Playstyles - Yes or No?

I don't really hit up ARG that often, but those recent articles about playstyles really caught my eye last time.

Basically there were 2 points of view:

1. Playstyles do exist. There are too many variables in the game to master everything.

2. Playstyles don't exist. You should always concentrate on making the most optimal play.

My viewpoint:

I do believe that every duelist has his own strenghts and weaknesses and therefore plays in a different manner. But even though everyone has
attributes that set him apart from the rest ( like deckbuilding, reading body language, rulings,etc.) you shouldn't use them as excuses to make suboptimal decisions.

Always playing aggressively won't win you games consistently and neither will always playing conservatively. I believe you should always play to your best ability and attempt to make the most optimal play.(even though you are biased because of your attributes)

Running into a Gorz and losing the game just because you are an "aggressive player" sounds stupid to me.

Choosing to run Evilswarms over Dragon Rulers when you truly believe that Dragon Rulers are the better deck is idiotic.

tl;dr There should be a valid reasoning behind your decisions, not just "my playstyle is this or that."

What do guys think? Do you believe in playstyles?

That's a good subject you brought up, actually i don't believe in playstyles either, i don't think duelists will actually make suboptimal actions just because they feel like it, they will only do it if they didn't figure out the optimal move. Playstyles only exist in anime, that's all.

In essence, I believe that playstyles do exist, because there are in reality players who play slightly more aggressively or conservatively, or who try to be more straightforward or tricky/bluffy, especially seen in their deck choices themselves, and you can definitely tell the difference between them. However, in this context I'd say the word "playstyle" more depends on skill than an actual overarching approach to the game, especially on the higher levels.

So, basically, my opinion on the matter is "In theory, playstyles shouldn't exist, but they do."

Playstyles definitely do exist. The reason people don't think they do is because they confuse power with an aggressive playstyle. Winning is reliant on 3 things: Deck power, duelist skill, and luck. Deck power doesn't necessarily mean it is an aggressive deck. It means it is made up of really good cards that have a really good consistency rate. Like Evilswarm vs Oppressed People OTK. Clearly Evilswarm is a control deck, but it has way more power than Oppressed People.

Now it comes to player skill. Every player develops a playstyle. A good player will be able to adapt with the format and new cards. But the playstyle is always there. It doesn't mean you don't attack for game when you control The Shining and Alius because you know you can summon Stratos next turn and get a plus. And it doesn't mean you waste all of your cards to summon 4 synchros when the opp has 5 facedowns. But it does make you unique in what kind of deck you choose. In a good format, there are lots of different decks that could win so you are free to choose one that suits your playstyle. Not all formats are like this however and we are forced to play the 2 or 3 decks with the most power because nothing else can win. That is what makes a bad format bad. I personally love decks that search and draw a lot, then I will almost always have a good setup and when I draw, it will likely be a powerful spell or trap because i searched most of the monsters. I don't like monster mash decks. Milling is just too random and unpredictable and reliant on luck for me to get behind. But more importantly, when decks have too much power, the game itself has no meaning as it is basically up to the coinflip to see who goes first. That's what makes it truly bad.

Yeah everyone has his own choices and ways to go about things, but it's the players interpretation of perfection at the time that leads him to those decisions.

When the player gets better, he will find  better and easier ways to play and thus reaches closer to perfection.

As soon as you fall into a pattern ("grind decks are the best","I am an aggressive duelist"), you stop developing as a player.

You should definitely exploit your attributes, but that doesn't mean that you forget about the rest.

In an essence, I believe in "style without style", but I'm a crazy hobo so I 'm not suprised if you don't get it.

Harper7000 wrote:

In a good format, there are lots of different decks that could win so you are free to choose one that suits your playstyle. Not all formats are like this however and we are forced to play the 2 or 3 decks with the most power because nothing else can win. That is what makes a bad format bad. I personally love decks that search and draw a lot, then I will almost always have a good setup and when I draw, it will likely be a powerful spell or trap because i searched most of the monsters. I don't like monster mash decks. Milling is just too random and unpredictable and reliant on luck for me to get behind.

I think the best format is a Tier 0 format, because too many decks increase the luck factor of the game.(I can elaborate later on that)

What if Monster Mash was Tier 1 and absolutely destroyed your deck that draws and searches a lot. What you continue playing it?

