Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Felidae_

The most disappointing bans in history

Recommended Posts

Felidae_

I read the ban announcement just now I after quickly realizing that this wasn't an early April's fools joke I have to ask: What the ****?

 

 

 

Lets get one thing out of the way first: TPCI can always issue an emergency banning of they think that a card would break the format. They did the same thing with Shiftry.

 

 

 

With that being said, why on earth is Unown banned? They literally say in the announcement that “these combos haven't yet proven to be successful”. Expanded is your outlet for creativity and you stifle it on every occasion. A combo deck is certainly not loved by everyone and I'd be in favour for banning any deck that can reliably pull of a turn one / two win, unless the combo can easily be disrupted.

 

I can see the deck becoming an issue in the future ( in fact I was testing a list with Dedenne GX and it had some impressive results), but c'mon: how impressive would it have been if someone actually managed to get this thing to work in a bo3 setting. Live on stream!

 

 

 

Now, let's move over to Maxie's Hidden Ball Trick. The reasoning behind this is easier to understand. Having access to the new Omastar / Kabutops on turn one would create another instant item / supporter lock OtP, something that TPCI clearly don't like (hence the Wally ban last time).

 

Given that both have a condition to their ability though, I'd honestly argue that this is a case where actual tournament results and statistics would come in handy. Personally I don't really see a ban worthy thread here. Something annoying for sure, but nothing that screams ban.

 

Then again I guess they go the same route as with FogP, where it is easier to ban the enabler, rather than having to carefully check every Pokemon with the corresponding type in the upcoming sets, in order to prevent any ***** on turn one. I guess it's only a matter of time before Archie hits the fan as well.

 

Once again I have to complain about stifled creativity. In order to consistently pull off a turn one Archie / Maxie you have to carefully construct your deck and even then the first turn is usually quite tricky, as you have to solve a different puzzle each time.

 

 

 

Last but certainly not least, we have to talk about the elephant in the room: Zoroak GX.

 

I'm amazed that nothing in this deck has been touched. I've seen arguments to ban Oranguru, Zoroak GX, or even DCE. Although I don't think all of those are valid options, it's baffling to me that TPCI is destroying new archetypes before they even see the light of day while simultaneously don't fix the issues in the current format.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WingsofFire1014

I have to say, I am with you. Some of these bans are disappointing.

Edited by WingsofFire1014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RobRatt

Considering the title of this ban notice is "Team Up Banned List," it's likely they have anticipated problems in the next set, or maybe the one following.  I don't see an issue with that.  I'm glad they're communicating with the Japanese tournament scene (and designers), and keeping gameplay balanced.

The entire Unown scheme is a gimmick deck to begin with.  It's one, that even if successful, takes half of a game's time limit just to pull off.  That sucks, and it was never designed to win Turn 1 or Turn 2 in the first place.  Good riddance IMHO.

Banning Maxie's from use with cards from the Team Up set -- how many sets and years between them?  That makes sense to me.  Maybe I'm alone in wanting decks to be built with a fighting chance (pun intended), but with thousands upon thousands of Expanded cards to choose from, it's not like the game is broken without this one problem Trainer.

Zoroark Control??  ...There's nothing wrong with the GX card itself, regardless of the sniveling on other websites (I've seen them too).  Yes, it helps with the whole Red Card / Delinquent tactic, but other attackers can work too.

But why, in a post criticizing "bans," would anyone start injecting more cards to get rid of?  Talk about irony.

Edited by RobRatt
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harshu

With that being said, why on earth is Unown banned? They literally say in the announcement that “these combos haven't yet proven to be successful”. Expanded is your outlet for creativity and you stifle it on every occasion. A combo deck is certainly not loved by everyone and I'd be in favour for banning any deck that can reliably pull of a turn one / two win, unless the combo can easily be disrupted.

 

I can see the deck becoming an issue in the future ( in fact I was testing a list with Dedenne GX and it had some impressive results), but c'mon: how impressive would it have been if someone actually managed to get this thing to work in a bo3 setting. Live on stream!

I don't think its hard to win on turn 2 with Wailord-Magikarp especially if you go first.

