I think what MBT meant about the "recency bias" thing is that people stop experimenting as much with older cards because they move on to experiment with the new stuff which can lead to stuff being undiscovered
Spright is another example of this. Everyone was on tri-brigade spright, then they jumped on frog spright and tri-brigade was forgotten about. Then in kash format everyone switched to runick spright and other spright variants were forgotten about. Try to even mention a new spright variant though and everyone craps on it as though it's going to be some 2002 playground deck, even if you point out the strong synergies and potential the deck has, the idea gets tossed aside as non-viable.
I've learned two things from other card games. 1. Never underestimate how many players there are that simply don't go online. 2. There is no one on earth who can consistently predict how good each card in a set will be.
2 is true. Just look at MTG recent modern ban on Fury. During the preview season for it's set, most players wore calling it worse of the 5 envolk elemental cycle. Give it a month or two and RB Scam became a known deck and hiw it wrapped the game in to not being a monster heavy friendly format.
Part of MBT’s point is that the metagame changes so quickly that the “best decks” are the ones that get discovered quickly. Things like Tearlaments are obviously powerful just by reading the text, so people immediately start testing it. And once it starts getting results, everyone starts building to stop it. Then people start building decks to counter the counter decks. The result is that the metagame ends up revolving around the handful of archetypes that get built the fastest. Powerful decks that have a higher ceiling but take longer to develop often fall to the wayside.
@@mrbubbles6468in mbts video on this subject he also said the number of events being held are too low for proper testing of strategies. An example being the magic has daily and weekly events.
I think what I’m taking home from this is that there’s not enough time between card releases to determine a good deck. Granted my definition of good is pretty wide
Pretty much. And Farfa gives a good example. There very well could've been a deck in the Tear 0 format that utterly bodied Tear Ishizu into the wall, but the formats go so fast that no one wanted to take a gamble on that when it's easier to just play Tear Ishizu. And the next set may have something in it that bodies both Tear Ishizu and this possible deck into the wall. So rather then take a gamble during this format, people will just play what is currently proving to be the best deck right now.
@@shakeweller granted they have a different list regarding Dracoslayers I think? (idk why both Ocg and tcg are terrified of them tbh. Like they’re good for sure but cmon. Meanwhile they’ll print Ariseheart)
I have to avoid flicking my eyes over to the chat while watching this. I know some of it's trolling, but are people really so ready to disagree with an argument that they'll just ignore it completely?
To be fair, that person with the ursa deck is so in love with it. Like its their whole identity, if my whole identity was one deck (not ba man) I would want to defend it as hard as I could. Just a pet decker that their deck isn't good just that.
I believe the argument with the whole Ursarctic deck was that it isn't bad it just isn't topping. The idea being that on a scale of 1-10 most players will say anything not a 9 or 10 is bad when you could steal games consistently with a 7 or 8 rated deck against them.
@@absolutionveil8632 I don't think a 1 through 10 scale is accurate enough to determine whether a deck is good or bad. By the way you phrased it, nothing in this game is bad, which isn't really true.
@@AllThingsEntertaining No there are certainly bad decks. I consider 5 average, anything that performs lower than a 5 is bad. 6 may have slightly more consistency than 5, or maybe a slightly better win condition. 7 & 8 decks fall somewhere into rogue or tier 3 status, having next to no consistency problems and having a difficult, but not impossible, to overcome win condition. At 9 & 10 you have the tier 1 and rare 0 decks. Ones that can complete their full combo through multiple disruptions basically every turn and have boards that are nearly unbreakable without specific cards to deal with them. Let's look at gem knights for instance. It's a very xenophobic deck and requires you to play a lot of bricks. It has a below average consistency and the boards it puts up are very simple to put due to most of the in archetype cards lacking disruption. I'd say Ursa is somewhere in the 5-6 range, average. Gem Knights however would be around 4 at the highest. Below average at best, or just outright bad.
@@angel-memeroftheislesNo they would still absolutely suck. Every time i read them i first think "wow those are some neat effects". Until i see that you can use only one of the effects per turn. Which results in them being either a extremely situational foolish or reborn that goes minus 1 or they are just straight up bad lvl 7 extenders that go minus 1. Im sorry but they just suck nowadays.
@@angel-memeroftheislesLmao yeah the 10 year old cards with HOPT on everything under the sun are gonna break the game, I swear some of you people never played POTE formats
Some people say is consistency, some people say is draw power, some say is spamability, some say is prep, and TBH every single one of them are right. At least to me, the point is not "what does make a deck good" but "which cards make a good deck" because people can play staples in they're decks and still lose games, same goes for the opposite, people can play really bad cards and win games, so IMO there's 50% piloting 40% is deck building and 10% is luck.
I remember in PHHY format when Traptrix, Generaider, and Abyss Actor were all playable to varying degrees, but hardly anyone took the time to lab them because Kashtira, people already knew that that deck was good, so why bother with the others (Pak did a small series on Traptrix, but i dont think very many people actually took it seriously)
re: YCS results being everything, literally the day before i was going to go to the shop to buy a playset of purrelys, someone got like 4th place at a regionals with it, and the price doubled overnight. still mad about that one
That's bc traptrixs new support was nowhere near enough to even be rogue. Then lab came out and there really wasn't a reason to play something soo far worse than it.
@N3XTREVOLUTION according to most people's metrics, Traptrix was absolutely rogue playable for months. Kashtira dies to a single Floodgate Trap Hole and nothing else. as to your Lab point, well that really just proves the point doesn't it? "well I could play around with this deck and see how it performs, but why do that when this deck is obviously better" its virtually impossible to gauge a deck's strength if you go by that attitude. it's why formats are usually only solved until well after the format has already ended (and I remain unconvinced that Lab was that much better, at least at that time)
To me a "good deck" needs a clear win condition, a consistent path to that condition, and the ability to defend or play past disruption within reason. I feel like people exaggerate what "bad" and "good" decks are, most are in a weird middle ground that can't compete with the top meta but are fine in casual. I understand farfa's and MBT's perspectives.
Whether a deck is good or bad in the context of Yugioh's meta is relative to whatever the most played decks are in a format (which are often the best decks). Its a card game, match-ups and amount of variance are incredibly important in determining the success rate of a given deck. Something i'll also say is that i rarely see this amount of elitism in other competitive games I've partaken in. Before Yugioh, i was really into Smash Bros. While Ultimate in particular has an incredibly balanced roster despite its size, a game like Sm4sh for example had a pretty defined hierarchy. Though people were pretty willing in those games to mostly play whoever they had fun maining, which some players in particular making a name for themselves in trying to push lower tier characters. Like, some of the greatest sets in Sm4sh was probably watching that Lucario main take on ZeRo. Perhaps the reason this isn't common in Yugioh is because of the constant updates to the card pool, but the closest i've seen to this sort of mentality is Dragon Link players. They'll just keep trucking along with their tride and true deck at regionals regardless of nerfs/buffs, even though Resonator decks are just objectively better atm due to Bystial Dis Pater.
I think the big issue is the different definitions of a deck. I have been playing fur hire religiously since they dropped in DL. Not too long ago I heard about runick fur hire and gave it a try, I thought it was complete cheeks. But then I actually looked up lists for it and realized it's actually runick/Spright/ furhire, something completely different from what I thought it was. What I'm trying to say is that not everyones definition of say a "good" volcanic deck is the same. TLDR: way too many engines in this game that really shouldn't work together.
Yugioh metas are almost always in a state of small sample sizes. It's basically impossible to get enough data on a particular format before a new one comes around. Because of this, you're more likely to perform your best with whatever deck you're most comfortable with. Being familiar with a deck to not misplay is going to affect your results more than the raw power of an unfamiliar deck's basic combo.
