What makes a card banworthy?

[Guest PikaPerson01]

Wait... someone said Ookazi was banworthy!?

 

Oh wow... I lqtm.

[Zeppeli Gyro Supreme]

Re: Traditional

 

Most players play Traditional Format because they either don't have many good cards, still aren't that great at playing/deck making, or because they're A-Holes.

 

 

On Topic:

 

Large variety can also give a card broken status.

[Deucalion]

Ahem. I said in a perfectly balanced metagame where everything should be equal, Oozaki is banworthy. I didn't say "in the current metagame, Oozaki is banworthy", or even "in my personal concept of the metagame, Oozaki is banworthy".

 

Just wanted to clarify for those who possess a lower level of intellect.

[JesusofChaos™]

Ahem. I said in a perfectly balanced metagame where everything should be equal' date=' Oozaki is banworthy. I didn't say "in the current metagame, Oozaki is banworthy", or even "in my personal concept of the metagame, Oozaki is banworthy".

 

Just wanted to clarify for those who possess a lower level of intellect.

[/quote']

 

[Deucalion]

Did that contribute anything to this thread?

 

(Oh, the irony.)

[JesusofChaos™]

You just dont get it

[Deucalion]

it1 Audio Help /ɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[it] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation pronoun, nominative it, possessive its or (Obsolete or Dialect) it, objective it; plural nominative they, possessive their or theirs, objective them; noun

–pronoun 1. (used to represent an inanimate thing understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context): It has whitewall tires and red upholstery. You can't tell a book by its cover.

2. (used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded): It was the largest ever caught off the Florida coast. Who was it? It was John. The horse had its saddle on.

3. (used to represent a group understood or previously mentioned): The judge told the jury it must decide two issues.

4. (used to represent a concept or abstract idea understood or previously stated): It all started with Adam and Eve. He has been taught to believe it all his life.

5. (used to represent an action or activity understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned): Since you don't like it, you don't have to go skiing.

6. (used as the impersonal subject of the verb to be, esp. to refer to time, distance, or the weather): It is six o'clock. It is five miles to town. It was foggy.

7. (used in statements expressing an action, condition, fact, circumstance, or situation without reference to an agent): If it weren't for Edna, I wouldn't go.

8. (used in referring to something as the origin or cause of pain, pleasure, etc.): Where does it hurt? It looks bad for the candidate.

9. (used in referring to a source not specifically named or described): It is said that love is blind.

10. (used in referring to the general state of affairs; circumstances, fate, or life in general): How's it going with you?

11. (used as an anticipatory subject or object to make a sentence more eloquent or suspenseful or to shift emphasis): It is necessary that you do your duty. It was a gun that he was carrying.

12. Informal. (used instead of the pronoun its before a gerund): It having rained for only one hour didn't help the crops.

–noun 13. (in children's games) the player called upon to perform some task, as, in tag, the one who must catch the other players.

14. Slang. a. sex appeal.

b. sexual intercourse.

 

—Idioms15. get with it, Slang. to become active or interested: He was warned to get with it or resign.

16. have it, Informal. a. to love someone: She really has it bad for him.

b. to possess the requisite abilities for something; be talented, adept, or proficient: In this business youeither have it or you don't.

 

17. with it, Slang. a. aware of the latest fads, fashions, etc.; up-to-date.

b. attentive or alert: I'm just not with it early in the morning.

c. understanding or appreciative of something, as jazz.

d. Carnival Slang. being a member of the carnival.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Origin: bef. 900; ME, var. of ME, OE hit, neut. of he1]

 

 

—Usage note See me.

 

Got it.

[CrabHelmet]

I'm going to jump back to when Deucalion started posting.

 

I'm going to do something that will probably invoke great criticism from Crab and all the others' date='

[/quote']

 

Translation: I'm going to post.

 

and hazard a guess using the information I know from competitive Pokemo gaming.