No. If you wanted to win consistently you'd be forced to switch to Monster Mash or another deck that you aren't comfortable with.

It would force you to develop your playstyle.

gutsberserk wrote:

Yeah everyone has his own choices and ways to  go about things, but it's the players interpretation of perfection at the time that leads him to those decisions.

When the player gets better, he will find  better and easier ways to play and thus reaches closer to perfection. You should definitely exploit your attributes, but that doesn't mean that you forget about the rest.

Agree. Improving is about minimizing your weaknesses and capitalizing your strengths. So many people that "go against the grain" of the meta lose, not NECESSARILY because of the power of their deck vs the other deck (though it contributes) but because they don't take the time to learn how the meta works. The best way to learn how to beat a deck is to learn how to win with it. And the best way to learn how to win is to use that deck. So in a way, even if you don't "play" certain decks in the meta, you should still play them to be a good player.

gutsberserker wrote:

I think the best format is a Tier 0 format, because too many decks increase the luck factor of the game.

You lost me there, I couldn't disagree more. When you only have one deck to play, luck is a much, much bigger factor. ESPECIALLY since Tier 0 decks inherently have such a ridiculous amount of power that it tends to be basically autopilot. So that takes out the deck building factor since you can just netdeck anyone in the world and it's probably easy to figure out how to construct anyway, and it also takes out a good portion of the skill factor. What skill it does require is usually learned rather quickly. Remember, formats last for 6 months without hope of change, and possibly won't be hit hard enough the next time either. And with only 1 deck to play during that time, it doesn't take long to learn the ends and outs. Add this on to the fact that games are often decided by who goes first, it makes Tier 0 formats super boring on top of being obscenely expensive if you play irl. An investment which doesn't usually pay off well because Tier 0 decks are almost never allowed to survive more than a format.

Now, admittedly, Konami seems to be taking a step in the right direction. Dragon Rulers and Prophecy have a clear lead but yet aren't unbeatable even on tournament level. Evilswarm and even Fire Fist are so good at being anti meta that they are part of the meta. Plus Dragon Rulers and Prophecy aren't exactly autopilot.  Dragon Rulers a little autopilot maybe but not too bad. Even decks that aren't autopilot you can usually easily figure out how they work and how to play it. Not so with those two, it's a process, especially Prophecy. The support is more varied, and builds on past support so there are a variety of way to actually play the decks. It also allows you to play the new cards without actually playing the deck itself. Spellbook of Wisdom is Infestation Pandemic for ANY spellcaster-centric deck, and God knows how many spellcasters there are in yugioh. GK for example are a lot better now. They already run very few monsters so it's important to protect them. Necrovalley gives them an edge over Dragon Rulers and the like. Not saying they're Tier 1 again but it's nice. The Dragon Rulers also help boost decks that are attribute-centric. And from an IRL perspective, they will only be a huge problem on tournament level since they are really expensive. So Konami makes good money without screwing the players much. Still not a perfect format but I'm happy that they seem to be caring a little more than they used to. And if they're smart they'll still let the decks be playable and just kill the trump cards.

gutsberserker wrote:

What if Monster Mash was Tier 1 and absolutely destroyed your deck that draws and searches a lot. What you continue playing it?

No. Incidentally though, Monster Mash decks that are that good generally are also able to search or toolbox or dump things in grave to combo really well so it's actually not really a problem lol. Lightsworn for example I don't really like because of the random milling, relies too much on luck, but at its height it had 3 Charges, 3 Recharges, 3 Lumina to toolbox from grave, and Beckoning/Reincarnation to grab JD from grave. May not have had much room for traps but had 3 Honest and 3 Necro Gardna. Can't really argue with results.

gutsberserker wrote:

It would force you to develop your playstyle.

Sort of but not really. It makes you learn a new playstyle essentially. Which you already should have done if you're a good player. The better you are, the easier you can switch playstyles. Playstyle is...well, the style you play a deck. You shouldn't play aggressive in a control deck and you shouldn't be reckless in a control deck. "Your" playstyle is just the playstyle you would like to use under your ideal format and ideal matchup. Of course you need to realize life doesn't always happen the way you want it to, but it doesn't mean you don't have a preference, I guess that's what I'm trying to say.

