Just something I wanted to ask in seriousness. What does it take to make your Deck CC? Is it CC when you add in a certain number of commonly used Trap Cards? Is it CC when you add in a certain number of commonly used Spell Cards? Is it CC when you add in a certain number of commonly used Monster Cards that have no real relation to each other? I have been wondering if someone was to use 3 Smashing Grounds and 3 Sakuretsu Armors does that make the Deck Cookie Cutter? Any suggestions? The reason I ask is because I felt like redo my policy on what I see as CC when it comes to Deck making.
What makes the Deck CC?
- Thread starter Tiso
- Start date
- Status
D
dark_ruler_hades
Guest
All matter b/c a deck that's CC needs to be (imo) 80% copied from a tried and true deck (eg MMPT Magical Merchant Pot Turbo)
My definition of CC is different from yours Tiso, and you know this 
Using efficient quality cards doesn't make a deck CC what makes it a CC is if you straight up copy someones deck without knowing why it works. For example, if you took Evan Vargas' Soul Control for instance, some of those cards may not suit your style of play or it just doesn't work for you and you decide to change it, that makes it more than a CC. Cookie Cutters make copies of a deck, once you change a deck for your own reasons, its no longer a Cookie Cutter in my book, you added/removed cards for thought-thru, hopefully, reasons.
Three smashings and Sakurestu Armors doesnt make it cookie cutter, if you find your deck suffering heavily from aggro, why not include those card? Usually people scream cookie cutter for the wrong reasons, now I'll call out cookie cutters if you just copied a deck and really don't understand what the deck does and how it works, thats why SoulCont has so many variations to the point where its more of general deck idea rather than a deck by itself. Thats my little rant I know you would disagree with some of the things I have said Tiso.
Using efficient quality cards doesn't make a deck CC what makes it a CC is if you straight up copy someones deck without knowing why it works. For example, if you took Evan Vargas' Soul Control for instance, some of those cards may not suit your style of play or it just doesn't work for you and you decide to change it, that makes it more than a CC. Cookie Cutters make copies of a deck, once you change a deck for your own reasons, its no longer a Cookie Cutter in my book, you added/removed cards for thought-thru, hopefully, reasons.
Three smashings and Sakurestu Armors doesnt make it cookie cutter, if you find your deck suffering heavily from aggro, why not include those card? Usually people scream cookie cutter for the wrong reasons, now I'll call out cookie cutters if you just copied a deck and really don't understand what the deck does and how it works, thats why SoulCont has so many variations to the point where its more of general deck idea rather than a deck by itself. Thats my little rant
I know you would disagree with some of the things I have said Tiso.Well the way I viewed it, it was basically the "staples" getting used all the time and "inferior" cards being bypassed because they were not staple worthy. Also cards that obviously do not fit the theme. I can under using Mobius the Frost Monarch in a WATER Deck, but why does he need to be in a Deck that is Warrior? Ruining the theme structure of a Deck is what I considered to be CC to me. I remember when I was still using Widespread Ruin and had to stop because everyone else started using it.
D
dark_ruler_hades
Guest
But isn't CC also known as Netdecking?
Netdecking is an entirely different thing. To netdeck is basically to take a Deck, like a winning Deck from the internet for example and play it exactly as is. You did not make the Deck nor did you come up with the stategies involved in it on your own so you could never properly use it the way it was meant, which really is not the problem giving the only reason people netdeck is to have an already tried-true winning Deck. An example of CC would basically be the top 8 people in a tourney running the same type of Deck with almost identical builds except for a few differences in them but generally they are the same Deck. Just slapping tons of staples in a Deck that already is using and cards with no real relation to each other also falls into that category.
Tiso said:
You see thats the one thing I dislike about people like you, not saying you are a horrible person or anything, using a card because its not popular is fine if it works for you fine, now you stopped using a card because everyone else started using it? sorry thats plain dumb, the card doesn't lose value because other people start playing it...and there are inferior cards being passed for a reason, there are better cards that do the job the same but better...
Mobius in warrior is not ruining any themes, just because its warrior doesn't mean its should be all warriors, what do warriors have issues with? fd s/t, now what take cares of s/ts in general with efficiency? mobius, there you go. Mystic Swordsman might be a sub, but its definitely not the same as a mobius. That is a themed deck, warrior with support cards to complement it, that is deck making, persuming you want to win as often as possible.
