Three-Man Team PvP #6 - RULES

[Higurashi]

Here's a loophole for ya: I can play a duo with my personal and team element twice, then pack something like a Photon to make my next deck a technical trio. Whether it's a Photon or a dead card doesn't matter much for the strength of the deck, of course.

[rob77dp]

Here's a loophole for ya: I can play a duo with my personal and team element twice, then pack something like a Photon to make my next deck a technical trio. Whether it's a Photon or a dead card doesn't matter much for the strength of the deck, of course.

Is this a problem?  What you lay out here, Higs, happened quite a bit in the recent WC without causing issues/problems.  Perhaps allowing this "loophole" is acceptable for TPvP too.  It may be small but it is still a risk to pack dead cards (even 1) in a deck.  It also uses up an available flexibility by counting against element-use maximum without really "using" it.  In your example, Miracle/Sanct/lightstall stuff would now be limited to ONE 'real' use by dropping a solo Photon in to another deck.

[Higurashi]

Issues? The entire problem is that you circumvent the idea of the rule, which is to cause more deck variety. In other words, it makes the rule all but pointless and complicates things for participants. Fairly sure you could figure that out without me spelling it out.

[rob77dp]

Issues? The entire problem is that you circumvent the idea of the rule, which is to cause more deck variety. In other words, it makes the rule all but pointless and complicates things for participants. Fairly sure you could figure that out without me spelling it out.

That could devolve into defining the "purpose" of the rule is and "deck variety".  If deck variety is supposed or shown as the ONLY purpose for the limited-element rule(s), then we should go down this road.  Otherwise, I see the rule as preventing abuse of strong deck archetypes/duos.

Deck variety definitions aside, I considered the frustration with such a loophole to be getting beat by some 'uncounterable' deck.  If my opponent fields a duo and wins game 1 and I feel it is a very strong play from their element choices then I should field a counter from my available elements.  If I fail, then I have failed but have yet another opportunity as best-of-5 leaves the match incomplete at 0-2 (this example).  The idea a player could field the same strong-duo essentially twice by adding one off-element card is in my opinion not an issue.

Could you clarify if you intended the only issue with the rule as-is to be the 'deck variety' angle?

[Higurashi]

If it's not an issue to you, then the rule is pointless to you.

Two problems with a pointless rule: complicates things for all players (guaranteed that some will miss out on using the loophole and become annoyed, and guaranteed that some will make a mistake in deckbuilding and post illegal decks; drama ensues), and a pointless rule means the issue it intended to fix isn't fixed.

Hell, a third problem would be that the final result is just uglying up the duo you want to use, and nothing more. It doesn't even have to be the same deck; I can make craptons of wildly different Aether/Darkness decks that aim to do completely different, or even opposite, things.

[rob77dp]

If it's not an issue to you, then the rule is pointless to you.  It is only pointless if the duo-A then duo-A then duo-A-one-card-different-for-other-element beats me three times.  I place this under the if-I-couldn't-beat-or-didn't-expect-the-same-deck-three-times-then-maybe-I-deserved-to-lose umbrella.  I don't like that umbrella but see it as 'part of the game'.

Two problems with a pointless rule: complicates things for all players (guaranteed that some will miss out on using the loophole and become annoyed, and guaranteed that some will make a mistake in deckbuilding and post illegal decks; drama ensues), and a pointless rule means the issue it intended to fix isn't fixed.  Please explain what I am missing showing that "complicates things for all players" is not true for the other rules in this event (or ANY event?) and clarify what this rule "intended to fix" that "isn't fixed".

I'd like to re-iterate that if a duo defeats me three times in a match (essentially, as this is presuming the third loss is to the duo + one-card-from-other-element) to be my three-losses-in-a-best-of-5, then from where I am now I consider that hats-off to either:  RNG (this is true in ANY match), I suck at countering (PvP reflection of my skills or lack thereof), or some unstoppable duo that was discovered in this matchups set of elements (I feel no issue with this).

[rem4life]

Nah, rob, I think you're wrong here.. What you say is that intentional exploiting of a possible loop is very much advisable..

I'd suggest adding some additional rule to the "2/3" one (and to majofa's clarification "adding one non quanta card makes normal duo a trio") - e.g. each deck must consist of at least (5, to be discussed) non pillar/pendulum cards - to avoid exploits and misunderstandings

[CrockettRocket]

Well, photon is counted as in-element because its not a pillar/pend. EX. elements are  you cant throw in photon cause its light and would be banned from you. Example 2: elements are  . You use a fire water deck 2 times. You cant use a  deck just by throwing in a photon. You have to use a  OR  deck.

[rob77dp]

Well, photon is counted as in-element because its not a pillar/pend. EX. elements are  you cant throw in photon cause its light and would be banned from you.

Here, it would be a Rustler tossed in to the third time using + duo.

Example 2: elements are  . You use a fire water deck 2 times. You cant use a  deck just by throwing in a photon. You have to use a  OR  deck.

As the rules are currently written, you could do exactly this.

[CrockettRocket]

Oh, well then to exploit in a such a way would be hard. I don't find it a problem. Sorry, I'm one of those people who have to write it out to fully understand something.

[hainkarga]

Next tpvp, we should probably send the element choices privately to event organiser only to be revealed at the end of the signup deadline. Sounds more fair.

[rob77dp]

*Posting this identically on both Rules and Round 1 topics*

Can deck Mark be any element or is it limited to a player's "available elements" per match setup?