Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The author of this topic has marked a post as the answer to their question.
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
In Master Duel, on the other hand, the lower bar to entry means you can get greedy and usually be fine because the other player is statistically likely to be an idiot who will do the same. And then you run into someone who actually knows what they're doing and things actually manage to go 5+ turns of back and forth.
2 - Not always if when you go second you lose, there is always a chance to win unless you have a great deck. however, I agree that the coin flip format must absolutely be changed.
3 - Konami doesn't care about banlist, peace.
4 - Git gud.
...You know it's sad when freaking Duel Links' F/L list gets more care and attention put into it.
2) You're deck must be absolute trash if it loses 95% of the time if it doesn't get to go first/second. Improvements can of course be made though.
3) An improved F/L is fine. However, I wasn't aware you could have more than 1 Red Reboot or Harpies Feather Duster in a deck, which are limited to 1 cards. Maybe I'm wrong.
4) I'm a casual. People that play the game more than me and are the "competitive" players are factually better. Why? Because it's a competitive game, where the objective is to win and if they know the decks better and know how to play it better, it doesn't matter what deck they're using, they're better than me at the game. If you want to only play against people using ye olde decks and people not interested in using the latest meta, MD isn't the place. Accept it and move on.
The only point I can vaguely agree with is number 4. The toxicity in this game's community is incredible and people will not knock it off; It's become self-perpetuating. But it's not just the "competitive" players, dude. It's the casual players as well, constantly going out of their way to pick fights and ♥♥♥♥♥ about the game instead of doing the sensible options of asking for advice, learning how to play better, or abandoning the game they're clearly not having fun with.
This coming from a meta-avoiding casual that's dedicated to his crappy Blue-eyes deck. Knock it the ♥♥♥♥ off and leave if you're that bent out of shape. Whining on forums like this is going to do exactly jack to "fix" the game, and only start yet more toxic fights with other players with nothing better to do between matches. YOU are the problem, not the game.
2- Players have been asking for a Bo3 to improve the format and make it less dependent on the coin toss, but that is up to Konami. I really don't think anyone defends a Bo1 format
3- Another complaint of the players, we are still waiting for the banlist... all of us. Implementing a banlist like Duel Links will just kill decks if they have multiple cards at 1 or at 2. The reason why a banlist like that works in Duel Links is because the game has a reduced card pool and the game is a very simple version of Yugioh.
4- Competitive players are better than casual players, is not a matter of pretending is just a fact. If people dedicate time and effort to be better at a game they will be better than people who play it casually and don't care to win. This doesn't mean that casuals can't have fun, if you keep playing yugioh knowing that you are getting stomped because you play a sub-optimal deck, is because you have fun with the game, otherwise you would stop playing it.
Then at that point it's just "Hope my opponent doesn't have DRNM or Droplet".
1 - There is a fine line between ash and the adventure engine as the 1 clearly gives you far more advantage, field presence , as well as a better negate than the other. I'm talking about the end boards here, the ones where you end on a bunch of high attack monsters with negates which if you don't have an answer for the very next turn usually means you auto lose going second. Cards like ash may be strong and have a negates but they are not what I'm talking about here I just want to be clear about.
3 - There really is no reason to not have a banlist like duel links though as you mention the possibility of killing deck,s but they don't need to hit all the cards in an archetype and kill a deck. They just need to hit problem cards that make the game unbalanced rather than cards directly in an archetype (unless they are in fact the problem cards). A reduced card pool doesn't really mean anything here as well because 99% of those cards will never be on the banlist and only really problem cards would need to be on it so I really don't see your argument here for that.
4 - It's not whether or not a person is more skilled than the other is the problem, the problem is that the "competitive" tends to be super toxic and always needing to ♥♥♥♥ on the casual base even when they have actual good criticisms opinions and more. This stuff drives new players and old away in droves.
3- Look at this situation: Phantom Knights of torn scales is at 2, Water enchantress and Rite of Aramesir are at 2. If we had a banlist like in duel links, PK cant use adventure and adventure would be incredibly bad since you could only run 1 enchantress and 1 rite same thing with Virtual World.