While I agree with you, I think knowing more about your opponent(s) deck, specially which hand trap/board breaker is more effective at their choke points is more useful than learning your combos. The only reason most people don't do this is due to their limited time in testing and facing these decks in a very diverse meta. it is easy to improve 1 or 2 decks you know by heart than learning 5 to 20 decks. I think the best way to learn your own deck is to face a mirror match against a more experience player and get beaten so badly, you're more wary and conscious of your plays.
@@leemay3097 I would say learning how to play through disruptions is more important. Most modern decks can play around/through different disruptions, so maximizing your options is more reliable than trying to figure out how to stop other decks. You might face Mathmech once or twice, but you play with your deck every round.
Putting my excessive blurb aside, what I THINK makes a deck good is adaptability. If you can can shift around your main and/or side deck to mess with popular trends seen at events, your deck can probably keep being used there even if it gets "severely outdated", though it's incredibly rare for a deck to survive until its "legacy support" comes out without some other archetype potentially replacing its gimmick or playstyle by then.
ok the "maybe someone can find something more powerful than tear ishizu" comment was a bit out there, konami has yet to print the cards needed to make a stronger deck than that. even with how kashtira is supposed to hard-counter tear ishizu, that only works if kash goes first and tear doesn't get to do a turn 0 combo. like maybe someone could brew up a marginally better build than the ones that topped events, but that deck had so much internal synergy, so many ways to play around just about anything, constantly accrued advantage, and built genuinely amazing boards (maybe not at the same level as the most wombo combo 5+ negate synchro boards, but those boards also didn't have the ability to go through every single one of their deck's interactions every turn.) there's no way that the best deck would be anything but tear ishizu at its core. if they undid the hits in the TCG, OCG, or especially in MD, everything would immediately go right back to tear 0. and i miss it so much
There simply ain't enough tournaments to provide enough data to perform good "deck quality" analysis. MTGO (despite the UI) is a huge fucking deal for MTG because there are always tourneys to join and those tourneys are competitive and produce usable data weekly. YGO just does not have enough "high rank" tournaments going on to really test and play with the cards and *poof* NEW PRODUCT released and the meta shifts once again ust before a larger event.
It’s interesting you played punk Bystial farfa as I main RDA punk bystail. Mainly using punk for making chaos ruler or pivoting if I’m not RDA locked to make boards. Love the decklist and love the synergy’s in the list
I actually don't think we'll have to wait that long to discover whether or not Unchained is the Quickdraw Dandywarrior of this format. If we look at recent results for Unchained, it actually sputtered out at the finish line. At YCS Bologna, it had a single top 32 and a smattering of top 64 finishes. That's not to say that Unchained in this format, not the one we're heading towards in 2024, is a bad deck or even a bad choice. I think people have played against the deck enough to know its weaknesses, and people have exploited them. Hell, even Centur-ion had better finishes with 2 in the top 32 and nearly breaking into top 16. Looking at weeks after the event, Unchained has had a single Regional win and a few top 4 to top 8 finishes. However, we'll never really know unless people test this format in retrospect. This analysis of Unchained could be outdated in a few years as more people explore this format and determine the deck is actually more busted than it is. I think this is because players have to test things at a break neck pace. The reason pro players test with a small handful of decks is because time is wasted on anything else. Not that there's nothing to discover in the middle of the format, but there's just not a lot of time, when you can investigate known quantities and prepare for them on that basis. I don't think it's because players are bad at determining whether something is good or bad, I think it boils down to there simply being a finite amount of time to actually discover them. At the moment, in their limited amount of time to test the format, Quickdraw Dandy was probably seen as one of those handful of decks people stuck to testing, because there wasn't enough time to test anything else. I think if they had enough time to explore the options, they might have fleshed out the format in a different direction. Hindsight is, of course, 20/20. Which is why I also don't think it's recency bias, but just a lack of time on the player's end because of Konami. At least back then in Edison, you knew when a ban list dropped so you had some time to prepare. Nowadays, you have to pray all the testing you're doing isn't all for nothing in as little as a couple of months because Konami decided to lob a hand grenade. God forbid there's an emergency ban list. I do think formats are significantly more diverse than they appear, since that's how Edison and Goat format has evolved. We've seen people discuss how bad Mermail and Fire Fists were compared to Dark World, or how Evilswarm only received tops because of how inexpensive the deck originally was, or how Dandy Warrior was supposed to be the best deck, but it's Vayu Turbo, and that's subject to change. How would we solve this issue? Well, there are three solutions, all of which could actually work in tandem. The first is to set a timeframe of when a ban list is going to drop again. It doesn't have to be an exact date, just a general month. If there doesn't need to be any changes, then Konami can simply extend the format, or make some minor adjustments (kinda like they did in 2020 when they unlimited 3 cards and nothing else). The second thing is to add more events to the roster. This way, many more players will have an opportunity to play their decks at higher level events. They could also make locals mean more somehow. The third thing is have more event coverage. The EU does a fantastic job for the most part pointing a spotlight at the game. The livestreams are always great, and every YCS seems to be well covered. It should be that way across the board.
One of his points was that there are dedicated competitive players in eternal formats in mtg that stick to one deck. Mtg uses a rotation system instead of power creep. There are cards that impact eternal but it’s not literally every set has game changing things like yugioh. If yugioh had a rotation then perhaps this would happen in yugioh as well, but literally every new set must have power creep or it’s a flop. This is why these can’t be compared 1 to 1 like he did
Standard is the only rotating format, everywhere else is an ever increasing card pool from that standard format with some sets dedicated to those other formats like Commander.
@@otterfire4712 OK, but cards are designed for Standard, which means the power level can stay relatively low. In YGO, the incentive to play new cards *has* to be "because they're better", in MTG it's "because the ones I was playing aren't allowed any more so I have to use these instead". And in the non-rotating formats... people aren't playing new cards unless they do something nutty.
@@manjackson2772 Standard still has to produce cards that can entice other formats. Standard produces a plethora of legendary creatures to draw in Commander players, Discover is just a power crept Cascade.
@otterfire4712 this is an entirely recent phenomenon over the last 3.5 years of MtG's life and is also the reason enfranchised players are leaving as the quality of card releases continuously goes down due to WotC trying to forcibly rotate eternal formats with powercreep and fucking up the standard format with designed for commander cards.
@@tinfoilslacks3750 Power creep has been there well before 3.5 years ago. It became more rampant roughly around Tarkir. Even still, it's more likely due to the ever growing popularity of non-Standard formats so WotC has been trying to make cards appealing to those formats, forsaking the balance of Standard. Commander is one of the more obvious examples of WotC's attention, with a noticeable increase in legendary creatures and especially ones with niche play styles that are better utilized in the Commander Format, Ixalan as a plane is a great example of this with the variety of tribal archetypes for Commander.
There are a few conditions for a deck to be good for me: - must be easy to learn but have a high ceiling - should be as consistent as possible - should have comeback potential - should be fun to play - should have space for personal techs or "pet cards"
@@nmr7203 Because I'm not good at the game and neither is 99% of the players, so it would be nice if the deck basic combo was, like 8-10 steps, not 22.
Peeps won a locals with Tistina. The new Firewall was completely off the radar in MD until IWishIWasDead won the MCS. People definitely both underestimate the strength of some of the weaker decks and overestimate the gap between the best decks and the weaker decks.
Magic the Gathering funnel part of their player who like "playing on higher power" in different format and use cardpool limitation to keep it easy for casual (lower power). Yugioh have 1 main format and people who are not suppose to play competitively complain they are getting steamrolled.
