaming.

 

The aim of a metagame is for variety. In the perfect metagame, every card can be used with equal viability - everything is balanced, ie, nothing is stronger than the other. Therefore, the hallmark of a broken card is one which is used so often that other cards are used less, or one that changes the metagame in a way which means other cards are used less. For example, Breaker reduces the variety of the metagame, because for a Level 4 monster, he is a) an excellent beatstick, and b) an MST on legs. Because of this, he is very splashable, and would be used in most decks if he was unlimited, meaning the variety in the metagame has been reduced, as less different types of cards are being used.

 

So, do I get a pat on the head and a biscuit, or a decapitation and disembowelment from Crab?

 

EDIT: I believe this covers all of the points made by various people. Seeing as there is no way to quantify what makes something "efficient to summon" "powerful", etc, this doesn't need to. For example, at the moment, Gladiator Beasts are pwning the metagame. They are being used so much (because they are broken) they are reducing the variety of the metagame. Therefore, you can tell that one or more of the Gladiator Beasts needs banning. This means you don't need to look at what causes a card to broken, as essentially, that isn't important - it just is broken, and that is all the banlist needs to know. That is what this method does.

[/quote']

 

I totally agree.

Poison of the Old Man and Oozaki need to be banned because they are better than Sparks.

Threatening Roar and Waboku need to be banned because they are better than Negate Attack.

This logic sure beats any other logic.

[Deucalion]

In a perfectly balanced metagame, they would. However, to provie an example, in Pokemon, there are tiers, consisting of NU, BL2, UU, BL1, OU, Uber.

 

NU is the most balanced metagame. Every single thing that can overpower the other has been removed. But, it consists of rubbish stuff like Unown, who can't do jack to anything. OU, is slightly balanced. Anything from NU, BL2, UU, BL1 can't be used, as they are outclassed completely by the stronger OU Pokemon. However, OU still possess a large amount of variety, and is the most played tier, because it contains the best Pokemon that aren't ridiculously broken. (Ubers)

 

NU is the perfect metagame, where everything is equal. Absolutely everything. However, it is no fun to play because of this, because in a way, comptetive games are basically "which person can manage to more broken than the other whilst staying within the rules." OU is the fun metagame - there is still inequality, but there is still a large amount of variety.

 

You could apply this to YuGiOh. While a perfect metagame would ban Waboku, the fun metagame won't, as long as there is still a large amount of variety.

[Exiro]

In a perfectly balanced metagame' date=' they would. However, to provie an example, in Pokemon, there are tiers, consisting of NU, BL2, UU, BL1, OU, Uber.

 

NU is the most balanced metagame. Every single thing that can overpower the other has been removed. But, it consists of rubbish stuff like Unown, who can't do jack to anything. OU, is slightly balanced. Anything from NU, BL2, UU, BL1 can't be used, as they are outclassed completely by the stronger OU Pokemon. However, OU still possess a large amount of variety, and is the most played tier, because it contains the best Pokemon that aren't ridiculously broken. (Ubers)

 

NU is the perfect metagame, where everything is equal. Absolutely everything. However, it is no fun to play because of this, because in a way, comptetive games are basically "which person can manage to more broken than the other whilst staying within the rules." OU is the fun metagame - there is still inequality, but there is still a large amount of variety.

 

You could apply this to YuGiOh. While a perfect metagame would ban Waboku, the fun metagame won't, as long as there is still a large amount of variety.

[/quote']

 

And how can one decide if Ookazi is banworthy because it's better than an already existing card (Sparks), or just a fair trade, while Sparks is a worse version of it that needs to be forgotten? I think that there are other factors that need to have a role in this. You can't ban a card because another card is worse, that's just nonsense.

 

P.S.

In Pokemon, is Gardevoir Ex from Ex Sandstorm considered broken?

[JesusofChaos™]

Pokemon =/= Yugioh

[Exiro]

Pokemon =/= Yugioh

 

I knew you'd say that :P

 

Anyway, I don't care if he uses that in arguments.

[CrabHelmet]

I was playing a game of Hearts this summer. This guy won the first Clubs trick' date=' then lead the Ace of Spaces. He didn't have the Queen of Spades in his hand. He wasn't trying to shoot the moon; in fact, he had only one Heart, the Two of Hearts, in his hand. He just failed at Hearts.

 

Now, if it's possible to fail at a game that only requires 52 pieces of inexpensive cardboard to play, then it is possible to fail at a game that only requires 80 pieces of expensive cardboard to play.

 

I say "80" because, unless you're playing a Solitaire FTK deck, you're going to need to have two 40-card decks available in order to play.

 

But if you really want a disproof of your assertion that it is impossible to fail at this game, just march on over to the Traditional Deck section and pick a random topic. Odds are, a counterexample will appear on your screen.[/quote']

 

Ill get back to you about that. EDIT: Im back, okay one, Traditional Section let me down a lil,

 

Then did you find topics like this one?