The only counters to current decks are Sudowoodo and item locks, or decks that have the ability to knock out an important tech of opponent's bench, pretty fast (turn 1)!

 

However, Unown decks with Magikarp&Wailord have been quite consistent and can win consistently if they go first against "common" meta - except the above techs.

 

Remember why Lysandre's Trump card was banned ? It was because the match went on for too long in a tournament in Japan. I am assuming, that winning with Unown will be taking too much time as you need to play with damage counters and hence the time consumption could be very high. Hence probably the ban.

All though I am just assuming things, bans in PTCGO have been quite weird !

 

As for others, I don't know what is happening.

Edited by harshu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SuperStone

I don't think its hard to win on turn 2 with Wailord-Magikarp especially if you go first.

The only counters to current decks are Sudowoodo and item locks, or decks that have the ability to knock out an important tech of opponent's bench, pretty fast (turn 1)

Let us not forget Vespiquen!

 

 

Remember why Lysandre's Trump card was banned ? It was because the match went on for too long in a tournament in Japan. I am assuming, that winning with Unown will be taking too much time as you need to play with damage counters and hence the time consumption could be very high. Hence probably the ban.

All though I am just assuming things, bans in PTCGO have been quite weird !

That's really only part of the reason.  It was also because it allowed powerful disruption cards like Hypnotox and Hammers to be played infinite times, and (this is probably the biggest factor) it completely eliminated one of the game's three win conditions.

 

These bans do seem unnecessary to me, but hey, let's wait and see what comes out, yes?  ;) And personally, I don't think anything in Zoro is worth banning.

Edited by SuperStone
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EpicShonenGuy

The ban on unown damage was a good decision because it's basically a non interactive deck, and a game like this, abusing this combo regardless of creativity is just simply not healthy.

Edited by EpicShonenGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Felidae_

Considering the title of this ban notice is "Team Up Banned List," it's likely they have anticipated problems in the next set, or maybe the one following.  I don't see an issue with that.  I'm glad they're communicating with the Japanese tournament scene (and designers), and keeping gameplay balanced.

 

The entire Unown scheme is a gimmick deck to begin with.  It's one, that even if successful, takes half of a game's time limit just to pull off.  That sucks, and it was never designed to win Turn 1 or Turn 2 in the first place.  Good riddance IMHO.

 

 

Hey Rob, I know that we have a different opinion on Unown and it's safe to say we agree to disagree :D.

Personally I simply don't think that the whether or not my opponent enjoys the game should be any metric to be considered when dealing with a competitive game. If the combo would become too consistent and the format were to be taken over, it would be a different story altogether.

As someone who enjoys playing odd decks and combos I had a great time testing various Shiftry builds and discussing the archetype with like-minded people.

 

Speaking of taking too much time: I'd argue this is part of the judges to enforce players from wasting time. You are more experienced in the physical game than I am, though from what I've heard stalling is a real concern in major tournaments, so I wouldn't blame Unown or the structure of the deck as the sole reason. If you know what you are doing you can get through the motions rather quick.

 

 

Zoroark Control??  ...There's nothing wrong with the GX card itself, regardless of the sniveling on other websites (I've seen them too).  Yes, it helps with the whole Red Card / Delinquent tactic, but other attackers can work too.

 

But why, in a post criticizing "bans," would anyone start injecting more cards to get rid of?  Talk about irony.

I should also point out that I'm not against banning cards. Quite the opposite. I'm happy that TPCI tries to regulate the format and to spice things up from time to time, I simply think that they took the wrong approach / targeted the wrong cards.

If 9 out of the top 16 decks of the recent major expanded tournament are Zoroak variants and 53% of the meta consist of different builds evolving around it, then I'd at least consider taking a closer look at the card. Makes a whole lot more sense than banning Unown, a card that hasn't even come close to any noticeable finishes.

 

Banning Maxie's from use with cards from the Team Up set -- how many sets and years between them?  That makes sense to me.  Maybe I'm alone in wanting decks to be built with a fighting chance (pun intended), but with thousands upon thousands of Expanded cards to choose from, it's not like the game is broken without this one problem Trainer.