Harper7000 wrote:

gutsberserker wrote:

I think the best format is a Tier 0 format, because too many decks increase the luck factor of the game.

You lost me there, I couldn't disagree more. When you only have one deck to play, luck is a much, much bigger factor. ESPECIALLY since Tier 0 decks inherently have such a ridiculous amount of power that it tends to be basically autopilot. So that takes out the deck building factor since you can just netdeck anyone in the world and it's probably easy to figure out how to construct anyway, and it also takes out a good portion of the skill factor. What skill it does require is usually learned rather quickly. Remember, formats last for 6 months without hope of change, and possibly won't be hit hard enough the next time either. And with only 1 deck to play during that time, it doesn't take long to learn the ends and outs. Add this on to the fact that games are often decided by who goes first, it makes Tier 0 formats super boring on top of being obscenely expensive if you play irl. An investment which doesn't usually pay off well because Tier 0 decks are almost never allowed to survive more than a format.

The more decks are in a format, the less side deck space you can use for them. So let's say there are 10 different decks, but you only have 15 cards for your side deck. (yeah some cards hit multiple matchups but most of the time they are weaker compared to specific ones)
Now what? You will hope to play the expected matchups, but if you don't  you will be at a severe disadvantage and probably scrub, even though it was not your fault. It was based on luck on what you would face.

Or let's say you wanna try a tech like Veiler to combat Inzektors. Then all of a sudden Dark Worlds and Heroes walk in and shit on your techs.
(this was like 1 year ago or sth?) Again it depends on luck whether you face DW/Heroes and scrub. If you decide to not main Veiler you will lose to Inzektors. It's a paradox.

If you only have 1 deck, you won't have these problems. Normally Tier 0 decks have maximum speed, toolboxing ability,etc. and if everyone has everything it turns into chess.
Couldn't  really play this format , but what I noticed is that in the Dragon mirror match the better player wins beside crazy Super Rejuvenation plays. In pre-Oppression TeleDAD if you went off first, you lost,etc.

It forces you to be innovative to gain an edge over the opposition.( See Royal Oppression in TeleDAD)

Most good formats had few decks, or only one. (Goat control,TeleDAD, Plant format,etc.)

That's just from a competitive standpoint, were the better player should  win the majority of the time. Of course 10+ playable decks would be more exciting, but it increases the luck factor.

So , yeah I guess 3-5 decks would be ok. 10+ decks no way in hell man.

Harper7000 wrote:

gutsberserker wrote:

It would force you to develop your playstyle.

Sort of but not really. It makes you learn a new playstyle essentially. Which you already should have done if you're a good player. The better you are, the easier you can switch playstyles. Playstyle is...well, the style you play a deck. You shouldn't play aggressive in a control deck and you shouldn't be reckless in a control deck. "Your" playstyle is just the playstyle you would like to use under your ideal format and ideal matchup. Of course you need to realize life doesn't always happen the way you want it to, but it doesn't mean you don't have a preference, I guess that's what I'm trying to say.

Sometimes you have to play aggressively in a control deck or passively in an aggro deck. You don't make plays because of preference, you make them because you legitimately think that they are optimal at the time.

-----

I like this thread. It shows our views on the game from different perspectives.

gutsberserk wrote:

The more decks are in a format, the less side deck space you can use for them. So let's say there are 10 different decks, but you only have 15 cards for your side deck. (yeah some cards hit multiple matchups but most of the time they are weaker compared to specific ones)
Now what? You will hope to play the expected matchups, but if you don't  you will be at a severe disadvantage and probably scrub, even though it was not your fault. It was based on luck on what you would face.

Or let's say you wanna try a tech like Veiler to combat Inzektors. Then all of a sudden Dark Worlds and Heroes walk in and shit on your techs.
(this was like 1 year ago or sth?) Again it depends on luck whether you face DW/Heroes and scrub. If you decide to not main Veiler you will lose to Inzektors. It's a paradox.

If you only have 1 deck, you won't have these problems. Normally Tier 0 decks have maximum speed, toolboxing ability,etc. and if everyone has everything it turns into chess.
Couldn't  really play this format , but what I noticed is that in the Dragon mirror match the better player wins beside crazy Super Rejuvenation plays. In pre-Oppression TeleDAD if you went off first, you lost,etc.