 

2. Your mixing up a Classic system that's been around longer than you or me. Ive personally never played Hearts' date=' But im pretty sure there arent special effects listed on the cards that would normally break the original rules of the game. Tell me, did The Jack of spades gain 1900 more spades? o.O

[/quote']

 

You are saying that it is possible to fail at Hearts because it is a simpler game. However, it is far easier to fail at something that is more complicated than at something simpler.

 

Here' date=' you assume - falsely - that the only factors involved in determining whether [b']Pot of Greed[/b] is banworthy are:

 

1) The raw alteration it causes to your net card advantage.

2) The presence of a specific three-word phrase somewhere on the card text, regardless of all other text on the card.

 

Now, maybe that is what makes a card banworthy. I'll add that to the list. I'm sure there are a few people out there who are as bad as you at this game that will rally behind your conclusion. Several of them go to TCGPlayer.

First fixed.

 

No. Wrong. You are directly extending these factors to all cards by saying that either ALL +1's should be banned or NO +1's should be banned, or that ALL Draw 2's should be banned or NO Draw 2's should be banned. You affirm that one of those two conditions determines the banworthiness of a wide variety of cards, not just Pot of Greed.

 

Second' date=' My only addition to the list that should be taken from all of this is abusable. If ya just go back to my post before PoG was even mentioned, you will clearly read it.

[/quote']

 

Abusable's already on the list, and you've clearly stated that bannability should be determined by advantage or by the phrase "Draw 2 cards". You clearly stated that Pot of Greed banned implied that Chaos Greed, Trade-In, and so on needed to be banned.

 

Oh' date=' indeed. Other than to perhaps make things like Shadowpriestess FTK a bit better, it wouldn't make much difference at all in what decktype would become dominant. However, it would negatively impact the game by shifting the game's emphasis away from skill and toward luck. [/quote'] The only fate this game has left. I mean with the meta the way it is, ya either go glad beast, or you gamble with any other deck.

 

Build a better banlist, and the world will beat a path to your door.

 

Konami's banlists always suck.

 

Since you want Pot of Greed legalized' date=' I'm guessing that any list you construct would be of comparable quality.[/quote'] Not exactly, our game was in a very bad state before the ban list, thus the idea and creation of a ban list. It was ideal for fixing problems slowly but surely. It is so slow in fact that it actualy fixes nothing any more. The creation of the word meta was a spawning of the list. Honestly we cant have a bad meta without a list. So now were in a damn'd if we do, damn'd if we don't state with the game. The only way to bring this game back to normal would be to eliminate all problems all at once, and just wait for new problems to spawn, or simply play another game. Idk, but apparently, Im adicited to bad gaming all around.

 

This game is just a bad game, no point in denying it. Either we play Traditional, and every deck is a ftk deck, OR we play advance and play one type of deck until its crippled to the point of non existence. So decide, Luck sack, being who ever goes first wins, or playing mirror matches at least 8 out of a possible 10 rounds.

 

In all of this, you assume that the meta should impact the banlist. In fact, though the banlist may influence the meta, the meta should have no impact on the banlist.

 

Also, meta can exist without a banlist. With no banlist, there is a very strong FTK meta.

 

Finally, yes, both Konami-created banlists are bad. That's because they staff people like you who use the worst excuses for logic I've ever seen. That, and because they want money.

[Deucalion]

In a perfectly balanced metagame' date=' they would. However, to provie an example, in Pokemon, there are tiers, consisting of NU, BL2, UU, BL1, OU, Uber.

 

NU is the most balanced metagame. Every single thing that can overpower the other has been removed. But, it consists of rubbish stuff like Unown, who can't do jack to anything. OU, is slightly balanced. Anything from NU, BL2, UU, BL1 can't be used, as they are outclassed completely by the stronger OU Pokemon. However, OU still possess a large amount of variety, and is the most played tier, because it contains the best Pokemon that aren't ridiculously broken. (Ubers)

 

NU is the perfect metagame, where everything is equal. Absolutely everything. However, it is no fun to play because of this, because in a way, comptetive games are basically "which person can manage to more broken than the other whilst staying within the rules." OU is the fun metagame - there is still inequality, but there is still a large amount of variety.

 

You could apply this to YuGiOh. While a perfect metagame would ban Waboku, the fun metagame won't, as long as there is still a large amount of variety.

[/quote']

 

And how can one decide if Ookazi is banworthy because it's better than an already existing card (Sparks), or just a fair trade, while Sparks is a worse version of it that needs to be forgotten? I think that there are other factors that need to have a role in this. You can't ban a card because another card is worse, that's just nonsense.

 

P.S.

In Pokemon, is Gardevoir Ex from Ex Sandstorm considered broken?