Warriors already have enough support as is. What people are using Mobius the Frost Monarch for is the fact he can destroy up to 2 Spell and Trap Cards on the field. If people want that kind effect, there are other cards out there to use like Dust Tornado, Seven Tools of the Bandit, Giant Trunade, etc. You are running a theme, at least stick to it. I am not saying other Attributes or Types should not be in a particular Deck, but be reasonable with it. The reason I stop using cards like that is partly because everyone else is using them. I am still piffed at Widspread Ruin magically becoming playable and a card like Smashing Ground being played in 3's when Fissure was out since day 1. If I was running a Elemental Hero Deck I do not see the need to run Mobius the Frost Monarch, Dust Tornado, Heavy Storm, Breaker the Magical Warrior as well the Elemental Hero Spell and Trap removal cards when just the support cards do the job. What is wrong with using the "inferior" cards? What makes them inferior in the first place? If people gave them a chance instead of going for an easy, CC path the game would be a lot more enjoyable. I just cannot accept a person honestly thinks that they had a "great game" against an opponent when all it you see played is Smashing Ground that, Sakuretsu Armor this, Breaker the Magical Warrior this, and so on.
TsunamiArmy
New Member
I see CC as this...running cards in your deck just because you have seen the same cards run by other people, and thingking to yourself "Gee, if it works for them, then it just has to work for me"
As you have pointed out to me Tiso, CC thinking isn't always the best route to go. Sure some of the true staples can be used in most decks, but cards like Cyber Dragon and mobius can't be slotted in any old place, even though they are great cards.
If you are building a true theme deck, then you should stay true to the theme. If you are building a deck to win at a competitive level, then you probably will have to use some CC cards in order to win, even if it does go against your deck building beliefs.
For nearly every CC catd, there is an alternative....you just have to be willing to sperate yourself from the herd and run something....different. without innovation, we get stagnation
As you have pointed out to me Tiso, CC thinking isn't always the best route to go. Sure some of the true staples can be used in most decks, but cards like Cyber Dragon and mobius can't be slotted in any old place, even though they are great cards.
If you are building a true theme deck, then you should stay true to the theme. If you are building a deck to win at a competitive level, then you probably will have to use some CC cards in order to win, even if it does go against your deck building beliefs.
For nearly every CC catd, there is an alternative....you just have to be willing to sperate yourself from the herd and run something....different. without innovation, we get stagnation
Tiso said:
Well Fissure vs Smashing is situational, but most of the time you want to nail the highest attack monster on your opponent's side of the field which more often than not the one with the highest defense. Its situational yes, but so is Fissure. Breaker is as versatile as, basically a slow MST on legs, thats efficient for deck space. Heavy Storm, is umm near broken? Armor is a one for one trade that takes out a monster of your choosing, which is why you see it being played in 3s rather than Ruins in 3s. Tornado and Mobius again, takes care of decks that have issues dealing with s/ts in general and efficiently at that. Trunade only bounces and doesnt destroy, seven tools requires a set and lp payment. Trunade is sideboard material since by then you should have an idea how the opponent's deck is being played and then you can time your plays with the little window that Trunade gives you properly.
Now for the warrior deck, whats their consistent answer to s/ts? they have plenty of ways to deal with mons, its the s/ts that give them issues whether you go control with dons and assailants or aggro with GAF its the same issue, you have to be able to force your attacks through. Greenkappa is too situational and costs you a summon for the turn. Now if you think good players don't give the "inferior cards" a chance, you really don't understand the process of deck making. The reason netdecks come about is because people have tested other cards and found a good/better and sometimes (rarely) the best combination of cards for a deck fitting of their own personal preferences.
As for your last commment, it is a good game, why? cause the cards don't play themselves the players do, the deck can only get you so far, i say about 70-80% is left up to the player and his/her decisions, so you can have good game or a bad game depending on how you play regardless of the cards you use.
How exactly are the cards going to get play if the people do not play them? Maybe you are in denial, but the game is not good and we already have problems that will almost never go away for good with it. I think you are giving most people credit when it comes to netdecking and why they do it. Most will just view the easy way out to victory without any thought in the process of how they got there. Why bother making a Deck when someone already did the job for me? What I see from most players is some kind justification with why they will not use certain cards or why some cards are not played over others, like what you did. Tell me exactly how Breaker the Magical Warrior is not a set-back? You waste your turn Normal Summoning it, which it can then fall prety to a Trap Hole or Bottomless Trap. You never get the counter on it and you just wasted a summon. Saying Seven Tools of the Bandit is bad because of the reasons you stated just further confuses me when you make up a justification on why cards like Smashing Ground or Dust Tornado are used.
