ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ต.ค. 2024
- Last week Twitter blew up over a simple question: What is a bad Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG deck? Today we explore that question and what it means for our mindset about success.
Check out my other socials!
Discord - / discord
Twitch - / rj_the_jank_monarch
Twitter - / rjamesonberman
Patreon - / therjb0
End screen pic by Abyss: / nebula_naos
#yugioh #masterduel #yugiohtcg #deckprofile #YCS #ursarctic #kashtira #unchained #rescueace #drama
Thanks for checking this out! The amazing end screen for this video was also created by Abyss, so you should go follow her at the link in the description!
A deck is bad if it does not spark joy when you play it.
I borrowed my friends true deck zoo deck at its peak and didn't enjoy a single second if it lol. It's a lot more satisfying though if you enjoy your deck and have some connection to it
A bad deck is one that can't perform the game plan it's trying to do. Take it from an ursartic fan but it fits the definition.
I feel like this only further strips away context from the original controversy, the "failed cards/archetypes/mechanics" Ursarctic video. What everyone on Twitter quickly ignored is that the original question was never "are Ursarctics a good deck?" but rather "was Ursarctics a well designed archetype"? While it does refer to tournament results, and use that as a lens to gauge how well the cards perform together, It's more a discussion of the mechanics themselves, which hold these decks back, and also a critique of the first waves of support which did little to address these early weaknesses. The video even goes onto acknowledge that the most recent support brought genuine improvements, enough to push it into "playable" status even in 2023 (despite what the idiots in the replies of a quote tweet of a quote tweet of a video title might have believed). But support printed 2+ years down the line does nothing to change how the archetype was initially released, and it's still totally fair to analyze those designs as they existed back in 2021, because that was the product that Konami was selling at the time.
You can still enjoy a bad deck (performance wise) and acknowledge it's bad, like you can still love your spouse knowing his/her weakness.
Really insightful, and like, "good and bad" changes with each new release and new banlist. How well decks stack up to each other is a much better way to rate them and examine them.
Wasn't the point of the original conversation the viability of Ursarctics as an archetype though, not any individual player. And if we're analyzing the success of an archetype in a way without taking into account an individual players subjective experience, how else do you do it other than pointing at tournament results?
Like any archetype can win a locals or make someone happy to brew and play, it's why that isn't a good metric for analyzing an archetype. If every single deck is good (which is true. No archetype is universally hated and your points to that subjective side are 1000% correct) than we aren't getting any relevant information comparing them. We're comparing Yes to Yes.
I like this framework as someone who does like some bad petdecks (ninjas, harpies, VW), but I feel like this point is sort of sidestepping the conversation? I agree that if you have fun playing your deck and are able to do what you want with it, then it's not a bad deck for you. Jeff Leonard's conversation with Cimo (I think?) illustrates that point super well. He knew he wouldn't win a YCS, but he had a great time playing Exodia and winning a feature match, and we're all happy for him. I feel like the Ursartic conversation wasn't "I like it and it's fun for me so I don't think it's bad for my purposes," but WAS "this deck is good enough to win top tournaments you are all just wrong about how capable it is." You don't pull receipts for obscure brews from low-attendance OCG tournaments to prove that a deck is good if your metric for success is "I have fun with it and meet my personal goals." When people talk about decks being good or bad, for better or worse, they are usually using the metrics of "can do well/top at a YCS." Virtual World is my favorite deck of all time, and I would say I think it's better than sometimes given credit for these days, but if someone said "I don't think VW can get consistent tops at a YCS, so it's bad," my answer would be "yeah, you're probably right, anyway activate Lulu targeting Qinglong?"
Nah I appreciate that that's not why people were dogpiling Abyss, but to say I'm sidestepping the point of the conversation is to sidestep the point of the video.
As I said at the end, it's the very nature of engaging with a conversation about whether or not a deck is bad that is unhelpful and unhealthy. People jumped on Abyss because they were too invested in her opinion on Ursarctic, and Abyss got into it in the first place because someone had called a deck she loves a "failed deck". The problem is how invested people get in a genuinely useless conversation. We need to move on from it and just let it be. Find a new way to talk about it that is both more useful for our purposes and doesn't make it a community habit to jump on people like that over something silly.
