What's wrong with top tier decks?

http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/288868-structure-deck-24-assault-of-the-flaming-king/page__st__20#entry6016382

This post got me thinking: what is with generic hate towards any good deck? Why is winning a crime?

I have nothing against a deck being tier, myself, I just think that the horribly designed shit decks need to be top tier is ridiculous. I understand people playing to win, and I've even played some of the top decks, and they can be really fun... But the cards involved are what's stupid. Things like Rabbit, Hornet, Zenmaity/Hunter, REDMD, etc. don't deserve to exist in an IDEAL world.

In an IDEAL world all cards would be playable and every deck would be able to win (and there would be no alternate win conditions. I think it is fairly obvious we do not live in an ideal world and we should make due.

In an ideal world there are a few top tier decks, with at least 1 of each playstyle (bar stall/alt wins, or anything that removes player interaction) that all take a fair level of skill to pilot.

Every deck being tier 1 would be horrible.

Tamiyo wrote:In an ideal world there are a few top tier decks, with at least 1 of each playstyle (bar stall/alt wins, or anything that removes player interaction) that all take a fair level of skill to pilot.

Every deck being tier 1 would be horrible.

No idea how you came to this conclusion.

Decks being on the same tier mean they're evenly matched. More importantly, different tiers mean unfair matchups. "Oh, I run a T1 Deck, what do you run?" "T3" "Oh, that would be a pretty one-sided game, let's just not play." - that's silly. Why do you want to make some Decks naturally weaker than others? Surely it'd be better to have, "Oh, I run Deck X, what do you run?" "It doesn't matter at all, every Deck is balanced and every matchup is fun." "Yay let's go have an awesome duel." Tier 1 doesn't mean fast enough to end the game turn 2/3 or anything. It just means the current best tier of Deck. In any properly balanced format, there is only 1 tier, which would be called Tier 1 by default (but really wouldn't have a name).

---

@OP:

I have no problem with Decks being Tier 1, but I frequently play Decks that are currently much weaker than current T1 Decks, and I enjoy playing games where the Decks are close in strength, so I avoid playing against T1.

You evidently don't understand how hindering an over-varied metagame is when it comes down to side-deck choices, and thus the true competitive value is diminished.

This is simply a case of personal preference (though since you aren't a competitive player I don't quite see why you side on the competitiv side)

Welche wrote:This is simply a case of personal preference (though since you aren't a competitive player I don't quite see why you side on the competitiv side)

How is the manner in which I play not competitive?

Do you compete at Konami tournaments? (regionals and above). If not you play as a hobby not competitively.

Welche wrote:Do you compete at Konami tournaments? (regionals and above). If not you play as a hobby not competitively.

When I play, I play competitive decks and I play to win. I play in the exact same format that competitive events play.

So, whether that counts as truly competitive or not, it means I do care about the state of the metagame from a competitive point of view.

You play people well below your skill level and argue with people well below your skill level. Any competitive player would seek to play people and talk to people of their own skill. It's the basis of having different leagues in sports.

That brings it back to personal opinion. I would much rather all decks to be equal because it would create for more interesting tournaments between me and my friends.

Welche wrote:You play people well below your skill level and argue with people well below your skill level. Any competitive player would seek to play people and talk to people of their own skill. It's the basis of having different leagues in sports.

That brings it back to personal opinion. I would much rather all decks to be equal because it would create for more interesting tournaments between me and my friends.

You can justify this because obviously you know every person I play against.

And just a point, I argue with people worse than me because I want to prove to them why something is right, because I generally want to help them improve.

Currently I have no interest in talking to the skilled players of the game anyway, since the game's lost most of the fun for me.

Overly diverse formats are probably even worse than limited ones. One of the fun things of being a deckbuilder is making a deck that will win over other decks. It becomes impossible to test decks. You can't side properly. You might as well choose a deck then try to win. Pretty much every single TCG has tiers.

That's why casual play exists anyway. You can play lower tier decks and not be punished for it. Yet casual events always have competitive people. And you can still win with a lower-tier deck if you're more skilled.

What you want is every deck to be on the same skill:power ratio. It's better than balancing out tiers.

Plenty of the hate Top Tier Decks get is warranted. Here's the top 12 reasons I could come up with:

1) A card used would be great in some minor league fun deck, but because it's used in Super Broken Deck it becomes a money card.

