@@prestonbeaulieu4379 How would Bo1 with side decking even work in Yugioh? The only way to have that make any sense is if you started with knowledge of the opponent's deck and pre borded which seems like a pretty bad system for this game.
@@prestonbeaulieu4379 Uuuh what would even be the opportunity to side in BO1 games? Like in between games with other players? You would never know what to side with different opponents the whole time, and if you make a read and youre wrong (which is very likely) you are just fucked. Like if you look at it Master Duel is ''BO1 with siding'' but your side deck is technically ever single card in the game.
@@Xeroxthebeautiful So keep in mind I'm not saying this would be a perfect system, nor am I saying MD should implement it. But I've actually thought about this a lot, and here's how I think it COULD work. First of all I think the side deck would have to be only 5 cards. With only a 5 card side deck, I don't think you would have space for degenerate pre-board auto win cards. I think you would have to dedicate 3 of those 5 cards to backrow removal so u don't basically auto lose to eldlich/labrynth. The other 2 might be for stopping FTKs or something. Basically you'd use it more to make sure that you don't auto lose instead of trying to auto win. Second, before the game you would see a random sample of your opponents deck. At first I was thinking 5 cards, but I think it would be too easy to just see 5 staples. I think 10 would be the best number. You would almost always see at least 1 engine card, and even if u just see 10 hand traps for example u could still make a reasonable guess that they're on mathmek or marincess. Of course both players could start by revealing their entire deck, but I think that would both take too long, and take some of the surprise factor out of deck building. Although there are some cards like NoC that allow both players to view their opponent's entire deck, so it's not completely unprecedented.
I agree with sidedecking being extremely sacky in modern YGO. In previous formats, YGO was slow enough to where you didn't have to worry about dying Turn 2/3. Now you can essentially side deck cards that turn games into non games, your flavor of board breaker or floodgates or what have you. The best solution would likely be for more no side deck Bo3 tournaments to be held and test the waters to see the results. We need more data.
@@Xero-rr2ol board breakers can be very sacky too. if you play a backrow deck and your opponent has duster and you haven't drawn your out, this might just decide the game on it's own. and I am saying this as someone who hates backrow decks.
@@Lich_V. Also just the very toxic arms race that is at the center of powercreep between Endboard and Boardbreaker. DRNM forces more archetypes to get S/T parts of their endboard which makes them harder to play around in engine and will lead to another more busted board breaker getting released in the future.
@@haruhirogrimgar6047duster was just used as an example. there of course many other cards which can just autowin against backrow and are arguably way worse, like the mentioned red reboot or evenly
I'm REALLY interested in seeing how Yu-Gi-Oh would play out in a Bo1 format that includes Pre-Siding. How much information would have to be revealed to make informed decisions about what tech options to shove in? Like say, if you were required to reveal 3 core cards that matched the name you gave your deck, would that be enough to determine tech picks? Someone clever could try to use those factors as a smoke screen, or play an off-meta build if standards weren' t detailed enough, though that could also be considered a form of strategic depth to some people.
This is actually the one that I was hoping you would do. You mentioned a few episodes ago how you felt and it basically was MBT's exact take in this video, about in best of 3, the best duel is the first.
Look, BO1 is very different for playing BO3. It is almost madatory to run thing you wouldn't run in the main deck in BO3. Backrow removal for example, you almost have to run at least 1 Feather Duster and 1 Lightning Storm, you have to have thing to go both first and second in your main deck, and this does play really differently than BO3. If you are a backrow deck, you always know that people run backrow removal at all times, going first or second. And sometimes you have cards that are good in the side deck, but you can just not play in the main deck, because maybe its targeted hate towards a certain deck. Look at System Down for example. In a BO3 format where a certain Machine deck is in the format, you could side deck System Down for that certain matchup (look at orcust for example). But when a machine deck is good in the format in a BO1, you can not main deck System Down, because probably against any other deck the System Down is just dead. BO3 without siding effectively does the same thing, which i do not think is really a good thing. Just imagine you are playing Salamangreat in BO1, and your opponent is playing Numeron OTK. You go first, and your opponent has Nibiru and Ash. Now when you summon your Balelynx and your opponent ashes it, you just know you are playing a trash player, but you still just lose because of the Nibiru. That is not skillful gameplay right? Now with side decking and BO3, you can just side some cards out, you can let your opponent go first, all that stuff, and you can still walk away with the match. In BO1 you just lose.
Makes me wonder if sidedecking would be better if you could only side before game 2 but not before game 3. That way if you sided heavily for going 1st/2nd you'd have to live with that decision for game 3 as well.