I think "is a deck ycs/mcs/whatever viable" isn't a bad conversation and while not objective, is the easiest way to talk about a deck's expected ceiling rather than accounting for a million factors like alt formats and differing goals. You won't catch me disagreeing that the community's way of having these conversations is generally pretty rude and mean, though, and that ultimately someone disagreeing with you in any direction shouldn't matter or elicit any real negative response. There's a hostility to the yugioh community that I have not typically seen in other communities where things are ranked and tiered based on viability or maximum efficiency. Yugioh seems to attract a lot of players and content creators whose first response to things is "you're bad, bro" or "fucking dogshit card" or "cringe loser-ass deck" in response to basically anything they don't like, or anyone who disagrees with them. It seems like a similar situation to everyone shitting on Gage or Dzeeff for misplays in their for-fun series. For me, talking about a deck's qualities and opportunities for strong plays shouldn't be an issue, but there's a weird moralizing about it in the community where liking a deck with a lower ceiling, or disagreeing about that ceiling, is seen as like, a moral failing, or behavior that needs to be corrected. If that's a result of people using black-and-white moral language like "good" or "bad" to describe things, then I think, yeah, finding different ways to describe it, and not getting weird about other people's takes, is a good call.
You see the Armor Adventure VW list that topped a regional?
I will say I don't think she was arguing that Ursarctic could win the top level tournaments. It was to say that it could top/win an event. Obviously the examples weren't the greatest because they weren't big events but they do still illustrate the point that the deck is a lot more capable than people give it credit for. Which is the case for a lot of decks. The community is just waaay too quick to not just underestimate anything and everything but also will personally attack people for disagreeing with what their preferred content creator says. People will mock someone for saying this but even cards as obviously strong as the Ishizu deck and Runick were looked at as bad or underwhelming initially. The main thing that makes this discourse pointless is that the vast majority of people that participate in it genuinely are clueless. Which I don't think it's bad to not be able to immediately judge a deck accurately but it's definitely bad to trash people over it
Ninjas and VW still top regionals, though. Calling them bad petdecks is a bad take lul
This boils down to what is the "most valuable aspect" each individual holds. This is the nature of a game. It's a mode of unrewarded play we pursue to feel good or AKA have fun. I think it's equally bad to shame people who want to be the biggest fish in the pond as it is to ridicule lower powered strategies because Achievement in competition IS their fun just like playing rogue is for others. I guess what we're all trying to say is "have your own fun without trampling on others' fun."
I think something that Master Duel has proven, with its unique card pool and banlist, is that many yugioh players form their ideas of what is good or bad based on whatever they hear from prominent community members and then apply those labels very strictly. Decks that did well in TCG will arrive in MD with preemptive hits or missing support and will be extremely popular on ladder and discussed as top decks, only for the dust to settle and everyone slowly realizes that the reality of the situation is quite different.
For recent examples, look at how popular Labyrinth was on MD with just the initial support wave and how bad it actually was until the rest of the cards arrived, or how everyone just treated Kashtira as the de facto top deck on arrival, just to realize that it probably isn't even in the top 3 best decks.
I personally play the game almost exclusively with my own silly jank builds, and I often pass these lists to a much more competitive friend who plays them in Masters. We have had truly unbelievable success with decks that almost anyone would (rightfully) call bad. Just this format we had a session where we achieved 60% winrate with Quintet Magician turbo in Master rank.
Obviously a deck like that isn't going to become a new meta threat, but it demonstrates that the line between good and bad decks is not nearly as sharp as most duelists seems to think. A bit of good luck and some smart playmaking can absolutely lead to success in a competitive environment with a "bad" deck.
I believe that the labels of good and bad are still somewhat generally useful. The vast majority of duelists seem to use the terms in relation to large scale tournament success, which is sort of a proxy for "how often does this deck beat other popular decks", and thats worth knowing. The issue comes from the fact that in the minds of many duelists, good means playable and bad means worthless. Is Ursartic "good"? By almost any meaningful metric, no. Could most duelists reasonably expect to lose games to a well built and skillfully piloted Ursacric deck? Absolutely.
