Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 As many of you know...the meta has got to the point where the rich survive....It takes alot of money to bulid decks like Tele-Dad. However...If DAD's rarity wasn't changed(it was a Normal Rare in OCG) and if Emeregency Teleport's rarity wasn't changed(Common in OCG)...Imagine how much cheaper Tele-DAD would be? Yugioh is supposed to be for everyone but now....they're making it a rich man's game Discuss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armageddon08 Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 If you don't have the good rare cards, you're pretty much screwed. Good thing I managed to pick up 3 MRD Solemns before they cam up in price. And thank god I got my 2 E Teles in trades recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotalObelisk Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 It's always been the case really, the ones with more money rule the game ><...To be honest I think some decks should be banned rather than cards, as too many people play them and they're too powerful. I think that would help balance the game out some more rather than just banning single cards... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armageddon08 Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 I think certain cards (Hint: DAD) should be banned in order to not make this game so stale and expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 It's always been the case really' date=' the ones with more money rule the game ><...To be honest I think some decks should be banned rather than cards, as too many people play them and they're too powerful. I think that would help balance the game out some more rather than just banning single cards...[/quote'] How do you define a "deck" when you do these bans? Is it a specific card list, wherein you can change one card to make your deck legal? Is it a certain combination of cards? How different does a deck need to be from a banned deck to be legal? How do you plan to regulate this? At any rate, with the exception of cases where two innocuous cards interract unacceptably (Butterfly Dagger - Elma + Gearfried the Iron Knight, for example), it is better to simply ban the overpowered card than it is to ban a deck that uses it. And even then it becomes difficult to regulate properly. Also, why DON'T you want Konami to ban cards like DAD, but to ban one of DAD's applications instead? Do you WANT DAD to stay around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotalObelisk Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 It's always been the case really' date=' the ones with more money rule the game ><...To be honest I think some decks should be banned rather than cards, as too many people play them and they're too powerful. I think that would help balance the game out some more rather than just banning single cards...[/quote'] How do you define a "deck" when you do these bans? Is it a specific card list, wherein you can change one card to make your deck legal? Is it a certain combination of cards? How different does a deck need to be from a banned deck to be legal? How do you plan to regulate this? At any rate, with the exception of cases where two innocuous cards interract unacceptably (Butterfly Dagger - Elma + Gearfried the Iron Knight, for example), it is better to simply ban the overpowered card than it is to ban a deck that uses it. And even then it becomes difficult to regulate properly. Also, why DON'T you want Konami to ban cards like DAD, but to ban one of DAD's applications instead? Do you WANT DAD to stay around? You make a good point, but allow me to elaborate... Banning DAD would just mean people switch to the next best deck, such as GB or LS and just banning cards from those will start the chain again. In other words meta duelists will always use the best strategy they can get their hand on and not bother about originality. But if you ban certain decks that use strategies like Tele-DAD then it will mean players will have to think of new deck combinations whilst still having access to the same cards. Although your first point does make this idea kinda redundant ><... And I never said konami shouldn't ban DAD, I was merely using it as an example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 It's always been the case really' date=' the ones with more money rule the game ><...To be honest I think some decks should be banned rather than cards, as too many people play them and they're too powerful. I think that would help balance the game out some more rather than just banning single cards...[/quote'] How do you define a "deck" when you do these bans? Is it a specific card list, wherein you can change one card to make your deck legal? Is it a certain combination of cards? How different does a deck need to be from a banned deck to be legal? How do you plan to regulate this? At any rate, with the exception of cases where two innocuous cards interract unacceptably (Butterfly Dagger - Elma + Gearfried the Iron Knight, for example), it is better to simply ban the overpowered card than it is to ban a deck that uses it. And even then it becomes difficult to regulate properly. Also, why DON'T you want Konami to ban cards like DAD, but to ban one of DAD's applications instead? Do you WANT DAD to stay around? You make a good point, but allow me to elaborate... Banning DAD would just mean people switch to the next best deck, such as GB or LS and just banning cards from those will start the chain again. In other words meta duelists will always use the best strategy they can get their hand on and not bother about originality. But if you ban certain decks that use strategies like Tele-DAD then it will mean players will have to think of new deck combinations whilst still having access to the same cards. Although your first point does make this idea kinda redundant ><... And I never said konami shouldn't ban DAD, I was merely using it as an example. You're thinking purely in terms of the formats we've had since March 2008. Think back to before the game got ridiculously turbocharged and dominated by the current broken god boss that Konami released. Here's the Top 16 of an SJC from December 2007: 6 Twilight Circle3 Macro1 Perfect Circle1 CO Burn1 Zombies1 Volcanic Apprentice Monarchs1 Soul Control1 Baboon Burn1 Demise OTK Less than half of the Top 16 used the most popular deck, and that was despite the fact that it had the benefit of broken cards like Treeborn Frog and Disk Commander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skuldur Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 It's always been the case really' date=' the ones with more money rule the game ><...To be honest I think some decks should be banned rather than cards, as too many people play them and they're too powerful. I think that would help balance the game out some more rather than just banning single cards...