Again, I think we simply have a different view regarding what is “fair”. In my honest opinion the game needs a format that is, to a degree, “unbalanced”. This doesn't mean I want a format that only produces degenerated turn 1 decks that engage in a challenge to goldfish each other.

What I mean by that is a format that showcases a good mix of old and new cards and their interactions. Archie and Maxie are great cards and it's a ton of fun to play those decks / to see them in action. When I turned into a twtich stream to watch some Expanded before the Puzzle/Hex/Wally/Ghetsis ban I nearly fell asleep, as the format was sooo boring.

Then again I play Legacy in MtG, so I'm used to turn 1 combos, “cheating” big cards into play and watching your opponent get consumed by despair.

 

Also, why didn't they lift the ban on Archeops? They returned Shiftry to the format once FoGP was gone, it would only make sense to welcome Archeops back into the format after they banned Maxie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RobRatt

Oh, I hear what you're saying.  And I'm not entirely sure anyone should claim, "Oh yeah, they MUST ban these cards."  On the flipside, I don't see either of them as "disappointing," and think they'll improve the overall play for 98% of the players.
 
With Maxie's HBT in particular, I can totally understand why it was banned.  And that's without seeing anything that might be released in May's upcoming set.  Kabutops and Omastar were mentioned in the original post (from Team Up), and either one should be enough to justify their logic for a ban.
 
Both are Stage 2's that evolve from Fossils, normally requiring at least a couple turns to evolve.  If you get them up normally, great (...good game).  But being able to drop these Stage 2 Abilities down during Turn 1 (with Maxie's) was never intended.
 
Kaputops:  As long as this is your Active Pokémon, your opponent can't play any Supporters.
 
Omastar:  As long as you don't have more Pokémon in play, your opponent can't play any Item Cards.
 
Boom! ...You can't do ANYTHING.
 
Being able to play a Maxie's HBT takes finesse, so I can see why certain players may not like the ban.  At the same time, I don't understand why anyone can't see that it's reasonable.
 
Fun?  Other virtues? ...and the need for them?  ...They do matter, and are part of what makes Pokémon different.  People play Yu-Gi-Oh, Magic, etc., but do they love it as a franchise?  With that in mind, I'm glad The Pokémon Company tries to keep things balanced.  They're not being overzealous, or doing it for financial gain like some other CCG's.
 

We want everyone who participates in Play! Pokémon events to keep these principles in mind—fun, fairness, honesty, respect, sportsmanship, and learning. Together, these principles make up our Spirit of the Game.


P.S.  Agreed.  They should look at the return of Archeops.

Edited by RobRatt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harshu

Let us not forget Vespiquen!

Depends on who goes first. If vespiqueen goes first, turn 2 = win/almost win.

 

Unown Damage/magikarp goes first, turn 2 90% win unless prize cards/bad luck.

 

so I don't see vespiqueen is a hard counter as compared to the other decks, even turn 1 attackers in the meta cannot guarantee a win, although if you go first, you have a big chance of beating unown damage. Otherwise, you pretty much lose!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oldschool1990

They let night march mess up standard several times, and banned the only card that would efficiently deal with it. For TPCI it doesn't matter what makes sense or what is balanced. They only care about some loudmouth "pro players" who are afraid of anything that threatens their favourite tournament decks. That's why garbage like NM or Zoroark were/are allowed to stay. Same "celebrity" garbage like in MtG, they ultimately only take the feedback from "the chosen few".

 

/my opinion

/rant

 

on the topic of Unown: it's strong but you need the right cards for it, and you are not guaranteed that you win the coinflip or draw the perfect hand. Fast aggro decks can destroy the deck, which is nothing without the many key pieces in place. It's not like a 2 card channel+fireball combo where I would see the reason for a ban like this.

Edited by Oldschool1990
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Felidae_

This assumption is very flawed to be honest.

 

 

 

If Unown suddenly became a relevant factor in the meta, then the rest of the archetypes would adapt accordingly.

 

90% win on turn 2 against the Goldfish (even that number seems way too high, but that's another topic) doesn't mean anything if your win rate drops to below 50% if your opponent plays cards to disrupt you.