Tiso said:
hehe, thats because I try to play against good players who know how to use cards. That might be why I am giving people alot of credit. The situations you came up with breaker applies to most monsters, so pointless, Breaker's value lies in its versatility a 1900 beatstick or a 1600 s/t destroyer packed into one its just gives you more options for your decisions in the deck. By the way, at least the people I play with online, no one copies a deck straight up, we make it from scratch with the idea and then tinker with it, that is what seperates us from the netdecking cc running idiots you probably see. Seven tools < Decree most of the time nowadays, and it was used heavily before because Jinzo hasn't hit the scene fully. Those 2 cards pretty much kills the market for potential Seven targets, the only real benefit is that its a hard counter.
Oh, if you think I am defending the game as good thats your mistake, I think any decently good player already figured out the flaws for YGO and don't really care since its a fundamental problem than what you are saying. Now compare YGO to MTG and you can probably tell what the biggest issue with the game of YGO is, if you can't then you really don't have an idea what you are talking about.
And again you misread my post, the point I am trying to make is that players play the deck, cards only get you so far. In other words, the number one problem with your arguement is that the cards make all the difference in the world, they don't, CC or not, good players can play them regardless. There are just some cards that are not worth it at all, the card that comes to mind namely for me is sorry, Spell Vanishing.
See that is the problem I already see. With your posts you flat out insulted me which was not cool, then you further insult me by coming up with excuses as to why Breaker the Magical Warrior does not fall into the category of being a setback or inferior card. Chiron the Mage owns Breaker the Magical Warrior and at least you have priority to use its effect and it is 1800. Your entire point about Breaker the Magical Warrior is flakey if you are just using it for the reasons you stated. What is better? A 1600 ATK monster that will most likely see a Bottomless Trap Hole, or a 1800 ATK monster that at least can destroy something before the eventual Bottomless Trap Hole or Torrential Tribute gets it? Then you go about to say Seven Tools of the Bandit is inferior to Royal Decree. Royal Decree hurts you too so in order for you to use it, you have to at least pack 3 of them in your Deck, thus limiting the amount of Trap Cards you can use to protect yourself. No the Trap Card that is best for the kind of environment we have right now is Trap Jammer, but not one ever goes to think that do they?
The number one problem with YOUR argument is that it is not just the cards, but skill of the player, which is true to a degree, but how much skill does it really take to use cards that are "staples" for a reason? It takes more skill to use the other cards that no one uses and not just use them, but use them effectively. Anyone can Tribute Summon a Mobius the Frost Monarch or Sakuretsu Armor a Goblin Attack Force. Then you go ahead and show my point when you bash Spell Vanishing, a card that gives the user a look at their opponent's hand and Deck. What Spell Cards are being run in 2s to 3s? I bet you would have at least said it be Side Deck potential if Sinister Serpent was back. The fact that you do not even bother to understand why someone uses a card like that just shows that thinking the "CC" way makes it easier.
I used to think that if you used cards like Sakuretsu Armor and Smashing Ground was a bad thing, but I am starting to see that to make the Deck CC it takes a lot more of the staple path and splashing any card in the Deck.
The number one problem with YOUR argument is that it is not just the cards, but skill of the player, which is true to a degree, but how much skill does it really take to use cards that are "staples" for a reason? It takes more skill to use the other cards that no one uses and not just use them, but use them effectively. Anyone can Tribute Summon a Mobius the Frost Monarch or Sakuretsu Armor a Goblin Attack Force. Then you go ahead and show my point when you bash Spell Vanishing, a card that gives the user a look at their opponent's hand and Deck. What Spell Cards are being run in 2s to 3s? I bet you would have at least said it be Side Deck potential if Sinister Serpent was back. The fact that you do not even bother to understand why someone uses a card like that just shows that thinking the "CC" way makes it easier.
I used to think that if you used cards like Sakuretsu Armor and Smashing Ground was a bad thing, but I am starting to see that to make the Deck CC it takes a lot more of the staple path and splashing any card in the Deck.
- Status