It forces you to be innovative to gain an edge over the opposition.( See Royal Oppression in TeleDAD)

Most good formats had few decks, or only one. (Goat control,TeleDAD, Plant format,etc.)

That's just from a competitive standpoint, were the better player should  win the majority of the time. Of course 10+ playable decks would be more exciting, but it increases the luck factor.

So , yeah I guess 3-5 decks would be ok. 10+ decks no way in hell man.

It's kind of funny that you bring up the side deck because I've always thought that it was kind of a cop out...lol. I mean, I'm not saying it shouldn't exist. It needs to exist, especially when Tier 0 formats pop up. But to me, having to rely on drawing that one card (or lots of cards, you can out side 3/8 of your deck) that will completely cripple or severely hinder the opponent's entire strategy is boring.
Of course, if everything is broken, I tend to agree with you a little more. But if deck power is more balanced but still has lots of options for you to take as well as lots of options among decks, it's a good thing. No offense, but if you think you're going to auto lose if you don't draw or run Veiler vs Inzektors, you probably need to work on being a more versatile player. Which I don't think you do. Nor do you auto lose if you draw Veiler that probably won't (but still might) be useful to you in the matchup. Although Inzektors are a bad example for my point because they aren't consistent but if you get them off it's easier to win. But even so, you still have a side deck to side in Veilers and other such GENERIC hate.
Contrast that with Tier 0. You know exactly what to play. You know exactly what to side. But if you get a bad hand or just don't draw the VERY SPECIFIC hate like Iron Wall that you sided in or mained, you lose. Not only does it crush creativity and make the game less fun (less fun in my opinion at least), but it is MORE reliant on luck than even a 10+ format is. Plus, lots of people are maining stuff like Iron Wall now. What if you go up against a good rogue deck? It's completely useless.
Also, in more varied formats, you are forced to use cards that are more generically good. That way, you can side 1 card for any number of matchups. That takes skill and a lot of forethought to know what cards are generically good, what you think to be your weakest matchups even in this varied format, and what you will actually face in your locals. I start to hate formats when people run triple Maxx and/or triple Veiler. You shouldn't have to do that. Don't run triple Veiler and Maxx in every deck you're playing, because you probably WILL lose to DW/Heroes. It's all about balance and shifting slightly to give you an edge in round 2. Sided cards will not have quite the same crippling effect that it does with Iron Wall to Dragon Rulers, but I believe that is also a good thing. You are not so desperate to draw that sided card because you will lose if you don't, and if you are sided against, it is effective and worth your opponent's time and effort to think out his side and side in cards against you, but you can still play around it. No more auto lose at all.
This isn't even mentioning the fact that most Tier 0 decks are historically extremely linear and methodical, whereas when you have a more varied format, many more strategies are viable. With variety, usually the harder decks to run have the better payoff if you don't make mistakes (it takes skill to not mess up), while linear strategies (very easy to play) are very easy to read and counter, and fall apart easier when you do side against them. Think about it. If everything is roughly the same power level, there will still be autopilot decks that have the ability to beat other decks. But they are A. not super consistent and B. Easy to side against and C. Easy to read and counter if you're a good player. Such a format encourages creativity and skill, not linear strategies and luck. But if you are a new player and need a simple deck, that's ok! Play Dino Rabbit or something, you still have a chance to win. But you won't win as much as an experience player piloting a deck that takes skill BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IT SHOULD BE. THE BETTER PLAYER SHOULD WIN THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME. In a Tier 0 format, or even a 2-3 deck format like Inzektor/Rabbit/Wind-Ups a while back, linear strategies like sacking Rabbit + TGU and 4 backrow or Hunter loop that dumps your hand were the undisputed king. You've lost before you can even take your first turn. Boring.
As I said before, Konami seem to be starting a trend of making the top decks take more skill to play, but it's still a little OP for my liking.
3-5 is fine with me, though I do prefer the 10+ that was the case a little while ago. The more decks that have a chance, the better. There are thousands of cards in Yugioh, maybe I would like to try out more combos and unique cards without being called a scrub. And maybe I don't want to spend good money for something that will be obsolete in 6 months.

gutsberserker wrote:

Sometimes you have to play aggressively in a control deck or passively in an aggro deck. You don't make plays because of preference, you make them because you legitimately think that they are optimal at the time.

