Responding to Feedback on my Almost-Buzzfeed Article

Since that last post stirred more sleeping lions than I expected, I feel it’s only right if I responded to some of them in a timely fashion. These are some of the choice pickings from various forums that have been brought to my attention. Everything will remain at least somewhat anonymous, even if I address anyone specifically.

Yes, I’m ‘cherry-picking’. I am not, however, cherry picking responses I can easily rebut, or responses that agree with my article wholeheartedly. That would go against the entire purpose of this post. I am not going to respond to anything that either my skill article or the actual article itself already addressed, unless there is a valid rebuttal to my points. Please feel free to call me out if you feel there is an argument I missed, and I will do my best to respond to them.

Before I go any further, I want to extend a public apology to anyone who was offended by the post, especially any contributors or stakeholders of 9th Cx. Calling any specific site out was not, and will never be, my intention. Creating rifts in the community is petty and unjustified. To those who rightly pointed out my lack of insight concerning my fellow contributors’ content, you are correct, I didn’t look through all of the content that is currently on show, and I merely skimmed the more recent pickings. You are right to feel affronted, because I really didn’t do as much research as I probably should’ve, but that was a product of me not having much time before work buried me for the better part of two months. Again, that is all my fault and I apologise. I do not, however, retract the statement about the greater community mostly lacking quality content.

I would also like to ask 9thCx to clean up their site’s presentation a bit. In doing actual research for this paragraph, I found the site difficult to navigate, as articles come up completely uncut, making it difficult to cycle to the next one. Additionally, establishing a system where specific contributors can post under their own profiles, as well as a more visible tag system (ie. listed on the homepage or in the categories seen on the top menu bar) would improve the browsing experience, because I had to jump through several hoops to get anywhere but the most recent 5 articles. I ended up using Google as an impromptu search function, so if someone who can make a difference is reading, I’ve said my piece.

To the chap who said that I wrote an article purely to poo-poo his deck – I am sorry you feel that way. Not much I can do about it. In my defence, I personally feel that I have never talked about a deck purely to criticise it, with the exception of that one guy’s LB Twins deck in the Osaka WGP. I somewhat doubt you are that guy.

To those people who continue to claim there is no meta in WS, that’s just not right. The metagame is defined by the people who come together and compete. There is competition, so there is a metagame. Those are the simple facts of it all. Perhaps you are referring to ‘meta decks’, or ‘tiers’. Those also exist. It is a simple fact of life that nothing is equal, and even if there are many viable things, there will always be specific things that competitive players favour, as they will win them the highest percentage of games.

Finally, to all those people who read through my article, period. Regardless of whether you liked or disliked it, I am happy you did so, because it means you actually care about this game to some degree. Please continue to foster that passion. We all need a hobby.

Mailbox time.

we just got several dozen letters, we just got several dozen letters

we just got several dozen letters, we just got several dozen letters

Most of the strategy in Weiss does seem to come from the deck building, though. Once you’re going, the strategy is a little bare, outside of knowing when to brainstorm your ass off to refresh, when to blow stock because climaxes are tied up, etc.

I maintain that the difference between merely ‘good’ players and truly great players comes from a refusal to accept this. The examples you listed are extremely, extremely basic. It’s like saying that all you need in MtG is the knowledge of when to cast spells, and when to turn creatures sideways. Yes, deckbuilding is a huge part of the game, as it is in every TCG, CCG and LCG. However, there is a lot more to it than just that. The difference an experienced player can glean from a given gamestate is dimensions apart from an inexperienced player, even those who think they’ve got WS down. I guarantee you that you don’t have WS down. Tiny optimisations regarding every play, every attack order, every choice made – they are what would separate the good from the great if WS had a proper competitive system and enough competitive players to populate it.

Regarding competitions, my personal opinion is that since the way the game is made is like this, its target audience is also already fixed, it is difficult, and not really a good idea to force the game into something more competitive than its current state. Other card games want to be competitive, but sadly, the creators of the game deem it not to be so. (…) A finer equilibrium can be reached, but it’s probably not going to happen unless the Japanese players riot. The game system is suited towards them after-all, and there hasn’t been mass quitting yet so far to signify a need for change.

