PDA

View Full Version : Custom Format - Hatless Format



Princess_Theia
1st February 2016, 05:53 PM
https://36.media.tumblr.com/fc037aab6514681cfc94bedc02045bb1/tumblr_o1pjfx96OR1v3gd9oo1_540.png

https://40.media.tumblr.com/7f93ccd05852aaf81766c141ddc13734/tumblr_o1pjfx96OR1v3gd9oo2_540.png

Introducing Hatless Format! (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yeiYM1q1Fi1T4SUwhOE-WJGuGuXLW3KwYvVlIOdVVSM/edit?usp=sharing)

A modified format based off the July 2014 banlist before Duelist Alliance was released, otherwise known as HAT format which was arguably one of the funnest diverse formats ever seen.

Now at the time H.A.T. (Hands, Artifacts, Traptrix) and Elemental Dragons were the top decks and although they were by no means tier 0, they both had superior advantage over the meta and we really don’t want that going into this format aka why the format is called “Hatless”.

https://41.media.tumblr.com/8aac88e975d102eac1f2d6ed4b00d995/tumblr_inline_o1pi7aCc5f1tbcrle_540.jpg

Along with a few meta decks receiving a some hits other cards on the banlist have been changed or left there in order to help out decks. We’ve also hit a few unbalanced cards to get players to use different cards and make the meta new and interesting to old and new players.

The format is still in its testing stages and we’d really like to get feedback from other players! Please share this with any of your duelist friends to help get the word out.

We are also working on a ygopro based engine to play this format on, that will have all the legal cards that can be used so stay tuned for updates on that!

(I'm sorry if this is the wrong section for this, if you could direct me to the right section that would be awesome c: )

SynjoDeonecros
1st February 2016, 06:43 PM
Interesting format. I doubt I'll participate, but it reminds me of when I did Hand Bounzers, years ago. Even got fan art of that deck, I loved the concept that much...

Volteccer
1st February 2016, 07:20 PM
Interesting. But, why are three of the Dragon Rulers banned and no the fourth, Tempest?

I am also going to assume that you won't be allowed to use any card released in or after the 2014 Starter deck.

Jakinus
1st February 2016, 07:39 PM
This sounds like a cool idea. I have a few questions:
Cards that support pre-DUEA archetypes that were released in/after DUEA are allowed?
Can you put the last main set, structure deck and special pack(s) that are allowed? To have a point of reference.

clairedestroyer!
1st February 2016, 07:50 PM
Some immediate issues:

- The amount of testing you have done must have been either very little or very ineffective to think absurdly fair cards like Breakthrough Skill and Fiendish Chain need to be at 0. That more than anything smacks of personal bias, which absolutely needs to be heavily scrutinized in a custom format. Stuff like this is dangerous for any custom format because the much smaller design team and design time means you really need to be on the ball at looking beyond your personal issues.

- I have an ideological issue with ever issuing unofficial errata in a custom format. If a card needs to be rewritten to be fair, then it's not fair and you're probably safer leaving it out. More importantly, unofficial errata only serve to make a format more confusing for new players, because now instead of just remembering a cardpool they only have to follow during deckbuilding, they have to remember card text that can come up any time. The more complex a format is, the less likely people will try or play more than once. You really need to make the entry level as low as you can so that more people play and test.

Entermagi
1st February 2016, 08:06 PM
In your format, you have triple Infernity Barrier and triple Archfiend but no generic backrow removal, or nuke bar BRD?
What did Reasoning do to warrant a limit on the list? I don't remember any deck back then or around that time that made great use of Resoning.
Kill Big Eye and Dracossack without Rank7 losing its niche? If Gaia Drake and Master of Blades, which was released after these 2, are the niche of generic Rank7 plays, then k.
Goyo Guardian isn't nearly as bad as Big Eye. Sure, it's more generic than it, since it can fit more decks. But you need to get your attack through too! You yourself stated that this would be a Trap heavy format.
Fiendish Chain and Breakthrough Skill were your outs for cards like Beelze and Goyo and you ban them D:
The erratas for Substitoad and Mind Master should be Hard OPTs not Soft.
While I do agree that R4NK needs it's power shaken up, I don't think 101 should be banned. Since you're keen on doing erratas, you could also do an errata for Exciton, to detach 2 Xyz Materials like you did for Gigant XG's Materials (though, this might've been your group's personal input) since it is as generic as Black Rose for Synchro Decks.
Triple Deep Sea Diva and Royal Tribute can only go ohsowrong, once and if you start including DUEA and on support (Royal Tribute can get annoying fast too)

IMHO

PS And what clairedestroyer said regarding erratas, but if you're going to play this on YGOPro, this problem is easily circumvented. You'll need to put the alias on cards you've errata and put (ERRATA HATLESS) next to their name in the database.

