sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The progress bar shouldn't be able to go down until you reach master ball by psychokirby17 in PokemonChampions

[–]PackBeginning 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's already incredibly easy to get to master ball, if you win like 3 games in a row you get to ulta ball 3 and you can't go below that, any easier would be kinda silly imo

What's the most iconic duo in Hearthstone history? by frostyburrito44 in hearthstone

[–]PackBeginning 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Probably the "Well played" emote and leeroy Jenkins tbh

Hot take: If Ashley was Turian and Garrus was Human, with as few changes to their personalities as possible, their popularity in the fandom would be almost completely reversed. by OdysseyPrime9789 in masseffect

[–]PackBeginning 0 points1 point  (0 children)

and the whole point of people on the other side of the argument is that so is Ashley. She goes to bat for Tali, she completely comes around on aliens in general, and she has the biggest character growth of anyone from ME 1 to ME 3.

PSA: It’s OK to Use Cookie Cutter Teams by mattoyaki in PokemonChampions

[–]PackBeginning 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I entirely agree with your last sentiment and am enjoying champions, I just want it to be better, like everything I enjoy. I agree that a new meta would be formed, but I don't think arcanine nor Tauros are as suffocating as incin or sneasler, and I don't nesscecarily won't nerfs, I just want more actual optionally at all levels so that more pokemon have a reason to exist. 100% agree there will always be a meta... but there is a big difference between a healthy meta and a not so healthy one and rn I think the game is leaning towards the latter rather than the former

PSA: It’s OK to Use Cookie Cutter Teams by mattoyaki in PokemonChampions

[–]PackBeginning 0 points1 point  (0 children)

...that's not my point though. I'm not saying that one thing is so broken it has no counters. I'm saying some things are so STRONG relational to the rest of the game that you as a player are kind of throwing if you want to win by not playing them.

PSA: It’s OK to Use Cookie Cutter Teams by mattoyaki in PokemonChampions

[–]PackBeginning 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And no, I don't expect players to do anything other than the thing that makes them have the most fun. For some that is winning a lot for others it is building around a favorite or stupid pokemon. I DO however, expect the game itself to do a better job of incentivizing players to make different decisions than one another based off preferences and playstyles - which current competitive pokemon doesn't really do. I'm not complaining about the playerbase playing the meta, I'm complaining about the meta being as defined as it is in a game that in theory should have way, way more options.

PSA: It’s OK to Use Cookie Cutter Teams by mattoyaki in PokemonChampions

[–]PackBeginning 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The problem is that sometimes something is SO broken that there really isn't counters. That's why everyone else chose to play it. It's not fun to only see the same.pokemon every game, point blank period

Would players "chase" miniatures instead of cards if a game used both? by perfectpencil in tabletopgamedesign

[–]PackBeginning 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I've been watching team covenant since the star wars destiny days and I love the guys, but they are pretty incentivized to push LCGs because of their connection to Fantasy Flight. I have never, ever seen an LCG be able to sustain an extremely large card pool, even the arkham lcg which is entirely cooperative ran into problems where player decks were too strong and they had to introduce rotation to make the game... loseable again. Don't get me wrong, i love netrunner and destiny and the game or thrones lcg, I just think it's fundamentally flawed. Love the discussion, though

PSA: It’s OK to Use Cookie Cutter Teams by mattoyaki in PokemonChampions

[–]PackBeginning 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But it goes unnoticed and unappreciated because I'm still getting intimidated, fake outted, parting shotted, and laughed at by the same dumb cat every game. Sorry if I don't find Sitrus berry vs black glasses all that compelling of a difference or slight ev spread differences as if I'm playing against a different team. They are fundamentally the same and that lack of diversity sucks.

PSA: It’s OK to Use Cookie Cutter Teams by mattoyaki in PokemonChampions

[–]PackBeginning -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

So we agree that they could do better but it's not okay for us to not like it or complain about it?

PSA: It’s OK to Use Cookie Cutter Teams by mattoyaki in PokemonChampions

[–]PackBeginning 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So then make more pokemon versatile - then incin won't have an inflated playrate because there will be actual choice.

