Artificial Human

How do you feel about MPPV?

62 posts in this topic

Could probably remake combat as a system where effects enter the stack, then have spell speed type interactions. Blocks who's effects go off before the attacks effects is just one thing you could do.

Fan Z really wants this to happen, so does the the spheres, but it's awkward as fuck. Make it so the stack so they don't resolve till 'pass' and it clears up all these cancel cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we have different feelings towards how interactive this game is than others. 

I personally felt that the attack and block system felt more interactive then another card game, as it allows just as much play on my opponents turn as on my turn (With the exception of non-combat cards) where most games it's the reverse, and the majority of your deck can only be played on your turn and you sit there and watch your opponent do their thing on their turn. 

I do get what you mean though, as far as no real interaction with effects. It almost feels like you would have to overhaul the entire game to get a different feel for the game. The change you suggested, making all cards hold until both players pass would be a mess with the current card pool, not sure how you would handle draw cards. A cool concept that obviously would be one direction you could take it if a redesign was made. Then you could have blocks that canceled effects, attacks that blast through the stack, even stack adjusting cards. 

 

LeluGhost likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Edison Carasio said:

Some of the best decks ever in dbz could win easily without ever attacking.  

Most games have ways to win without interacting with your opponent. Though I do believe DBZ is the only one that can do it from a core mechanic like MPPV. I think we all know the game is flawed. That's why we are discussing how it could potentially be changed.

 

It is kind of funny to me to see MPPV rise and fall over the sets as a top win condition. Feels like a bit of an arms race between how much anger can be generated by a style vs how much anti anger is in the meta. Obviously with Set 7 being the official end and Roshi being the King of MPPV, we can see who won. But I know FanZ introduced a ton of anti anger cards. For those actively playing FanZ, is it enough to deter the King?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Amanax said:

Most games have ways to win without interacting with your opponent. Though I do believe DBZ is the only one that can do it from a core mechanic like MPPV. I think we all know the game is flawed. That's why we are discussing how it could potentially be changed.

..... You have to be in combat and interacting with your opponent to win by MPPV.  Only DBV allows you to win without interacting with your opponent.  I'm really confused about this argument. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In combat, up until recently, no. You could win solely off of pass rejuv (Thank you Black Command...). But that's not the kind of interaction we are talking about. MPPV, while yes in combat, doesn't really care what your opponent is doing unless they do something to directly interfere with your anger generation (Wallbreaker). Yeah, you throw attacks, but you don't usually care if they actually land or deal damage unless fishing for a hit effect. Unlike DBV - You at least have to have the dragon balls in your deck to win with that win condition. 7 unique cards that win you the game is more akin to the other card games auto win condition then MPPVs "I shoved a bunch of anger cards in my deck and I won!" 

 

I am probably just failing to explain myself correctly. But the gist of the direction the thread was moving was, at least from my perspective, that simply throwing an attack and blocking and the crit mechanic, was not interaction akin to say activating a trap or counter spell card.

 

Or maybe I just misread things, in which case, go back to ignoring my random ramblings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, ChangelingBard said:

..... You have to be in combat and interacting with your opponent to win by MPPV.  Only DBV allows you to win without interacting with your opponent.  I'm really confused about this argument. 

I am with Bard on this one, I am also confused...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2017 at 1:34 PM, LeluGhost said:

This is the balance that no DBZ game has figured out yet.   

The more I retrospect on DBZ as a game, the more I think a new iteration needs to switch up the mechanics a bit.  Compared to Yugioh and Magic, this game is just uninteractive.  You have a brief opening to interact with the opponent, and with secondary effects, the best decks usually come down to generating anger or setting up a board that your opponent can't out value, meaning interaction is typically a one dimensional "lower anger" or just basic removal.  I love the hell out of the game, but it only tends to appeal to the control player and has rarely found balance due to the non-interactive ways to outvalue the opponent.

Non-interactive strategies win because of the massive amounts of endurance in this game. Normally, if you build a deck that focuses on setting up a board, you'd get trashed once you drew two unusable cards in a single turn. Endurance keeps your deck alive during these bad combats, though, and you get to continue setting up a board, or gaining anger without much punishment. Cut endurance down by a third, or cut it in half. Suddenly people will start playing more interactive decks.

