Multiple ban lists

[Bruce Almighty]

with so many people upset or not happy with the current ban-list, ive come up with a possible solution, multiple ban lists. during each 6 month period, more than one ban list should be created so that a duelist can have a choice of what list to follow. this would esolve many of the issues over one dominating cc deck as each list wolud bring along its own and provide more varety in decks bein made.

tourneys would be based on one single list such as the vs systems tourneys are based on certain sets and creators(marvel, dc). then one list would be created or selected from the existing ones and be run under that list.

let me know what you think.

[jobber]

Personally I think that they should change the ban/restriction list every month. By doing so it will broaden the way many people construct decks and give some variety to the gameplay. I think less people would be angered by having to wait so long before the next change.

[Paladinseer007]

with so many people upset or not happy with the current ban-list, ive come up with a possible solution, multiple ban lists. during each 6 month period, more than one ban list should be created so that a duelist can have a choice of what list to follow. this would esolve many of the issues over one dominating cc deck as each list wolud bring along its own and provide more varety in decks bein made.

tourneys would be based on one single list such as the vs systems tourneys are based on certain sets and creators(marvel, dc). then one list would be created or selected from the existing ones and be run under that list.

let me know what you think.

I think it doesn't seem too bad of an idea. :)

[Pemolis]

with so many people upset or not happy with the current ban-list, ive come up with a possible solution, multiple ban lists. during each 6 month period, more than one ban list should be created so that a duelist can have a choice of what list to follow. this would esolve many of the issues over one dominating cc deck as each list wolud bring along its own and provide more varety in decks bein made.

tourneys would be based on one single list such as the vs systems tourneys are based on certain sets and creators(marvel, dc). then one list would be created or selected from the existing ones and be run under that list.

let me know what you think.


Its an idea, but it might be easier to come out with a 3rd format (as long as advanced and traditional are supported).

Personally I think that they should change the ban/restriction list every month. By doing so it will broaden the way many people construct decks and give some variety to the gameplay. I think less people would be angered by having to wait so long before the next change.

I agree, a 6 month wait is too long, but a montly list would be a little too confusing. A 3 month list would be best (changes 4 times a year, and not overly confusing to follow).

[Romancer]

Why not just ban/limit different cards at each event, so players are forced to make changes on the fly? It's called thinking on your feet. It's what football players do when they don't want to be killed in the stadium in front of their families and friends.

It'd be nice to see a different list at every event, so long as there is a single list that names all the trouble cards, and the selected cards come form the trouble list.

It's nice because you can't rely on net decking and the most broken cards available to win in your CC deck. Even if you bring every card ever made, you have no time to test play every possible card agaisnt everything you may be facing.

[L2theZ]

Why not just ban/limit different cards at each event, so players are forced to make changes on the fly? It's called thinking on your feet. It's what football players do when they don't want to be killed in the stadium in front of their families and friends.

It'd be nice to see a different list at every event, so long as there is a single list that names all the trouble cards, and the selected cards come form the trouble list.

It's nice because you can't rely on net decking and the most broken cards available to win in your CC deck. Even if you bring every card ever made, you have no time to test play every possible card agaisnt everything you may be facing.

Becuase no one wnats to bring a bunch of card wtih them because "they mihgt use them" there is no way that idea would work. the refrence to football has no relevance here.

[Romancer]

Becuase no one wnats to bring a bunch of card wtih them because "they mihgt use them" there is no way that idea would work. the refrence to football has no relevance here.
Sure it does. It's an example of thinking on your feet when the need to think on your feet arises. People adjust to ban lists since they have so much time to figure out what cna be broken and what cannot be, so if the ban list is ever changing, then they'll have to learn to make snap deciscions to advance in tournaments.

I still think it's a good idea. It only really hits CC players and players wanting to abuse broken or controversially powerful cards, where as people utilizing the other 85% of the card pool, won't be penalized for trying new things.

[ixidor89]

I disagree. If you have different lists for different tournaments, then people will just go with what seems the most solid. You would see powered down cookies everywhere because players will figure that the best way to win is to throw the best cards availible. There would be little time for creative thought.

I also think that these bans would effect decks based on more original ideas just as hard as it would effect cookies, because even the more original ideas use a great majority of the cards used in cookies.

So, if you try this idea, then even the creative people would need to change their deck significantly. If they had any chance of winning the tournament anyway, they would probably be inteligent enough to know that they should run something more solid than their normal deck, thus turning to cookies.

Besides, with this idea casual would be in a constant state of confusion, not knowing what cards are allowed to be run and so forth.

[L2theZ]

Sure it does. It's an example of thinking on your feet when the need to think on your feet arises. People adjust to ban lists since they have so much time to figure out what cna be broken and what cannot be, so if the ban list is ever changing, then they'll have to learn to make snap deciscions to advance in tournaments.

I still think it's a good idea. It only really hits CC players and players wanting to abuse broken or controversially powerful cards, where as people utilizing the other 85% of the card pool, won't be penalized for trying new things.

You know if football they have these things called "plays" where the player has an idea of what to do, it's not like they go out there and freeball it, which is what you're suggesting.

Besides, no original deck is going to win anyway so your idea fails?

[Dragon Warrior]

that is a bad idea for this reason

what do you do at shonen jump tournaments. On sure you could go with ban list option 2.

But then you kill the chances of lots of players who were playtesting in ban list option 1 and the players who were playtesting ban list option 3

what they should do was what was said earlier

change the ban list every 3 months

that gives us 4 different ban lists each year and lets konami/upperdeck mold the metagame more and at the very least have 5 or 6 different cookie cutters. Also I dont know how often they occur but the shonen jump championships could be put towards the end of each list when decks are perfected. Then the list is changed after the event so people cant net deck. If people cant net deck the occurence of cookie cutter decks is lowered because they have to be redone every 3 months

[AnakinSkywalker]

I hope you people are joking. Changing the ban list every 3 months would require all competitive players to have access to lots of money and a huge card pool. I have that, but most players don't. It's called fair play and thinking about other people, guys.

[Romancer]

You know if football they have these things called "plays" where the player has an idea of what to do, it's not like they go out there and freeball it, which is what you're suggesting.

Besides, no original deck is going to win anyway so your idea fails?
Plays brake down, and only good quarterbacks can save a play when they sense a blitz coming or when their protection collapses.

Good players will be able to build their decks before the event. It's not like they are coming to play and getting 5 minutes to make a deck. They are showing up with a deck, and they can have as much time before the tournament starts to adjust for the few cards they are using that have been banned.

Original decks do as well as they can given the people who use them. The so called "skilled" players don't play "original" decks, so how is anyone to know what an original deck can or cant do in a competitive environment?

[Bruce Almighty]

Money is not always the issue. When i started playing competetively around PSV, every one around me was spending all their money on the best cards while i spent all my money on building sets thus leaving me with lottle money to improve on my deck with. But i was still considered a big threat because of my smart play with the few deck worthy cards i managed to obtain through trades and lucky pulls. im just saying that money wont be much of an issue if the lists were to change every 3 months because those who dont have the most money to spend will find ways to win and compete with what they have. so i vote for every 3 months as well.