Sky striker would be dead because they have multiple cards at 2.
The only thing that a duel links banlist would achieve is to force the decks to be more "pure" rather than being able to incorporate other engines that have synergy. The idea is to balance the decks, not to kill them and people will still complain about the same 3 best decks.
4- Every single game with a competitive scene will have toxicity: CSGO, League, Dota, Overwatch you name it. That doesn't mean that the whole competitive side is toxic, funny enough, there are casuals who are also toxic, that can be seen by the amount of non-sense threads of pure complaining. There is a vast difference between something like the cesspool that is Dkayed stream/Discord to someone like Pak who is a competitive player and was teaching people at locals how to play Tearlaments.
If the only reason I get a response is to try and twist something I said into something entirely different, perhaps it's better to not respond at all, hm? If you think the "awards" you get on steam posts are just about the points, you're more tone-deaf than I am. Which is saying something, since I'm an idiot at social interaction and reading subtext. Hence my blunt and to-the-point responses even if they often toe the line of breaking forum rules.
Who on earth said I didn't have arguments against each of your points as well? Nice presumption, in reality I just didn't bother spelling it out since each of your points are built on either logical fallacies or self-defeating arguments. Which you should be more than aware of yourself, if you're half as smart as you're pretending to be. Instead, the only response I bothered to give was the single point I vaguely agreed with, with a mild correction.
If you really need those arguments spelled out for you, sure. I've got time for the moment.
1 - Almost entirely based on Ad hominum and false equivalencies. The personal attacks include straight up attacking strawmen intended to be players uses these types of cards you dislike, which should be self-explanatory. The false equivelancies come down to the presumption that use of floodgates and negates simplify gameplay. This is pointedly untrue, as with negates you often can't mindlessly hit the first valid target that comes up. Even if it's not a bluff to bait out the negate, it's entirely possible for many decks to play through a few negates that don't hit the proper targets. Knowing what those proper targets are takes experience and knowledge of decks other than your own. This we can call "skill". As for floodgates, same argument. Floodgates are not cards that you can just splash into anything, in many cases they are symmetrical. If, for instance, I wanted to throw some floodgates into my blue eyes deck, about half of my deck would be negated BY MY OWN CARD if I used Skill drain. Something like Gozen Match or Macro Cosmos would utterly destroy it. Because you can't mindlessly throw the same floodgates into any deck, they're not exactly something you can call "braindead".
2 - Again Ad hominum, but this time with Gambler's and Black-and-White for flavor. So here's the deal: The person that gets to go first is able to build their board largely uncontested, and the person going second is expected to use some mixture of cards that can break it. First off, you need to know your own deck to know which way it leans, towards going first or going second (Yes, there are lots of decks designed to go second and have a really hard time going first, Despia for one). Then you need to know which cards help in the other side of the coinflip. Ash and Maxx C, for as much as people insist they're staples that every deck should be using, are actually pretty worthless to a going-second deck and are cards meant to help a going-first deck that lost the coinflip not lose too much ground. LIghtning Storm, while an amazing boardwipe and valuable to any going-second strategy, is all but useless in a going-first one. Getting the picture, I hope? Failure to recognize which way your deck's natural inclinations lean and using cards that support or complement that lean is a deck problem, not a coinflip problem.
3 - False authority and false equivalency. Given your previous arguments, there's not really much cause to believe you're particularly knowledgeable on the modern game, certainly not knowledgeable enough to make effective banlist suggestions. Some of them are decent ones to be clear, I'd agree that Halq/Auradon need to go. But the suggestion you're proposing is basically erasing the last 5+ years of the game and nuking decks that arn't meta and would never be played without those banned bosses, Dramatic overkill by any standard. False equivalency is comparing Master Duel to Duel Links, the two are wildly different games with almost no common ground, so there's no reason to think a ruleset that works in one would have any reason to work in the other.
That is more than enough from me, I think. Peace out.