Secondly, there needs to be more of an emphasis on performing epic combos. More cards that read "use when needed", more ways to turn up the heat on your opponent in a single combat.

Third, characters need to perform an AT +3 attack on level one, or an energy for 4 life on level one. MP powers always need to be able to take the place of a card in your hand. Playing with Frieza, Evil Vegeta, and Turles is like playing with one less card in your hand every combat. When the survival MP stacks suck that much, it's no wonder why control wins.

LeluGhost and Artificial Human like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sh0ryu_repp4 said:

Disagree on that last one. 

Ahhh Turles.. the one set wonder. (Okay, like two sets)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still saw Turles do work for a long time. Tier 1? Of course not, but he wasn't completely useless like Frieza and Villain Vegeta were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different metas then I suppose. Set 4 he seemed to pop up everywhere. Everyone seemed to have a Ruthless Turles. But set 5 I saw a few try and pit him against roshi, but just seemed to get rolled by both Namekian and Saiyan Cell. Set 6 rolled around, and I don't think I have seen a Ruthless Turles since, outside of my own attempts to bring it back. Everyone seemed to just move over to Broly/Cooler/13. It only feels like it's gotten worse since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SirCod said:

Non-interactive strategies win because of the massive amounts of endurance in this game. Normally, if you build a deck that focuses on setting up a board, you'd get trashed once you drew two unusable cards in a single turn. Endurance keeps your deck alive during these bad combats, though, and you get to continue setting up a board, or gaining anger without much punishment. Cut endurance down by a third, or cut it in half. Suddenly people will start playing more interactive decks.

Secondly, there needs to be more of an emphasis on performing epic combos. More cards that read "use when needed", more ways to turn up the heat on your opponent in a single combat.

Third, characters need to perform an AT +3 attack on level one, or an energy for 4 life on level one. MP powers always need to be able to take the place of a card in your hand. Playing with Frieza, Evil Vegeta, and Turles is like playing with one less card in your hand every combat. When the survival MP stacks suck that much, it's no wonder why control wins.

Would u say with how toned down Pan Z was, endurance shouldn't have been carried over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Artificial Human said:

Would u say with how toned down Pan Z was, endurance shouldn't have been carried over?

I don't know what his response will be, but I'll give my 2 cents. Endurance was limited in pan z at first. You could argue that it should have been even more toned down though (looking at you blue and black). However endurance was one of the easiest ways to bring the weaker styles up to par, so it power crept more than most effects. Now we're at a point where all styles have access to a large number of cards with both good effects and good endurance. I do think it is needed in the game because if you're going to keep the same deck count and attacks are inevitably going to have some power creep there needs to be a defensive mechanic to even it out in order to maintain the same combat flow. And endurance does this seamlessly. Allowing combat to flow intuitively and promoting decision making in deck building. However, I would argue that endurance values probably started too high and power crept faster than they should have. PanZ did a good job of balancing cards based on damage, cost, effects, and endurance but I'd say that the devs may have underestimated the true value of endurance. In other words they valued it less than other effects and therefore gave it out more willingly than they probably should have. But they were probably used to score z where deck sizes were larger. The smaller the deck, the more valuable each additional "card" of endurance is. And after set 1 was released they really had no choice but to balance any new cards around the standard they had already set.

Emperor likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say for the most part, the number of cards that have endurance is fine, but Endurance should never have been more than 1 or 2 for most cards. A few choice cards in Saiyan with 3 or 4 to help Suicide Rush builds and maybe just a handful of freestyle cards with 3 Endurance to help out some decks that may not have the defensive push.

SirCod likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Artificial Human said:

Would u say with how toned down Pan Z was, endurance shouldn't have been carried over?

It was needed due to the small deck sizes. You can't combine AT +3-4 attacks, and 60 card decks without running into a ton of five minute games. On the flip side you can't have physicals doing AT +2-3 without every control deck soaking stages all day. I would take 1 endurance off of every card with endurance 2, and 3.

At the start of the game Blue and Orange already had ridiculous amounts of endurance.