There is no reason why you can’t push a game towards being more competitive, even as you angle the game towards your intended audience. Bushiroad provides a variety of formats with which you can both compete and show your devotion to your set – Trio Cup and Title Cup both exist to meet those demands. I also believe that there are a significant number of older players who are just giving up for various reasons. Most of these reasons relate to the fact that the prevailing  competitive mindset in Japan (and elsewhere) is that sets that haven’t had an update since Kantai Collection’s first booster are simply unable to compete. There have been tweets around how decks without an Azusa clone cannot compete. Various countries in South-east Asia are slowly slipping away from Bushiroad as a company, choosing to specifically order only Vanguard. The playerbase is being affected, even as it grows in size and strength. It’s at this point that people have to decide what they want the game to be, and that’s part of why I chose to publish that article now.

Points 1 and 2 are entirely contradictory. You can’t say that “the game’s target audience is not competitive card game players” (which is super-true) and then turn around in the next breath and say “anime fans have redefined the goal of Weiss Schwarz.” The goal of WS from Bushi’s perspective is to create a TCG for casuals. You can play anything competitively, of course (Smash Bros comes to mind, I cannot imagine why anyone would want to play it competitively, but more power to you if you do). Everything about this game, from its best of one format, to the general lack of tournament support, reinforces the notion of WS as a casual game. Blaming people for reading the signals they’re given is ultimately counterproductive, IMO. Is it more skillful than people give it credit for often? Yes, it is. Is it AS skillful as others want to claim? I would say no.

Regarding the idea of Points 1 and 2 contradicting each other: I write this with the assumption that the goal of a cardgame is to win that cardgame. Regardless of your stance, a game is created to be played and won. You can argue that games are made to help people be entertained, to showcase the creator’s passion, or to help people express themselves, but none of that refutes the point that games will eventually have a winner, and that winning feels great. You are correct in saying you could infer that Bushiroad didn’t care to help this game competitively. However, if Bushiroad really didn’t intend for us to specifically aim for winning, they would not provide competitive support at all. There would be no WGPs, no Springfests, no Worlds. If you’ve ever had a Bushiroad representative at your regionals, they always tell you to strive to win and represent your country. The goal of WS is to win, and that is why people are unhappy when they lose. This is simply an undeniable fact. My second point hinges on the fact that victory is no longer the goal for many people, which goes against the basic tenant of the social construct we refer to as a game.

Also, there is no benefit in saying a game has a skill cap. Let’s take that example of Smash Bros. Did you know that this 15-year-old game is still having tech exposed? That the tiers are still shifting? That top players are finding new technology to trump each other with, day by day? If the players of Smash Bros Melee had decided that there was a skill cap, the game would be dead. And yet, it isn’t. It thrives, because it has a community willing to go the damn distance.

” Yes, the game is swingy. It’s very difficult to put up consistent results, …” – A competitive card game SHOULD NOT have any of these elements.

This is a pretty silly statement. Do you really think that MtG, Yugioh, Pokemon or Netrunner aren’t swingy cardgames? Do you not understand the value of a good topdeck in those games? Do you not realise that cardgames sell themselves off the thrill you get when luck swings your way? It’s absolutely laughable to imply that competitive cardgames aren’t swingy. In fact, just at this last World Cup, I can already think of 3 instances where a topdeck completely swung the game, and in one Top 8 instance, won the game right before the other deck did.

Now, regarding that other point. Do you think that it’s easy to put up consistent results in a competitive cardgame? Do you realise that a depressingly large number of consistent placers in Yugioh get penalised for cheating? Do you understand how difficult it is to get into the MtG Hall of Fame? Do you realise that topping 5 free-entry tournaments over the span of 10 years is a notable achievement? You need to have some perspective about things. Approaching the debate with the notion that competitive cardgames are super-good at showing skill, player preparation and insight is silly, and it’s even sillier to say that WS isn’t a viable competitive game because it doesn’t reach these standards. The ‘top decks’ coming out of the last 3 Pro Tours were never the winners, and often weren’t even in the finals. Depending on who you listen to, the best decks sometimes failed to cut.

writes article arguing that WS should be treated as a skill game
>last line of said article is “May your opponents always eat those 5s.”

This was probably not clever of me, but I do want to maintain the viewpoint that WS has a significant luck component, just like every other cardgame out there.