I think we're basically saying the same thing at this point. There is a playstyle to play a deck with, and there will always be a playstyle you prefer, but if you pick a generic style over making the right decision to win, you are a bad player. Being a good player is mastering as many playstyles as you can, knowing what playstyle fits what decks, and also knowing when to ignore that and decide to attack in a control deck and be patient in an aggro deck.

gutsberserker wrote:

I like this thread. It shows our views on the game from different perspectives.

Agreed, it is interesting and enlightening.

Harper7000 wrote:

It's kind of funny that you bring up the side deck because I've always thought that it was kind of a cop out...lol. I mean, I'm not saying it shouldn't exist. It needs to exist, especially when Tier 0 formats pop up. But to me, having to rely on drawing that one card (or lots of cards, you can out side 3/8 of your deck) that will completely cripple or severely hinder the opponent's entire strategy is boring.
Of course, if everything is broken, I tend to agree with you a little more. But if deck power is more balanced but still has lots of options for you to take as well as lots of options among decks, it's a good thing. No offense, but if you think you're going to auto lose if you don't draw or run Veiler vs Inzektors, you probably need to work on being a more versatile player. Which I don't think you do. Nor do you auto lose if you draw Veiler that probably won't (but still might) be useful to you in the matchup. Although Inzektors are a bad example for my point because they aren't consistent but if you get them off it's easier to win. But even so, you still have a side deck to side in Veilers and other such GENERIC hate.

You don't autolose, but are at a great disadvantage. (also considering that only game 1 is played without the side deck)
Tier 0 decks usually have maximum speed and consistency, so you have a much bigger chance of drawing your side deck cards (especially because you can side much more cards for one deck in a Tier 0 format)
In a 10+ deck format your chances decrease, so even if you side stuff you simply risk not drawing it.

Harper7000 wrote:

Contrast that with Tier 0. You know exactly what to play. You know exactly what to side. But if you get a bad hand or just don't draw the VERY SPECIFIC hate like Iron Wall that you sided in or mained, you lose. Not only does it crush creativity and make the game less fun (less fun in my opinion at least), but it is MORE reliant on luck than even a 10+ format is.

Tier 0 decks are highly consistent, so you will rarely get bad hands. ( but it can happen obv.)
A one deck format doesn't crush creativity, on the contrary, it encourages creativity. You have to find tech cards to gain an edge over your competition.
A 10+ deck format makes creativity useless. You could find X-tech for Y-deck, but then you get paired against Z-deck and your tech sucks.
Most decks will contain 35+ cards that are set in stone, because of the fear of facing the wrong matchups.

Harper7000 wrote:

Plus, lots of people are maining stuff like Iron Wall now. What if you go up against a good rogue deck? It's completely useless.

Well that's what I'm saying. More decks create paradoxes. If you don't main Iron Wall in Evilswarm for example, your chances of beating Dragons decrease. If you do main it, you risk facing rogue decks. If there was only 1 deck, that problem wouldn't exist.

Harper7000 wrote:

Also, in more varied formats, you are forced to use cards that are more generically good. That way, you can side 1 card for any number of matchups. That takes skill and a lot of forethought to know what cards are generically good, what you think to be your weakest matchups even in this varied format, and what you will actually face in your locals.

The problem is that even if generic cards exist you can't side for every deck in a 10+ deck format.You are again hoping to face the right matchups.

Harper7000 wrote:

Sided cards will not have quite the same crippling effect that it does with Iron Wall to Dragon Rulers, but I believe that is also a good thing. You are not so desperate to draw that sided card because you will lose if you don't, and if you are sided against, it is effective and worth your opponent's time and effort to think out his side and side in cards against you, but you can still play around it. No more auto lose at all.

Well what if you face your worst matchup, but your side deck cards aren't that effective against him and he can still play around them.
Again you are at a disadvantage, but it wasn't your fault, no?

Harper7000 wrote:

This isn't even mentioning the fact that most Tier 0 decks are historically extremely linear and methodical, whereas when you have a more varied format, many more strategies are viable.