This, ursartic at least have the benefit to be somewhat modern, really old deck would struggle to beat it, specially if it's under a good pilot, that doesn't mean tho, that it can't lose to really old deck, you could brick, you could lose to a mirror force, you could do a misplay and lose, unless you're putting cards that offer you no benefit at all, you still have a chance, however slim that is, look at the masochist style surge in popularity, if you pick all the good cards you collect, play smart, get lucky draws and your opponent brick, play wrong, or fail to understand what you're doing (which isn't impossible since there's no correlation between your cards) you can beat even the best deck in the format, is it likely? lol no, of course it's not, but it can happen, and so long you enjoy yourself, thats often what matters, specially in md, worst can happen is you lose your time or someone ranting on twitter it just lost to gravity bind.
Great video. I am not a competitive player by any means, but my decks feel "good" whenever I can get in a few plays before getting clobbered. If the normal summon gets ashed, I can make peace with that
Good Job with this one RJ. every so often I get reminded that I should watch your stuff more, and stuff like this is why.
In my opinion bad deck is simply deck that is unable to do what it is supposed to do. It do not matter what your goal is, but if you build deck that is unable to get you to your goal, then that is bad deck. That do not mean bad deck is unplayable, it just means that it is not what you wanted from said deck.
When Cimo asks in the intro of Master Duel Masochist "what is a deck"... my personal answer is definitely "a reflection of one's self". "Bad" is supposed to have a lot of nuances to it, but when you say to me "your deck is bad", you're saying it like it's straight-up a failure. Objectively a failure. That there is nothing good to keep in it. That any thought, effort in building, any creativity, any testing, any love, any satisfaction I have for that deck - is worth nothing. Zero. Nada.
It wouldn't be any different if you straight-up insulted me, at this point. Sure, it might be a bit excessive to humanize one's creation like this - an archetype or deck is not a living person - but as someone with low self-esteem who puts a lot of pride in whatever they create... how else am I supposed to react? People simply shouldn't be bringing down what makes others happy just because it's not "the best thing". We shouldn't feel so negative towards people's pet decks, or hobbies that aren't ours. We shouldn't act so negatively towards people's prides and dreams, like they're something to ridicule. What good will it do to shove the reality of "this archetype has no tops" in anyone's face? You think they don't already know, or are unable to figure it out? Let them try, you might even be surprised.
This is an issue way larger than Yu-gi-oh or card games, btw, it seems it's just natural for everyone to dismiss and mock any attempts to walk outside the moth obvious, optimized, clear-cut path. We're rewarded for following and punished for standing out. It's not new. But every time I think... that path, SOMEONE had to come first and test things and get creative before it became the new standard, right? Top decks don't appear out of nowhere. There is no strongest deck until someone soaked their ankles, won an event, and then everyone started copying them. For every Spike out there, there is a Johnny who originated their build. It shouldn't be a shame, wanting to be that Johnny... it simply shouldn't.
I want to finish by quoting the movie Ratatouille, because it has two cool quotes that I think can apply in this debacle: "Anyone can cook, but only the fearless can be great."
"Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere."
I loved this video, it reminds me of how I always say that every deck is a good deck.
Every deck is good. If it does what you want the deck to do, then is a good deck plain and simple For example, I have build decks just to see if I can do certain things in a game, things like summon my favorite monster or, make my opponent play incredibly awkward even if it's just one game. No matter the deck, the deck are always good. Even at the higher level of competition, lets say you go to a YCS and bring something like Sacread beast to it, if you build it at it's best possible for the event, if you took into consideration every match, if you studied every single possible way the deck could play against every other meta deck, then, it is a good deck for the YCS. Sure, you are not likely to win the event but, let's face it, if we are talking about chance, you will not be likely to win the event even with any other deck, even in the better circumstances, you are still only one person in a 2000 person event, even the best players with the best decks, only 1 will win. Just go there, try your hardest and have fun, that's (for me) what yugioh its about, and for that, every deck is a good deck.
