Jump to content

Denithan

Members
  • Content count

    363
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    45

Denithan last won the day on September 13

Denithan had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Denithan

  • Rank
    Registered User

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    United Kingdom
  • Interests
    Card Games, JRPG, Writing.
  1. New CRD

    Alright, @Jaith1, what are you trying to say? Because so far, it has come across as you touting that getting rid of Set 1 will create this amazing, imaginative, diverse environment in the game. Which I promise it won't, as literally any game with extensive banlists that has attempted to ban staples will tell you (ala. YGO). You get rid of one group of staples, people will MAKE another group of staples out of the cards that do well and are consistently strong, BECAUSE they do well and are consistently strong. Secondarily, I maintain, banning all cards from set 1 by name is an unreasonable ask for a mostly dead game with a cult community when they have been reprinted so often. You will straight up lock the doors on new players, because who the hell would bother with that for a game they're not already into. As for the stuff @Majin Goo has said, I'd be down for rotations if they do set it up right. Mostly, I'm looking at MPs there; either excluding them and their named cards from Rotations (the worse option), or rotating them back around in the next set, updated for the current format (the better option). I am curious though, what steps would you be looking at to introduce rotations into this game?
  2. New CRD

    Dude, I think you're overestimating how much of a change this would actually effectuate. Especially in a post-Reality Check universe in regards to Stare Down and Betrayal. It might knock down how MANY cards people have that are universal board control, but it still wouldn't change things too dramatically. As for Neck Beam, Blue DOES have other cards that de-level, and otherwise would probably just work around a couple of DB techs. Also, I've never really thought of Red Blocking Hand as one of the more broken Red cards. A common one, sure, but I don't think it's broken or too good o-O In my view, Black is probably the Style most deeply affected by dropping Set 1 just because those cards are actually pretty vital to a lot of their strats, and they don't have adequate replacements. Everyone else will probably be fine. Namekian might see some dramatic shifts and changes, but tbh, Earth Dragon Balls have literally got all the same support as Namek Dragon Balls do, + 1 with Radiant and a LOT of other cards (I'm not actually sure why Namek Dragon Balls are still run over EDBs. The effects are better, but only marginally so, and the extra support REALLY pushes DBV a lot harder). Also, straight up, no. It's not obvious what cards are Set 1. I could not tell you without actually checking a database, except by the old card style. I came into this game at Set 6, and my interactions with almost all of these cards have been reprints. For me to know what Set 1 cards are requires me to constantly go back and check, which... No? Shit dude, I don't even own any cards actually from Set 1. Remember that only America really has any kind of adequate scene with this game (someone feel free to correct me if else-wise), and I don't think anyone from outside (excluding the most die-hard fans) would engage with that kind of change. If you want to actually effectuate change WITHOUT alienating someone like me, then dedicate a FanZ set to errata'ing the stronger Set 1 cards, and actually give them flavor. While you're at it, go back and fix some MPs. Fuck knows, Broly needs some addressing, Awakening Goku is a mess, and old MPs like Ginyu are dust in the wind. And ftr, I mean, dedicate a FanZ set to this. Nothing new. Just erratas. Also, it's not a superstitious behavior in card games? It's just how things go. People see certain cards and strategies do well competitively, on a frequent and common basis, then adopt them into their own decks. It is exactly because they're good that they become staples, and again, we'd just get a new set up of staples. It wouldn't blow the game open in this amazingly creative way, just modify it.
  3. New CRD

