04-17-2015, 08:05 PM | #4027 |
我が名は勇者王!
|
It isn't very good, either way. Pendulums could help my deck if SYNCHRON gets some decent ones. Like a searchable, Pendulum Synchron. :o
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
04-17-2015, 08:55 PM | #4028 |
我が名は勇者王!
|
Why couldn't this have happened against phoopes?
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
04-18-2015, 05:20 AM | #4029 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Well I said you can't use it, but you can't say its not good either. It instantly replaces Scrap Dragon in any pendulum deck, since it doesn't target and shuffles into the deck instead of destroying.
__________________
|
04-18-2015, 08:08 AM | #4030 |
我が名は勇者王!
|
I can see the benefit, but non-targeting removal is only particularly useful for breaking locks, and aside from Aria or Ulti-Pettlephin most of them are better served by backrow, since managing a monster out for Synchros tends to be tough. For the vast majority of decks, even non-Pendulum ones, I think Scrap Dragon remains the go-to ignition remover just because he's very flexible in what he can pop.
Usage also depends on if Dragoknights have plus effects when Special Summoned, or sent to the Extra Deck. They probably would and it would be annoying.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
04-18-2015, 08:21 AM | #4031 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Scrap Dragon really isn't more flexible. It hits the same things and I mean when Pendulum deck isn't using it to pop a Pendulum monster or a scale? Hence why I said for Pendulum decks its a go-to replacement. It's not usable in most decks, since it needs a Pendulum non-tuner, but I find it very hard to see where Scrap Dragon would be more useful in decks that could use this.
__________________
|
04-18-2015, 08:42 AM | #4032 |
我が名は勇者王!
|
Scrap targets one card you control, and one card the opponent controls. That's far more flexible than 1 Pendulum Monster or 1 card in the Pendulum Zones, ignoring the Summoning Requirement as-is. Noble Dragon Magician makes up for it by Special Summoning the destruction fodder, but like I said if you aren't specifically a Dragoknight deck (like say Qliphorts), you give a lot of ground toward situationality while gaining only a modest increase in power.
Now, does that flexibility mean anything? I've done a long case study of The Tricky versus Galaxy Soldier - The Tricky is far more flexible in its Summoning Requirement, but in most cases people would never summon it discarding a non-floater or non-dead S/T. But, the cases where it's outright impossible to summon Galaxy Soldier far outnumber the times where summoning The Tricky isn't the optimal play. Galaxy Soldier isn't splashable outside of decks that are completely LIGHT. In the Qli case, they do have Saqlifice as an eligible target they wouldn't be able to pop with Noble Dragon Magician. Whether or not that's meaningful, I dunno. I don't play Pendulums!
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
04-18-2015, 08:49 AM | #4033 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
The extra flexibility doesn't mean much in Pendulum decks though because most Pendulum decks (with the notable exception of Qliphort) are very aggressive decks, using little backrow. Popping a scale or a Pendulum monster would be the go to play since it sets up for later. The only main difference is that Ignister Prominence has no synergy with Echo Oscillation, while Scrap Dragon does.
But all in all, due to the fact that most Pendulum decks are very aggressive and offensive, Ignister Prominence is better than Scrap Dragon. imo
__________________
|
04-18-2015, 09:58 AM | #4034 | |
大事なのは自分らしいくある事
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Determined
Posts: 5,840
|
Weeeeeeerp it's happened
Pendulum Tuner Quote:
EDIT: Also, does Odd-Eyes Absolute Dragon look a lot like Trish to anyone but me...?
__________________
Last edited by Kindrindra; 04-18-2015 at 10:19 AM. |
|
04-18-2015, 10:48 AM | #4035 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
You forgot it has a scale of 5 I think.
Also I'm taking that as a sign Ice Barriers are going to appear in anime.
