PDA

View Full Version : What you think about erratas?



DelCtrl
4th November 2015, 01:10 AM
Recently I have began an argument with a youtuber about erratas. In one of his recent videos, said youtuber says that making erratas is an anti-ethical move by part of Konami, because it can change a card effect and by extend affect negatively both players that invest time and money in the game and the people who make a living out of the card game. He also says that the fact that Konami makes cards without knowing its impact in the meta means that they are unprepared to maintain the game.

I don't agree with this vision and think that erratas are necessary for balancing out some cards, that the game designer not always can predict the full extend to which a card will affect the game and that its not Konami's responsibility to keep the value of cards for the secondary market, for everyone that invests in the card game is doing so knowing that there are no guarantees that it will result in profit.

So, what do you guys think about the subject? Is making erratas a good thing for the game? Should Konami think about the secondary market when making decisions on whenever make a errata or not?

Momma_Sophie
4th November 2015, 01:20 AM
Recently I have began an argument with a youtuber about erratas. In one of his recent videos, said youtuber says that making erratas is an anti-ethical move by part of Konami, because it can change a card effect and by extend affect negatively both players that invest time and money in the game and the people who make a living out of the card game. He also says that the fact that Konami makes cards without knowing its impact in the meta means that they are unprepared to maintain the game.

I don't agree with this vision and think that erratas are necessary for balancing out some cards, that the game designer not always can predict the full extend to which a card will affect the game and that its not Konami's responsibility to keep the value of cards for the secondary market, for everyone that invests in the card game is doing so knowing that there are no guarantees that it will result in profit.

So, what do you guys think about the subject? Is making erratas a good thing for the game? Should Konami think about the secondary market when making decisions on whenever make a errata or not?

I can understand both perspectives:

One perspective is saying that Konami is basically issuing a semi-permanent banlist to a specific card by rewriting it to do other things.
The other is saying that humans make mistakes and that, to quote Tewart: "Flexibility is good."

Now, here's my perspective. Erratas are typically unnecessary if you have a Forbidden list.
Prime examples include the Errata of Sinister Serp, and Temple of the Kings. Sinister and Temple became useless after the Erratas (for some players), and those that knew their true power from before are left disappointed. They got their cards back, yet... is it really them?

So my idea is that if you're going to rewrite cards, then remove the Forbidden list. However, this path can cost Ko-Money a little money because of the constant reprints of Qliphorts (for a possible example). Even then, one could just argue: "Maybe Konami should just get their heads straight. Plan the effects well, and you mitigate that issue's chances of occurring."
Or, keep the list and stop rewriting cards. In exchange for this option, host tournaments that allow use of the cards.

My stance is that either option is fine, yet not both at the same time.

SynjoDeonecros
4th November 2015, 01:24 AM
Well, I agree with him on the second part, that Konami doesn't seem to think about balancing the game until after they release uber-broken cards and they turn the meta to mush; if they really thought about that, cards like Qliphorts, Nekroz, and Exciton Knight wouldn't exist in the forms they are, now.

As for erratas, that depends on what you mean by "errata"; updating the wording to make things more clear (the "PSCT" that they keep touting in the TCG) is good, because they wind up messing up the wording upon first printing a lot of the time, making certain things less clear than they should (though one can argue that this is also part of the problem with Konami's short-sightedness). However, doing what they did for cards like Ring of Destruction - where they nerf the card effects entirely - is kinda stupid and just shows how badly they are at making card effects. True, from what I understand, all you need is a copy of the current wording of the TCG card to ensure the older copies are still viable (that's what I was told when I found an old copy of Ring of Destruction and wanted to use it in my side deck), but that shouldn't have happened, in the first place, in my opinion.

So, to be honest, while I don't see how it's unethical (whatever that means in this case), I do agree that it just shows the issues that Konami has with maintaining a good balance in the game, and the shortsightedness they have with the card effects.

Sanokal
4th November 2015, 04:57 AM
And on the other hand, some erattas have worked just fine. Ring of Destruction and Crush Card Virus are two prime examples.