That's actually a brilliant idea. Makes side decking focus more on the matchup and less on who goes first. You can still side broken cards tailored to going first or second, but it's at your own risk. Hope this will get implemented, but I doubt it will ever happen.
Additionally, I feel like it can reduce winning the dice roll advantage. If you won g1 but your opponent scoops before you see their deck, you have no Intel on how to side, but them they do, and it's gonna carry over to g3 as well.
Well, the old Vs System was BO1 and it was still one of the most skill intensive game ever designed. Now Digimon has shifted from BO3 with a small side to a BO3 without a side. It depends on how the game is designed.
When was Yu-Gi-Oh Bo1? That must have been a long time ago bc I've been playing since 2008 and it was Bo3 then. Also I literally stopped playing digimon since BT7 bc they took out side decking. I recently came back and no side deck feels awful.
Maybe it's time we have an additional banlist, but only for the side deck, so if you wanna play your floodgates and board breakers, you have to play them main deck
One of my favorite side decks was back in 2016, my buddy and I went to a regional and, both being broke high school students we didn’t have the best decks. But he brought Yosenju Kaiju, and his side deck was essentially a fifteen card grave keeper deck that replaced all his Yosenju cards. So one game he plays Yosenju, then if she sides it’s a completely different deck and it was so interesting.
I think Bo3 makes tournaments competitive. Especially when you get to a top, single elimination bracket, but even in swiss, it's not a competitive format if one of the nest players can get an unlucky hand/matchup and lose in early rounds. With a Bo3 you can make the chances of that astronomically lower. However in a ladder format like MD, Bo1 isnt really a problem. You will lose some games to a bad matchup and a bad draw, but youre never eliminated, you can just queue for another game and overall the more skilled player will make it to the top either way.
It seems the argument is not against the side deck but against cards that win as soon as you activate them. And yes, the banlist is an important aspect, is weird none mentioned that until the end, in the ideal MD banlist stuff like Numeron wouldn't be allowed.
As much as I wish there was a best of 3 in MD I like how you make your decks on there. You need options for going 2nd and going 1st. I play Traptrix in the TCG and my list is completely different when I play the deck on MD. Cards I would side like anti spell in my TCG list are in my MD list.
So I say no, under the idea that the game would just die. Yes, anything can be competitive. There are always people who will try to win using the better thing. But I think what they're discussing: Can it be competitive and sustainable? And I can't see that happening. If konami just starts having best-of-one tournaments, how long will those tournaments last before people stop showing up? They will gravitate to other alternatives such as the normal or other games.
@Yoran Okay, I looked it up. That seems like it's riding purely on yugiohs popularity in Japan and lack of options rather than actual sustainability. I'm not sure if that counts. If we try that in the west, will it stick? Idk. Maybe. I might be looking at it from my bias perspective because I wouldn't play in a best-of-one.
I have considered the same thing too and people called me crazy. I suggested the game shows your opponent an algorithm generated preview of your deck. Eg. (your most summoned monster, the monster you close the most games with, the most searched card in your deck.) then side before best of 1. And another idea I considered is each deck consisting of 2 variants with a maximum of 15 different cards. So for every deck you could register a Going first. And a Going second version of the same deck and the deck automatically sides your going first going second variation before the best of 1 starts. This would be rather similar to the TCG. But the way you make it sound side decking has become very toxic so maybe this isn’t such a good idea.
best of 1 works, IF maxx c banned. without maxx c, u don't need to waste 9 slot of ur deck for maxx c minigame and can be flex to staples according to current meta. there's alot of decks also can't afford their slots for maxx c minigame,thus it's very rng based either ur opponent have maxx c or not and those decks simply have no answer plus,only metadeck can play around maxx c efficiently like Kitkalos+suliek+havnis pass Chixiao+blackout pass mirrorjade+branded in red pass runick fountain pass bystial lubellion+branded beast pass(dragon link) other decks just definitely bagooska pass or search their in archetype trap and thats it,which probably requires more summon than above examples, so yeah, fk this rng based environment
the problem with asking bo1 or bo3 is you're limiting yourself to the scope of one match. the assumption that bo1 = less games is not necessarily true. if you choose a dumb tournament format then yeah bo1 single elim has less games than a bo3 single elim but then why the hell are you doing single elims in that case? bo1 is actually far more competitive than a bo3 as long as you properly adjust the wider scope to account for less games per match. just do more swiss rounds. okay yeah it creates more overhead and that's inconvenient but inconvenient is not the same as less competitive. creative tournament structure can help deal with the overhead. bo3 is not the only solution. having more swiss rounds is its own benefit anyways because you have to beat more players and more decks. i would argue that without a side deck, the only benefit to a bo3 compared to a bo1 is scheduling. as in for every set of 3 games, each player involved in a game finishes at the same time because theyre only playing each other. compared to a 2 round bo1 format its super annoying to play 1 game and finish in 2 minutes then wait for your opponent for the next round whos playing for 15 minutes in a super long grind game.