 

Nevermind' date=' this is even more extreme than just posting.

 

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.

 

No, no, no.

 

The banlist's goal regarding the metagame is to make skill as large a factor as possible. This means that cards that reduce the amount of skill required to win are removed from the game. I define "broken" to refer to these cards that we deem unacceptable for the game. Some are splashables that provide too great a reward for too small a cost, like Raigeki. Some are OTK-only cards, like Reversal Quiz. Some are fundamentally unacceptable by their very nature, like Victory Dragon.

 

Does variety factor into this in some way? Tangentially, at best. With all "broken" cards removed from the game, no metagame suffers from their skill-reducing influence. However, given that all such metagames are freed of this burden, a metagame where everyone runs the same deck requires less skill than a metagame where, say, there are three codominant decktypes. This is because, as the number of competitive decktypes that one might need to face increases, the number of distinct circumstances that one might encounter would similarly increase, and so the amount of skill needed to play would similarly increase - particularly with regard to the Side Deck.

 

We have borne this in mind when ruling on the banworthiness of cards. Those of us who hold that Cyber Dragon should be banned do so not because of some ludicrous Synchro fear but rather because its legality precludes the viability of any non-Aggro deck. Those of us who hold that Nobleman of Crossout should be banned do so not because we think it's some ridiculously overpowered card that everybody would run in 3's but rather because its existence precludes the viability of Flip Effect Monsters (this takes into account not only that more-viable-decks-is-better but also that a proper game doesn't turn on its own basic mechanics and make them laughable). Those of us who hold that Gladiator Beast Darius should be banned do so because they're bad at this game, so let's ignore them.

 

However, the banlist is not there to hold the meta's hand and keep the big bullies in line. If a deck does well in the meta, it's doing well. If a deck does badly in the meta, it's doing badly. None of this is the banlist's concern. The banlist handles cases like Cyber Dragon and Nobleman of Crossout where entire game mechanics - Stall and Flips - are being removed from the game. It doesn't handle cases where that one kid who runs a Toon Deck wants to stop losing.

 

Therefore' date=' 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.

[/quote']

 

On the contrary, a card can be banworthy without significantly altering the metagame. Reversal Quiz hasn't won any SJC's lately, but it still deserves to be banned because it exists only for the purpose of executing a simple OTK.

 

Since we're talking about other games here anyhow, consider some sort of fighting game like Super Smash Bros. Suppose the characters are classified in terms of usefulness by tiers, and that, while all fighters within a given tier are of approximately equal usefulness, the difference between tiers is significant. Suppose also that this is due to inherent qualities in the characters. Suppose also that this tier list is widely known, and that most players would rather use better characters, since they want to win more. The tier list might look like this:

 

Best Tier

Fox

 

Middle Tier

Pikachu

Mario

Link

Samus

 

Lowest Tier

Kirby

 

Now, maybe Fox should be banned, and maybe he shouldn't - I'm not going to debate that right now, and it would depend on the game in question, so let's just assume that he should - let's say he's the Chaos Emperor Dragon of Smash Bros or something. The problem is that, by your logic, Pikachu, Mario, Link, and Samus should all be banned since they are "used so often that" Kirby "is used less", and "change the metagame in a way which means" Kirby "is used less". So naturally, in your attempt to balance the metagame and add variety, you ban them all.

 

Congratulations! Your attempt to make the game more varied has just transformed a game with sixteen possible matchups into a game with only one possible matchup, the Kirby vs Kirby mirror match.

 

The problem is that you assume only that cards can be overpowered. You never consider that underpowered cards might also exist. And so you blindly exterminate everything better than Toons until you reach the lowest common denominator, and you suddenly realize that a game with only one legal deck isn't much different from a game with only one viable deck.

 

For example' date=' 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.

[/quote']

 

Relying on a metagame, especially one under a list as bad as Konami's, in order to construct a banlist is a bad idea in general.