Hope in the Interstice
4th November 2015, 05:55 AM
Instead of erratas, I'd prefer new cards entirely. Substitoad was obscene in its hayday but maybe it can come right back at some point in the future? Raigeki did. Even so, it didn't get an errata; it got Tradetoad. As the balance of power shifts, it's impossible to tell what's going to be strong or weak next. Hence, a card should remain unchanged so that a possible time for that may come.

Zarkiel
4th November 2015, 06:41 AM
I like erratas. I think its great to have cards come back. much better than having a 12 page list of forbidden cards down the line.

clairedestroyer!
4th November 2015, 06:45 AM
The idea of errata'ing specifically with permabanned cards is because of an idea you need to abide by to have a successful banlist: a good banlist should be the absolute minimum size needed to ensure game health. The cards chosen would, in their previous form, never come off the list. They introduced too many problematic interactions by themselves to be worth including regardless of the power level of the game. Because they can never see play, their value at the primary level is basically zero. Collectors don't contribute very much and even if they did, they only need one copy and they're done. To paraphrase Atem on similar issues, Konami does NOT owe you any guarantee on a card's value past the initial transaction. When you buy a pack and open it, and look through to see if you got any cool cards or expensive cards or usable cards the transaction is done. The nostalgia value of these cards that have not been printed for years or even a decade is beyond their purview, while doing whatever is necessary to diminish the banlist is.

Jolan
4th November 2015, 12:54 PM
I like Erratas because they let me play old cards again. I mean, if a card just outright creates a FTK or an infinite loop, banning it works. But then, if the card was fun to play, or affected other decks, why not errata it?

On the other hand, I personally loved Chaos Emperor Dragon, before the errata. Great card art, strong effect. But making the Yata-loop was just unfair. So the errata was necessary. Would I use it after the effect change? Definitely note. But I can still enjoy the fact that one of my favorite cards is still playable, despite the nerfs.

Icematoro
4th November 2015, 04:13 PM
I'm definitely against the Idea of New-effect Erratas, I get the jist of it, fixing a card so it stays true to his origins, but fair in the end, and hey, that's fine, some people missed the cards and want them to come back regardless of how ruined they are post-errata, I understand that.

But guys, there's something called traditional-format, you can play banned cards on traditional, that's what it's for, I've played traditional for a very long time and really enjoyed it, heck, When I was a DN player, most of my duels were just me running pre-errata Sinister Serpent on my Dragunities. What? You wanted to use those cards in the competitive scene? In their current post-errata state? Good luck, that's all.


He also says that the fact that Konami makes cards without knowing its impact in the meta means that they are unprepared to maintain the game.
Really? lol

Konami knows full well what they're doing when they make this stuff, any of you thought it was a coincidence when Cyber Dragon Infinity and Planetellarknight Ptolemaeus were released IN THE SAME PACK? NO IT WASN'T! They know when their shit is broken, they make it broken on purpose, broken sells, my friends. If there's not any particularly good card in the pack, chances are it won't sell well (outside of the guys who like to play rogue, but those guys are also the kind that usually buy 5 packs, open them "Meh, didn't get what I wanted, a shame, I'll have better luck next time, I guess").

Why do you think Decks Like E-Drags remained untouched for such a long time? They sold like there was no tomorrow, everyone wanted an E-Drag, so everyone bought their products, same for stuff like Nekroz, they kept them alive with little touches to keep selling them for a while, and when they determined it was about time to sell a different product, they got rid of them.
*Detemmiened

clairedestroyer!
5th November 2015, 08:50 AM
The issue with traditional format is that it is not popular or supported anywhere, and it was mostly a concession when the banlist first started putting cards at 0. As Yu-Gi-Oh is also not a set rotation game traditional won't really ever see play because as a format it very rapidly devolves into the kind of format that's unplayably broken. Unless the structure of this game changed rapidly to allow traditional to thrive (and set rotation has cons as well) it's not really gonna be expanded on (or worth the effort for that matter). Erratas let them follow the goal stated earlier while skirting that uncomfortable issue entirely.

Deadborder
5th November 2015, 03:53 PM
I agree with claire, who's basically hit every nail on the head.

Personally, my only issue with such erratas is when certain cards are nerfed so hard that they're unlikely to ever see play again.

Of course, this may be intentional as well; it allows the banlist to become smaller while simultaneously insuring that the cards are still, more or less, "erased" from the game.

