Consistency is Ruining TCG Metagames

Comments · 379

• ZE

  @ZEDEX252 · 1 month ago

  When the lock bird is droll

  122

• MA

  @mawillix2018 · 1 month ago (edited)

  When every game feels the same, I agree with you.<br><br>I am completely okay with some consistency being added that raises the minimum value when you draw badly.<br><br>I don&apos;t like consistency that enables full access to all relevant tools during each match, with no downside. As that makes each round play roughly the same, over and over... and if there&apos;s a top deck, it will consistently be the top deck.

  76

• ZE

  @zetagammafigma8212 · 1 month ago

  I find it very funny that YGO has become so incredibly consistent when it was the thing that spawned &quot;Heart of the Cards&quot; and being lucky enough to draw the out.

  57

• TH

  @thebigcheese1905 · 1 month ago

  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y49PknuarE&amp;t=896">14:56</a> I agree that we don&apos;t want decks to just be a single linear combo line, but I do think having a linear combo line within a deck/archetype is really helpful to make decks easier to pick up and play and more understandable to play against. The skill expression and variance often comes from your main combo being interrupted by your opponent or, conversely, understanding how you can use the other cards in your hand to improve the combo. <br><br>The issues arise when you remove the opportunity to vary the deck&apos;s linear combo. If a single interruption completely stops your combo, or if you can make your maximum end board regardless of your draws, then there is a problem.

  23

• DA

  @DarkAuraLord · 1 month ago

  Variance is an inherent part of any TCG, and it&apos;s an important part. As people get better and better at these kinds of games, some start to develop a sense of entitlement about skill expression. Those same instances of variance that made the game exciting and unpredictable start to be seen as a barrier barring the more invested or learned individuals from expressing their knowledge and adaptability. Obviously though, there HAS to be some acceptable level of variance, because people still play TCGs even though there are tons of choices for games out there where the most skilled player will nearly always win. The TCG player, of course, is not interested in these games of pure skill in most instances, but will still gripe and shake their fist in frustration at being &quot;sacked&quot; at locals or an event. <br><br>Everybody that plays these games is in agreement with variance by virtue of being invested enough to play them in the first place (and not instead opting for a lower variance game like chess), so the discussion really just boils down to HOW MUCH variance is enough to allow unpredictability and exciting potential games without trampling over the skill expression of invested, long term players. We&apos;re haggling over how much randomness is TOO much randomness. I use to hear similar discussions regarding draft formats in MtG due to the inherently higher variance of such formats, at least before WoTC took draft out back and shot it 57 and a half times.

  38

• CR

  @critttler · 1 month ago (edited)

  this of course is also affecting games that dont have online clients, but i cant help feeling the fact that so many players engage with cardgames nowadays mostly through solo queue ladders and bo1 games is part of what necessitates consistency in gameplan in order to prevent frustration and prevent games where you feel like you dont get to &quot;do your thing.&quot;

  52

• KA

  @kaianderson9920 · 1 month ago

  I think for ygo, excavate effects are a great way to lean into having branching combo paths, as you won’t always find the same card each game.

  55

• RE

  @Realpatriot-i5r · 1 month ago (edited)

  Personally, I prefer consistency over raw power, at least for Yugioh.<br><br>Every deck should be able to get to its gameplan reliably (but not necessarily through several disruptions).<br><br>However, that game plan should not be oppressive or outright uncounterable by certain decks.

  143

• SQ

  @squidheadss7105 · 1 month ago

  I think it&apos;s notable how pretty much all of the Japanese TCGs from the 2010s used some variation of Duel Masters&apos; &quot;taking damage gives you a chance at a random positive effect&quot; system, which meant that despite going towards smaller deck sizes, consistent resources and/or extra deck like mechanics, there&apos;s enough variance in the life system to make sure every game doesn&apos;t play out the same. We&apos;re now seeing a lot of games that have the same consistency in accessing your cards, but also don&apos;t have the variance in life system.

  5

• JU

  @JuanDeages · 1 month ago

  I don&apos;t know if consistency is the core problem with modern Yugioh, nor do I think Kewl Tune or Dracotail are unique in starter quality. Imo, there are 3 aspects of a deck that make it good: resiliency, ceiling (both of any individual card resolving and endboard strength with everything), and non-engine space (or space for more engine cards). Circular and Ze Amin are one card combos that greatly pre-date both of your example decks, and they both &quot;do everything&quot; for their respective archetypes. Circular is even a pretty infamously high quality starter, since it dumps a name for cost (in which Konami has been printing more cards like this recently like Fallen of the White Dragon, which in Master Duel is one of the best starters in the game right now), giving a push even if it gets negated. Basically, one card combo ceiling has been going up in recent years, and they have been getting harder to stop, but even that isn&apos;t actually new. What is fairly new is both decks can use hand traps as combo pieces, actually useful ones too, not just normal summon for one link material or something. Dracotail can use hand traps as fusion material as long as they have at least 1 name, and Kewl Tune does the same but just with tuners to make thier synchros. The newest axis of power creep has been non-engine being converted to engine, basically, meaning that pile of 20 hand traps becomes deceptively consistent, despite playing so many cards that were not designed to help you play the game, but stop your opponent (mostly with turn agnostic cards like Ash/Belle/imperm). This means these decks not only gain some measure of consistency from monster hand traps for their own combos, but gain consistency stopping your opponent from playing. Older decks tended to have heavier engine requirements and were able to do less with their non-engine in terms of advancing their combo lines/board state.

  15

• CE

  @ceresgc · 1 month ago

  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y49PknuarE&amp;t=1444">24:04</a> &quot;You should have variant gameplay contextual on the texture of your opening hand. You should have similar gameplans depending on what your opening hand looks like, but they shouldn&apos;t be identical. You shouldn&apos;t be pathing to the exact same win condition every single game&quot; <br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y49PknuarE&amp;t=2347">39:07</a> &quot;Decks that are attempting to attain higher ceilings at the cost of consistency should be able to reach a ceiling that is high enough to justify that risk. The people who are choosing to play a higher consistency strategy should have to accept that they are likely playing at a lower power level.&quot;<br>Saving these, sound like useful game design advice

  2

• RE

  @rengotcg · 1 month ago (edited)

  Yugioh is particularly interesting in this case. With how fast and relentless the game is, consistency is generally a good thing. Decks being inconsistent usually results in them simply losing without a lot of game to be played. That said, I do agree with one card combos (OCCs) being an issue, not only due to preferring non-linear/non-deterministic combos, but also with how they interact with handtraps. <br><br>Non engine in general, and handtraps in particular, used to act as a mechanism, in which the draw of the 2nd player would influence the draw of the first. OCCs allow you to almost always take the line that&apos;s the best into the handtrap that hits your deck the most, like Kewl Tune playing around Droll when Starting with Cue or Synchro. As a matter of fact Droll tends to be a particularly common outlier here, due to its crazy blow out potential. All the while the standard 1-for-1-handtraps also end up more polarizing as a result of OCC&apos;s: Either they stop an opener dead in its tracks or are entirely invalidated by extenders. Situations in which a singular Veiler or Ash just make the opposing board a little weaker arehave been becoming more and more rare. <br><br>This is why I REALLY like the idea of more powerful &apos;in archetype&apos; handtraps like Faimena and Hollie Sue in a world of OCCs. Yes combos should be designed in ways that make them less linear. But with a higher variety of handtraps in the meta, that are powerful without being blowouts, you can tackle this &apos;consistency&apos;-problem from an additional angle. Adding them directly into the archetypes (with some conditions or locks) just allows you to make more and more powerful ones, without them being too omnipresent.

  10