It’s not really in retrospect. What people are actually doing is creating an entirely different format. Because when the format first happened it wasn’t designed that you have endless time to lab it nor was the cardpool static
How to predict good cards 1. Buy enough konami stock to influence card designs to be custom Yu-Gi-Oh levels of broken 2. Lie about your involvement at konami and tell the community which will be good and which won't ahead if time Gg
What’s a good Yu-Gi-Oh! Deck? A: whatever you like and enjoy playing, either at a casual or competitive level (which lets face it will be VERY different decks)
There are a few questions to check if your deck is good: Does it lose to a single handtrap? Can it play in the opponent's turn? Is it easy to play? Has a clear game plan going first and going second? Can it OTK or at least put enough disruption to win in the following turn?
Why is Farfa so angry any time anyone brings up a card game other than Yu-Gi-Oh as a point of comparison? TCG is a genre, my dude. Konami doesn't hold a monopoly on the concept.
Magic do be kinda booty. One Piece is well... Based on a shit franchise So really Pokemon would be the only point of comparison that's worth considering at the moment, and it may be the single least analogous game of the group
To define what makes a Deck good, there are three fundamental questions you would have to ask in regards to this question: 1) Does your Deck have a win condition? 2) Can your Deck achieve that win condition with ease? 3) Can the win condition keep pace with the format you intend to play it in? If all three of these questions are answered with a yes, your Deck is actually good. If it answers no to any one of these questions, then it's more than likely not good. Through this logic, there is a lot more good decks than what the general public knows because they're used to pigeonholing their views to what they consider the best decks of any given format. But the moment a Rogue Deck ends up getting into Top 32 of a high-profile event like a YCS or Regionals, they end up getting surprised that the Deck is good despite believing that it was a bad Deck you shouldn't pay attention to. It's an interesting phenomenon of the Yugioh committee and I really don't know why players often stick their heads into the ground when something that shakes up their perceptions occurs
@@1stCallipostle Honestly, I don't really think that there is much of a difference between between being playable and being good. The only thing that separates the two are arbitrary public perception of how far it can go in tournament, but that's more measuring the quality of good rather than answering the question "What is a good Deck?". If we as a Yugioh community can determine that playability is the objective benchmark to measure if a Deck is good or not, the better it is for everyone.
I don't understand the requirements for a bad deck. I usually see a lot of people say Branded isn't that good because Ash Blossom is a thing, but that's like saying Tear isn't good because Dimension Shifter exists. I feel like professional players judge a deck on if it's good based on how well it does against the best deck in the format. Tear doesn't do good against Kashtira so it's bad, but Spright can kinda stand a chance so it's not.
Lol I absolutely feel this way too. When looking from a barebones outside perspective it can be mindboggling seeing a random deck or underwhelming effects being good. A big example is the glowup Mathmech had. I still remember seeing replays of it being untiered on MD. Ik circular is good but the fact it carried a deck so hard is crazy.
If a single hand trap completely demolishes your opening turn without leaving you any follow up then it's bad. Branded is not the best example, but something like invoked is not very good these days, because it relies on a single normal summon and search. It doesn't make a deck inherently bad necessarily, but being resilient to common handtraps in the format is a prerequisite for a competitive deck if nothing else, and it's hard to imagine a world where people stop playing Ash and Imperm tbh.
Some of us literally just play what we think is fun and just lose online.😂 until they start sending niggas to the shadow realm for losing IRL I'm still going to play Ra, cyber dragons, prediction princess, and Shiranui
That's because there's no time to actually play decks. At least, not in the way we do with Edison. You have to hope and pray there isn't a new ban list every six months only for your prayers to fall on deaf ears. It's way easier to test the top decks than to explore the format.
I personally dont like saying a deck is "bad" unless its basically unplayable. I think Bujin, with the right builds, is a good deck. Not great, exceptional, or phenomenal but good. Its all about how you look to rate decks, and rating can change over time even when looking at a specific format over time. I personally think tier lists are a bad way of rating most things and prefer scaling them with a percentile 1-100. If you grade decks in this fashion you can easily categorize them by a "school exam" kinda system where their "test grade" shows how competent they are.
He retweeted a tweet responding to Duellogs Ursarctics - Failed Cards, Archetypes and Sometimes Mechanics in Yu-Gi-Oh!. That tweet said Ursarctics aren’t failures or bad. MBT’s retweet said “What is a good deck to you people?” So this drama all came from someone not understanding what the video was about and didn’t bother watching it.
I LOVE how this translates to basically all of Dzeef’s vids like Roulette and Saga. Basically the whole convo is either this deck is shit or this deck is overpowered and then the opposite result happens in game lmao
@@domimomi3954 as I said, I stood and died on that hill. Some say that if you visit that hill you can find a poor soul who was on copium that the card wouldn't be a $100+ staple.
People can't face that their favorite decks are ass, and that we're terrible at figuring out what's good. True, I won't deny it. Trust me guys, once vaalmonica gets it's new support it'll be crazy. Either way, I have accepted that in it's current state it's unplayable and complete ass, but I think it has potential, but having said that, the new support will have to carry the rest of the archetype for that to be the case. As for being bad about figuring out what's good, unchained on the release of DUNE was crazy, yet almost no one realized. People very much overestimated the impact that therion would have, and didn't it take something like 9 months for people to figure put that Megalith was crazy good back in 2020? Giving people the benefit of the doubt on megalith though, it was apparently super hard to pilot, although from using it I can't lie and say that I didn't have an easy enough time with it, although I did specifically play Drytron Megalith, which is a different deck.
I'm still convinced to this day that Drytron megalith was an extremely slept on deck back in the day, especially in the TCG where Benten was at 3 Deck is extremely explosive and it's turn one is almost unbeatable You can end on baronne, 4 mat appo and Phul to summon bethor on the opponents turn Extremely hard for any deck to play through It also had a decent enough grind game depending on how many of the megaliths you played, especially considering it was a balls to the wall combo deck And lastly it could go second and just brute force it's way through boardstates with a combination of bethor popping things and phaleg letting you swing over live boards for game Now the deck wasn't perfect by any means, it still lost to the usual stuff, droll, dark ruler etc But it was definitely a lot better than people even bothered to experiment with I think this is because the only thing people believed drytron was good for was making herald and so once it lost the ability to do that people just immediately assumed it was ass They didn't even think about using the engine with other ritual packages for massive benefits Hell in drytron megalith, even though I haven't tested it yet you could probably weave in a small magikey package with betosbuster and unlocking to become immune to dark ruler Genuinely a tragedy that the deck was never given the time of day and still to this day isn't given the time of day even though I believe it could at least be a rogue contender
i think md being a best of 1 and being a slightly different format and being several months behind card releases has kind of proved this sure we still have some of the same decks topping weekly tournaments that were topping ycs at that same time, but we also have other decks that are topping the weekly tournaments that never did in the tcg and others that topped in tcg not even topping at all best example in master duel is kashtira. Kash is no where near the menace in md that it was in tcg. Yes it is still annoying and unfun to go against but it isn't the meta threat it was in tcg.