__________________
|
04-18-2015, 04:18 PM | #4036 |
大事なのは自分らしいくある事
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Determined
Posts: 5,840
|
Well I mean
Who could possibly use them It's not like we have I dunno A foreign transfer student from an icy country Known to use ice-related monsters And with no specific archetype to call her own (I would so laugh for years if this happened) |
04-18-2015, 04:25 PM | #4037 |
我が名は勇者王!
|
I destroyed this newbie.
He tried to OTK me with Utopia Lightning, but failed. Heroic Challenger would send Lightning to the Graveyard for me so I just looped my field so all his cards were banished. Then, on his turn, he had two cards. I activated the second MC2, then chained Hand Destruction afterward. The result was I not only got two Veiler in hand, I banished both of his cards in hand. He had an empty field.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
04-18-2015, 04:28 PM | #4038 |
大事なのは自分らしいくある事
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Determined
Posts: 5,840
|
Oh man I actually want to use Sacred Crane in something it totally looks like you could build an engine off it
|
04-18-2015, 04:52 PM | #4039 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
She was carded tho
__________________
|
04-18-2015, 05:14 PM | #4040 |
大事なのは自分らしいくある事
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Determined
Posts: 5,840
|
Shhhh they could probably be revived somehow
Also Using carded characters as pendulum scales when |
04-18-2015, 05:14 PM | #4041 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
can we not
(also dammit Kin when are we dueling)
__________________
|
04-21-2015, 08:29 AM | #4042 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Welcome one and all to the Ritual Djinn Emporium! I'm Djinn Releaser of Rituals and I'm here to tell you that as of the release of the Ritual archetype Nekroz, I am now splash able in other decks! That's right! The release of "Nekroz of Clausolas" and "Nekroz Cycle" have made it so any deck that would normally use "Reinforcement of the Army" can now run a very small mini engine to have access to the Djinn Lock! All you need is
1 Nekroz of Clausolas 1 Nekroz Cycle 1 Djinn Releaser of Rituals Very simply three card engine that gives you access to a one-sided Special Summon lockdown! (Jokes aside, I totally didn't realize this was a thing and I challenge Dopple to make some use of it.)
__________________
|
04-22-2015, 08:43 AM | #4043 | |||
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
also there is a new Deskbot pendulum with a scale of 10 lelelel
__________________
|
|||
04-22-2015, 04:47 PM | #4044 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Lightsworns finally have a direct way to search Judgment Dragon.
It's kinda sacky but that's the deck, so prepare your bodies.
__________________
|
04-23-2015, 06:05 PM | #4045 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
A New Way to Look at Metagame Balance: The Ecosystem Model
After crawling around on Pojo's F/L forum (please do not ever, ever do this, it is just an awful idea all around), I've noticed something interesting. People tend to have a set definition of balance in their head, based on a format that they feel was balanced and fair. This, almost always, is in relation to the power level of that format. It hit me a few days ago. What does power level have to do with it? It's obvious the power level of the game has changed, its evolving. In some ways, the Yu-Gi-Oh metagame is like an ecosystem, if we view it at a more simplified pace. If we view the decks are organisms, then decks do interact with each other like species in an ecosystem. It's mostly through a competitive sense, obviously, but you do see things like predator - prey interactions (Shaddolls vs Rank 4.dek, or Infernoids vs tellars) and competition over niche (X-Sabers vs Six Sams). It hence falls under some ecological limits.