 

 

 

That's how a meta game should evolve in my opinion: a new thread arrives, the meta adjusts to it and then we move on. It gets problematic if a combo can be executed on the first turn, leaving your opponent no chance to defend themselves (other then benching specific basic Pokemon) and at that point I'd be all in favour for banning the combo, but until then... well, I think I made my point.

 

 

 

Granted, I can understand the argument of non-interactive gameplay, though isn't it a bit odd that we tell players who complain about item lock that it's just part of the game, while in turn we (you) don't like it when our opponent plays solitaire?

 

 

 

Last but not least (afterwards we can all be friends again ;))

 

 

 

 

 

 

We want everyone who participates in Play! Pokémon events to keep these principles in mind—fun, fairness, honesty, respect, sportsmanship, and learning. Together, these principles make up our Spirit of the Game.

This is utter **. The same principles are engraved into every competitive game / sport. Fairness, honesty, respect, sportsmanship, those are virtues that every child should learn / know and rest assured whether a kid plays Pokemon, Yugioh, Magic, football, or anything else, it will learn them.

 

 

 

The only thing that remains questionable is the “fun” aspect and we have argued about this to death.

 

“fun” is entirely up to everyone's personal opinion. You think it's not fun to see someone execute their combo ? Fine. Someone else doesn't like it when he's locked out via Toad / Trev. The person next to him is annoyed to face nothing but Zoroark GX the entire day. The player across the room doesn't like Pokemon that can hit hart on the first turn. Everyone has a certain deck / mechanic that they aren't fond of to play against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otakutron

Also, why didn't they lift the ban on Archeops? They returned Shiftry to the format once FoGP was gone, it would only make sense to welcome Archeops back into the format after they banned Maxie.

 

I wondered about this, but someone answered by naming why:

 

Ditto {*}

 

Given how the evolution rules work, and how most decks that need fear Archeops function, the fact that Archeops hits the field on T3* or T4 instead of T1 or T2 doesn't change much.  A tiny window of opportunity is better than none, but still likely to stifle creativity and metagame diversity more than it encourages it.  Ditto {*} means any deck can contemplate running Archeops without dedicating space to it.  Just like with Maxie's Hidden Ball Trick, if the deck can spare one more slot it can even run something else to utilize Ditto {*} for the matchups where Archeops won't be helpful.

 

*Using overall turn counts here, meaning T1 = Player 1's first turn, T2 = Player 2's first turn, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakura150612

Random thought here. Couldn't they just do the same they did with Sycamore and Juniper, and just prohibit certain cards from being used in the same deck? I know that the reason for Sycamore/Juniper is entirely different (they are actually the exact same card but with different names), but I could see this being useful in dealing with broken, unfair or just plain frustrating combinations like the T1 locks that the Maxie ban is meant to prevent (without having to kill every single other Maxie combo).

 

Granted, this could become a pain to keep track of if across the year they have to ban multiple, specific combinations. But honestly, it wouldn't seem like that terrible of a solution (assuming it possible in the first place).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sadra

The thing I once loved about PTCG was that they didn't press the ban button that easily. However, I am quite disappointed with the recent ban list and am quite worried that if this trend continues, it would not be a good thing for the format. 

 

While I can understand that why they banned Maxies, banning unown makes no sense. That deck auto-losses to so many things such as ability lock and sudowoodo. It just seems that whenever there is an alternative combo that is capable of winning, TPCI is going to ban it. 

 

The reason why they did not ban anything related to zoroark may be because its reign, as well as other dark decks would be pretty much over when team up comes out. The marshadow GX/ focus sash combo with those tag teams will most likely take over the meta and destroy them. However, the zoro/delinquent/red card combo may still be viable but again its highly situational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WingsofFire1014

The thing I once loved about PTCG was that they didn't press the ban button that easily. However, I am quite disappointed with the recent ban list and am quite worried that if this trend continues, it would not be a good thing for the format.

 

While I can understand that why they banned Maxies, banning unown makes no sense. That deck auto-losses to so many things such as ability lock and sudowoodo. It just seems that whenever there is an alternative combo that is capable of winning, TPCI is going to ban it.