Oh and Turles wasn't as bad as Frieza or Vegeta, but he still had the lack of hand advantage thing going on. He made top cut 3 times and then disappeared. A B tier MP stack is just as much of a failure as a C or D tier stack. Either way you are putting yourself at a huge disadvantage by playing them in a competitive environment. The gap between A and B tier in this game was as wide as the gap between 19 and Vegeta in the anime. B tier decks would win vs the A tier decks 30% of the time or less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, sh0ryu_repp4 said:

FIVE MINUTE GAMES WOULD BE AWESOME

id LOVE to not be at a 16 man tournament for EIGHT HOURS lol

5 minutes would be a bit quick... but it would be nice if it got fast enough we could do best of series in a reasonable time frame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For any TCG that wants to be competitive, it's easy to argue that 20 minutes should be the sweet spot for a single round. The problem isn't the 40-minute matches at events, it's the fact that for that full 40 minutes you're still working on the first round. That coupled with the fact that they rewarded draws created the slow play environment that we have. Control players built their decks to do two things; 1. Win and 2. If you can't win, stall out the game to create a draw. If draws were 0 points and losses were 1 point that would change over night. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Majin Goo said:

For any TCG that wants to be competitive, it's easy to argue that 20 minutes should be the sweet spot for a single round. The problem isn't the 40-minute matches at events, it's the fact that for that full 40 minutes you're still working on the first round. That coupled with the fact that they rewarded draws created the slow play environment that we have. Control players built their decks to do two things; 1. Win and 2. If you can't win, stall out the game to create a draw. If draws were 0 points and losses were 1 point that would change over night. 

No, that still encourages stalls as they don't get -1 for a draw.

sh0ryu_repp4 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SirCod said:

 

Oh and Turles wasn't as bad as Frieza or Vegeta

Vegeta and Turles are in the same boat imo. Very small mod to what they were going for would have fixed them right up. Vegeta needed much higher stats, why he wasn't 18000 max on 1 and closer to 650000 max on 3, I don't get. Just compare him to Goku and Piccolo, his power stages are downright bizarre. Higher stats and he would have both started stronger and stayed on track till 4. Turles needed some type of action. Even a small poke would have been better than nothing, but he comes from a different time.

Frieza is just a bad design, reactive to a meta that didn't exist on release and by the time it did, he was woefully outclassed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ChangelingBard said:

No, that still encourages stalls as they don't get -1 for a draw.

They'll be more inclined to push for a finish to get the 1 point for the loss vs. intentionally slow playing to get a draw point. The problem isn't really control and stall for survival outlast, it's the fact that many players were circumventing the natural flow on purpose outside of the game mechanics to get that +1 for the draw. A + 1 for a loss and a flat 0 for a draw gives incentive to play the match to its natural end instead of aiming for time which is the issue. Stalling to try and outlast your opponent is fine, stalling to hit time to still get a point for the match is unsportsmanlike and should not be encouraged through natural tournament doctrine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Majin Goo said:

Stalling to try and outlast your opponent is fine, stalling to hit time to still get a point for the match is unsportsmanlike and should not be encouraged through natural tournament doctrine. 

I bet competitve pokemon players just adore you, lol.

sh0ryu_repp4 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Artificial Human said:

I bet competitve pokemon players just adore you, lol.

I don't play competitive TCG Pokemon because 90% of their meta is trash in my opinion. When I do competitive VGC there are no draws. Players are punished for stall playing by risking a forfeit of turn or a DQ because a judge can clearly see they've been running the clock. A winner is always determined due to tie breaker rules being applied at all times either by number of wins vs. losses when time has been called or by a sudden death match so in the VGC environment, draws are rarely an issue if at all. All of this is in the VGC doctrine so everyone has an understanding and expects it, so generally, there are rarely hard-feelings directed at each other.

As for the TCG, I don't have a clue how they function.

To answer your question directly, not liking something I find to be unsportsmanlike and counterproductive to a competitive environment doesn't make me an unlikable person. I'm actually very loved in all three gaming communities I hang out. Pokemon VGC/SmogonOU, Heroclix and DnD. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was more a comment about how the Pokemon VG community sees unsportsmanlike conduct, running the clock once an advantageous position has been established and doing so will result in a round win, as perfectly fine, excusable and honorable behavior in a competitive scene. 'It's a legit strategy' or something to that effect.

sh0ryu_repp4 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now