The question of what makes a "good deck" by community standards is pretty easily answered. 1. It needs to be fun to play and variable in its gameplan. 2. It needs to have a defined win condition and a consistent way to access said win condition. 3. It needs to be easy to pick up and learn, but with a high skill ceiling. If your deck can fulfill all of the above, it's a good deck, if it fails in at least one of them, it's probably somewhere around tier 3 or rogue-ish. 1. If the deck either isn't fun to play or so repetetive in it's gameplan that it becomes boring, people will lose interest and stop exploring the decks possibilities. Mikanko falls in this category currently. It's a strong deck with a decently competent gameplan, but because of their rather dull playstyle of essentially Acid Golem Stun only a handful of people actually bring them to events. 2. If the deck lacks a consistent win condition, there is no incentive for players to even start exploring different combos. This is where Kashtira roams around at the moment. Without Arise-Heart and no possibilities to make relevant use of the zone-locking, the deck lost it's identity. Fenrir Shangri-Ira control is a gameplan that still works, but why bother if there's better alternatives? 3. If the deck is too complicated to learn, either because of non-linear combo lines or a heavy focus on ressource management, players are easily intimidated. Why bother learning a Rikka Sunavalon spreadsheet if the deck adapts with literally every new plant monster released and you have to do it all over again next format? This is not to say that any of the decks I mentioned are bad in any way, but the lack of relevant and most importantly consistent representation does cause them to fly under the radar for most people. It's rather easy to dismiss them as "that one rogue guy who brought his locals deck to an event". Maybe they'll get a lucky top cut, prices spike a little, but then people lose interest immediately afterwards. Usually you'll see those decks represented by people who are just piloting their pet deck for fun. Maybe they just like the artwork, maybe that dull playstyle is appealing for them, or they just played it long enough that the high complexity doesn't matter to them. Contrasting that though, if it's a deck that's easy to learn but rewarding to master, with a well defined gameplan but a degree of flexibility in it's approach, maybe even featuring a new, innovative kind of interaction, that's the mark of your staple "format defining deck". Those decks are good because a lot of people can immediately recognize them as good, the high representation then leads to a high win rate by default and the results are kind of self-evident in that regard. To give an example: Unchained, even at first glance, is consistent, flexible and hard to interact with because they can float and dodge targeting. They have solid removal options, a decent amount of recovery and easy access into high ATK monsters to close out games. It's not hard to take a look at the deck and come to the conclusion that it will perform well.
don't use YCS as a reference in what a good deck is, that section of the community regularly has over 2 grand to burn on travel, lodge, and food which is something over 80% of the yugioh comminity can't do leisurely
Cards are expensive. If the player can build their entire deck to the best form without being limited by money, they can for sure pay the travel, lodge and food required to play in a YCS. Also, if you're spending big money on it, you're for sure taking the game more seriously than 80% of YGO community.
Hard to do for this community, they're hard glued into thinking results and pro players are always right, meanwhile the pros have played beyond flawed versions of decks making them lose to stuff they shouldn't quite a few times. and if you point it out you get hit by "lmaooo look at this scrub, where are your tops?" the constant sheep mentality is what makes them surprised when a new deck shows up and performs well, because they don't test stuff at all.
@@gimmickyiv7506 then what should the community look at for reference? You can't just say don't listen to the pros like a sheep and not offer any alternative, pros are looked at as the reference because they're the ones that are usually the most successful at the top level, that being the YCS and above, being against their opinions because you think their decks are flawed doesn't make you some free thinker unless you can actually back your words up with either results or good arguments, otherwise you're just a contrarian
@@BigBuckies "Back up your words" if i had the money for that id gladly do so, mentioning good arguments when any little bit of criticism gets met with "lmao where are your tops" is just trying to be funny, the alternative is testing stuff out themselves, nobody says copying techs or looking at a version of the deck that is doing well is bad, but this playerbase doesn't do that at all, which ends up in suboptimal deck building because it did well at one event.
Here's what a lot of people either don't know or won't acknowledge/accept: In practically every format since nekroz got slaughtered by the ban list in late 2015, the best deck has been some sort of pile of various engines and hand traps. Metalfoes were not the best deck of metalfoes format. A random pile of engines was. Zoodiac was not the best deck of zoo format. A random pile of engines was. Orcust was not the best deck of TOSS format. A random pile of engines was. And tearlament was not the best deck of tear format. A random pile of engines was. It's simply a matter of testing and figuring out exactly what configuration of engines and hand traps is the best for whatever format you're talking about. I personally don't know any given format well enough to tell you what variety of pile deck wins any given format, but I know Yu-Gi-Oh well enough to know that a pile deck is literally always the best deck.
@@duelme1234 I genuinely don't know. I didn't play tear format, but from what I've seen, I'd say anything that can consistently make dweller going first, and plays enough hand traps to slow tear down going second is really all it takes. I have yet to see a tearlament end board that I would consider threatening. Dweller shuts tearlament down super hard. So make it as quick and as often as possible. Beyond that, anything to stop them from milling when you can't go first.
@GeneralNickles OK, so let me get this straight. You claim that some sort of a pile deck has always been best post nekroz and used a bunch of formats as examples. It's fine to not know all the formats, but when I ask about an example YOU USED for curiosity (and a fairly recent format at that) to prove a point, your response is "I didn't play that format"... At least use examples you know, mate. How is anyone supposed to trust what you said? Yes dweller shuts down tearlament, but have you seen Hani vs Jesse's YCS final where Hani barely won even with dweller? One of the reasons ishizu tear was so strong is because it resisted hate so well.
I would consider a deck to be good if it has a somewhat consistently executable game plan for victory. I would consider YCS viable decks to be great decks. Ninjas and Six Samurai are good decks while Rescue Ace and Unchained are great decks.
Im gonna use this so people can stop saying galaxy-eyes is bad. There's more options now and you can play through negates decently. I even got caught lacking bc I stopped playing galaxy for a while so I assumed I made the right play only to instantly get otked bc of afterglow.
Special summon everything. Search everything. Boss goes plus on summon. Quick effect interuption. Gimmick or restrictions don't change anything. You can tell a deck will be bad because you actually have to play into its gimmick to win. You can tell a deck is god because everything is a one card starter into full board.
I don't think anything on earth can play through more than 3 without luck. If they've got as many negates as you have effects that you CAN play, what is a man to do
I think what MBT meant about the "recency bias" thing is that people stop experimenting as much with older cards because they move on to experiment with the new stuff which can lead to stuff being undiscovered
Which is explicitly proven to be true given how unsolved Edison format secretly was
People not using mystic mine for almost a year is a perfect example. Literally impossible to go back and enjoy TOSS format nowbecause of mine
Spright is another example of this.
Everyone was on tri-brigade spright, then they jumped on frog spright and tri-brigade was forgotten about. Then in kash format everyone switched to runick spright and other spright variants were forgotten about.
Try to even mention a new spright variant though and everyone craps on it as though it's going to be some 2002 playground deck, even if you point out the strong synergies and potential the deck has, the idea gets tossed aside as non-viable.
@@jaydenliberty9536 edison was a format that had 1 event of course it wasn't solved. Taking edison as a go to example is weird
I've learned two things from other card games. 1. Never underestimate how many players there are that simply don't go online. 2. There is no one on earth who can consistently predict how good each card in a set will be.
2 is true. Just look at MTG recent modern ban on Fury. During the preview season for it's set, most players wore calling it worse of the 5 envolk elemental cycle. Give it a month or two and RB Scam became a known deck and hiw it wrapped the game in to not being a monster heavy friendly format.
Part of MBT’s point is that the metagame changes so quickly that the “best decks” are the ones that get discovered quickly. Things like Tearlaments are obviously powerful just by reading the text, so people immediately start testing it. And once it starts getting results, everyone starts building to stop it. Then people start building decks to counter the counter decks. The result is that the metagame ends up revolving around the handful of archetypes that get built the fastest. Powerful decks that have a higher ceiling but take longer to develop often fall to the wayside.
The length of a format has always been part of the game. Removing the time constraints drastically changes every format, as has been proven
@@mrbubbles6468in mbts video on this subject he also said the number of events being held are too low for proper testing of strategies. An example being the magic has daily and weekly events.
I think what I’m taking home from this is that there’s not enough time between card releases to determine a good deck. Granted my definition of good is pretty wide
Pretty much. And Farfa gives a good example. There very well could've been a deck in the Tear 0 format that utterly bodied Tear Ishizu into the wall, but the formats go so fast that no one wanted to take a gamble on that when it's easier to just play Tear Ishizu. And the next set may have something in it that bodies both Tear Ishizu and this possible deck into the wall. So rather then take a gamble during this format, people will just play what is currently proving to be the best deck right now.