 

First of all, a deck can do well without being broken.

 

Second of all, Gladiator Beasts benefit from banworthy cards that are still legal and that aren't even in a single Gladiator Beast deck. Take a look at a random Side Deck nowadays. Odds are that you'll see multiple copies of both Light Imprisoning Mirror and Shadow Imprisoning Mirror stacked neatly in there. The truth is that, even though they haven't won any SJC's recently, Dark Armed Dragon and Judgment Dragoon are still strong enough to spoil decks that don't work to stop them, forcing decks to side (or even main) against them - and leaving them wide open for Gladiator Beasts to walk all over them. Meanwhile, people construct dedicated anti-Gladiator Beast decks, and then get stomped on by the Dragons.

 

This means you don't need to look at what causes a card to broken' date=' 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']

 

No, no, no. The metagame cannot dictate the banlist. A deck doing well does not necessarily imply that there is anything banworthy about any card it contains.

 

In a perfectly balanced metagame' date=' they would.

[/quote']

 

And that's why making a banlist to create a "perfectly balanced metagame" is a stupid idea.

 

However' date=' to provie an example,

[/quote']

 

This summer, I went and saw The Dark Knight. It was a great provie. The Joker was really awesome and stuff.

 

in Pokemon' date=' there are tiers, consisting of NU, BL2, UU, BL1, OU, Uber.

[/quote']

 

Acronyms are fun.

 

NU is the most balanced metagame. Every single thing that can overpower the other has been removed. But' date=' 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']

 

You seem to have recognized the key flaw in your reasoning - that the most balanced metagame is nothing but an infinite series of a Red Kirby and a Green Kirby fighting to see who gets to face White Kirby in the next round of the tourney. What you don't seem to have recognized is why, apart from "fun", the so-called "perfect" metagame actually isn't perfect.

 

Yes, I already said that Kirby is underpowered and that the supposedly overpowered Pikachu, Samus, and so on are actually balanced. I could then move on to the obvious conclusion that an unplayably weak card is indistinguishable from a banned card in terms of the play it receives, and thus that the "perfect" metagame, even by your standards, would be not the one where every legal card is tourney-worthy but rather the one where the maximum number of legal cards are tourney-worthy.

 

However, there is an even deeper underlying problem with your reasoning. You insist on fairness and balance, which is good to some extent. What you have forgotten is to whom you are supposed to be fair.

 

You've decided that the best course of action is to be fair to the Toons - to ensure that you've been fair to all decks. But it isn't your job to be fair to the decks. It's your job to be fair to the players.

 

The banlist exists to promote skill. Skill and luck are the two deciding factors in a duel, a match, and a tournament, and the banlist's goal is to maximize the influence of skill and minimize the influence of luck.

 

You care only about the struggle between one decktype and another; however, the banlist exists to facilitate the duels themselves, and any individual duel is not a long-term clash between two decktypes for supremacy but rather a contest between two players that is decided by skill and luck.

 

Your goal, as a banlist creator, is not to see to it that the people running the Mokey-Mokey decks win about as often as the people running the Charmer Girl decks; rather, your goal is to see to it that the more skilled players win more often and the less skilled players win less often.

 

Well' date=' 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.

[/quote']

 

Here, you don't seem to be certain which side you're on anymore; however, you still seem to believe that the so-called "balanced" metagame is "perfect". Refer to what I said above.

 

In the perfect metagame' date=' 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.

[/quote']

 

Sparks is worse than Ookazi, therefore it forces you to ban Ookazi by the above logic, therefore it reduces the variety of cards available, therefore it is centralizing the metagame, and should be banned.

 

As usual, you automatically leap to the assumption that the worst card in the game should be the only card in the game.