The major one is "What can the ecosystem support without going over its limit?" The Yu-Gi-Oh metagame, like any other ecosystem, has a set limit in how many decks it can support efficiently. That limit is the Side Deck. The size of the Side Deck affects how many decks can be in the metagame and have healthy interactions. This is why excessive diversity is bad. If there are too many decks, than the decks themselves must be excessively rigid, because they need to be optimized to the point of having the ability to deal with a multitude of decks. Deck interactivity, which is in my opinion key to a healthy metagame, is at a very low amount. Decks can't change more than one or two cards because it could prove fatal to their performance, or the opposite happens and one major innovation happens and forces a "change or die" effect on the metagame. Neither of those should happen, hence too much diversity is bad. Too little diversity is also an issue, because there are very few decks. Sometimes, its just one deck interacting with itself. While there is innovation, one deck formats have no diversity what so ever and so other decks cannot compete. While these formats tend to be pretty skillful in nature a lot of people don't find them fun, because it is one deck or die. This should also not be the case. Which brings me to my final point: there should be the right amount of diversity which promotes healthy deck interactions. Deck should be in a constant state of flux, but no adaptation should force other decks to adapt. It should come naturally in the deck's nature to be the most competitive but it should not cause a deck to be awful without it (these adaptations would be considered harmful for the metagame and be dealt with). Power levels, in this view, are completely irrelevant. The power level of a metagame does not impact how the decks interact, it only impacts what decks interact. I will stand that out of the top contenders of today's format can be a healthy metagame. I will stand there is a healthy metagame at the power level of (the somewhat popular standard now) Primal Origins. I will stand that there is a healthy metagame at the power level of Gyzarus Gladiator Beast meta. There is an obvious perk to this: it means you can have multiple metagames and please the largest audience, while allowing them to use new cards. This isn't a metagame in which you only play to a certain release. This is a metagame where you get all the new cards, but still keep the feel of an older format. Of course this view has a downside. It takes a lot more time to analyze and prepare, and when a new deck comes it, it takes a lot more time to see how the deck works in relation to other decks. It will require that a lot more data, including match-up based data be collected. It will require, generally, more banlists and more banlist changes than before. But it very well could work. Would take a lot of work, but could work, and its not that far off. Just recently, CCG Bologna happened and its data inspired me to come up with this. This is the data for the match-ups of the event. Code:
Nekroz: 51% vs. Shaddoll (30/58) 46% vs. Burning Abyss (23/49) 78% vs. Satellarknight (25/32) 44% vs. Qliporth (12/27) Shaddoll: 48% vs. Nekroz (28/58) 60% vs. Burning Abyss (9/15) 50% vs. Satellarknight (6/12) 60% vs. Qliporth (3/5) Burning Abyss: 53% vs. Nekroz (26/49) 40% vs. Shaddoll (6/15) 66% vs. Satellarknight (4/6) 100% vs. Qliporth (3/3) Satellarknight: 21% vs. Nekroz (7/32) 50% vs. Shaddoll (6/12) 33% vs. Burning Abyss (2/6) 80% vs. Qliporth (4/5) Qliporth: 55% vs. Nekroz (15/27) 40% vs. Shaddoll (2/5) 0% vs. Burning Abyss (0/3) 20% vs. Satellarknight (1/5) Nekroz are relatively balanced in comparison to Shaddolls, Burning Abyss, and Qliphorts, but dominate tellarknights. Shaddolls are at a perfect state of equilibrium with other decks. Henceforth, there is no reason to change Shaddolls. Burning Abyss are relatively balanced in comparison to Shaddolls and Nekroz, but have a worrying interaction with tellarknights. In addition, it has a very unhealthy interaction with Qliphort, and so something must be done about that. tellarknights are balanced in comparison to Shaddolls. They have poor interactions with Nekroz and Burning Abyss, unable to effectively compete with them, and have an unhealthy interaction with Qliphort. Qliphort are balanced in comparison to Shaddolls and Nekroz, but they are unable to effectively compete with tellarknights and Burning Abyss. The disclaimer here is that this is one event, and not a good sample pool, because of the large amount of Nekroz match-ups (although its a very good indicator for how Nekroz fits currently). Qliphort in particular have a very low sample size, and so more data would be needed. But this is the kind of extrapolation that I'm talking about. Is there a healthy metagame between these five decks? I think there is, and more importantly, I think we are close. Just a few lose ends to deal with, but I think its possible. Thoughts? Questions? Flaws in my logic? Feel free to comment (or offer to help, I'd love if it would be possible to collect more data) but please be respectful and constructive. Otherwise Emi will be very angry. =w= |
04-23-2015, 08:13 PM | #4046 |
Double Dragon
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
|
It's really hard to say because this is only one event, and even within the event some of the sample sizes are relatively small. Defining a "healthy metagame" is a tough task in any game, but I will agree with you that too much diversity and too little diversity are both good. I think we all have a clear definition on too little diversity, as in one deck dominating over every other deck with no other deck standing a chance at winning a tournament (see: Dragon Ruler format). Defining too much diversity is more difficult, though. Is it three "Tier 1" decks? Four? Five? Eight? That really depends on who you ask. However, I'd say my definition of a healthy metagame is as follows: A healthy metagame is not dominated by one deck. It has two or three decks considered "Tier 1" that win the majority of tournaments, and a few other "Tier 2" decks that can often beat "Tier 1" decks head-to-head, but do not have the power and/or consistency to win tournaments regularly.