I got m1 in master duel with dracoslayers. A deck that doesnt even appear in tierlists lol
@@shakeweller granted they have a different list regarding Dracoslayers I think? (idk why both Ocg and tcg are terrified of them tbh. Like they’re good for sure but cmon. Meanwhile they’ll print Ariseheart)
Everything better than Madolche is a good deck, everything worse than Madolche is a bad deck.
We really do be playing the best deck that isn't good here at the Chateau
Madolche being either good or bad depending on the meta is funny.
High bar. Look at Madolch in lithium cbc
Love seeing Conversion Rates in tournament resuilt breakdowns. It's necessary context.
I love the implication that if everyone entered a YCS with gemini decks, it means gemini is not a failed mechanic.
I have to avoid flicking my eyes over to the chat while watching this. I know some of it's trolling, but are people really so ready to disagree with an argument that they'll just ignore it completely?
Baudrillard is the philosopher behind the concept of hyperreality
To be fair, that person with the ursa deck is so in love with it. Like its their whole identity, if my whole identity was one deck (not ba man) I would want to defend it as hard as I could.
Just a pet decker that their deck isn't good just that.
It's really not because they play a large variety of decks.
I believe the argument with the whole Ursarctic deck was that it isn't bad it just isn't topping. The idea being that on a scale of 1-10 most players will say anything not a 9 or 10 is bad when you could steal games consistently with a 7 or 8 rated deck against them.
@@absolutionveil8632 I don't think a 1 through 10 scale is accurate enough to determine whether a deck is good or bad. By the way you phrased it, nothing in this game is bad, which isn't really true.
@@AllThingsEntertaining No there are certainly bad decks. I consider 5 average, anything that performs lower than a 5 is bad. 6 may have slightly more consistency than 5, or maybe a slightly better win condition. 7 & 8 decks fall somewhere into rogue or tier 3 status, having next to no consistency problems and having a difficult, but not impossible, to overcome win condition. At 9 & 10 you have the tier 1 and rare 0 decks. Ones that can complete their full combo through multiple disruptions basically every turn and have boards that are nearly unbreakable without specific cards to deal with them.
Let's look at gem knights for instance. It's a very xenophobic deck and requires you to play a lot of bricks. It has a below average consistency and the boards it puts up are very simple to put due to most of the in archetype cards lacking disruption. I'd say Ursa is somewhere in the 5-6 range, average. Gem Knights however would be around 4 at the highest. Below average at best, or just outright bad.
Well MBT himself is actually pretty bad at determining what is good.
Like he seriously thinks the Dragonrulers are gonna be a problem.
Not nearly as bad as Cali Effect, that dude is horrible at predicting “best” decks
If the drulers came at 3 today they'd be busted. Remember they have a foolish burial and a Monster Reborn in archetype
@@NewtBannneri mean yeah. But i dont take that guy seriously anyway since he is litteraly making rogue deck tier lists
@@angel-memeroftheislesNo they would still absolutely suck.
Every time i read them i first think "wow those are some neat effects".
Until i see that you can use only one of the effects per turn. Which results in them being either a extremely situational foolish or reborn that goes minus 1 or they are just straight up bad lvl 7 extenders that go minus 1.
Im sorry but they just suck nowadays.
@@angel-memeroftheislesLmao yeah the 10 year old cards with HOPT on everything under the sun are gonna break the game, I swear some of you people never played POTE formats
Some people say is consistency, some people say is draw power, some say is spamability, some say is prep, and TBH every single one of them are right. At least to me, the point is not "what does make a deck good" but "which cards make a good deck" because people can play staples in they're decks and still lose games, same goes for the opposite, people can play really bad cards and win games, so IMO there's 50% piloting 40% is deck building and 10% is luck.
That rogue V I S A S S T A R F R O S T scared the s**t out of me 😂
I remember in PHHY format when Traptrix, Generaider, and Abyss Actor were all playable to varying degrees, but hardly anyone took the time to lab them because Kashtira, people already knew that that deck was good, so why bother with the others
(Pak did a small series on Traptrix, but i dont think very many people actually took it seriously)
They did. But most attributed it to "it's pak. He makes anything work" instead of traptrix being strong.
re: YCS results being everything, literally the day before i was going to go to the shop to buy a playset of purrelys, someone got like 4th place at a regionals with it, and the price doubled overnight. still mad about that one
That's bc traptrixs new support was nowhere near enough to even be rogue. Then lab came out and there really wasn't a reason to play something soo far worse than it.
@@N3XTREVOLUTIONthe irony here being that Traptrix has really good matchup against Labrynth.
@N3XTREVOLUTION according to most people's metrics, Traptrix was absolutely rogue playable for months. Kashtira dies to a single Floodgate Trap Hole and nothing else.
as to your Lab point, well that really just proves the point doesn't it? "well I could play around with this deck and see how it performs, but why do that when this deck is obviously better" its virtually impossible to gauge a deck's strength if you go by that attitude. it's why formats are usually only solved until well after the format has already ended
(and I remain unconvinced that Lab was that much better, at least at that time)
To me a "good deck" needs a clear win condition, a consistent path to that condition, and the ability to defend or play past disruption within reason.
I feel like people exaggerate what "bad" and "good" decks are, most are in a weird middle ground that can't compete with the top meta but are fine in casual. I understand farfa's and MBT's perspectives.
Whether a deck is good or bad in the context of Yugioh's meta is relative to whatever the most played decks are in a format (which are often the best decks). Its a card game, match-ups and amount of variance are incredibly important in determining the success rate of a given deck.
Something i'll also say is that i rarely see this amount of elitism in other competitive games I've partaken in. Before Yugioh, i was really into Smash Bros. While Ultimate in particular has an incredibly balanced roster despite its size, a game like Sm4sh for example had a pretty defined hierarchy. Though people were pretty willing in those games to mostly play whoever they had fun maining, which some players in particular making a name for themselves in trying to push lower tier characters. Like, some of the greatest sets in Sm4sh was probably watching that Lucario main take on ZeRo.
Perhaps the reason this isn't common in Yugioh is because of the constant updates to the card pool, but the closest i've seen to this sort of mentality is Dragon Link players. They'll just keep trucking along with their tride and true deck at regionals regardless of nerfs/buffs, even though Resonator decks are just objectively better atm due to Bystial Dis Pater.
This twitter drama all started from a tweet misunderstanding a video by the way.
I think the big issue is the different definitions of a deck. I have been playing fur hire religiously since they dropped in DL. Not too long ago I heard about runick fur hire and gave it a try, I thought it was complete cheeks. But then I actually looked up lists for it and realized it's actually runick/Spright/ furhire, something completely different from what I thought it was. What I'm trying to say is that not everyones definition of say a "good" volcanic deck is the same.
TLDR: way too many engines in this game that really shouldn't work together.
The MBT Manifesto... Oh no. He is going to play an insane deck at a regionals and win
Generaider is secretly tier zero and is just waiting for people to solve the puzzle
Yugioh metas are almost always in a state of small sample sizes. It's basically impossible to get enough data on a particular format before a new one comes around.
Because of this, you're more likely to perform your best with whatever deck you're most comfortable with. Being familiar with a deck to not misplay is going to affect your results more than the raw power of an unfamiliar deck's basic combo.
While I agree with you, I think knowing more about your opponent(s) deck, specially which hand trap/board breaker is more effective at their choke points is more useful than learning your combos. The only reason most people don't do this is due to their limited time in testing and facing these decks in a very diverse meta. it is easy to improve 1 or 2 decks you know by heart than learning 5 to 20 decks.
I think the best way to learn your own deck is to face a mirror match against a more experience player and get beaten so badly, you're more wary and conscious of your plays.
@@leemay3097 I would say learning how to play through disruptions is more important. Most modern decks can play around/through different disruptions, so maximizing your options is more reliable than trying to figure out how to stop other decks. You might face Mathmech once or twice, but you play with your deck every round.