 

Well, in a perfectly balanced metagame, you can. In a perfectly balanced metagame, there are no "better" cards, because all cards are equal. That's why the balanced metagame =/= the fun metagame. I just pointing out how to acheive a truly balanced metagame, by removing everything that is broken. After all, crab didn't ask "what makes a fun metagame", did he?. As I said, NU is more balanced than OU, but more people play OU, because it is far more fun. Same applies to YuGiOh. In the perfectly balanced metagame, Oozaki is banned. In the OU metagame, Oozaki is still there, because it only necessitates the lack of one card (Sparks), while still adding to the metagame.

 

EDIT

 

Pokemon =/= Yugioh

 

No ****, Sherlock.

 

However, I'm talking about tiers and banlists. And they work the same in all competitive games with multiple available pieces/characters. So that comment really doesn't apply.

[JesusofChaos™]

Sorry you lost me at the bit where you said oozaki should be banned

[Deucalion]

In the perfect metagame, it should. Oozaki is better than Sparks, therefore it reduces the variety of cards available, therefore it is centralising the metagame, and should be banned. Eventually, you would acheive a perfectly balanced metagame, where absolutely nothing is better than anything else.

 

But then, that would be hideously boring. In a way, a game of YuGiOh is a game of "how broken can I be while staying within the limits". In fact, that is the aim of any competitive strategy game. Hence why people who play Pokemon play OU. Slight amounts of unbalance make things more fun.

 

I don't want to the play the perfectly balanced metagame, as it isn't fun. So, you have to make sacrifices. One card immediately makes ten others essentially unusable (numbers are just examples), and is banned, but another card only makes two others useless - while the second is still not "balanced", you can problably let it remain.

[CrabHelmet]

A card can be banworthy even if nobody uses it in the meta.

 

The banlist does not exist to emphasize variety but rather to emphasize skill.

[Deucalion]

But if no one is using it at all, it doesn't need to be banned.

 

Because no-one is using it.

[CrabHelmet]

Nobody's using Reversal Quiz in the meta right now. It's still banworthy.

[Deucalion]

But nobody is using it. So, it doesn't have any effect on the metagame. So, you don't need to ban it. It isn't broken, because nobody is using it to broken with.

[iAmNateXero]

Then did you find topics like this one?

I don't want to talk about that.

 

You are saying that it is possible to fail at Hearts because it is a simpler game. However' date=' it is far easier to fail at something that is more complicated than at something simpler.[/quote'] I don't say "Fail" and "this game" too closely in the same sentence. Im not insisting i understand a game that i have never played well enough that a person could fail in. But lets change the game to Black Jack. It was a simple game, the closest to 21 wins. If the house and you tie, the house wins. Now lets label that, Traditional. A few years past, and a few more rules applied, which changes the game. So lets call these new rules Advanced. These rules are splinting and doubling down. The game gets popular now, and alot of money is thrown around, and even cheating. Counting cards to be precise. In the whole mix up, lets just say i were to step in and ask, "does any body just want to play traditional?" People turn, laugh, "POOR NOOB!" And at that point i fail at the game just because i want things to go back to simpler times.

 

No. Wrong. You are directly extending these factors to all cards by saying that either ALL +1's should be banned or NO +1's should be banned' date=' or that ALL Draw 2's should be banned or NO Draw 2's should be banned. You affirm that one of those two conditions determines the banworthiness of a wide variety of cards, not just Pot of Greed.[/quote'] No, Wrong. I only argue one case at a time. I was only arguing how cards need other cards to be banworthy. I later through the conclusion as to the possibilities of why pot was banned, and there are only 2 things to go off of. It is either because it was a +1, or because it drew 2 cards. Im a man of equilibrium, so i suggested banning all similar cards to eliminate which of the 2 that made pot banworthy.

 

Abusable's already on the list' date=' and you've clearly stated that bannability should be determined by advantage or by the phrase "Draw 2 cards". You clearly stated that Pot of Greed banned implied that Chaos Greed, Trade-In, and so on needed to be banned.[/quote'] At the time of my argument, on page 2 or what ever, you had asked "anything else" at that time abuse was not listed. Also it appears that i am the worst sarcasm duelist alive, so ill add [/sarcasm] to every post i make from now on. It has also come to my attention that i fight sarcasm with reason. For that, i apologize, and do not make comments on it in the future.

 

Build a better banlist' date=' and the world will beat a path to your door.[/quote'] I wouldn't dare, id just ban whole sets like magic. I would also legalize traditional tournaments. There is no point to a format if it gets no play.

 

In all of this' date=' you assume that the meta should impact the banlist. In fact, though the banlist may influence the meta, the meta should have no impact on the banlist.

 

Also, meta can exist without a banlist. With no banlist, there is a very strong FTK meta.

 

Finally, yes, both Konami-created banlists are bad. That's because they staff people like you who use the worst excuses for logic I've ever seen. That, and because they want money.

[/quote'] Money is every thing to the corporates, and my first act of duty is to allow traditional tournament during the same jumps as advanced tournaments. This way, ALL cards are legalized, and profits can sky rocket.