    Dude, banning either set is going to complicate the game a pretty reasonable amount unless you're only playing on OCTGN/online sims, or have a near encyclopedic memory of what cards came from what set. Especially since you're disallowing reprints, which becomes its own complicated mess when you're a more casual player. Shit, I'll throw myself under the bus here: I almost definitely couldn't tell you what cards are reprints of Set 1, and any response to this that goes "You should educate yourself if you want to play," or "just go through Set 1 and remove every card from there from all your decks" can go stuff itself. I'd just straight give up the game because that's too finicky for me to care. And it's not that I'd lose Staples, it's that I don't want to go back and check if any given card is allowed while I'm brainstorming decks for fun. Same issue I have with rotations in Pokemon, only worse, because that one allows me to play reprints. The ONLY reason I wouldn't have this same issue with Set 7 is because we didn't get reprints of the cards there. That one, I can easily just go onto OCTGN, say to exclude cards from Set 7, and port those decks over to real life. If Set 1 was in the same boat, then I'd be more open to it, but in both cases, it's going to make deck building more complicated. Besides that though, I don't think banning either Set 1 or Set 7 would actually change the game in too many drastic ways. We'd rotate into a new set of staples per color if we dropped Set 1, because honestly, there are plenty of Freestyle staples and cards that came after that do similar things in each color. We'd have a meta, maybe two, where things were up in the air as to what cards are considered "tried and true," then we'd settle into staples because that's realistically how card game communities behave. We'd probably see a lot more in the way of Reality Check and co. though. As for banning Set 7, FanZ has already been balanced around Awakening MPs, so you'd realistically just lose a couple of tools that are pretty easily replaced.
  4. New CRD

    Ahh, I see where you're coming from there. I was under the impression that Knowledge would work like PUR, where your Sensei would gain a certain amount per turn, and then you'd get to spend it on their powers. While I can see how yours makes it easier to balance, I'm not going to lie, I was kind of getting into the idea of it being like PUR so that you could make Freestyle cards that spent/interacted with your knowledge counters. Something like: Sensei's Advice Event (You cannot win by MPPV if you use this card.) Remove 6 Knowledge Counters from your Sensei. Advance or lower your MP 1 level. And then having a couple of Senseis with really high Knowledge, but who either had a terrible Power or straight didn't have one, that were intended to just provide fuel for this kind of play-style. I do like the thematic element of that Goku though, and I definitely respect the strategic element that comes with only getting 1 use per game. It's also a lot simpler in terms of keeping track of the board.
  5. New CRD

    I definitely see where you're coming from there with Sensei decks and the knowledge counters, and I actually don't dislike the idea. I also think the inclusion of Sensei Decks would also open up further possibilities with MPs who are designed to interact with their Sensei in one capacity or another, or even ones who are designed to specifically not have one. That said, I think you'd need to put down hard design rules when making the Senseis to make sure they're not too disruptive to the current game and remain mostly optional. To that end, I think any Powers that search/draw should be high/middling when it comes to costs. An extra draw per turn can get overwhelmingly strong very quickly, as Awakening Goku has proven, and Dabura, Trunks and Supreme Kai have proven that searching for cards is... Well, a good way to stack things further in your favor quickly. Secondarily, I think there'd need to be a hard rule that no Sensei has more than 1 power. Going by your example, you'd be giving Goku EITHER the extra draw for a decent cost (say 3 or 4 Knowledge), OR a constant Stage gain. I think this ones largely important so that we don't get any one Sensei who does too much (making it a nightmare to further differentiate future Senseis), and it essentially forces them to be balanced at the design stage, or at least keeps them easy to fix if they do cause issues. I know there's always the argument that they can get around overpowering Senseis by being careful, but all it takes is a few combinations/interactions that they didn't see, and things get complex. I also know there's the argument that this keeps things too simple, and is "boring." To that argument, I say gtfo, this game is complex enough with enough weird interactions |: If you want to KEEP adding things to it, then you need to make sure it's relatively simple and easy to grasp. Thirdly, I'd really emphasize that the Senseis are ONLY characters within the series who actually FIT the role. So no Vegeta-Sensei, or Frieza-Sensei, or what not. Focus on things like Mutaito, Roshi, King Kai, King/Piccolo, Bibidi & Babidi (they fit in well-enough), Android 20, Whis, Mercenary Tao (and brother), etc. This is mostly a nitpick, but the majority of the teachers we've seen in Dragon Ball haven't actually been that strong, or that absurdly well-known in the grand scheme of things. Flavor is important, damnit |: Fourth, try to avoid generic Sensei Deck cards where possible. Make it a bit more specific. So if you have Goku-Sensei, have a specific Kamehameha that correlates to him as a Sensei. In tribute to Drillku days, you could even make it a riff on Goku's Kamehameha, and make it banish any number of Drills on both sides of the board. This stops you from trying to tech for every single thing in the game.
  6. New CRD