Putting my excessive blurb aside, what I THINK makes a deck good is adaptability. If you can can shift around your main and/or side deck to mess with popular trends seen at events, your deck can probably keep being used there even if it gets "severely outdated", though it's incredibly rare for a deck to survive until its "legacy support" comes out without some other archetype potentially replacing its gimmick or playstyle by then.
nah, kash was not really adaptable and super linear and was still the best deck for months
Rikka sunavalon unironically comes out of nowhere and wins YCS
this entire "drama" was really funny when the entire thing is just "the word 'bad' is subjective"
You get to have shit takes and post shit videos with shit titles and say "it was subjective" afterwards. Like mbt...
ok the "maybe someone can find something more powerful than tear ishizu" comment was a bit out there, konami has yet to print the cards needed to make a stronger deck than that. even with how kashtira is supposed to hard-counter tear ishizu, that only works if kash goes first and tear doesn't get to do a turn 0 combo. like maybe someone could brew up a marginally better build than the ones that topped events, but that deck had so much internal synergy, so many ways to play around just about anything, constantly accrued advantage, and built genuinely amazing boards (maybe not at the same level as the most wombo combo 5+ negate synchro boards, but those boards also didn't have the ability to go through every single one of their deck's interactions every turn.) there's no way that the best deck would be anything but tear ishizu at its core. if they undid the hits in the TCG, OCG, or especially in MD, everything would immediately go right back to tear 0. and i miss it so much
There simply ain't enough tournaments to provide enough data to perform good "deck quality" analysis. MTGO (despite the UI) is a huge fucking deal for MTG because there are always tourneys to join and those tourneys are competitive and produce usable data weekly.
YGO just does not have enough "high rank" tournaments going on to really test and play with the cards and *poof* NEW PRODUCT released and the meta shifts once again ust before a larger event.
It’s interesting you played punk Bystial farfa as I main RDA punk bystail. Mainly using punk for making chaos ruler or pivoting if I’m not RDA locked to make boards. Love the decklist and love the synergy’s in the list
I actually don't think we'll have to wait that long to discover whether or not Unchained is the Quickdraw Dandywarrior of this format. If we look at recent results for Unchained, it actually sputtered out at the finish line. At YCS Bologna, it had a single top 32 and a smattering of top 64 finishes. That's not to say that Unchained in this format, not the one we're heading towards in 2024, is a bad deck or even a bad choice. I think people have played against the deck enough to know its weaknesses, and people have exploited them. Hell, even Centur-ion had better finishes with 2 in the top 32 and nearly breaking into top 16. Looking at weeks after the event, Unchained has had a single Regional win and a few top 4 to top 8 finishes. However, we'll never really know unless people test this format in retrospect. This analysis of Unchained could be outdated in a few years as more people explore this format and determine the deck is actually more busted than it is.
I think this is because players have to test things at a break neck pace. The reason pro players test with a small handful of decks is because time is wasted on anything else. Not that there's nothing to discover in the middle of the format, but there's just not a lot of time, when you can investigate known quantities and prepare for them on that basis. I don't think it's because players are bad at determining whether something is good or bad, I think it boils down to there simply being a finite amount of time to actually discover them. At the moment, in their limited amount of time to test the format, Quickdraw Dandy was probably seen as one of those handful of decks people stuck to testing, because there wasn't enough time to test anything else. I think if they had enough time to explore the options, they might have fleshed out the format in a different direction. Hindsight is, of course, 20/20. Which is why I also don't think it's recency bias, but just a lack of time on the player's end because of Konami. At least back then in Edison, you knew when a ban list dropped so you had some time to prepare. Nowadays, you have to pray all the testing you're doing isn't all for nothing in as little as a couple of months because Konami decided to lob a hand grenade. God forbid there's an emergency ban list.
I do think formats are significantly more diverse than they appear, since that's how Edison and Goat format has evolved. We've seen people discuss how bad Mermail and Fire Fists were compared to Dark World, or how Evilswarm only received tops because of how inexpensive the deck originally was, or how Dandy Warrior was supposed to be the best deck, but it's Vayu Turbo, and that's subject to change.
How would we solve this issue? Well, there are three solutions, all of which could actually work in tandem. The first is to set a timeframe of when a ban list is going to drop again. It doesn't have to be an exact date, just a general month. If there doesn't need to be any changes, then Konami can simply extend the format, or make some minor adjustments (kinda like they did in 2020 when they unlimited 3 cards and nothing else). The second thing is to add more events to the roster. This way, many more players will have an opportunity to play their decks at higher level events. They could also make locals mean more somehow. The third thing is have more event coverage. The EU does a fantastic job for the most part pointing a spotlight at the game. The livestreams are always great, and every YCS seems to be well covered. It should be that way across the board.
One of his points was that there are dedicated competitive players in eternal formats in mtg that stick to one deck. Mtg uses a rotation system instead of power creep. There are cards that impact eternal but it’s not literally every set has game changing things like yugioh. If yugioh had a rotation then perhaps this would happen in yugioh as well, but literally every new set must have power creep or it’s a flop. This is why these can’t be compared 1 to 1 like he did
Standard is the only rotating format, everywhere else is an ever increasing card pool from that standard format with some sets dedicated to those other formats like Commander.
@@otterfire4712 OK, but cards are designed for Standard, which means the power level can stay relatively low. In YGO, the incentive to play new cards *has* to be "because they're better", in MTG it's "because the ones I was playing aren't allowed any more so I have to use these instead". And in the non-rotating formats... people aren't playing new cards unless they do something nutty.
@@manjackson2772 Standard still has to produce cards that can entice other formats. Standard produces a plethora of legendary creatures to draw in Commander players, Discover is just a power crept Cascade.
@otterfire4712 this is an entirely recent phenomenon over the last 3.5 years of MtG's life and is also the reason enfranchised players are leaving as the quality of card releases continuously goes down due to WotC trying to forcibly rotate eternal formats with powercreep and fucking up the standard format with designed for commander cards.
@@tinfoilslacks3750 Power creep has been there well before 3.5 years ago. It became more rampant roughly around Tarkir. Even still, it's more likely due to the ever growing popularity of non-Standard formats so WotC has been trying to make cards appealing to those formats, forsaking the balance of Standard. Commander is one of the more obvious examples of WotC's attention, with a noticeable increase in legendary creatures and especially ones with niche play styles that are better utilized in the Commander Format, Ixalan as a plane is a great example of this with the variety of tribal archetypes for Commander.
There are a few conditions for a deck to be good for me:
- must be easy to learn but have a high ceiling
- should be as consistent as possible
- should have comeback potential
- should be fun to play
- should have space for personal techs or "pet cards"
I couldn't agree more with your perspective 👏
Why is being easy to learn a qualifier, that should be irrelevant to how to good a deck is lol
@@nmr7203 Because I'm not good at the game and neither is 99% of the players, so it would be nice if the deck basic combo was, like 8-10 steps, not 22.
Peeps won a locals with Tistina. The new Firewall was completely off the radar in MD until IWishIWasDead won the MCS. People definitely both underestimate the strength of some of the weaker decks and overestimate the gap between the best decks and the weaker decks.
Magic the Gathering funnel part of their player who like "playing on higher power" in different format and use cardpool limitation to keep it easy for casual (lower power). Yugioh have 1 main format and people who are not suppose to play competitively complain they are getting steamrolled.
It’s not really in retrospect. What people are actually doing is creating an entirely different format. Because when the format first happened it wasn’t designed that you have endless time to lab it nor was the cardpool static
How to predict good cards
1. Buy enough konami stock to influence card designs to be custom Yu-Gi-Oh levels of broken
2. Lie about your involvement at konami and tell the community which will be good and which won't ahead if time
Gg
What’s a good Yu-Gi-Oh! Deck?