An example of this is the card Honest. A powerful addition to any Light based deck, such as Batterymen or Arcana Force or most of the other fun non-competitive decks, but because Lightsworn were the deck to beat at the time it took a long while before the price came down, and by then the card was semi-limited, and limited.

2) A card recieves list attention, which is used in a few other fun decks.

Ojamas, Crystal Beasts, Beast Beatdown (back before Green Baboon's effect got changed) all had to change the way they were played back when X-Sabers came out.

You can even see that now with the recent banning of Future Fusion. Any deck that doesn't have an alternative way to fuse (ala Miracle Fusion, Dragon's Mirror, etc etc) is pretty much dead.

3) Playing any Tier 1 deck without a Tier 1 is a guaranteed game loss, and playing any Tier 1 deck with another Tier 1 deck is a coin flip.

Any deck that wasn't TeleDAD during the TeleDAD era lost, badly. TeleDAD versus TeleDAD is just a contest of who can get out Dark Armed Dragon first.

4) A centralized meta is bad for Konami as well

The 3 packs after Controller of Chaos (which had BLS and CED) sold very, very poorly in the OCG. The problem was everyone already had all the cards they needed for their 40 card Chaos decks, and no one was buying the new stuff.


Diverse formats are always better then centralized ones, and the only people who think otherwise haven't been playing competitive for very long.

Your reasoning is pretty much solely based on casual play, and was more geared towards hate of the banlist. The banlist is there because those cards are broken and have to be toned down in competitive play. That's what the banlist is, it's there to balance a metagame. I don't know about you, but I don't want to have to deal with Chaos Emperor Dragons and Yata-Garasus, just because they fit in casual decks.

I must be the only one who wants those 2 back aren't I?

The reason people hate Top Tier decks IMO, particulalry in this format, is becuase they either cut out interaction, or are no fun to play against. Simply put, watching your opponent loop for 5 minutes isn't fun.

And even though there is always a power gap, this was just to much. I don't hate top tier decks, becuase the competetive side doesn't matter to me. I'd rather use a deck i love using than a competetive one. And I lose, but I still have fun.

And a diverse format is always better than a centralized one. becuase they give choice.

It should really be noted that next format is shaping up to be a thousand times better.

Next format is, more or less, 2009 all over again.
Which seems a little ironic, since the list has Brionac@0, and 2009 is when Brionac first came into the world.

Armz wrote:Next format is, more or less, 2009 all over again.
Which seems a little ironic, since the list has Brionac@0, and 2009 is when Brionac first came into the world.

Agents, Chaos Dragons, possibly Dino Rabbit, Dark Worlds, Heroes, possibly Plant Synchro... All that is like 2009?

Tamiyo wrote:the game's lost most of the fun for me.

I don't see why you would ever do something that you don't even find fun, when there are plenty of other things to do.

Tamiyo wrote:

Armz wrote:Next format is, more or less, 2009 all over again.
Which seems a little ironic, since the list has Brionac@0, and 2009 is when Brionac first came into the world.

Agents, Chaos Dragons, possibly Dino Rabbit, Dark Worlds, Heroes, possibly Plant Synchro... All that is like 2009?

Its for the hype of potential Tele-DAD, you know what I mean.

Dementuo wrote:

Tamiyo wrote:the game's lost most of the fun for me.

I don't see why you would ever do something that you don't even find fun, when there are plenty of other things to do.

Note how I said most of the fun, not all of it. I do still enjoy the game, just I don't like to play frequently.

Armz wrote:

Tamiyo wrote:

Armz wrote:Next format is, more or less, 2009 all over again.
Which seems a little ironic, since the list has Brionac@0, and 2009 is when Brionac first came into the world.

Agents, Chaos Dragons, possibly Dino Rabbit, Dark Worlds, Heroes, possibly Plant Synchro... All that is like 2009?

Its for the hype of potential Tele-DAD, you know what I mean.

Right, the morons that think Tele DAD can do something when it can't without more draw power, more DADs and 3 Mali.

I agree with Chris on Tele DAD. The original had 2 more Allure, 3 DAD for actual OTKs, 3 Mali and all of that in a world with a smaller card pool.

Welche wrote:I agree with Chris on Tele DAD. The original had 2 more Allure, 3 DAD for actual OTKs, 3 Mali and all of that in a world with a smaller card pool.

2 DAD. At least in the TCG.