    I actually think banning either is a silly move, but if it was one or the other, I'd probably say to ban Set 7 over Set 1. Set 1 mostly just gave us staples, which aren't a terrible thing since they tend to be more for board control/utility. Feels like Set 7 was meta-defining in a much nastier way. That said, I don't think I've seen the blocking drills in... Well, a long ass time. Was someone actually rocking them in the ToP?
  7. New CRD

    So I guess the ultimate take-away about all of this is: None of these changes are all that game changing (except Visiting the Past), and they all lay bad precedents. Whether that be favoring a FanZ card over a PanZ card, half-haphazardly limiting a card instead of fixing it, or removing a largely necessary universal tool in what is perceptively an ill-conceived attempt to balance decks that didn't need the tool anyway. None of the changes seem to be reactionary to actual Tournament results, or defining aspects of the meta, and it ultimately settles to feel like they're making a SHOW of changes and fixes without really doing so.
  8. tl;dr: Australia's not great with proofing their laws and is really bad for implementing vaguely defined and limited laws while presenting them as objective positives. Honestly, this kind of law isn't that outlandish within the context of Australian history. My country has a long history of making vaguely defined laws with large, sweeping implications, and worse, of actually implementing them even amid cries of protest, or warnings that they are badly thought through and need to be more thoroughly defined. Don't get me wrong, I still hope they don't implement this. But Australian is a country without explicit human rights drawn up in our equivalent of a constitution. Instead we have implied rights, a very shake-y premise that is entirely dependent on interpretation to function. What this means is that, by law, the Australian government can revoke them simply by justifying why they don't apply in this instance. And we can't even act like this is something they don't do, as they revoked several human rights during their "bikie ban", and have constantly infringed on the rights of illegal immigrants for over a decade. Other examples of a shakey law with a broad reach and unacknowledged implications was the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill first proposed in 2015, which acted to change the laws surrounding audience reach and cross-media ownership in Australia. This was a bill that was DENIED on multiple occasions because it failed to offer any form of substantial protections against the consolidation of media powers in Australia, while further failing to outline a responsible party to enforce any of the legislative minimums when it came to local and regional coverage (which was being increased with this reform). This is actually one of the bills that acted as a trigger for Turnbull's double dissolution election in 2016 (for those unfamiliar, this is where the senate is entirely dissolved and every seat is voted upon throughout the country), and after the election, they actually managed to bring it back again, and pass it with amendments that failed to rectify most of these issues. Which has 100% resulted in the further consolidation of media power within Australia with very little in the way of side positives. If there's anything to take from that, it's A. Australia is pretty bad with this shit, and B. Even if this isn't passed, don't think it's gone away. Either this is going through, or this is going to b a constant argument in our government for the coming years until some dumb shit puts it through anyway. Kind of glad to see you pulling attention to it though.
  9. New CRD

    Side note: It always bothered me that Kaio-Ken doesn't drop Goku back to Level 1 after the jump. I know that might've been a bit of over-balancing for when it was released, but it would've future proofed the shit out of the card, and made it more thematically accurate.
  10. New CRD