The game was always meant to be a casual game.

hi im mad

hi im mad

I did say I wasn’t going to address any points that my previous articles already did, but this one still pisses me off. Read point #4 here if you want to see how I would rebut this. Other games that were ‘designed to be casual’ include Magic: the Gathering, Smash Bros for 3DS/Wii U, and basically every sport.

I’d say one problem I don’t believe was covered in the article is the RNG reliance of Weiss as a game, if you damage check climaxes you win if you don’t you lose. That being said it doesn’t make the game very appealing on a competitive level if a person can buy two starter decks shuffle them together and win a regional vs designed and developed decks just because they can damage check a climax.

If you draw lands and spells you win, if you don’t you lose. There’s really not that much difference between being completely mana-screwed and skipping Level 1, down to the notion of being able to mount a comeback if your opponent doesn’t punish you. The only difference between the way climaxes are stacked and the way lands and spells are stacked is that you see your climaxes sooner, and you also see your opponent’s climaxes, allowing you to moan about your opponent having ‘better’ luck than you.

Also, nobody in a serious competitive environment can shuffle two trial decks together and win a regionals. That’s a stupid joke that has no actual leg to stand on, and the Disgaea trial deck doesn’t count, especially since the pilots of those trial decks were all confirmed as skilled players anyway. If that does somehow happen, it’s because the equivalent of today’s Owen Turtenwald descended upon a 1996 pre-release in the middle of Siberia.

Weiss Schwarz wasn’t created to be a competitive card game, but an entertainment card game. Its core gameplay mechanic reflects so. I am not talking about those heal loops, or those abilities, yea looks cool and “technical”, I am talking about the very core and basic ground-level gameplay mechanic, where you turn your things side way, and your opponent practically have to accept damage, that pushes the game towards the end.

The idea that you can make it so that doesn’t happen is the core element of Weiss Schwarz. Improving compression and making it so your attacks are more likely to hit is the fundamental part of Weiss Schwarz that makes it so interesting to optimise. You can easily build a deck in a way to stop your opponent achieving their optimal series of attacks while optimising your own. An example is using the Dragon Strike counter in Index, or choosing to play runners and bombs over other Level 0s in order to minimise the likelihood of on-reverse climax combos hitting you. Yes, damage keeps coming through, but it’s really not common to have a ridiculous amount of damage come through without you expecting it to. Seasoned players develop the ability to estimate when damage will come through, and good players will play as many ways to mitigate damage as possible. If Hearthstone can manage to be ‘competitive’ and ‘esports’, then WS clearly has a leg to stand on.

No matter how high the skill ceiling is, how skillful you are, your worse enemy is always the game mechanics.

You know what else is a game mechanic? Drawing random cards off the top of your deck. If your draws are terrible, it doesn’t matter what the game is or how good you are – you will lose. That’s just a part of the game. That’s just a part of every cardgame. You can’t seriously tell me that the inability to mitigate damage (ie. be forced to reveal topdecks until you hit climaxes) and the inability to control your draws (ie. be forced to topdeck until you hit gas/lands) are incomparable. They both work off the top of your deck. They are both integral to the gameplay mechanics of the card game. Neither is controlled by the player, and both are affected by deckbuilding skill and gameplay decisions.

Legally manipulating luck is a much more common skill than in any other card game.

I would like to bring attention to this little point, because it’s very true. An extremely notable parallel is not cracking fetchlands to heighten the chance of drawing those lands, or cracking them in order to not draw those lands.

still relevant

still relevant

The old adage rings true. If you frequently put yourself in a position where good luck matters, you will suddenly find yourself with more good luck. Good play rewards you with good luck, as instances of ‘luck’ now become significantly more valuable. An example would be triple triggering non-climaxes at any point. That is actually a significant stroke of luck in today’s meta, as that means your buffer against damage is much higher, if you have built your deck to take advantage of it (hence the high proportion of costless characters and events in the current meta).

The greatest and least explored area is the climax manipulation strategies with cards in deck. No one plays enough to care because of how much uncertainty it brings and inconsistencies as slots dedicated could have been placed elsewhere.