Princess_Theia
1st February 2016, 08:44 PM
This sounds like a cool idea. I have a few questions:
Cards that support pre-DUEA archetypes that were released in/after DUEA are allowed?
Can you put the last main set, structure deck and special pack(s) that are allowed? To have a point of reference.

Cards are starting to be implemented, each card needs to be tested to keep the current meta stable. We hope to give support to other decks that need it. Would like to refrain from adding any pendulum cards or further errata of cards though.

Princess_Theia
1st February 2016, 08:52 PM
Interesting. But, why are three of the Dragon Rulers banned and no the fourth, Tempest?

I am also going to assume that you won't be allowed to use any card released in or after the 2014 Starter deck.

Tempest is purposely limited and not banned like the other 3 dragons, it's arguably the weakest of the 4 and gives decks like dragunity much needed help.

cards from LOB to Primal Origin: Deluxe Edition are all legal plus cards stated in the google doc with the exception of where they are on the list.

clairedestroyer!
1st February 2016, 08:54 PM
PS And what clairedestroyer said regarding erratas, but if you're going to play this on YGOPro, this problem is easily circumvented. You'll need to put the alias on cards you've errata and put (ERRATA HATLESS) next to their name in the database.

Circumvented in a purely physical sense only. Many of these cards are very infamous for their effects, and are years old. The issue with any unoffical errata on a conceptual level is that if you say "Mind Master" 99% of people are going to think of the real card Mind Master, not "my totally fake card that also happens to be named Mind Master", even in the context of your format. That serves only to add confusion so that cards who are notable but have no reason to exist in a format can still be there.

Princess_Theia
1st February 2016, 09:00 PM
Some immediate issues:

- The amount of testing you have done must have been either very little or very ineffective to think absurdly fair cards like Breakthrough Skill and Fiendish Chain need to be at 0. That more than anything smacks of personal bias, which absolutely needs to be heavily scrutinized in a custom format. Stuff like this is dangerous for any custom format because the much smaller design team and design time means you really need to be on the ball at looking beyond your personal issues.

- I have an ideological issue with ever issuing unofficial errata in a custom format. If a card needs to be rewritten to be fair, then it's not fair and you're probably safer leaving it out. More importantly, unofficial errata only serve to make a format more confusing for new players, because now instead of just remembering a cardpool they only have to follow during deckbuilding, they have to remember card text that can come up any time. The more complex a format is, the less likely people will try or play more than once. You really need to make the entry level as low as you can so that more people play and test.

I completely agree with your second statement there, the XG errata is pretty silly and it's still in testing stages I don't know why I included it in there, will most likely be taken out. As for Fiendish chain and Breakthrough skill the problem with them is they have no back draw unlike Forbidden Chalice and Effect Veiler. Please if you would like talk to me more about this as we are very open to criticism.

Princess_Theia
1st February 2016, 09:12 PM
In your format, you have triple Infernity Barrier and triple Archfiend but no generic backrow removal, or nuke bar BRD?
What did Reasoning do to warrant a limit on the list? I don't remember any deck back then or around that time that made great use of Resoning.
Kill Big Eye and Dracossack without Rank7 losing its niche? If Gaia Drake and Master of Blades, which was released after these 2, are the niche of generic Rank7 plays, then k.
Goyo Guardian isn't nearly as bad as Big Eye. Sure, it's more generic than it, since it can fit more decks. But you need to get your attack through too! You yourself stated that this would be a Trap heavy format.
Fiendish Chain and Breakthrough Skill were your outs for cards like Beelze and Goyo and you ban them D:
The erratas for Substitoad and Mind Master should be Hard OPTs not Soft.
While I do agree that R4NK needs it's power shaken up, I don't think 101 should be banned. Since you're keen on doing erratas, you could also do an errata for Exciton, to detach 2 Xyz Materials like you did for Gigant XG's Materials (though, this might've been your group's personal input) since it is as generic as Black Rose for Synchro Decks.
Triple Deep Sea Diva and Royal Tribute can only go ohsowrong, once and if you start including DUEA and on support (Royal Tribute can get annoying fast too)

IMHO

PS And what clairedestroyer said regarding erratas, but if you're going to play this on YGOPro, this problem is easily circumvented. You'll need to put the alias on cards you've errata and put (ERRATA HATLESS) next to their name in the database.