[/quote'] How do you define a "deck" when you do these bans? Is it a specific card list, wherein you can change one card to make your deck legal? Is it a certain combination of cards? How different does a deck need to be from a banned deck to be legal? How do you plan to regulate this? At any rate, with the exception of cases where two innocuous cards interract unacceptably (Butterfly Dagger - Elma + Gearfried the Iron Knight, for example), it is better to simply ban the overpowered card than it is to ban a deck that uses it. And even then it becomes difficult to regulate properly. Also, why DON'T you want Konami to ban cards like DAD, but to ban one of DAD's applications instead? Do you WANT DAD to stay around? You make a good point, but allow me to elaborate... Banning DAD would just mean people switch to the next best deck, such as GB or LS and just banning cards from those will start the chain again. In other words meta duelists will always use the best strategy they can get their hand on and not bother about originality. But if you ban certain decks that use strategies like Tele-DAD then it will mean players will have to think of new deck combinations whilst still having access to the same cards. Although your first point does make this idea kinda redundant ><... And I never said konami shouldn't ban DAD, I was merely using it as an example. You're thinking purely in terms of the formats we've had since March 2008. Think back to before the game got ridiculously turbocharged and dominated by the current broken god boss that Konami released. Here's the Top 16 of an SJC from December 2007: 6 Twilight Circle3 Macro1 Perfect Circle1 CO Burn1 Zombies1 Volcanic Apprentice Monarchs1 Soul Control1 Baboon Burn1 Demise OTK Less than half of the Top 16 used the most popular deck, and that was despite the fact that it had the benefit of broken cards like Treeborn Frog and Disk Commander. now that's the meta i want, many decks in Top 16 instead of 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 It's always been the case really' date=' the ones with more money rule the game ><...To be honest I think some decks should be banned rather than cards, as too many people play them and they're too powerful. I think that would help balance the game out some more rather than just banning single cards...[/quote']At any rate, with the exception of cases where two innocuous cards interract unacceptably (Butterfly Dagger - Elma + Gearfried the Iron Knight, for example), it is better to simply ban the overpowered card than it is to ban a deck that uses it. And even then it becomes difficult to regulate properly. Maybe what they SHOULD do is ban combinations of cards, like "You cannot have Elma and Gearfried in the same deck" or "You cannot have Rescue Cat and Airbellum in the same deck." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 It's always been the case really' date=' the ones with more money rule the game ><...To be honest I think some decks should be banned rather than cards, as too many people play them and they're too powerful. I think that would help balance the game out some more rather than just banning single cards...[/quote'] At any rate, with the exception of cases where two innocuous cards interract unacceptably (Butterfly Dagger - Elma + Gearfried the Iron Knight, for example), it is better to simply ban the overpowered card than it is to ban a deck that uses it. And even then it becomes difficult to regulate properly. Maybe what they SHOULD do is ban combinations of cards, like "You cannot have Elma and Gearfried in the same deck" or "You cannot have Rescue Cat and Airbellum in the same deck." That would be nice, but the extensions of it eventually make it difficult to manage efficiently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 I know they have that system in Duel Masters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flame Dragon Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 This is all most companies care about. We are only dollar bills, or what ever currency you may use, to them. This is how it has been for some time, and I don't think it will change any time soon. Also funny note is I don't buy signal cards or trade, but I some how have 4 E-Teles and 1 DAD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 DaD should be banned. The idea of banning card combinations though creates a slippery slope for what is banned and what isn't, I don't like the idea of that. I do think though that JD and DaD should bet banned, severely hurting LS and killing Tele-DaD. That way other decks like Zombies and Plants can have some of the limelight. It would also cause duelists to have to re-think their decks, and would allow those with less money to challenge the rich kids. Seriously, what happened to Konami's attempts at helping the poorer kids. It's like they stopped caring. And, is it just me, or has Structure Deck output slowed severely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 Konami should have a combo ban system or something. Like, you can't have Gearfreid and Elma in the same deck. That way deadly combinations will be banned and some archetypes won't be hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.B. strategist Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 This is what konami wants though isn't it? Spending hundreds of dollars to get the cards you need... from their point of view DAD is a huge money-maker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.