PDA

View Full Version : For Fun Duelists: Do you want your decks competitive, viable, or just plain fun?



SynjoDeonecros
12th January 2016, 04:09 AM
I have to ask, does any other duelist who plays for fun get annoyed to the point of snapping when some tournament snob bashes you for not having a competitive deck? Do you try to stay relevant in the game, be as niche as possible without being totally overdone by the rest of the meta? Or do you think they're right, and you need to be competitive in order to survive in the game?

Me, I go with relevant; I don't care if I win or lose, most of the time, as long as I can get my licks in as much as I take them. I remember way back in the day, before the ban list was instated and Chaos Yata was still reigning supreme, I managed to hold out for quite a while against such a deck using a fairly crappy fun-themed feline bounce deck, with Dark Cat with White Tail providing the stall. I ended up losing to the Yata Lock, but the opponent was so impressed that I held out for as long as I did, that he complimented me on it. That's what shifted my perspective on a deck's usefulness from competitiveness to viability; no deck will win 100% of the time, but even if you don't win that often, if the losses aren't total crushing defeats and one-sided challenges, if you can hold your own against a more meta deck and still make the game last for more than a few turns of solitairing, then you have something going with your deck and you should be allowed to pursue that line of reasoning for as far as the game will allow.

Now, I know that not everyone agrees with that, but it seems like more and more of the for-fun duelists are getting shamed out of the game or into becoming more douchey duelists in order to win by the elitist assholes who think the only way to play the game is to netdeck and win all the time. I'd like to hear your guys' opinions about this: what do you want to see in a deck, if you play for fun? Do you find that matching meta with meta is fun? Do you - like me - want to try to survive the game as much as possible? Or do you just don't give a crap and want to play a gimpy deck, damn the consequences?

Volteccer
12th January 2016, 04:16 AM
Yeah, i agree with viable. My decks have a strategy, and I know how to work it, even if it's not the fastest or most consistent deck. I can usually go 2-2 at ,y locals, maybe 3-1 with lucky matchups. But I always play what I like, regardless of how meta it is. Occasionally I accidentally pick a deck that is meta, but usually my variant isn't as good. I fell in love with geargiano shortly after it came out, and when i heard that an entire archtype would follow, i decided to make that deck. And I made a Blue-Eyes Heiratic deck when the structure deck came out because it's one of the few archtypes that can run Blue-Eyes. And I've been playing performpals since Crossed Souls.

Sanokal
12th January 2016, 04:24 AM
I see no problem with fun decks, but I like viable just for pride issues. I once stalled Nekroz out with Evol simply because I had no hand the whole time and the guy groused about how rubbish his deck was. It was a wee bit of a proud moment even though I eventually lost.
You can try and kill me, but I will draw it out.
I have a feeling I may have gone on a tangent, but ah well.

Baroque
12th January 2016, 04:24 AM
Honestly, for me, the fun of the game is figuring out something that works (like, not 'ohmygodIhavetostreamlinethisaaaa', just 'let's see if this works *pulls lever*'); I don't really give a darn about what exactly the meta is in comparison to my decks (other than the sense of 'okay, are people going to hate me for running this against them now?'), and just enjoy trying to play a duel with something that's functional.

Viability is icing on the cake, competitive clout even moreso; it is the byproduct rather than the intended result. : V

And if I'm wrong for building that way, then oh well.

Jakinus
12th January 2016, 04:52 AM
Back when I used to play irl way back to the GX until mid-5D's I used to keep up with the current meta, how it works, the weakness and strenghts of each deck, their main strategies, etc., and if I like a meta deck I'll see how I could give them my own touch. I still do it, the only difference is that I only play online (but I want to play irl again, it's just that where I live I don't have any way to do it without donating a few organs). Playing my version of one of the best decks against the best version of the best deck is, for me, a great experience because it feels like you won, not the deck.

What I want to say is that I like competitiviness, I understand that some people don't like it but I like to win, I'm not a douche when I win a game (or at least I try not to), I try to mantain good sportmanship even if my opponent is a dick. I guess viability comes with competitiviness. And lastly, fun, if I don't enjoy using a certain deck or the game itself then why I'm even playing?

Now, about what you said of more and more of the for-fun duelists getting shamed out of the game or into becoming more douchey duelists, I have to agree, but this happens with a lot of other games and everything in life actually. Harsh enviroments makes you harsh both in the inside and the outside. This is why is important to always remember that you're not that douche in your locals, you are you, if you want to play for fun it's fine, if you play to win then try to mantain a good behavior. If the place where you play is really that inconfortable, then maybe you should distance yourself from that place and its people, try finding some friends that share your vision of the game. If the game itself doesn't make you have fun then you should maybe take a break or leave the game. It's up to you (not you... YOU, but anyone in that kind of situation).