I'm really sorry I don't know what "hard OPTs" means. The reason for 101's hit is it is a very easy removal card and has the bonus effect of keeping itself alive, the XG was a mistake it was still in its testing stages and as others pointed out we need to keep errata to bare minimum, it's been removed from the list as its still updating. As stated before Fiendish, and Breakthrough don't have draw backs like effect veiler and forbidden chalice one also stopping attacks and the other getting a double use. Reasoning actually doesn't have much thought put into it's limiting, people I talked to before stressed how urgent it was that I take it from 2-1, I am total open to putting it back though.

Please discuss this more with me if you have the time I'd love to talk in more depth about this c:

Princess_Theia
1st February 2016, 09:21 PM
Circumvented in a purely physical sense only. Many of these cards are very infamous for their effects, and are years old. The issue with any unoffical errata on a conceptual level is that if you say "Mind Master" 99% of people are going to think of the real card Mind Master, not "my totally fake card that also happens to be named Mind Master", even in the context of your format. That serves only to add confusion so that cards who are notable but have no reason to exist in a format can still be there.

I think for mind master and Substitoad the addition of "once per turn" in there text is a easy thing as they seem almost as if someone just forgot to add that in what they made the cards. You should bring the text with you though if you use those cards so players can refer to them, or have a smart phone handy with the text. I have already programmed the 3 errata'd cards and changed the text on them in YgoPro, I just need to finish changing a few other settings.

Also thank you so much for your input! Please if there is anything else you want to talk about or go more into depth I'd love to hear from you!

clairedestroyer!
1st February 2016, 10:24 PM
Cards having no drawback is not a reason to ban them. I would say that Fiendish and Breakthrough already have the innate drawback of being Trap Slow, unlike Chalice or Veiler. Fiendish can't even follow monsters off the field. Also compare to Skill Drain, which is marginally costed but hits the entire field at once, which you have at 3. Neither of these cards introduce a problematic element, and in fact keep the much more likely element of Monster floodgates (which did exist and were pretty good in 2014) in check.

Princess_Theia
1st February 2016, 11:22 PM
Cards having no drawback is not a reason to ban them. I would say that Fiendish and Breakthrough already have the innate drawback of being Trap Slow, unlike Chalice or Veiler. Fiendish can't even follow monsters off the field. Also compare to Skill Drain, which is marginally costed but hits the entire field at once, which you have at 3. Neither of these cards introduce a problematic element, and in fact keep the much more likely element of Monster floodgates (which did exist and were pretty good in 2014) in check.

Skill drain has the draw back of effecting your own monsters. Skill drain can't go in every deck like Fiendish and Breakthrough.

If we were to consider changing either, Fiendish could come off the list, but breakthrough has too many advantages.

clairedestroyer!
1st February 2016, 11:38 PM
So then you just build your deck around Skill Drain and it doesn't matter? Fiendish is actually weaker than both Veiler and Chalice in that it does nothing to several cards you feel should be in this format, like Lonefire and Swap. Neither Breakthrough or Fiendish are strictly better, because both of them require you to set them an entire turn before they can be used at all. I can't use them in the Damage Step like Chalice. I can't use them off Maxx like Veiler. There is zero mechanical reason these cards are any stronger than ones you are fine with. If cards need drawbacks to exist in this format, I am eagerly awaiting Geargia to be banned, because the entire deck is reliant on cards like Armor and MK. II that give you incremental advantage with no drawbacks. If that is the only reason a card needs to be banned, then this format will end up looking like Armor Exe vs Rare Metal Dragon, because even by 2014 a lot of cards just give you stuff for free.

Princess_Theia
1st February 2016, 11:51 PM
So then you just build your deck around Skill Drain and it doesn't matter? Fiendish is actually weaker than both Veiler and Chalice in that it does nothing to several cards you feel should be in this format, like Lonefire and Swap. Neither Breakthrough or Fiendish are strictly better, because both of them require you to set them an entire turn before they can be used at all. I can't use them in the Damage Step like Chalice. I can't use them off Maxx like Veiler. There is zero mechanical reason these cards are any stronger than ones you are fine with. If cards need drawbacks to exist in this format, I am eagerly awaiting Geargia to be banned, because the entire deck is reliant on cards like Armor and MK. II that give you incremental advantage with no drawbacks. If that is the only reason a card needs to be banned, then this format will end up looking like Armor Exe vs Rare Metal Dragon, because even by 2014 a lot of cards just give you stuff for free.