    I mean, I would agree with you if they actually hit anything with any kind of impact. Or really that served a purpose beyond making a niche deck work? Like, if they were going after Orange Bicycle Kick, I'd 100% understand that. Orange wasn't struggling without it and it is insanely strong, especially since it can be tutored for very easily. That is a card I can agree, doesn't need to exist. I get Meditation as well. I don't agree with Meditation being limited to 1 since I think they should just errata it to make it less overwhelming. Drop the Parenthetical, or don't make it an Instant, because it's never a dead card, and it can catch people after they've wasted an entire turn of pumping anger. But limiting it to 1 is perhaps the laziest way to deal with that problem. But dropping Focusing Drill? Like, if the issue with the card was that it was co-existing with a FanZ card, then change the FanZ card. |: Especially since Focusing Drill isn't an especially strong drill stand-alone, and doesn't have a dramatic amount of inter-activity otherwise. But in general, I'm of the mindset that if a FanZ card comes in that makes a PanZ card more imbalanced, then the FanZ card is what goes. I do think we need Sensei decks though. I don't really understand why we're still avoiding them as a mechanic, tbh. Standardize the mechanic, because there's no point porting it over directly, but do something with it. It's a good concept for a competitive game. I will actually miss Overpowering Attack though. Not because it's especially strong, or because it was overwhelming. Hilariously, it's not actually "overpowering" as a card. It was just a generic Ally-searcher that I can't even say was the problem. The strongest Ally decks all have an entire arsenal of other Ally searchers available (Supreme Kai, Babidi, Brohan, Cell, etc.), so the only people really caught in the cross-hair are off-the-beaten-road Ally decks who were maybe trying to net some board presence in weird builds. Shit man, I literally just did a quick once-over of all my Ally-focused decks in under 10 minutes, dropped 2 Overpowering, and plugged in a couple of easy replacements without really thinking about it. But to use your thought process; Should it exist? Yes. Why? Because there are a lot of decks without any form of Ally tech available to them, and THEY are the ones who get caught in the crosshair. All the decks that could break it, don't need it anyway. So does Freezing it actually get to the heart of the problem?
  11. New CRD

    To be honest, you've probably got a good point about the deck not having needed the nerf. The primary reason I'm so blase about the nerf is because I genuinely don't think it does anything to the more versatile/competitive Orange decks, but I can get behind the entire sentiment leaving something of a bad taste when it's kicking a casual deck while it's down. Also, because I kind of feel like throwing it out there, the deck also has no clear answer to Mill decks. It actually seems strange to me that the setup saw enough play to even have people voicing complaints when it seems more like a hard-counter to beats decks. Likely, the issues came up from it being top-dog among the more prominent casual settings, but it still feels like Forbidding/Restricting Skill Drain to 1 in YGO. I actually don't remember any of the other changes to Oppressive tbh, so feel free to jog my memory. That said, I've not found the Mastery too lacking even when playing it nowadays, just that it kind of works as a lite-Empowered Mastery with less versatility.
  12. New CRD

    I had a couple of thoughts on your wall of text, but I can't be bothered to go through and pull out the parts I actually want to respond to. One thing I feel you need to keep in mind is just because there are answers to a deck does not mean that the deck isn't problematic. You seem to counter any arguments against these decks by stating that there are things that can deal with it, but that logic will straight up justify any deck/card in the game. In regards to people remembering the set 6 meta; Pretty much promise you they don't. One, because it was a long ass time ago, and two, I think a lot of the current player-base likely came in after the fact. Of course, I wouldn't say the majority did, but I also wouldn't dismiss them as a minority of players who came in with Set 7, or who only came in post-FanZ with the enchantment of a "fan-run competitive game." I don't really have strong feelings one way or another with most of your other points. I can somewhat comment that all of the Orange hate 100% comes from the Retribution days, and the over-saturation of Orange decks that followed. Orange Bicycle Kick also did a hell of a lot to alienate people from the Style when it first launched off. Whether it was ACTUALLY competitive or not is irrelevant. This said, I actually don't think the removal of Focusing Drill is really going to hurt Orange's viability in any meaningful way. Also, Oppressive 100% needed to lose access to MPPV. I don't care if the deck was TECHNICALLY beatable, or if there were ways to play around it, that card was badly designed from a future-proofing and balancing perspective. The deck heavily stacked things in your favor unless your opponent was specifically running Anti-MPPV (and I need to clarify, I AM someone who plays Anti-MPPV Blue decks competitively, I was fine), and it had a lot of potentially devastating interactions with Awakening Gohan, Goku and Vegeta on top of the Trunks builds. The sheer number of erratas and care with card design that would've needed to go down in order to keep Oppressive in check as things developed would've been unreasonable and unsustainable, and the Mastery was going to need some changes eventually anyway. That said, all the other changes to that deck that came with Oppressive's nerf were completely unnecessary. Without MPPV, those decks weren't any more broken than any other deck running those same personalities.
  13. New CRD