 

Also, tell me, which is more varied and less centralized: Rain Dance versus Haymaker versus Mewtwo Barrier versus whatever, or Generic Fire versus Generic Grass versus Generic Water versus whatever? Even if there are only, say, four OU decks, and there are, say, seven NU decks (all generic beatdown, one for each element, screw Dark and Metal because I'm just making up numbers here anyhow and it doesn't really matter), even though more decks are available in NU, their differences are essentially superficial. Pikachu versus Samus versus Mario versus Link has infinitely more variety than any number of differently-coloured Kirbies beating the stuffing out of one another, even if those four don't have alternate costumes.

 

Eventually' date=' 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.

[/quote']

 

More sitting on the fence - you hail your precious "balanced" game as "perfect" while denoting it as absolute rubbish.

 

But nobody is using it. So' date=' 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.

[/quote']

 

The thing about cards like Reversal Quiz is that their only use is to be abused. If absolutely nobody in the world is using them, then they have already received a de facto ban, and thus nobody is hurt by them being banned. If even one person in the world is using them, then they need to be banned to stop that one person from abusing them. In either case, the best solution is to inflict a ban on the card due to its inherent abusability.

 

This is why the banlist needs to be independent of the metagame. Cards are banned because of what they can do, not because of what is done with them.

 

Ahem. I said in a perfectly balanced metagame where everything should be equal' date=' Oozaki is banworthy. I didn't say "in the current metagame, Oozaki is banworthy", or even "in my personal concept of the metagame, Oozaki is banworthy".

 

Just wanted to clarify for those who possess a lower level of intellect.

[/quote']

 

So you finally admit that your pathetic "balanced" metagame is terrible. Why on earth did you bring it up in the first place, especially since, in your first post, you seemed to be heralding it as the best banlist construction strategy?

 

 

 

And now that we're done with that absurd waste of time, we can move on to Nate, who is just dying to be called an idiot again and whom I have kept waiting for far too long.

 

Then did you find topics like this one?

I don't want to talk about that.

 

Yeah' date=' disproof by counterexample is pretty hard to refute.

 

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.

 

Unless having only a single three-letter word between them doesn't qualify as "too closely", you lie.

 

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' date=' 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.

[/quote']

 

But you didn't say that you wanted to play Traditional. You wanted to alter the nature of Advanced Format by legalizing Pot of Greed.

 

There's a difference between wanting to play B, and wanting to change A until it becomes B and then play "A".

 

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.

 

And that is where you made your error - you assumed that one of those two factors, regardless of all other factors, was the sole reason why Pot of Greed should be banned, and that every card sharing whichever of those factors is responsible, regardless of any other factors, should receive identical treatment.

 

Pot of Greed is not banworthy for being a +1.

 

Pot of Greed is not banworthy for allowing the user to draw two cards.

 

You assumed that these two statements, together, imply that Pot of Greed is not banworthy - a ridiculous assumption that accounts for your equally ludicrous conclusion. It is because of a combination of these two factors with other factors, and the lack of other factors, that Pot of Greed is 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.

 

I originally thought that your assertion that Pot of Greed should be banned was sarcasm until you tried to defend it when someone challenged it. If you're going to say things as stupid as that, it would be a good idea to add [/sarcasm] to denote when you are being sarcastic. Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from a joke.

 

It has also come to my attention that i fight sarcasm with reason.

 

Let's put it to a vote.

 

How many here think that his argument for legalizing Pot of Greed was supported by reason?

 

How many here think that his argument for legalizing Pot of Greed was supported by sarcasm' date=' such as by sarcastically suggesting that Chaos Greed be banned?

 

I have polled myself, and have reached a unanimous conclusion. You fight reason with sarcasm.

 

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.

 

The problem with doing that in Yu-Gi-Oh! is that the good cards in this game are distributed in a different manner from how they are distributed in Magic.

 

I would also legalize traditional tournaments.

 

You're in luck; Congress just passed a bill to legalize Traditional tournaments. Unless the President vetos it' date=' they should become legal soon.

 

There is no point to a format if it gets no play.