Your Skill drain argument doesn't really go any where you could say the same thing about basically any card. Breakthrough doesn't need to be set you can use it from grave. These can both be used any time except the turn they are set, Chalice can too but it's inferior to both of these cards. Veiler and Chalice are a blessing and a curse while fiendish and breakthrough don't have that. Please if you have input somewhere else feel free to share c:

clairedestroyer!
2nd February 2016, 12:06 AM
I'm going to end this conversation because it's going nowhere. You are not listening to any points, which is a bad sign for your format. I wish you all the best of luck, and urge you to reconsider your position carefully.

Princess_Theia
2nd February 2016, 12:13 AM
I'm going to end this conversation because it's going nowhere. You are not listening to any points, which is a bad sign for your format. I wish you all the best of luck, and urge you to reconsider your position carefully.

You've been heard we just don't agree I apologize :c

Baroque
2nd February 2016, 12:43 AM
I'm really sorry I don't know what "hard OPTs" means.
The difference between 'soft' and 'hard' OPT is that 'soft' OPT is the usual 'Once per turn:', whereas 'hard' OPT is 'You can only use the effect of "" once per turn.' or similar limitations (see Raidraptor - Fuzzy Lanius or any of the floating Yang Zing for similar-but-functionally-slightly-different variations on it).

The difference between the two being that a hard OPT clause makes it so that the once-per-turn is in relation to the card name rather than the card itself -- if, as an example, I use the effect of Suanni to float into a Bixi, and Bixi floats into another Suanni, I can't use the effect of Suanni to float into another thing because I can only use that effect of Suanni once per turn. See?


As for the ongoing debate regarding Fiendish Chain, Breakthrough Skill, Forbidden Chalice, and Effect Veiler . . . I'll be perfectly frank here, none of them are better or worse than one another, and if you're taking two of them off based on them 'not having a drawback' then you might want to take the other two away as well or else let them all pal around together; to poke some holes in the 'not having a drawback' argument, Fiendish Chain has the issue of being a Continuous Trap (see MST VS Tenki for why that's even an issue) and not working well on things that leave the field, while Breakthrough Skill's from-grave negation (the one thing it has that distances it from the other three in any way) has two noteworthy hangups (it cannot be used the turn it hits the Graveyard, and it can only be used on its possessor's turn).

Meanwhile, the 'drawbacks' of Chalice and Veiler are themselves fairly negligible -- in the case of Chalice, that 400 ATK buff is usually not going to matter if you're using it to negate something (for one of three reasons: either it's a small thing you're negating and thus the buff doesn't save it, it's a bigger thing that was already going to stomp around, or it's your own monster whose effect you're negating for its own good and thus the ATK buff is just extra), typically only coming into play when you're using it [I]for the ATK buff so that it can swing a fight in your favor (or at least, that's my experience talking here), whereas in the case of Veiler, the only drawback I can find on it is that it's only usable in the opponent's Main Phase -- where the lion's share of activated effects that one'd want to prioritize the negation of dwell, and if the opponent's going into the Battle Phase with something you want to not be functional you have a special little window opened to use it before they actually enter . . . and that's not even going into the fact that if Veiler's not of as much use, I can at least use it as a Lv1 Tuner to go into something like Armades that'll help me get past some of the things that Veiler wouldn't allow me to.

All four of the cards are fairly downside-less, or failing that can be used in ways that their downsides don't matter. Perhaps if actual testing showed that one of them was particularly problematic I could see them jumping some places up the list, but as it stands for two of the four to be forbidden seems a little off.


Your Skill drain argument doesn't really go any where you could say the same thing about basically any card. Breakthrough doesn't need to be set you can use it from grave. These can both be used any time except the turn they are set, Chalice can too but it's inferior to both of these cards. Veiler and Chalice are a blessing and a curse while fiendish and breakthrough don't have that. Please if you have input somewhere else feel free to share c:

Now, this is another kettle of fish. Two of them, really, the first of which being that it not being usable in every deck doesn't feel like a very strong reason to let it come off the list to 3. After all, not every deck can make nearly as good a use of certain problematic cards, and yet those cards were still problematic enough to make the normal lists (e.g., not every deck can get as good a use out of Card of Safe Return as, say, Zombies or [more damningly] Manticorexodia.dek, but the fact that it would grossly benefit such decks was reason enough for it to hit the list). Just because a card isn't a problem in general use doesn't mean it can't become a problem within a more oddball deck.