Master duel is a best of one format, and still trashy players are playing degenerate strategies for FTKs. I think Konami should hit merciless those FTK strategies, by no mean an FTK should be consistent enough to be a real way to climb ladder.
Hearthstone even had a format called specialist where people play a single deck with 3 versions and a variation between them of idk what it actually was but 5ish cards to the OG version but it completly sucked btw enjoy ur vids keep goin
the real way to play is best of 5 the first game like usual, the second and third without siding but now no longer randomized who goes first, and the fourth and fifth with siding. of cause if you or your deck is so bad that it loses 3 times in the first 3 games without siding you don't even have the right to side in dum auto win cards
I disagree with the side deck being annoying in bo3, simply because I have a dark world player at locals. Making my deck worse against every other deck by putting droll in the main deck, just so I don't get handlooped is something I would hate. Because of handloop strategies like Darkworld, I think the side deck is necessary.
My opponent sets up a board of 4+ monsters at 3000 atk and everyone has omni negates. They set one trap card and it's now my turn. OH NO! They activated there can be only one! Dang those floodgates sure make the game unplayable.
best of 3 without siding honestly sounds really nice
I'd rather have Bo1 with side decking than Bo3 without. No side deck is the worst thing in any card game imo
@@prestonbeaulieu4379 How would Bo1 with side decking even work in Yugioh? The only way to have that make any sense is if you started with knowledge of the opponent's deck and pre borded which seems like a pretty bad system for this game.
@@prestonbeaulieu4379 Uuuh what would even be the opportunity to side in BO1 games? Like in between games with other players? You would never know what to side with different opponents the whole time, and if you make a read and youre wrong (which is very likely) you are just fucked. Like if you look at it Master Duel is ''BO1 with siding'' but your side deck is technically ever single card in the game.
@@Xeroxthebeautiful So keep in mind I'm not saying this would be a perfect system, nor am I saying MD should implement it. But I've actually thought about this a lot, and here's how I think it COULD work.
First of all I think the side deck would have to be only 5 cards. With only a 5 card side deck, I don't think you would have space for degenerate pre-board auto win cards. I think you would have to dedicate 3 of those 5 cards to backrow removal so u don't basically auto lose to eldlich/labrynth. The other 2 might be for stopping FTKs or something. Basically you'd use it more to make sure that you don't auto lose instead of trying to auto win.
Second, before the game you would see a random sample of your opponents deck. At first I was thinking 5 cards, but I think it would be too easy to just see 5 staples. I think 10 would be the best number. You would almost always see at least 1 engine card, and even if u just see 10 hand traps for example u could still make a reasonable guess that they're on mathmek or marincess. Of course both players could start by revealing their entire deck, but I think that would both take too long, and take some of the surprise factor out of deck building. Although there are some cards like NoC that allow both players to view their opponent's entire deck, so it's not completely unprecedented.
@@MsMiDC see my other reply
I agree with sidedecking being extremely sacky in modern YGO.
In previous formats, YGO was slow enough to where you didn't have to worry about dying Turn 2/3. Now you can essentially side deck cards that turn games into non games, your flavor of board breaker or floodgates or what have you.
The best solution would likely be for more no side deck Bo3 tournaments to be held and test the waters to see the results. We need more data.
Board breakers are fine tbh. Floodgates different story.
@@Xero-rr2ol board breakers can be very sacky too. if you play a backrow deck and your opponent has duster and you haven't drawn your out, this might just decide the game on it's own. and I am saying this as someone who hates backrow decks.
@@Lich_V. Red Reboot was arguably way worse. That card was a complete auto-win that required exactly Solemn Judgement to beat.
@@Lich_V. Also just the very toxic arms race that is at the center of powercreep between Endboard and Boardbreaker.
DRNM forces more archetypes to get S/T parts of their endboard which makes them harder to play around in engine and will lead to another more busted board breaker getting released in the future.
@@haruhirogrimgar6047duster was just used as an example. there of course many other cards which can just autowin against backrow and are arguably way worse, like the mentioned red reboot or evenly
I'm REALLY interested in seeing how Yu-Gi-Oh would play out in a Bo1 format that includes Pre-Siding. How much information would have to be revealed to make informed decisions about what tech options to shove in? Like say, if you were required to reveal 3 core cards that matched the name you gave your deck, would that be enough to determine tech picks? Someone clever could try to use those factors as a smoke screen, or play an off-meta build if standards weren' t detailed enough, though that could also be considered a form of strategic depth to some people.