 

Then play it. Advanced Format was created for the sole purpose of being used in official Konami-sanctioned tournaments, and nobody is forced to use it outside of official Konami-sanctioned tournaments. Outside of official Konami-sanctioned tournaments, the only difference between Advanced Format and a fan banlist is that Advanced Format is more widely known.

 

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.

 

Since the banned cards aren't being printed, Konami would generate no profit from legalizing them for official Konami-sanctioned use. Those hundreds of dollars that you saw Dark Armed Dragons being sold for on eBay didn't earn Konami one cent; it was all on the second market.

[BDKMRV]

What makes a card "ban-worthy" is either the number of people that use such a card(s) or a maxed number of the same card in their deck.

[CrabHelmet]

What makes a card "ban-worthy" is either the number of people that use such a card(s) or a maxed number of the same card in their deck.

 

Ban everything used by anyone until Toons are top-tier.

[BDKMRV]

Some people still use Toons.

[CrabHelmet]

Then we'd better ban Toons too.

 

Oh, and nobody's using Chaos Emperor Dragon - Envoy of the End right now. Let's legalize that.

[BDKMRV]

>_< Maybe I've should've been more specific on what I meant by banworthy.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

>_< Maybe I've should've been more specific on what I meant by banworthy.

 

That's always the best way to avoid communicating poorly.

[CrabHelmet]

>_< Maybe I've should've been more specific on what I meant by banworthy.

 

I assumed that "banworthy" meant "worthy of being banned".

 

My apologies for this foolhardy assumption.

[BDKMRV]

What makes a card "ban-worthy" is either the number of people that use such a card(s) or a maxed number of the same card in their deck which can simply be based upon the cards that already are banned or have been banned.

[ShinobiDark72]

What makes a card "ban-worthy" is either the number of people that use such a card(s) or a maxed number of the same card in their deck which can simply be based upon the cards that already are banned or have been banned.

 

So You're basing what should be banned on how many of which card is used and what's already on the banlist?

 

FAIL.

[BDKMRV]

What makes a card "ban-worthy" is either the number of people that use such a card(s) or a maxed number of the same card in their deck which can simply be based upon the cards that already are banned or have been banned.

 

So You're basing what should be banned on how many of which card is used and what's already on the banlist?

 

FAIL.

 

And what "was" banned in the past. Whenever a great card, e.g. Mirror Force, is unbanned in tourneys, duelists, assumingly, put it in in exchange for a card that either replaced Mirror Force for the Adv. Format or because a card in their deck has been semi/limited.

[iAmNateXero]

I give up! One day im going to conform to the thought pattern of YCM and "yes man" everything. One day ill wake up and see things just as black and white as everybody else, but until than, im a sit back and stare at the rainbow.

[CrabHelmet]

I give up! One day im going to conform to the thought pattern of YCM and "yes man" everything. One day ill wake up and see things just as black and white as everybody else' date=' but until than, im a sit back and stare at the rainbow.

[/quote']

 

Don't be ridiculous.

 

I insult the yes-men too.

 

Some of the things I say are deliberately false, just to trap toadies. Like that one joke banlist and stuff.

 

But wanting Pot of Greed legalized isn't a problem with you not being a yes-man. It's a problem with you completely lacking a logical thought process.

 

And I don't see things in black and white; there are several borderline cards that I'm unsure of. But uncertainty comes from both sides presenting compelling arguments without a clear victor; it does not result from...whatever it is you do.

[iAmNateXero]

OMG i don't want pot legalize, will ya stop saying that? Sure i may have said it wouldn't matter if it was legalized, When i did say unban pot, it was sarcastic, but gawd! Defending sarcasm, shouldn't make it right... right? o.O

[CrabHelmet]

OMG i don't want pot legalize' date=' will ya stop saying that?

[/quote']

 

That's funny, because I could have sworn that you'd said something along the lines of:

 

Pot should be unban.