 

The reason why they did not ban anything related to zoroark may be because its reign, as well as other dark decks would be pretty much over when team up comes out. The marshadow GX/ focus sash combo with those tag teams will most likely take over the meta and destroy them. However, the zoro/delinquent/red card combo may still be viable but again its highly situational.

These bans are ever so frustrating, but we can't control what the developers do.

 

This is me summing up this whole topic in one for everybody. This would be a good place to end this thread. Unless you are something like a mind dude and you can mess with the developers minds.

Edited by WingsofFire1014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otakutron

Random thought here. Couldn't they just do the same they did with Sycamore and Juniper, and just prohibit certain cards from being used in the same deck? I know that the reason for Sycamore/Juniper is entirely different (they are actually the exact same card but with different names), but I could see this being useful in dealing with broken, unfair or just plain frustrating combinations like the T1 locks that the Maxie ban is meant to prevent (without having to kill every single other Maxie combo).

 

Granted, this could become a pain to keep track of if across the year they have to ban multiple, specific combinations. But honestly, it wouldn't seem like that terrible of a solution (assuming it possible in the first place).

Could a special rule be crafted to prevent certain cards from being used together? Yes.

 

Should they do that? No, I don't think so.  They should not have done it with Professor Juniper and Professor Sycamore, either.

 

There was and even now still is a better fix: issue an errata so that both cards are simply named "Professor".  Instead of creating a new rule just for them, we use the tools already in place and create a wonderful opportunity for Alternate Art promos featuring the various "professor" characters from Pokémon!

 

Make me really happy by adding the original "Professor Oak" to the erratum...

 

Getting back to the main topic... that is how to handle this situation if you want card bans off the table.  Figure out how to re-word the effect text so that it isn't causing problems now nor is it so likely to cause problems in the future.  Archie's Ace in the Hole, Forest of Giant Plants, Maxie's Hidden Ball Trick, Wally... all of them are the kind of cards that will trip up the game's designers sooner or later, because of how fundamental the time and other resources it takes to Evolve are for balancing Evolutions (and what they can do).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Felidae_

I also don't think special rules are a good way around it. If a card is too strong in combination with another, or if it creates an unhealthy environment, than a ban is the best solution.Sometimes that bothered me for a while though, is that TPCI always seems to target the engine itself and not go for a piece of the puzzle first.Let's take Maxie as an example: how about banning Battle Compressor?Does it affect multiple decks? CertainlyWill it shake up the meta? Most definitelyWould it destroy entire archetypes ? No (even NM/Vespiqueen/Rotom could adapt, at least to a degree).Think about Trainer's Mail, VS Seeker, Bridgette, Order Pad, Lusamie, Laser, Float Stone - so many card could be targeted in order to weaken certain archetypes, without destroying them entirely.Also, I'd like to share something with you. This was posted on the Pokemon Homepage in regards to the ban:

 

Quote“A Fighting-type Pokémon in the upcoming Sun & Moon—Team Up expansion would create a potentially devastating combo with Maxie's Hidden Ball Trick that can be achieved on the first turn of the game. Rather than wait and see how this turns out, it was determined that the best course of action was to prevent this combo before it happened. “
Today, a card was banned in the Modern format for MtG. This is there announcement:

 