    Honestly, while I agree that VTP was a powerful tool for both Combo and Control decks, I don't think it's necessary anymore. The most prominent control decks in the game have some amazing tech ability to enable their comboes, and access to a great number of combat enders (depending on which MP you're running) to help survive Aggro beats. All VtP was really doing at this point in the game was hedging their bets and giving them an even easier time pulling things together, which is probably the main reason it was cut away. This said, I can definitely see Adept Broly peaking in through the windows here. Hopefully, if that becomes too big of an issue, we'll see some kind of balancing with him. This kind of logic is also why Unleashed is relatively untouched still, I suspect. It's still a necessary tool for a lot of MP stacks which otherwise can't pull together the anger to properly Level, and whose lower Levels don't have the versatility to camp. Not to say that Unleashed isn't still a win-more card, but we have seen it gradually phasing out of the meta except where it is absolutely crucial that the deck gain a Level or two. I have been thinking about it though, and I kind of wonder if Overpowering Attack was hit specifically to help balance Blue. If so, then I think that might've been the wrong move since it hurts Ally builds in all the other styles while doing minimal damage to Blue. If not, and it's just to try and curb the scourge of Ally decks we have now, then I can get behind it. I am curious @Mysterious Youth, what other cards are the big ones you'd have liked to see on there? If only for constructive conversation.
  14. New CRD

    I... suddenly have to change so many decks to change o-o The other changes don't really bother me too, too much. Orange Meditation going to 1 kind of surprises me, since it kind of felt like Blue Defensive Burst, but for Orange. My only real issue with it is that it has an attack attached to it, making it a live card at all times as opposed to just an MPPV-counter. And honestly, while no anti-MPPV card will ever bother me THAT much, I can see an argument to be made there for an errata to remove it's parenthetical.
  15. Dragon Ball Super Anime Discussion

    Finally got around to reading Chapter 39 of the DBS Manga, and honestly, it was just hugely disappointing. I will say that I think a lot of people's initial reaction to dig their heels in and start screaming about logic and power levels was overblown and stupid. Roshi dodges a few blows thrown by a Jiren who isn't allowed to kill him. Oh my, what bullshit? Eh. It was also kind of nice to see a nod to Goku's teachings throughout the years, and how he's been told about Ultra Instinct again and again and again. I also somewhat liked how it tried to draw a parallel between Goku/Vegeta's obsession with power and power levels to that of the audience's growing obsession with it. It was never what the show was about. What I'm personally annoyed by is how the entirety of Gohan's fucking fight with Kefla was skipped. Like, sure, we got a few statements from Gohan about him trying to figure out how strong he can become as an Earthling (which also annoys me, since it somewhat suggests that Gohan is shunning one side of his heritage instead of welcoming/accepting both, but eh), but about all we saw was Gohan toss Kefla. Then cut away to MORE GOKU and a single panel of Vegeta, AND THE TWO OF THEM PUNCH EACH-OTHER OUT OF THE RING. I just... I need to know what kind of time restraints Toyotaro and co are actually fucking on with the DBS manga, and if it's really that tight, then why the hell is Jump still ordering it's production? Still prefer manga Jiren to anime Jiren though. I like how they manage to give him a LOT more character with very few lines as opposed to the multiple shifts the anime took with the character's direction. Heck, I still prefer the manga to 90% of the anime. The ToP is just a fucking mess though.
×