 

Obviously' date=' I'm misinterpreting that comment. It isn't really saying that Pot of Greed should be legalized. It's actually saying...um...something else. Maybe it's a metaphor.

 

Sure i may have said it wouldn't matter if it was legalized,

 

Except it would matter.

 

It would contradict the very purpose of having a banlist.

 

When i did say unban pot' date=' it was sarcastic, but gawd! Defending sarcasm, shouldn't make it right... right? o.O

[/quote']

 

I can argue until I'm blue in the face that Dancing Elf deserves to be banned, but no matter how much I try to defend it, it won't become right.

[Deucalion]

You said "what makes a card broken". A broken card is anything that centralises the metagame.

 

You didn't say "what makes a card broken by my concept of the metagame".

 

I was just pointing out a way to remove everything that is broken. :( You didn't say "what makes a card-broken in a metagame which wishes to have as many cards unbanned as possible without to much centralisation happening."

 

Otherwise, I'd have answered that question.

 

Also, in a metagame where every single deck is equal, skill is promoted more than any other. Why? Because every single deck is equal. Seeing as there are 3 factors in a duel, a) luck, b) player skill, and c) deck, and you have now made every deck equal, meaning it is no longer a factor, then only a) and b) are now factors, meaning player skill is promoted more than in any other metagame.

 

Also, I'd like to point out in your example concerning SSBB, that in a metagame using Fox, Fox is the only character, giving a variety of 1. Ban him, and the next tier characters can now be used, but Kirby still won't be used because the Middle Tier characters are better. Therefore, the metagame variety is now 4. Ban them to make Kirby usable, and now only Kirby can be used. The metagame variety is now 1. Therefore, that particular banning was detrimental to the metagame, because the ban list where only Fox was banned. Even though Kirby isn't used, there is still more variety than if you ban things in order to make him abusable.

 

Although, you do have a point, that NU could end up with something like loads of Kirbys. The reason it doesn't, is because the Pokemon tiers work roughly like a triangle - there are far more rubbish Pokemon than there are good ones, meaning NU ends up the largest. If YuGiOh has more mediocre cards than bad and good cards, then we'd ban the good cards, but keep the mediocre ones, because banning the mediocre ones makes the metagame less varied, even though it would allow bad cards to be usable. Or, if good cards were the most common, we'd only ban super-good (for lack of a better term) cards, for much the same reason.

 

Sorry, I guess was automatically assuming YuGiOh had a pyramid-like metagame. Does it? 'cause if not, that trashes my whole argument, and I'll go crawl back to my corner like the nice mister Crab says.

[Xemba]

Give the card to JoC. JoC shall then declare where it belongs on the list. We shall then play. All hail the JoC.

[CrabHelmet]

From what I've seen of Pokemon cards, if we overlook specific strategies like Rain Dance, the vast majority of cards are horribly similar. For example, if a Pokemon has the capacity to evolve, a basic Pokemon's attacks will often be some combination of these:

 

One Colorless: 10 damage.

Two Colorless: 20 damage.

Two Colorless: 10 damage, coin flip for Paralysis.

One Elemental: 20 damage.

One Elemental: 10 damage, coin flip for Paralysis.

One Colorless: Coin flip for Confusion.

 

Even though there might be more decks viable if you ban basically everything, the decks would all work in essentially the same way. It might seem like a wide variety of different Smash Bros characters, but in reality it's just a bunch of differently-colored Kirbies; the same deck, different skins.

 

So, yes, maybe when we've banned everything so that only Toons and Vanilla Beatdown remain, there will be "more" decks available, but since they'll all work in exactly the same day, we'll have reduced the number of essentially different decks available.

 

Furthermore, simplifying the game in that manner reduces the amount of skill needed to play the game. Vanilla Beatdown takes no real skill to run, just as countering Vanilla Beatdown also takes no skill; a metagame that contains other deck options has more skill involved. And being fair to the decktypes at the expensive of the players is a very bad idea.