Pendulum
12th January 2016, 11:09 AM
I like to play for fun. But playing for fun is not having a deck that bricks every game.
I like to build my deck in a consistent way. It doesn't matter if it's the best way to build it or if I should use some other cards instead some I use. It's about using cards I like and being able to use them. I like to make it strong too, of course. It might be a deck I like but bricking/losing in three turns all the time isn't fun, so I try to find a balance.
I only use cards I like, that's vital. And yeah, I'd easily lose against meta decks frequently, but not everytime, though.
My main goal is having fun, while still being able to play the deck; That means executing the combos, not bricking, etc..
I don't build my deck to specifically counter others, nor I don't care about other decks around. I just build it in a way it's sturdy to deal with a lot (I try to aim for any, but that's very hard) of threats and still being able to make a dent.

Dread Kaiser
12th January 2016, 05:09 PM
Viability is a First and foremost, not going to have any fun if the deck doesn't work.
Fun comes second, no point in playing a Moneysink like this if you don't enjoy it.
Competitive, dead last since since "competitive" these days means "Netdecked, go first and Deny opponent ability to have 1 turn, then act as if it was skill that won you the game". Winning like that is incredibly fucking boring to me, which always makes me wonder if competitive players actually have fun going through the exact same motions every game

Jolan
12th January 2016, 05:17 PM
I like viable decks in the sense that they can sort-of match how ''infinite'' some of the meta decks are.
For example, in Kozmo, if your opponent gets you a Dark Destroyer, it can float into like 6 cards no matter how you destroy it. A lot of older decks just don't have the resources to deal with chipping away at a Great Wall of China that has >2000 atk power.
If your deck goes -1 and the opponent floats, then the game just ends very early, and neither player gets to have much fun.
Bringing/unbanning cards that would allow older decks to at least somewhat match meta decks in resources is what I mostly want.
That way, even if your deck isn't top tier due to consistency or available options, at least you can have a nice fight against someone who does.
You'll struggle, and you might even win, and it will be fun for both players.

That's my main reason for believing that generic meta-like cards should be cheap and accessible. If you play Solemn Warning in every single deck, why would the card be Secret Rare and cost more than 1$? You're just putting power (and thus, fun) directly in the hands of those with more money.
It was super nice that Veiler and Warning got reprinted in the Synchron Extreme deck, as commons. For as low as 10$, you can have 1/3 of a Synchron deck as well as 2 super amazing generic cards! For 30$ you've almost completed the Synchron deck, and you have a playset of generic powerful cards!
You may have paid 30$ but you didn't just get 6 cards out of it, you got a /whole deck/ and 6 cards. That is definitely going to let you improve your other decks /and/ give you the option of playing a new one! Even more fun!

yshipster
12th January 2016, 06:01 PM
I like to play for fun. But playing for fun is not having a deck that bricks every game.
I like to build my deck in a consistent way. It doesn't matter if it's the best way to build it or if I should use some other cards instead some I use. It's about using cards I like and being able to use them. I like to make it strong too, of course. It might be a deck I like but bricking/losing in three turns all the time isn't fun, so I try to find a balance.
I only use cards I like, that's vital. And yeah, I'd easily lose against meta decks frequently, but not everytime, though.
My main goal is having fun, while still being able to play the deck; That means executing the combos, not bricking, etc..
I don't build my deck to specifically counter others, nor I don't care about other decks around. I just build it in a way it's sturdy to deal with a lot (I try to aim for any, but that's very hard) of threats and still being able to make a dent.

I have to agree you very much!
Personally, I tend to put more situational cards in a deck with a decent main engine. It just excites me more than everything else if a combo which is considered as "unplayable in a real duel" or "too situational as that anyone would use it" works for me, and I can win a duel because of it. Surprises are one of the most important things in a duel for me, since otherwise it's nothing more than a routine.
And thats also the reason why I don't want to play 100% competetive. Most meta decks these days are solely focused on either OTKs or lockdowns. And both are things I really don't like.
Though I'm not even mad if someone is able to OTK me, because he got the best start hand in his life.
I struggle more with lockdowns on that note, since they stop the opposing player entirely from dueling. Your opponent just will stall you out and you can't anything against it. Thats the very definition of boring for me.
But these are just my thoughts about dueling...