A: whatever you like and enjoy playing, either at a casual or competitive level (which lets face it will be VERY different decks)
There are a few questions to check if your deck is good: Does it lose to a single handtrap? Can it play in the opponent's turn? Is it easy to play? Has a clear game plan going first and going second? Can it OTK or at least put enough disruption to win in the following turn?
Why is Farfa so angry any time anyone brings up a card game other than Yu-Gi-Oh as a point of comparison? TCG is a genre, my dude. Konami doesn't hold a monopoly on the concept.
Magic do be kinda booty.
One Piece is well... Based on a shit franchise
So really Pokemon would be the only point of comparison that's worth considering at the moment, and it may be the single least analogous game of the group
A Good deck is whatever the playerbase decides is good or fun at a certain period of time.
To define what makes a Deck good, there are three fundamental questions you would have to ask in regards to this question:
1) Does your Deck have a win condition?
2) Can your Deck achieve that win condition with ease?
3) Can the win condition keep pace with the format you intend to play it in?
If all three of these questions are answered with a yes, your Deck is actually good. If it answers no to any one of these questions, then it's more than likely not good.
Through this logic, there is a lot more good decks than what the general public knows because they're used to pigeonholing their views to what they consider the best decks of any given format. But the moment a Rogue Deck ends up getting into Top 32 of a high-profile event like a YCS or Regionals, they end up getting surprised that the Deck is good despite believing that it was a bad Deck you shouldn't pay attention to. It's an interesting phenomenon of the Yugioh committee and I really don't know why players often stick their heads into the ground when something that shakes up their perceptions occurs
That's why galaxy eyes is a good deck
Those 3 things do not a good deck make.
That's more of a guideline for "is it playable" than is it good
@@1stCallipostle
Honestly, I don't really think that there is much of a difference between between being playable and being good. The only thing that separates the two are arbitrary public perception of how far it can go in tournament, but that's more measuring the quality of good rather than answering the question "What is a good Deck?". If we as a Yugioh community can determine that playability is the objective benchmark to measure if a Deck is good or not, the better it is for everyone.
I don't understand the requirements for a bad deck. I usually see a lot of people say Branded isn't that good because Ash Blossom is a thing, but that's like saying Tear isn't good because Dimension Shifter exists. I feel like professional players judge a deck on if it's good based on how well it does against the best deck in the format. Tear doesn't do good against Kashtira so it's bad, but Spright can kinda stand a chance so it's not.
Lol I absolutely feel this way too. When looking from a barebones outside perspective it can be mindboggling seeing a random deck or underwhelming effects being good. A big example is the glowup Mathmech had. I still remember seeing replays of it being untiered on MD. Ik circular is good but the fact it carried a deck so hard is crazy.
The difference is shifter a card that only certain decks can play compared to ash which is in every deck/side deck.
@@Blackguy610 True but during a time where a tier 0 deck was dominating the format, people were playing it regardless.
If a single hand trap completely demolishes your opening turn without leaving you any follow up then it's bad. Branded is not the best example, but something like invoked is not very good these days, because it relies on a single normal summon and search. It doesn't make a deck inherently bad necessarily, but being resilient to common handtraps in the format is a prerequisite for a competitive deck if nothing else, and it's hard to imagine a world where people stop playing Ash and Imperm tbh.
@@Yogy19 Tear is crippled by shifter, but they're not completely, hopelessly boned like some rogue decks would be by a single disruption.
The Yugioh meta is whatever product Komomey shits out that month
you know a deck is good when it gets emergency banned during a official tournament.
Some of us literally just play what we think is fun and just lose online.😂 until they start sending niggas to the shadow realm for losing IRL I'm still going to play Ra, cyber dragons, prediction princess, and Shiranui
if we had people that experimented with old decks like the OCG does with Tear we'd have a different game
That's because there's no time to actually play decks. At least, not in the way we do with Edison. You have to hope and pray there isn't a new ban list every six months only for your prayers to fall on deaf ears. It's way easier to test the top decks than to explore the format.
Mekk-Knights
I personally dont like saying a deck is "bad" unless its basically unplayable. I think Bujin, with the right builds, is a good deck. Not great, exceptional, or phenomenal but good.
Its all about how you look to rate decks, and rating can change over time even when looking at a specific format over time. I personally think tier lists are a bad way of rating most things and prefer scaling them with a percentile 1-100. If you grade decks in this fashion you can easily categorize them by a "school exam" kinda system where their "test grade" shows how competent they are.
Mbt is going through a tough time? What happened?
He retweeted a tweet responding to Duellogs Ursarctics - Failed Cards, Archetypes and Sometimes Mechanics in Yu-Gi-Oh!. That tweet said Ursarctics aren’t failures or bad. MBT’s retweet said “What is a good deck to you people?” So this drama all came from someone not understanding what the video was about and didn’t bother watching it.
When you hard draw your 1 of duster twice in a row:
one word, can it handdle floonder at full power?
MBT really thinks he's that guy.
I LOVE how this translates to basically all of Dzeef’s vids like Roulette and Saga. Basically the whole convo is either this deck is shit or this deck is overpowered and then the opposite result happens in game lmao
Goddess of Sweet Revenge OP
Once meta "slave" always meta slave 😂😂😂
The Yugioh comunity needed a whole year to realize Mystic Mine is good in almost every deck, not just stun. Maxxc another example.
MBT got beaten by normal summon clayman so does this make elemental heroes a good deck? No!
Using Good or Bad as a descriptor for a deck is really reductive. We really should have using Strong and Weak as a descriptor.
Nice topic
One that shan't stopped with one ash blossom, the bare minimum
Rescue-ace isn't good, it's everything around it that is and I will die on this hill
I stood, and died, on the hill that s:p wasn't going to be as good as people said it was.
I was slaughtered.
As a Rescue-ACE main I absolutely agree. The deck by itself is fine but when you smash it together with other stuff it gets really freaking good.
@@steeveedragooni mean you were wrong so...
@@silverguy9605 also as a rescue-ace main, you are completely right
@@domimomi3954 as I said, I stood and died on that hill.
Some say that if you visit that hill you can find a poor soul who was on copium that the card wouldn't be a $100+ staple.
People can't face that their favorite decks are ass, and that we're terrible at figuring out what's good.
True, I won't deny it.
Trust me guys, once vaalmonica gets it's new support it'll be crazy. Either way, I have accepted that in it's current state it's unplayable and complete ass, but I think it has potential, but having said that, the new support will have to carry the rest of the archetype for that to be the case.
As for being bad about figuring out what's good, unchained on the release of DUNE was crazy, yet almost no one realized. People very much overestimated the impact that therion would have, and didn't it take something like 9 months for people to figure put that Megalith was crazy good back in 2020?
Giving people the benefit of the doubt on megalith though, it was apparently super hard to pilot, although from using it I can't lie and say that I didn't have an easy enough time with it, although I did specifically play Drytron Megalith, which is a different deck.
I just accepted that magical musketeers are shit
I'm still convinced to this day that Drytron megalith was an extremely slept on deck back in the day, especially in the TCG where Benten was at 3
Deck is extremely explosive and it's turn one is almost unbeatable
You can end on baronne, 4 mat appo and Phul to summon bethor on the opponents turn
Extremely hard for any deck to play through
It also had a decent enough grind game depending on how many of the megaliths you played, especially considering it was a balls to the wall combo deck
And lastly it could go second and just brute force it's way through boardstates with a combination of bethor popping things and phaleg letting you swing over live boards for game
Now the deck wasn't perfect by any means, it still lost to the usual stuff, droll, dark ruler etc
But it was definitely a lot better than people even bothered to experiment with
I think this is because the only thing people believed drytron was good for was making herald and so once it lost the ability to do that people just immediately assumed it was ass
They didn't even think about using the engine with other ritual packages for massive benefits
Hell in drytron megalith, even though I haven't tested it yet you could probably weave in a small magikey package with betosbuster and unlocking to become immune to dark ruler
Genuinely a tragedy that the deck was never given the time of day and still to this day isn't given the time of day even though I believe it could at least be a rogue contender
I still think April 2016 format is secretly one of the best alt formats to play in Time Wizard
i think md being a best of 1 and being a slightly different format and being several months behind card releases has kind of proved this sure we still have some of the same decks topping weekly tournaments that were topping ycs at that same time, but we also have other decks that are topping the weekly tournaments that never did in the tcg and others that topped in tcg not even topping at all best example in master duel is kashtira. Kash is no where near the menace in md that it was in tcg.