I have further thoughts, but I'd like to save them until I have the following info. Emi, it seems you have some detailed numbers on matchups. Can you tell us what percentage of each deck was run at the event? (E.g. 40% Nekroz, 20% Shaddoll, 20% Burning Abyss, 10% Satellarknights, 5% Qliphorts, 5% Other)
__________________
|
04-23-2015, 08:19 PM | #4047 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Numbers are purely arbitrary and depend on the decks in question. At the moment, I think its entirely possible to have five tier 1 decks and nothing else, but as long as those decks are in equilibrium, its alright. If we go back and its a different power level and its six or seven, that's fine as well. As long as its healthy, which doesn't have much to do with precise numbers, that fine.
That said, going to crunch the numbers from the event as I think I've found something.
__________________
|
04-23-2015, 08:41 PM | #4048 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Event Decks:
Code:
Nekroz: 40.7% Shaddolls: 12.8% Burning Abyss: 11.4% Satellarknight: 11.4% Qliphort: 5.7% Unknown: 5.0% HERO: 2.8% Anti-Meta: 2.8% Ritual Beast: 1.4% Volcanic: 1.4% Evilswarm, Blackwing, Fire Fist, Yosenju, Chain Burn, Yang Zing: 0.7% EACH |
04-23-2015, 09:01 PM | #4049 |
Double Dragon
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
|
Yeah, I realized that I can't really back up my point about two or three decks at the top being the best. The more I think about it, having five, six, seven, etc. decks that could potentially compete for first place at a big tournament like Worlds would be pretty cool. I'll still stand behind my point though that not ALL decks should be around the same power level, there needs to be some kind of hierarchy or else there would be no point in playing any new archetype, as you could be just as competitive with your deck from months ago. New cards/archetypes should have differing power levels, as that sparks innovation, I think. Like ideally, I think a good metagame would be set up like this:
Tier 1: Decks that will top at the majority of tournaments (Nekroz, Shaddolls, Burning Abyss). Tier 2: Decks that can often beat Tier 1 head to head, but won't win many tournaments (Satellarknights, Qliphorts). Tier 3: Decks that sometimes beat Tier 1 head to head, but very rarely/never win tournaments (Sylvans, Ritual Beast, Yosenju) Tier 4: Rarely beat Tier 1 head to head, never win tournaments (others) I'm not really confident on the stuff I put in parentheses as I don't really play enough/pay attention to tournaments enough to be 100% sure but like you get the picture. EDIT: Based off your numbers, its seems as if the public portrays Nekroz as far and away the best deck, whereas the numbers on the head-to-head matchups don't seem to back that up entirely. Again, small sample size (both on what the public perceives and how the decks actually do) but that's interesting to me.
__________________
|
04-23-2015, 09:09 PM | #4050 | |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
The idea is that there would be separate metagames for differing power levels. Right now, my proposed meta only deals with the top 5 decks, because to be honest nothing else matters. But there can easily be a meta where its HEROs, Blackwings, Rituals Beasts and potentially nerfed versions of the stronger decks live. It's meant to be staggered, like floors on a tower.
Quote:
__________________
|
|
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|