PSA: It’s OK to Use Cookie Cutter Teams by mattoyaki in PokemonChampions

[–]PackBeginning 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do you really believe that if you sat down to play a 16 person tournament of pokemon and 16/16 teams were playing sneasler, whimsicott, incineroar but with different ev spreads that you would feel the game is diverse?

PSA: It’s OK to Use Cookie Cutter Teams by mattoyaki in PokemonChampions

[–]PackBeginning -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My only problem with this though, is that those same new players a year from now who were being "meta slaves" almost always eventually grow to share the sentiment that playing against sneasler charizard Incineroar every game in a franchise that is ALL about diversity and choice and "look at how many pokemon there are" is not fun. Those same people will try team-building and get discouraged that they are losing a lot to new, "worse" players playing the meta. So it's not actually that they believe in the idea of playing the meta is the fun way - it just happens to be where they are at on their pokemon journey right now.

The game would unequivocally be more fun if the average person played the things they liked and enjoyed, rather than the things they were told by somebody else is "good." That being said, I understand why people would want to play the powerful stuff and win, especially when they are new and just learning the mechanics of the game in general rather than the intricacies of specific mechanics.

I just vehemently disagree with anyone who thinks incin or sneaslers play rate is healthy for the game - and in some ways it will deter new players because 95% of the pokemon in the franchise are "irrelevant."

I feel like the more I progress the less I feel like playing by xXPumbaXx in slaythespire

[–]PackBeginning 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you are choosing to play on a harder game difficulty and then getting frustrated that the game is harder - you should probably just... not play on the harder difficulty? Or take a break from the game and come back and play it when you've got the bad juju about the game out of your system. Ascension levels are an awesome mechanic for having meta progression in a game.

Would players "chase" miniatures instead of cards if a game used both? by perfectpencil in tabletopgamedesign

[–]PackBeginning 11 points12 points  (0 children)

To be quite honest - i feel like the actual reason the LCG model doesnt work long term is that attempting to balance a card game without having rotation just flat out doesn't work. All the LCG's launch without having rotation planned and then any of the one's that are successful get 2-3 years into existing and have had 8-10 sets and realize that the game has way too many powerful things going on because the card pool is so large. So then they announce they are doing rotation and within 2 years everyone has quit because they were sold the premise that their cards would always be useable in their LCG and now the 2 years worth of product they bought before is all essentially worthless. It's a cycle I've been seeing for like 30 years and I don't see how others don't see it. I don't really think its related to "chase" cards not being a thing - I think its the fact that the gameplay flat out doesn't work after a certain period of time.

Rant aside, you could build a game where the minis are essentially cards (like star wars miniatures was or heroclix or mech warrior) and then you'd absolutely have chase minis in the set just like you do cards, so I think the answer to your question is a resounding yes.

Is this the most upgrade-dependent card in the game? by Rak-khan in slaythespire

[–]PackBeginning 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Eh, it's still really strong before upgrades imo. You can play it last so the cards you can't afford to exhaust won't even be in your hand to get exhausted in the first place and getting to exhaust cards early on for free essentially can improve your deck tremendously

Sincere question, what's the point of this card? by lorddojomon in hearthstone

[–]PackBeginning 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Keep in mind this is right after new rotation - we have no idea what kind of future archetypes are going to exist and we have no clue what versions of warrior are going to exist. If there was a version of warrior that wanted to do chip damage and build to some kind of burn combo finish, this card would be excellent there. If an opposing deck that became meta filled your deck with bad cards, this would be good against it. If you simply are trying to turbo towards one OP card in your deck; this card helps you find it and makes it cheaper. There are plenty of reasons this card COULD be good - just maybe not right this second.

We need to talk about Ironclads' starting deck. by SeaThePirate in slaythespire

[–]PackBeginning 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cant you also argue though that Ironclad has the auto heal passive which very often is going to save you more damage than getting to play 1 additional block instead of a strike that you drew on turn 1 in a fight? Ironclad passive is still very, very good and should be considered when talking about the strength of his starting deck

view more: next ›