That's a good mentality, no deck in unbeatable, but it's true that some are simply too hard to beat without the correct answer at the right time, going there, meet new people, have some laughs is also an important part of the game.
We should be greatfull that Ursarctic exists because it's the best parameter for Konami on how not to create an archetype. Ursarctic is just flawed in so many ways that the onyl way you can fix it is to remake the deck from scratch.
Here how I would fix it:
The lv7 can be special summoned from the hand by discardin any card (not just a lv7) while the LV8 can be special summoned for free if you control an ursarctic monster (Hopt on each). Mikpolar can add ny ursarctic card from the deck to the hand, miktanus can special summon any ursarctic from the GY an Mikbillis can special summon 1 ursarctic from the deck.
The LV8 remains with the same effect on summon but you can ignore the discard if you control a LV7 ursarctic monster on the field.
Get rid of that restriction of not being ble to summon anything without a level for the rest of the turn.
Big Dipper can add counters on any of your special summon, can remove 2 counters to save ursarctic cards from target and when an ursarctic is destroyed, you can remove counter to add it back to the hand (HOPT).
Slide rand Quint Charge remain the same.
Polari acivates dipper rom the deck and can, quick effect, banish itself and an ursarctic monster from the field and GW to synchro summon.
Septentrion remains the same, but if it leaves the field you can special summon any ursarctic from the GY
Charriot remains the same.
Now hate me.
I only play Master Duel, my definition of success in this game is to build decks that do well (for example, long winstreaks) specifically in the monthly events. I don't really care a lot about the ranked ladder, I got to Platinum 1 once when it was the highest rank but I have never been interested in doing it again. In the highest ranks is very time consuming and is constant Maxx "C" minigames one after another. Oh, and I only play this game F2P mode. I consider myself successful.
The perfect non answer
I love this mindset, and it’s why I don’t like the competitive YuGiOh sphere. As someone who used to play very competitively and doesn’t any more do to How The Game Is On Every Level, I just can’t do it any more. Still love the *concept* of playing the game, especially formats like Edison where the funny Dragon Turbo and Evil HERO decks can get tournament tops, but doing anything more than that is not worth the mental energy. Hopefully the energy can shift, that way I can feel comfortable coming back.
I agree, when you're having a discussion like this you need to set the context. Like, there have been plenty of times Shaddoll has been bad... in a particular meta, but I don't think anyone would call Shaddoll a bad deck.
Really, if we were to have the widest possible net in discussing whether a deck is "bad" or "good" the best you could come up with without it turning into just a "current meta" discussion would be to see how well a deck actually achieves its given gameplan. And I think that's why Ursartic got brought up as the example as that deck is almost fighting itself as much as its fighting the opponent.
Watts is one of my absolute favorite decks ever. Can it be good? Absolutely. Can it suck? Absolutely. Pilots, deck building, understanding of the decks you're playing/making. That can truly be what makes the difference.
Bottom line I 100% agree with 7:49 onwards without interruptions and that's what I think matters
Having said that I think defining a deck as objectively bad for the game of yugioh is totally possible, it's just that as you said it's not very helpful for the health of the community, if you do it too much you will start getting on the way of people having fun in this GAME, simply because of how people are, some can't handle playing a deck that is not good that they have fun with so they feel unnecessarily attacked, some people can't behave like a normal person towards anyone that plays a bad deck or even anything that isn't exactly a bad deck and they very loudly ley everyone know those decks aren't worth for shit. even if those 2 types of people didn't exist it would still be unencouraging to returning players who want to build a modern version of a deck they liked if all we did was talking about how all the decks they want to play are Garbage
Now do I think it shouldn't be done at all? No, i think we can do it if we behave like normal people about it, we should avoid it becoming part of the wider discourse tho because it went from ursartic players being under fire (when they really weren't) to a Lot of other players being under fire and that's just infinitely worse than anything log's video did or said
Mine is hoping dragonmaids getting new support to make them stronger.