King
12th January 2016, 06:30 PM
i have tons of 4 Fun decks to use when i want to chill and stuff but i want some of them on the competitive scene, well at least for me it proves that the deck is strong and can be a force to be reckoned, also for me the fun is defeating my opponent and the harsher the environment i defeat my enemy the funnier it becomes

Pendulum
12th January 2016, 06:35 PM
for me the fun is defeating my opponent and the harsher the environment i defeat my enemy the funnier it becomes

Geez... You serious?

King
12th January 2016, 06:41 PM
Geez... You serious?

totally serious, why i would make a deck that its not meant for winning ?

Pendulum
12th January 2016, 06:46 PM
totally serious, why i would make a deck that its not meant for winning ?

I try to build them to have fun. I try to still win, of course. Losing all the time isn't funny either. But I really don't mind losing. I've lost some duels with a laugh or a big smile on my face, because those were some duels full of cool combos, with comebacks and stops of those comebacks, fierce duels... But in the end, I just went outlucked. So I lost. But I didn't mind.
On your case, well, if, for you, the fun is on winning and only on winning, I guess that's the unique purpose for you to build a deck: to win. But you are a competitive/meta player, right? But even so...

King
12th January 2016, 06:50 PM
I try to build them to have fun. I try to still win, of course. Losing all the time isn't funny either. But I really don't mind losing. I've lost some duels with a laugh or a big smile on my face, because those were some duels full of cool combos, with comebacks and stops of those comebacks, fierce duels... But in the end, I just went outlucked. So I lost. But I didn't mind.
On your case, well, if, for you, the fun is on winning and only on winning, I guess that's the unique purpose for you to build a deck: to win. But you are a competitive/meta player, right? But even so...

i play some for fun stuff too like Synchrons and Red-Eyes... but even with this kind of deck i play to win

Swampertmaster
13th January 2016, 12:48 AM
I like a mix of viability and fun. Mostly viability though as I like to actually put up some kind of fight before I win or lose and just sit there and do nothing because I bricked hard. This is why I play Yosenju, Dinomist and Battlin; boxers, decent consistency all around and I always have a good time.

Dyson Sphere
13th January 2016, 02:09 AM
i like to be able to play my fun decks in the format and have them viable and able to stand against meta, like those kozmos are no match for my rank 9s

Zarkiel
13th January 2016, 02:19 AM
I usually mix between fun and viable. I made a blackwing quasar deck just for shits and giggles and joked to my tournament, meta-following friend about how good it was because he was so annoyed by how bad the deck actually was. But it was always funny to see peoples reaction to quasar.

Drakylon
13th January 2016, 02:32 AM
I always aim to have fun with my decks, and that usually entails viability (decks that simply don't work aren't fun). That also means the deck has to at least not get stomped by meta, which unfortunately narrows down my options a tad.

DelCtrl
14th January 2016, 01:20 AM
I make decks that I feel good playing with, and that means that the deck needs to run, so I focus on something at least a little consistent. Also, I always follow the current banlist and make my decks with cards that I like for one or another reason, and most of the time, the artwork for each card is important for me. I don't like playing with cards that I simply don't like how it looks. And I try to keep some kind of theme for each deck, basically because sometimes when I play with my friends we roleplay while playing.

But, on the other hand, my some of my close friends don't know how to play/build or downright just play with old (DM era) cards. To try and "balance the game" they use banned cards like Pot of Greed, but even then I was still consistently wining. Only winning, without any challenge for both players became boring, so I can say that I prefer to play a non-consist fun than to play a competitive deck that wins all the time.

iNfiniTe Se7eNz
14th January 2016, 06:38 AM
Viable and fun. I enjoy pulling of certain moves, and it's better if I can pull them off reasonably often. I like having the ability to mix it up, too.

R3QU13M
14th January 2016, 07:41 AM
Prefer my decks viable that show my approach to a deck that differs from others. Although they may or may not be as consistent, my efforts are shown and its fun for me. Because before Construct was banned. I had a Rainbow Neos Shaddoll deck that use Rainbow Dark Dragon. Even though it was used as just a fusion material often. Me being able to successfully summon it made me proud of myself. Now I may go back to making it again.

KingKaash
27th January 2016, 02:20 AM
I don't duel irl because I don't have time or money yet but I casually follow along. If I was to make a deck I'd definitely want it to be viable and fun. And to me viable and fun are those decks that are out-of-the-box creative decks that last against meta decks like many have mentioned. The satisfaction that would probably come with giving your meta opponent all they could handle is what I would play for. I ask those of you who do play competitively, do people mainly run variants of today's meta?