Yes it is still annoying and unfun to go against but it isn't the meta threat it was in tcg.
You're welcome
Dino is a bad deck but if Misc resolves its the best deck
The question of what makes a "good deck" by community standards is pretty easily answered.
1. It needs to be fun to play and variable in its gameplan.
2. It needs to have a defined win condition and a consistent way to access said win condition.
3. It needs to be easy to pick up and learn, but with a high skill ceiling.
If your deck can fulfill all of the above, it's a good deck, if it fails in at least one of them, it's probably somewhere around tier 3 or rogue-ish.
1. If the deck either isn't fun to play or so repetetive in it's gameplan that it becomes boring, people will lose interest and stop exploring the decks possibilities. Mikanko falls in this category currently. It's a strong deck with a decently competent gameplan, but because of their rather dull playstyle of essentially Acid Golem Stun only a handful of people actually bring them to events.
2. If the deck lacks a consistent win condition, there is no incentive for players to even start exploring different combos. This is where Kashtira roams around at the moment. Without Arise-Heart and no possibilities to make relevant use of the zone-locking, the deck lost it's identity. Fenrir Shangri-Ira control is a gameplan that still works, but why bother if there's better alternatives?
3. If the deck is too complicated to learn, either because of non-linear combo lines or a heavy focus on ressource management, players are easily intimidated. Why bother learning a Rikka Sunavalon spreadsheet if the deck adapts with literally every new plant monster released and you have to do it all over again next format?
This is not to say that any of the decks I mentioned are bad in any way, but the lack of relevant and most importantly consistent representation does cause them to fly under the radar for most people. It's rather easy to dismiss them as "that one rogue guy who brought his locals deck to an event". Maybe they'll get a lucky top cut, prices spike a little, but then people lose interest immediately afterwards. Usually you'll see those decks represented by people who are just piloting their pet deck for fun. Maybe they just like the artwork, maybe that dull playstyle is appealing for them, or they just played it long enough that the high complexity doesn't matter to them.
Contrasting that though, if it's a deck that's easy to learn but rewarding to master, with a well defined gameplan but a degree of flexibility in it's approach, maybe even featuring a new, innovative kind of interaction, that's the mark of your staple "format defining deck". Those decks are good because a lot of people can immediately recognize them as good, the high representation then leads to a high win rate by default and the results are kind of self-evident in that regard.
To give an example:
Unchained, even at first glance, is consistent, flexible and hard to interact with because they can float and dodge targeting. They have solid removal options, a decent amount of recovery and easy access into high ATK monsters to close out games. It's not hard to take a look at the deck and come to the conclusion that it will perform well.
kash was not fun for either player, nor was drytron or eldlich or mystic mine, all top decks. WV was super inconsistent and a top deck.
don't use YCS as a reference in what a good deck is, that section of the community regularly has over 2 grand to burn on travel, lodge, and food which is something over 80% of the yugioh comminity can't do leisurely
Cards are expensive. If the player can build their entire deck to the best form without being limited by money, they can for sure pay the travel, lodge and food required to play in a YCS. Also, if you're spending big money on it, you're for sure taking the game more seriously than 80% of YGO community.
Hard to do for this community, they're hard glued into thinking results and pro players are always right, meanwhile the pros have played beyond flawed versions of decks making them lose to stuff they shouldn't quite a few times. and if you point it out you get hit by "lmaooo look at this scrub, where are your tops?" the constant sheep mentality is what makes them surprised when a new deck shows up and performs well, because they don't test stuff at all.
@@Sodowver you're response is 100% classist
@@gimmickyiv7506 then what should the community look at for reference? You can't just say don't listen to the pros like a sheep and not offer any alternative, pros are looked at as the reference because they're the ones that are usually the most successful at the top level, that being the YCS and above, being against their opinions because you think their decks are flawed doesn't make you some free thinker unless you can actually back your words up with either results or good arguments, otherwise you're just a contrarian
@@BigBuckies "Back up your words" if i had the money for that id gladly do so, mentioning good arguments when any little bit of criticism gets met with "lmao where are your tops" is just trying to be funny, the alternative is testing stuff out themselves, nobody says copying techs or looking at a version of the deck that is doing well is bad, but this playerbase doesn't do that at all, which ends up in suboptimal deck building because it did well at one event.
Here's what a lot of people either don't know or won't acknowledge/accept:
In practically every format since nekroz got slaughtered by the ban list in late 2015, the best deck has been some sort of pile of various engines and hand traps.
Metalfoes were not the best deck of metalfoes format. A random pile of engines was.
Zoodiac was not the best deck of zoo format. A random pile of engines was.
Orcust was not the best deck of TOSS format. A random pile of engines was.
And tearlament was not the best deck of tear format. A random pile of engines was.
It's simply a matter of testing and figuring out exactly what configuration of engines and hand traps is the best for whatever format you're talking about. I personally don't know any given format well enough to tell you what variety of pile deck wins any given format, but I know Yu-Gi-Oh well enough to know that a pile deck is literally always the best deck.
What pile are you talking about for tear format? Curious
@@duelme1234 I genuinely don't know. I didn't play tear format, but from what I've seen, I'd say anything that can consistently make dweller going first, and plays enough hand traps to slow tear down going second is really all it takes. I have yet to see a tearlament end board that I would consider threatening.
Dweller shuts tearlament down super hard. So make it as quick and as often as possible.
Beyond that, anything to stop them from milling when you can't go first.
@@GeneralNicklesyou didn't play Tear so you don't know how Tear can play on turn zero, before there's even time to make Dweller.
Is that the reason why dlink always topping each yeah (while also winning wcs)?
@GeneralNickles OK, so let me get this straight. You claim that some sort of a pile deck has always been best post nekroz and used a bunch of formats as examples. It's fine to not know all the formats, but when I ask about an example YOU USED for curiosity (and a fairly recent format at that) to prove a point, your response is "I didn't play that format"... At least use examples you know, mate. How is anyone supposed to trust what you said? Yes dweller shuts down tearlament, but have you seen Hani vs Jesse's YCS final where Hani barely won even with dweller? One of the reasons ishizu tear was so strong is because it resisted hate so well.
I would consider a deck to be good if it has a somewhat consistently executable game plan for victory. I would consider YCS viable decks to be great decks. Ninjas and Six Samurai are good decks while Rescue Ace and Unchained are great decks.
Im gonna use this so people can stop saying galaxy-eyes is bad. There's more options now and you can play through negates decently. I even got caught lacking bc I stopped playing galaxy for a while so I assumed I made the right play only to instantly get otked bc of afterglow.
speedroid best deck
Mbt got banned on twitter?
Special summon everything. Search everything. Boss goes plus on summon. Quick effect interuption. Gimmick or restrictions don't change anything.
You can tell a deck will be bad because you actually have to play into its gimmick to win. You can tell a deck is god because everything is a one card starter into full board.
If it can't work through at least 3 negates it's bad
Nah if a deck can't one card starter power through 20 omni negates and win turn 1-2 it's trash imho
I don't think anything on earth can play through more than 3 without luck.
If they've got as many negates as you have effects that you CAN play, what is a man to do
@@1stCallipostle simply draw the out
i'm ngl i need exactly omni_pt in chat to stop posting
Deck that can make Gage cry is a good deck