I think the problem is "What is a good deck?" Is only half the equation of the game and RJ does touch onto it. The other half is "What makes a great player."
A good player with a bad deck can easily beat a bad player with a good deck. A bad player with a good deck has memorized their own combos and counters to the meta on a surface level, but they dont have a full understanding of the capabilities of their deck. And a good player playing a bad deck is likely going to throw off the bad player because the deck is not meta and they lack the capability of evaluating cards and combis because they focus solely on memorization. Whereas the good player will understand many of the lesser known attributes of their decks and can maneuver through corner cases a lot more easily.
That's true, but then, isn't the result obvious if both are equally good players but one has a terrible deck while other has a good one?, if you watch cimoo's masochist series, you know how much he struggled with his deck facing way stronger decks, he has the knowledge, knows a lot of decks (meta and non meta), and is a good enough player, but his cards are simply not good enough all the time, even if he's facing "worse" players than him, a deck without a consistent plan can't compite all the time, yes, he has gotten victories with a deck like that over better decks, but also gotten some heartbroken loses, one of them, funnily enough, to ursartics.
Oh damn, that’s crazy. I didn’t know you made content. I’m glad your return to a locals after so was a positive one.
I remember the first time I returned to an event after 5+ years. Vancouver, Dice Age. 2014. You were my second round opponent.
I remember this vividly because you were very condescending during our match. Then you proceeded to talk shit about a misplay I made with your homie- while I was in earshot.
Cool vid bro
Oh damn that had to have been like 10 years ago. I don't remember anything like that, but I was a pretty brash person back then. I'm sorry I made that your first memory back.
This is why we need an alternative format. What is the point of a fun (not good) deck if the deck doesn't have a chance to play if they meet some (far) stronger deck?
.
I understand weaker decks will lose to stronger decks. I just don't like when you cannot even play your cards when playing the game. I hate Konami for not giving the right alternative format. Because when they mix all decks in one format, it makes the community crash. It is bad for a new player or someone who doesn't really understand YGO, but is interested in this game. Because the format is only 1, people think all decks will be playable on the same level. But in reality far different than they think, and it will make a lot of people hate this game.
.
They can make an entire new ban list for lower-tier decks in Master Duel, like Anthology or Academy. Speed Duel or Rush duel aren't good answer for people who love the "bad decks" in advanced format. Because we know how different both games and our "bad decks" are unavailable there. I just want a good place to enjoy my bad decks.
Personally as someone it really doesn't have many people to play the game with I just personally tend to keep a deck that's able to be played or added to over the year for the times when I can play a few games. Might not always be the best deck but at the same point I try to keep it at least halfway decent so that it can stay up at relevant. Fun fact Synchrons are good for that.
I fully agree with you, it's just the dilemma of irl Kaiba's condescending attitude towards people like Jaden Slifer Red status anyway 😅 If people are just purely talking about "Good" decks as competitively viable then 95% of decks are irrelevant anyway if you're not playing Rescue-Ace, Fire King, Labrynth...(Even Josh's YCS Runick Bystial is not considered "good" before the tournament cause nobody plays like him). Just enjoy the game as it is and not comparing decks good or bad, given there are so many contexts of good in consistency, power level, winrates, actual tournament tops and most importantly- FUN and Functional aspect...
Is my fortune fairy pure deck good? I just need to hear someone fuel my delusions
It's objectively speaking
The best deck
@@tsvetomirsheev3882 Thank you Thank you, I'm sure master duel is just nerfing my draws since its so good
@@Piversity Definitely, they have to sell the next box so they need to keep fortune fairies win rate low, otherwise everyone would gloss over the new box and just keep playing fortune fairies.
Fun deck makes brain go buuuurrrrr
I'm just gonna say a few things...
Dogmatika dark scorpion
Chrysalis spam libk climb doriado
Archfiend the archetype
:)
I don't care what people think about one of my deck, the worst the better, that way they might underestimate my deck, but good players don't underestimate decks.
the only thing a good deck gets is getting banned, some decks are not even that good, but they are being called good and then they get hit.