Quote Nearly one year since the last change to the Modern banned list, R&D has continued to monitor the evolution and health of the format. During this time period, ********** Ironworks decks have risen to prominence at the Grand **** level of play, posting more individual-play Modern Grand **** Top 8 finishes than any other archetype, despite being only a modest portion of the field. In fact, only one other archetype, White-Blue Control, has posted more than half as many Top 8 finishes as Ironworks in those events. With no signs of the Ironworks deck's dominance at the GP level slowing down, we've decided to take action by banning the card ********** Ironworks.In many ways, this was not a clear-cut discussion, and R&D considered data over an extended period of time before coming to a decision. Ironworks decks require detailed rules knowledge and careful practice to master, resulting in a high win rate among pro players and other experienced pilots at the highest levels of play. In contrast, for quite some time, we hadn't seen Ironworks be as popular or as winning in less competitive play environments. With Ironworks's interactions being difficult to execute on Magic Online, it's been more challenging to gather data reflective of its win rate in the hands of a practiced pilot in tabletop play.With these challenges in mind, we've taken additional time to watch the environment evolve. By now, we've gathered sufficient data to conclude that Ironworks poses a long-term threat to the health of competitive Modern play. This is the right time to make a change. While the primary reasons for banning a card from the Ironworks deck are its raw win rate and high GP Top 8 conversion rate, we also considered its highly polarized Game 1 (pre-sideboard) win rate, sometimes long turn length, and difficult rules interactions as secondary factors.Games with ********** Ironworks can often involve excessively arcane rules interactions using mana ability timing windows, the understanding of which are necessary for players to agree on the game state. This can create a barrier to entry to Modern for players playing against the deck and to those who would feel obligated to play with it because of its strong win rate. We're sensitive to community feedback that the combination of polarized matchups, complex interactions, and long turns can lead to unenjoyable gameplay and viewing experiences.Make no mistake—R&D wholeheartedly embraces the strategic depth and robust rules system of Magic, and the player skill it takes to master them. In many cases, a deck's difficulty to play is a pressure against needing to ban a card, insofar as it suppresses the metagame population and win rate of the deck in the short term. This a major factor as to why R&D had not previously needed to take steps against Ironworks. As time goes on and more players master the deck, we ultimately have to make decisions based on how the deck is performing in the hands of those experts in practice.I'd like to emphasize that, while Ironworks did perform well at the recent Grand **** *******, we do not make B&R decisions based on a single tournament alone. It's the long-term performance of Ironworks over the last year that has given us cause for action. Grand **** ******* results reflect that this trend is not slowing down as the metagame adjusts.We considered three possible cards from Ironworks to ban: Ancient Stirrings, Mox Opal, and ********** Ironworks itself. Given that Modern has looked healthy and diverse at many levels of play outside of Ironworks's dominance at the Grand **** level, we decided to target the card that only affects the Ironworks deck: ********** Ironworks.Ancient Stirrings and Mox Opal represent two categories of cards that R&D keeps a careful eye on: card selection and fast mana. One factor we consider is that Ancient Stirrings, unlike more general card selection spells like Ponder and Preordain, brings deckbuilding restrictions. When we examine the effect of powerful cards, we consider whether they are increasing or decreasing the number of viable decks in the environment. In the current state of the ************* build-around nature of Ancient Stirrings supports decks that look very different from a simple collection of the strongest rate cards, and that otherwise may not exist. The recent resurgence of a new generation of Amulet Titan decks is a good example of this. Mox Opal is a similar case. In addition to showing up in high-profile decks like Hardened Scales, we also see Mox Opal enabling a variety of more fringe artifact synergy decks. As a category, we think these are generally healthy provided they appear in small doses and have reasonable win rates. As Modern stands, our metagame data does not indicate a need to impact the other Ancient Stirrings or Mox Opal decks.Bear in mind that this is based on the current state of the metagame, and that Ancient Stirrings and Mox Opal are not being given a free pass in perpetuity. While we have no current plans to take action against these two cards, we'll continue to monitor the health of the environment and the strength of decks that use them. If the metagame reaches a point where we determine these cards are doing more to suppress archetype diversity than enable it, we will certainly revisit this discussion. At this time, we're choosing the surgical ban against ********** Ironworks itself and avoiding "splash damage" against other archetypes.
Relying on in-depth data, discussing it, looking for other potential options and finally giving a perfectly understandable reasoning for banning the card. That's how its done. Edited by Felidae_
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SandaledOtter

Given their reason, I'd think banning the NEW thing from Expanded and leaving the old thing that doesn't need banning otherwise alone would be the better course of action.

 

Of course, given the Japanese format differences, that would mean banning a new card entirely for them, wouldn't it?

 

Maybe they should have thought of that before printing it.

 

 

...Or the reason isn't quite truthful, like the reason for banning decks that contain both Juniper and Sycamore. They say it's because they're the same card, but there are other examples of that that don't result in a ban.