This is actually the one that I was hoping you would do. You mentioned a few episodes ago how you felt and it basically was MBT's exact take in this video, about in best of 3, the best duel is the first.
Honestly removing side decking probably does wonders for time saving as well. Can just go G1 gg? Instantly shuffle up and play g2.
Look, BO1 is very different for playing BO3. It is almost madatory to run thing you wouldn't run in the main deck in BO3. Backrow removal for example, you almost have to run at least 1 Feather Duster and 1 Lightning Storm, you have to have thing to go both first and second in your main deck, and this does play really differently than BO3. If you are a backrow deck, you always know that people run backrow removal at all times, going first or second.
And sometimes you have cards that are good in the side deck, but you can just not play in the main deck, because maybe its targeted hate towards a certain deck. Look at System Down for example. In a BO3 format where a certain Machine deck is in the format, you could side deck System Down for that certain matchup (look at orcust for example). But when a machine deck is good in the format in a BO1, you can not main deck System Down, because probably against any other deck the System Down is just dead.
BO3 without siding effectively does the same thing, which i do not think is really a good thing.
Just imagine you are playing Salamangreat in BO1, and your opponent is playing Numeron OTK. You go first, and your opponent has Nibiru and Ash. Now when you summon your Balelynx and your opponent ashes it, you just know you are playing a trash player, but you still just lose because of the Nibiru. That is not skillful gameplay right? Now with side decking and BO3, you can just side some cards out, you can let your opponent go first, all that stuff, and you can still walk away with the match. In BO1 you just lose.
This argument is a little weird. Numeron doesn't play Nibiru, since it needs a clear field to perform the OTK in the second turn.
@@Ragnarok540 Just sub in another trash one-trick-pony deck.
Makes me wonder if sidedecking would be better if you could only side before game 2 but not before game 3. That way if you sided heavily for going 1st/2nd you'd have to live with that decision for game 3 as well.
That's actually a brilliant idea. Makes side decking focus more on the matchup and less on who goes first. You can still side broken cards tailored to going first or second, but it's at your own risk. Hope this will get implemented, but I doubt it will ever happen.
Additionally, I feel like it can reduce winning the dice roll advantage. If you won g1 but your opponent scoops before you see their deck, you have no Intel on how to side, but them they do, and it's gonna carry over to g3 as well.
A question is if it would make going second on g1 too much of an advantage instead
Another take could be to allow siding on every game, but also roll the dice on every game. Not sure how I would feel about going second twice though
I love this idea.
Well, the old Vs System was BO1 and it was still one of the most skill intensive game ever designed. Now Digimon has shifted from BO3 with a small side to a BO3 without a side. It depends on how the game is designed.
When was Yu-Gi-Oh Bo1? That must have been a long time ago bc I've been playing since 2008 and it was Bo3 then.
Also I literally stopped playing digimon since BT7 bc they took out side decking. I recently came back and no side deck feels awful.
@@prestonbeaulieu4379 where did I mention yugioh? I was talking about Vs System.
@@zariygo I would assume "vs system" could apply to any game. And we're talking about Yu-Gi-Oh. I have no idea what you're referring to
@@prestonbeaulieu4379 vs system was a cardgame run by upperdeck between 2004 and 2010
@@zariygo oh cool, I never knew about it
Maybe it's time we have an additional banlist, but only for the side deck, so if you wanna play your floodgates and board breakers, you have to play them main deck
eh, thats just a band aid solution though.
@@MsMiDC It would still help a lot
One of my favorite side decks was back in 2016, my buddy and I went to a regional and, both being broke high school students we didn’t have the best decks. But he brought Yosenju Kaiju, and his side deck was essentially a fifteen card grave keeper deck that replaced all his Yosenju cards. So one game he plays Yosenju, then if she sides it’s a completely different deck and it was so interesting.
That's funny because I build my deck to be for 2nd turn and whether or not I win the coin-flip or the die-roll, I always go 2nd turn.
I think Bo3 makes tournaments competitive. Especially when you get to a top, single elimination bracket, but even in swiss, it's not a competitive format if one of the nest players can get an unlucky hand/matchup and lose in early rounds. With a Bo3 you can make the chances of that astronomically lower.
However in a ladder format like MD, Bo1 isnt really a problem. You will lose some games to a bad matchup and a bad draw, but youre never eliminated, you can just queue for another game and overall the more skilled player will make it to the top either way.