TeleDAD could control/aggro/OTK
Plants could control/aggro/OTK

Plants especially sometimes had like 6+ options per turn, I don't see how it is extremely linear and methodical.

Then there was that Monarch format ( 2006 I think), where card advantage meant everything and a flipped Dekoichi could win you the game. YGO was a freaking chess match back then.

Harper7000 wrote:

The more decks that have a chance, the better.

But the more decks have the chance, the more it depends on luck on what you face, no?

Ok, I'm beginning to see your point more. I retract my statement that the more decks there are the better. If all decks and strategies in history had an equal chance, it would be really weird and kinda dependent on luck like you said. I don't want to patronize Konami and expect that they will continue making strategies that came out 10 years ago just as relevant as cards that just came out. They won't be making money that way, they're a business. But I also don't want them to patronize me by making ONLY cards that just came out competitive with prices through the roof. TCG Konami doesn't need to be so greedy, price isn't even an issue in OCG for the most part. That's why I like their meta. Probably the best way to have a format is to have tier 1 be 2-4 decks made up mainly of new cards, and having 3-5 Tier 2 decks that aren't quite as powerful, but still have a possibility to win WITHOUT having to rely overly much on heavy siding or completely shutting the better decks out of the game as their main strategy (eg Evilswarms).

Also, I never thought Plant Synchro was Tier 0. Tier 1 for sure but not Tier 0. I have liked that deck ever since Quickdraw Synchron came out and played it up until Spore and Bulb got banned. To me it is a prime example of a deck that has a high power level but is really hard to learn to play. And when something gets hit or comes back, it causes you to think a lot and completely reinvent a lot of your strategy, without having to buy an ENTIRE new deck. It was maybe a little OP especially when Tengu and Librarian came out, which is why it got hit but they realized it got hit a little too hard and at least gave us back Spore. Gallade's deck he posted is basically Plant's resurrection. Which is great, because Plants are SO versatile. A lot of the deck is new cards but also has some classic strategies. It isn't Tier 1 anymore but it is playable, maybe even Tier 2, I can already tell from what little I tested it yesterday. And I even changed a lot of what he had. Decks like that are GREAT and encourage creativity. How many dozens of versions of Plants have there been?
Monarchs was more what I was talking about, and while it did indeed have a good amount of creativity bc there were different ways to play it, it was at the same time linear and a card advantage game. Or even before that just beatdown strategies and Chaos Control. Keep advantage with searchers and summon BLS and CED and crap all over everything. But you're also right in the fact that sometimes those formats encourage new thinking...before Chaos it was just beatsticks and it wasn't really thought about that searchers keep you advantage. Same with Oppression or Judgment in TeleDAD. Those cards are really old but it took forever for them to be hit at all. Both were banned at one point or still are. But it took people to stop worrying about life points as much as actually winning the game. You can explode and cover yourself with Oppression. GG? But I wonder how much would have just been learned as the game evolved without tier 0 formats...

Having a competitive scene in Yugioh is a great thing. But Yugioh is not chess. It was not made to be chess. And chess does not cost thousands of dollars every 6 months to continue playing.

Harper7000 wrote:

Also, I never thought Plant Synchro was Tier 0.Tier 1 for sure but not Tier 0.

That's up for debate really. I was just using it as an example.

Harper7000 wrote:

To me it is a prime example of a deck that has a high power level but is really hard to learn to play.

Agreed. It's the definition of how a top tier deck should be. High skill level , high reward.

Harper7000 wrote:

Having a competitive scene in Yugioh is a great thing. But Yugioh is not chess. It was not made to be chess. And chess does not cost thousands of dollars every 6 months to continue playing.

I agree with this one, too. Yugioh is not chess and I was just giving you an my idea of how a skill-intensive format should look like.

If YGO was almost pure skill, no one would buy their cards. It would be the same people topping and winning YCS after YCS. Similar to grandmasters in chess, demolishing tourney after tourney. lol

That's why sacking was invented, so that bad players could win , too.
It attracts new people, because they know they can beat the pros.

The good players should still win most of the time, but the bad players will win some games too. It keeps them motivated and they will continue buying cards.

The ideal Yugioh is a  nice balance between skill and luck, but the better player should come out on top in most matches.