I feel like in most games its not the deck its duelist and understanding of their deck, like you could archetype are seen as bad but if you great understanding of it and how works what the lines are and how it counter your Opponent as well the luck factor where you have cards start your plays, extends your plays and allow you achieve the goal of your deck like summoning a boss monster, as well having cards that allow you counter your opponent
Great video RJ
This whole argument is basically how does your think if you are objective then tournament results are going to tell you how good a deck is
If you are more of a philosophical person it's more about what you want to achieve.
I'm more of objective person so one of my favorite decks Aliens in my mind is a bad deck
I remember going through this very realization like 5 years ago for Magic. I realized:
- Playing the best deck in the format doesn't really interest me (not that I think "ugh, meta slave", I just want to play something weird)
- Playing huge, long tournaments kinda sucks, actually. Even if I do well, which I have! After round 4 or 5, it's just a grind. Give me an FNM/locals, lemme see my friends, win a few packs, and go get dinner.
2:43 I actually don't, what is this about?
Don't bother. That dude is a drama generator and makes a lot of noises on twitter. My feed got so much better after muting this individual
Imagine taking an internet opinion seriously from the WatchMojo of yugitube
I will not stand this Ursarctic slander good sir
Maybe, just maybe, lots of people need to stop trying to get easy dunks on people, especially those who actually care enough about the game to walk to the hill and say "hey, this deck, this archetype, I've played it, it's not bad!".
I feel like it is reasonable that Duel Logs talks about Ursartic being a failed archetype from a card design perspective in a top-level competitive environment.
Ursartic has a bunch of hurdles to overcome there and Duel Logs was simply laying them out.
Duel logs focusing on top-level makes sense because there is plenty of reliable hard data and less x-factors to deal with.
Some random deck might do great in a specific locals because nobody could afford the cards that counter it and so on.
Caring about your own personal goals is good but you can't really make videos that takes account of everyone's personal goal.
Also, I wonder how much of this "anti-locals" mentality is a learned self-defence mechanics for the YGO community.
Buying into hype around a specific deck means you might actually buy the deck. Paying hard cash to get bodied because you don't play at a specific locals doesn't seem like fun.
For the use of word Bad and Good to evaluate a deck are not appropriate. I would use words Strong, Weak, and Unplayable. For me a bad deck is a deck that is designed to be as toxic as possible.
Strong decks means it's a deck that has a proven record of topping large tournaments or a deck with a reasonable shot for topping. Weak is a deck that had a small to no chance to topped big tournaments, but competitively viable on small scales like locals. Unplayable just describes itself.
This isn't just a YGO thing, but something I feel applies to card games as a whole honestly. It feels like at times people get bogged down by the idea that unless your deck is putting regular tops at high-level events it isn't worth talking about.
Also slightly related but I've often said that sometimes conventionally good cards don't see play, and sometimes conventionally bad cards will see play over those conventionally good cards.
But that's to be expected, no? Are you going to talk about the team that got the 27th place at worlds over the top 4 teams in football? if a deck doesn't perform good enough, it can't gather enough attention to be talked about by the creators people usually watch. it is different to talk about an obscure deck with your friend and see what it does, over having a content creator talk about the most recent winner of a huge event. it isn't elitism, but the reality that the majority of the people would not look at you unless you're exceptional at something.
@@chrisb.2028 Ya, I probably should've phrased it better but I was speaking in a more interpersonal sense. If I'm on a brew I made and I wanna talk with my friends at my LGS about it, why should it matter if it's putting up big results if I'm only gonna be playing at the weekly LGS tournament? Heck, even if I want to aim for something a little bit higher for whatever reasons with such a deck.
big big W take
I think this video somewhat deliberately twists the argument that was being had into something it wasn't and ends up being (unintentionally or not) dismissive of the high end competitive game
How is he dismissive of the high end competitive game?
In my opinion. A bad deck is 1 of 2 kinds of decks.
1. If it consistently cant get through 1 negate and
2. If the deck needs 9+ handtraps to be "good" it's a terrible/ok deck that's getting hard carried.
And lol YuGiOh went from that to basically turn 1 cant play or draw the out. The Game.