It seems the argument is not against the side deck but against cards that win as soon as you activate them. And yes, the banlist is an important aspect, is weird none mentioned that until the end, in the ideal MD banlist stuff like Numeron wouldn't be allowed.
Best of one is the true test of skills.
As much as I wish there was a best of 3 in MD I like how you make your decks on there. You need options for going 2nd and going 1st. I play Traptrix in the TCG and my list is completely different when I play the deck on MD. Cards I would side like anti spell in my TCG list are in my MD list.
What if it’s best of 1 with side deck like flesh and blood?
Is best of 3 competitively the best option in modern yugioh these days because of the time limit rules?
So I say no, under the idea that the game would just die.
Yes, anything can be competitive. There are always people who will try to win using the better thing. But I think what they're discussing: Can it be competitive and sustainable? And I can't see that happening. If konami just starts having best-of-one tournaments, how long will those tournaments last before people stop showing up? They will gravitate to other alternatives such as the normal or other games.
The OCG has BO1 and BO3. Heck, YCS Japan is BO1. None of those tournaments are at any risk of dying.
@Yoran
Okay, I looked it up. That seems like it's riding purely on yugiohs popularity in Japan and lack of options rather than actual sustainability. I'm not sure if that counts. If we try that in the west, will it stick? Idk. Maybe. I might be looking at it from my bias perspective because I wouldn't play in a best-of-one.
I have considered the same thing too and people called me crazy.
I suggested the game shows your opponent an algorithm generated preview of your deck. Eg. (your most summoned monster, the monster you close the most games with, the most searched card in your deck.) then side before best of 1.
And another idea I considered is each deck consisting of 2 variants with a maximum of 15 different cards. So for every deck you could register a Going first. And a Going second version of the same deck and the deck automatically sides your going first going second variation before the best of 1 starts.
This would be rather similar to the TCG.
But the way you make it sound side decking has become very toxic so maybe this isn’t such a good idea.
best of 1 works, IF maxx c banned. without maxx c, u don't need to waste 9 slot of ur deck for maxx c minigame and can be flex to staples according to current meta. there's alot of decks also can't afford their slots for maxx c minigame,thus it's very rng based either ur opponent have maxx c or not and those decks simply have no answer
plus,only metadeck can play around maxx c efficiently like
Kitkalos+suliek+havnis pass
Chixiao+blackout pass
mirrorjade+branded in red pass
runick fountain pass
bystial lubellion+branded beast pass(dragon link)
other decks just definitely bagooska pass or search their in archetype trap and thats it,which probably requires more summon than above examples, so yeah, fk this rng based environment
Honestly Best of three WITHOUT side decking would be awesome.
the problem with asking bo1 or bo3 is you're limiting yourself to the scope of one match. the assumption that bo1 = less games is not necessarily true. if you choose a dumb tournament format then yeah bo1 single elim has less games than a bo3 single elim but then why the hell are you doing single elims in that case? bo1 is actually far more competitive than a bo3 as long as you properly adjust the wider scope to account for less games per match. just do more swiss rounds. okay yeah it creates more overhead and that's inconvenient but inconvenient is not the same as less competitive. creative tournament structure can help deal with the overhead. bo3 is not the only solution. having more swiss rounds is its own benefit anyways because you have to beat more players and more decks.
i would argue that without a side deck, the only benefit to a bo3 compared to a bo1 is scheduling. as in for every set of 3 games, each player involved in a game finishes at the same time because theyre only playing each other. compared to a 2 round bo1 format its super annoying to play 1 game and finish in 2 minutes then wait for your opponent for the next round whos playing for 15 minutes in a super long grind game.
Maxx C episode next please!
Master duel is a best of one format, and still trashy players are playing degenerate strategies for FTKs. I think Konami should hit merciless those FTK strategies, by no mean an FTK should be consistent enough to be a real way to climb ladder.
Hearthstone even had a format called specialist where people play a single deck with 3 versions and a variation between them of idk what it actually was but 5ish cards to the OG version but it completly sucked btw enjoy ur vids keep goin
the real way to play is best of 5 the first game like usual, the second and third without siding but now no longer randomized who goes first, and the fourth and fifth with siding. of cause if you or your deck is so bad that it loses 3 times in the first 3 games without siding you don't even have the right to side in dum auto win cards
I disagree with the side deck being annoying in bo3, simply because I have a dark world player at locals. Making my deck worse against every other deck by putting droll in the main deck, just so I don't get handlooped is something I would hate. Because of handloop strategies like Darkworld, I think the side deck is necessary.
My opponent sets up a board of 4+ monsters at 3000 atk and everyone has omni negates. They set one trap card and it's now my turn. OH NO! They activated there can be only one! Dang those floodgates sure make the game unplayable.