I was recently made aware of an article sent in by a Pojo reader ranting about the current state of some aspects of the game. I'd like to make some responses to the points made by Mr. Mitchell... I've been out of the game for about 6 months now, but my opinions have formed more clearly than ever in my mind during my haitus. Let's begin...
I must admit that I find Mr. Mitchell to go a bit overboard in this section... ease of name recognition is nice, but hardly imperative. Lighten up on the adjectives... don't sweat an extra "Turbo" before the Raindance.
I must agree with Mr. Mitchell on this point. The idea of limiting decks to a maximum of 15 trainers displays faulty logic, and I shall explain why: the problem with Pokémon as it is today is not the sheer volume of trainers per deck -- it is the abusive nature of certain trainers, allowing the player to access so much of their deck. The obvious main culprit is the amazingly overpowered Professor Oak. The sheer card advantage gained through use of this card ensures that the Oaking player has more options than her counterpart. Cards such as Bill, and, to a lesser extent, Erika, also push the envelope of card advantage; in a format where it is legal to run 4 Oak and 4 Bill, it's no wonder that games have degenerated. During my time as a Deck Mechanic for the Pojo, I encouraged many players to use more card drawing trainers... the utility is simply too useful to be ignored.
The idea of limiting trainer usage to 2 per turn is an interesting one, yet it again does not solve the problem. Players will still be able to pack their deck with card drawing and searching (Have I mentioned that Computer Search is kinda broken?), and will reap the benefits of such a strategy regardless of whether they play 2 trainers per turn or 12. A mere two trainers per turn may not sound like much, but it will do nothing to prevent Computer Searching for an Oak. The most unfortunate side effect of this idea is that it would effectively neutralize miraculous comebacks, as such feats generally rely heavily upon stringing together multiple trainers.
So what is the answer, you might ask. I feel, much like Mr. Mitchell, that the DCI should implement a system similar to that used in Magic, issuing bannings, restrictions, and errata as called for by the metagame. They needn't restrict cards to 1 per deck, as in Magic... I think limiting players to 2 Oaks would be sufficient to slow the game down a great deal. With the lack of one-turn, game ending combos in this game, cards will never become as broken as they are in Magic.
Well, yes... the grammar and spelling are poor. Face it, the majority of Pokémon players are between the ages of 7 and 15, and a great many of them haven't yet learned the more subtle intricacies of the English language (y'know, details like pluralization vs. posessive tenses, basic spellings of root words). We can't expect spelling to be perfect, I suppose... and believe me, I'm quite intolerant of mistakes (especially my own!). Also, my friends ClefairyDoll and Scott Gerhardt work quite hard at filtering out the most unpalatable submissions... bear in mind the volume of mail they receive each day, and you'll see it's quite a task.
Um. I'm not sure there's much I can say on this topic... kids will be kids, y'know. If I may digress for a moment, I remember a children's show from back when I was little called The Polka-Dot Door. Anyway, it was a couple of people talking to a bunch of stuffed animals... who NEVER RESPONDED. The freaky thing was that the people acted as though they were having a conversation... kinda scary stuff, if you ask me. Anyway, I guess there's no harm in talking to Pokémon as long as you're under, say, 12 years of age.
I honestly haven't much to say on this topic... I've never claimed to be an expert on anime. I don't think Mr. Mitchell needs to present such an elitist view, however... one can be a fan of something without having in-depth knowledge of the subject. Simply accept that these young fans are learning, and guide them upon their way. Intolerence is never appreciated.
Yes, there are some bad decks in the Killer Deck Reports. Some very bad decks. Don't get me started. Yet again, let us remember that the KDRs are not so much about the deck as they are about the tournament. I believe that someone with a godawful deck who has enough gumption to write up a tourney report and submit it to the Pojo should be given a fair place among the others... especially if that person doesn't claim to have won the tourney. I find reports detailing a losing effort to be much more entertaining than those written by a self-inflated "winner" after beating up on some 7 year olds at the local Pokémon League. The true joy of the game comes in effort and discovery; let us not forget than we were all beginners once.
Well, that wraps up my response to Mr. Mitchell's thought-provoking article. I must agree with him on many points, yet I feel he goes too far in criticizing the younger Pokémon-playing demographic.
I'm quite interested in how events will play out in relation to the proposed changes to the DCI deck format... I may have to write a later article detailing my opinions on this subject.
Thank you all for reading through this admittedly long semi-polemic... if you've made it this far, you're obviously quite a fan of the game. Oh, and one more thing... Mr. Mitchell, you have a full set of Moxen? Rock on. *wink*
| Zach Luther | |
| zluther@hotmail.com |