Edited by SandaledOtter
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harshu

I also don't think special rules are a good way around it. If a card is too strong in combination with another, or if it creates an unhealthy environment, than a ban is the best solution. Sometimes that bothered me for a while though, is that TPCI always seems to target the engine itself and not go for a piece of the puzzle first. Let's take Maxie as an example: how about banning Battle Compressor? Does it affect multiple decks? Certainly Will it shake up the meta? Most definitely Would it destroy entire archetypes ? No (even NM/Vespiqueen/Rotom could adapt, at least to a degree). Think about Trainer's Mail, VS Seeker, Bridgette, Order Pad, Lusamie, Laser, Float Stone - so many card could be targeted in order to weaken certain archetypes, without destroying them entirely. Also, I'd like to share something with you. This was posted on the Pokemon Homepage in regards to the ban:

From the past, what I have observed is, they will never ban a card from the standard format, rather ban a card which isn't of the new set. Obviously to make money. This is how they have been doing. No matter how wrong it is, I don't think card creators ever give a concern of how broken a card can be, or the people who ban the wrong card. (Looking at shiftry and FOGP)..

 

Their bans have been pretty weird all throughout and now it makes me care even less because I am kind of used to it.

 

Banning other cards that can weaken the archetypes won't make sense because they already have counters to it.

Battle compressor --> (had lysandre's trump card), garbodor, oricorio, karen.

Laser --> virizion ex, sparkling robe, steel shelter etc..

Nothing wrong with trainer's mail, vs seeker, order pal and brigette, affect most decks equally (other than brigette can bring out 3 basic GXs which is broken ofcourse..)

Lusamine is too good for mill decks. But mill decks mostly in the history of PTCGO have been broken.. (super energy removal/energy removal ) etc..

 

Although I am not trying to defend them. All I am trying to say is, they never change their way of doing things and might not change even with this thread..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otakutron

From the past, what I have observed is, they will never ban a card from the standard format, rather ban a card which isn't of the new set. Obviously to make money.

 

Most of the time, not banning something from the newest set makes sense because they don't want to cheat the players.  Remember, Nintendo, GameFreak, and Creatures, Inc. could just dump a TCG onto the market and let the Pokémon brand sell it.  It might not sell as well... but if they don't provide organized play, the save a bunch of money.  At least in the short term; such an approach usually requires periodically "resetting", taking a few years off of production and then just releasing a new TCG.  Which is something some games similar to Pokémon have done.

 

Banning something from the new set isn't going to directly cost the powers-that-be money, either.  When you buy a pack, you're not buying from TPCi.  You're buying from a vendor who bought the cards from a distributor who bought from a manufacturer/printer who is working for TPCi.  Sometimes, there are even more vendors/distributors in the chain.  Oh, and most product bought in stores is bought by people who don't play the game. That includes collectors, as well as things like the random little kid who just wants a "toy", likes Pokémon, and whose mother rewards the kid with a pack if the kid behaves while they are at the store. ;)

 

Finally, yes they do hold off until after a card rotates from Standard Format play if they can.  Which is how they handled past problem cards from roughly 2003 until 2015.  When they did ban something again... it was Lysandre's Trump Card, from both the standard and Expanded Formats.  None of this means they always ban the correct card, but I do prefer people are mad at them for the right reasons. ;)

 

Of course, I thought Maxie's Hidden Ball Trick needed to go back when Archeops was banned, and I realized "Oh yeah, super-Evolution-shortcut creates a 'trap' for balanced game design that'll go off sooner or later."  Unown DAMAGE is iffy; even when a First Turn Win (or even Second Turn Win) deck isn't super-reliable, it just needs to be "good" enough that a significant portion of the player base goes "Fine.  I'm not a top player; learning how to play this and trying my luck is my best shot at winning."  Such players don't even have to win... they just need to score enough wins to knock legitimately better players of the running. No, I don't know exactly how many would be a "significant portion".  There's always the risk of someone getting a lucky first or second round win against a better player, causing them to ultimately miss the top cut; it just gets much worse when this kind of deck is part of the cardpool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...