The other odorous kettle is that despite asking for input, you appear to be disregarding some input out of hand -- a bad direction to take things in, I feel, because that means you're not only limiting your field of view but also throwing away the very thing you asked for, which might encourage people to give you less of it. Perhaps it might be worthwhile to take a look at what they're saying, maybe test some changes based on it (e.g., try taking BTS and Fiendish off the list for a while and see how that goes), rather than to toss it aside so easily, y'know?

Anyways, that's my two cents thus far, feel free to spend 'em on juice.

Princess_Theia
2nd February 2016, 01:18 AM
The difference between 'soft' and 'hard' OPT is that 'soft' OPT is the usual 'Once per turn:', whereas 'hard' OPT is 'You can only use the effect of "" once per turn.' or similar limitations (see Raidraptor - Fuzzy Lanius or any of the floating Yang Zing for similar-but-functionally-slightly-different variations on it).

The difference between the two being that a hard OPT clause makes it so that the once-per-turn is in relation to the card name rather than the card itself -- if, as an example, I use the effect of Suanni to float into a Bixi, and Bixi floats into another Suanni, I can't use the effect of Suanni to float into another thing because I can only use that effect of Suanni once per turn. See?


As for the ongoing debate regarding Fiendish Chain, Breakthrough Skill, Forbidden Chalice, and Effect Veiler . . . I'll be perfectly frank here, none of them are better or worse than one another, and if you're taking two of them off based on them 'not having a drawback' then you might want to take the other two away as well or else let them all pal around together; to poke some holes in the 'not having a drawback' argument, Fiendish Chain has the issue of being a Continuous Trap (see MST VS Tenki for why that's even an issue) and not working well on things that leave the field, while Breakthrough Skill's from-grave negation (the one thing it has that distances it from the other three in any way) has two noteworthy hangups (it cannot be used the turn it hits the Graveyard, and it can only be used on its possessor's turn).

Meanwhile, the 'drawbacks' of Chalice and Veiler are themselves fairly negligible -- in the case of Chalice, that 400 ATK buff is usually not going to matter if you're using it to negate something (for one of three reasons: either it's a small thing you're negating and thus the buff doesn't save it, it's a bigger thing that was already going to stomp around, or it's your own monster whose effect you're negating for its own good and thus the ATK buff is just extra), typically only coming into play when you're using it [I]for the ATK buff so that it can swing a fight in your favor (or at least, that's my experience talking here), whereas in the case of Veiler, the only drawback I can find on it is that it's only usable in the opponent's Main Phase -- where the lion's share of activated effects that one'd want to prioritize the negation of dwell, and if the opponent's going into the Battle Phase with something you want to not be functional you have a special little window opened to use it before they actually enter . . . and that's not even going into the fact that if Veiler's not of as much use, I can at least use it as a Lv1 Tuner to go into something like Armades that'll help me get past some of the things that Veiler wouldn't allow me to.

All four of the cards are fairly downside-less, or failing that can be used in ways that their downsides don't matter. Perhaps if actual testing showed that one of them was particularly problematic I could see them jumping some places up the list, but as it stands for two of the four to be forbidden seems a little off.



Now, this is another kettle of fish. Two of them, really, the first of which being that it not being usable in every deck doesn't feel like a very strong reason to let it come off the list to 3. After all, not every deck can make nearly as good a use of certain problematic cards, and yet those cards were still problematic enough to make the normal lists (e.g., not every deck can get as good a use out of Card of Safe Return as, say, Zombies or [more damningly] Manticorexodia.dek, but the fact that it would grossly benefit such decks was reason enough for it to hit the list). Just because a card isn't a problem in general use doesn't mean it can't become a problem within a more oddball deck.

The other odorous kettle is that despite asking for input, you appear to be disregarding some input out of hand -- a bad direction to take things in, I feel, because that means you're not only limiting your field of view but also throwing away the very thing you asked for, which might encourage people to give you less of it. Perhaps it might be worthwhile to take a look at what they're saying, maybe test some changes based on it (e.g., try taking BTS and Fiendish off the list for a while and see how that goes), rather than to toss it aside so easily, y'know?

Anyways, that's my two cents thus far, feel free to spend 'em on juice.

Im sorry you see it that way, I was simply pointing out why I made hits on card, you brought a lot to my attention though, thank you.