I also wouldn't mind seeing errata in the other direction on cards like Ra. Then again, they've figured out a better way to make money off that particular example by making non-shitty versions that also require you to buy the original.

iNfiniTe Se7eNz
5th November 2015, 04:14 PM
I think "erratas" is unacceptable. "Errata" is already plural ("erratum" singular).

Grammar Communism aside, as mentioned before, I still think errata that drastically change card effects (namely the ones that got a host of previously long-banned cards unbanned) are terrible in concept because it messes up their place in traditional format. The banlist was already put in place to mitigate problematic cards, so drastic changes are unwarranted. It's better just to keep a card banned rather than nerf it to the point of unplayability.

Errata a la PSCT is perfectly acceptable, on the other hand, and in fact entirely welcome, because obviously it does not alter the effect.

Deadborder
5th November 2015, 04:52 PM
I think that would hold more weight if konami actually showed any intentions of supporting traditional format

DelCtrl
6th November 2015, 06:34 AM
I think "erratas" is unacceptable. "Errata" is already plural ("erratum" singular).
Sorry, I didn't know that it was a pure latim word (but I should have guessed it).

I can't really see a way to make Tradicional Format more prominent, seeing that it is unbalanced in its very concept (using cards that are forbidden for standard play). Even if Konami would make tournaments and the like, I doubt it would attract that many players to become relevant, as much as I'd like to use my CED and Rulers.

clairedestroyer!
6th November 2015, 07:13 AM
It's honestly disingenuous to call Traditional a real format rather than an alternate banlist as unlike MtG formats which are strictly defined with specific cardpools based on card age, Traditional is just the entire Yu-Gi-Oh cardpool + 73 cards. With all those factors in mind, it is expected that decisions do not take it into account at all. There's zero advantage to do so and plenty of disadvantages.

Jolan
6th November 2015, 11:02 AM
It's honestly disingenuous to call Traditional a real format rather than an alternate banlist as unlike MtG formats which are strictly defined with specific cardpools based on card age, Traditional is just the entire Yu-Gi-Oh cardpool + 73 cards. With all those factors in mind, it is expected that decisions do not take it into account at all. There's zero advantage to do so and plenty of disadvantages.

Why would Traditional be a format anyway? I thought some of those cards got banned because they enabled consistent FTKs. Why would you want to play in a format where a consistent FTK is possible?

Shadok
8th November 2015, 02:41 PM
I must be in the minority in that I feel that an errata is fine as long as it balances things. I'd rather a card be changed and now it can be used in the game than it takes a permanent position on the ban list. What's even the point of cards like "Pot of Greed" or "Thousand Eyes Restrict" even EXISTING anymore? They just live on the forbidden list and honestly they deserve better than to never see the light of day.

Momma_Sophie
11th November 2015, 05:55 PM
I'm definitely against the Idea of New-effect Erratas, I get the jist of it, fixing a card so it stays true to his origins, but fair in the end, and hey, that's fine, some people missed the cards and want them to come back regardless of how ruined they are post-errata, I understand that.

But guys, there's something called traditional-format, you can play banned cards on traditional, that's what it's for, I've played traditional for a very long time and really enjoyed it, heck, When I was a DN player, most of my duels were just me running pre-errata Sinister Serpent on my Dragunities. What? You wanted to use those cards in the competitive scene? In their current post-errata state? Good luck, that's all.


Really? lol

Konami knows full well what they're doing when they make this stuff, any of you thought it was a coincidence when Cyber Dragon Infinity and Planetellarknight Ptolemaeus were released IN THE SAME PACK? NO IT WASN'T! They know when their shit is broken, they make it broken on purpose, broken sells, my friends. If there's not any particularly good card in the pack, chances are it won't sell well (outside of the guys who like to play rogue, but those guys are also the kind that usually buy 5 packs, open them "Meh, didn't get what I wanted, a shame, I'll have better luck next time, I guess").

Why do you think Decks Like E-Drags remained untouched for such a long time? They sold like there was no tomorrow, everyone wanted an E-Drag, so everyone bought their products, same for stuff like Nekroz, they kept them alive with little touches to keep selling them for a while, and when they determined it was about time to sell a different product, they got rid of them.
*Detemmiened

I also see that Konami knows what they are doing. Well done on the post.