Not really. It’s true that Musashi Kai’s climax combo (and similar ones) are barely ever used, but there are plenty of high level strategies that based on the principle you mentioned. The biggest strength of Girlfriend Beta, Little Busters, To Love-Ru and Symphogear G’s Level 1 combos are the fact that they allow the player to pull non-climaxes from the deck. That’s a huge reason for these decks’ strength in the mid (and subsequently) lategame. The only reason anyone ever ran the Green Level 3 Onodera in Nisekoi is because they occasionally reached a point of invincibility through cancels. See, that’s the issue. People aren’t thinking about why cards are good. They see cards that put more cards in their hand. They see cards which pile stock up for them. They see that these are good gamestates, but they don’t think any deeper. That is what needs to be encouraged for the community to mature.

BO2… is a problem, because then it doesn’t give the loser of G1 any incentive. More specifically, how many Swiss points are you going to give to 0-1? Also, if it’s BO2, then you actually increase the # of people potentially end up with 1 point… which isn’t really a good solution.

Well, if you make it so 0-1 and 1-1 have a point disparity, then there is incentive? You’re not playing for a win/loss at that point, you’re playing for any points at all. Netrunner, as an assymmetrical LCG, is forced to use a sort-of BO2 system and it works fairly well, though they also have an in-game points system that helps.

Someone already suggested it, but using tiebreakers percentages as per any other cardgame would solve a fair few issues. Australia’s WGP uses a tiebreaker system instead of a lottery, even if BO1 is still the Swiss format. This means that going to time is entirely inadvisable and that you should scoop instead of ‘tying’, as that will give you better breakers instead of giving both of you a loss (which is stupid).

Point 5 is laughable.
Foreign, despite the joke status, keeps up CoTD translations.
Plenty of discussions, good and bad, and mostly on track.
Borden is gone, so we don’t need to filter through as much crap.

Foreign, you say?

pic related

pic related

Just kidding. However, this is exactly the sort of mindset which means WS will never go further than surface level card evaluation. The majority of reactions to CotD in Foreign involve tagging others, spouting about how imba the card is (it’s usually not), spouting about how terrible the series is and how their money is wasted (it usually isn’t), and occasionally an informed post about what the card’s eventual role will be. There is no actual discussion, just meaningless hype and a complete avoidance of real evaluation.

There isn’t really any proper discussion. Every time a tier list or strength chart is posted, it inevitably results in a bunch of people completely dismissing it without reasoning, a bunch of people with token ‘my waifu is bestest’ posts, and a bunch of Singaporeans, Malaysians and Australians shitposting. It’s not the sort of forum that a proper game should or would want to have. No, we’re not quite as bad as Zodiac, but you can be better than diarrhoea and still be a putrid bodily excretion.

Round 2.

blue skidoo, we can too!

blue skidoo, we can too!

Top players don’t even focus on just being better than their opponent in that one round; they focus on playing perfectly to minimize the chances of shit happening, they don’t see their opponent’s power level of 6 and then just decide to stop getting better at 7.

This was part of a pretty good reply, but I felt I needed to expand on a bit of this. Being able to see their opponent as a so-called 6 is an important skill, but what’s more important is being able to take advantage of that weakness. What would a ‘6 player’ do here that a ‘7 player’ might not? Knowing that an opponent is at a specific level and knowing how to manipulate opponents of this calibre is something that more people need to learn how to do, as it really does up the winrate significantly. This is just illustrating one key point of mine – there are a large variety of skills casual WS players never even think of harnessing, because it either ‘isn’t worth the trouble’ or is regarded as unimportant. They are talked about in other cardgames frequently, but never in WS, primarily because the community doesn’t care enough about optimising their competitive ability. I get that, but I think there needs to be more discussion on this front.

You’re not forced to try and bluff or coax your opponent into doing something just so you can put your own characters out.
Microoptimizations about attack order aren’t exactly rocket science. The other micro-optimizations fall under the things I stated…
While I may not “have Weiss down” like some seasoned player, I find the condescending way that the response was delivered to be a bit shitty, and also possibly quick to respond without actually thinking fully about what was said, or trying to use context clues from the rest of discussion that was going on.

Actually, coaxing people to put specific cards out or to overplay their hands has been a vital skill for a long, long time. Ever since Persona 3, really. It’s more notable in decks like Disgaea and SAO for relatively obvious reasons, but there is definitely a lot of play to be had when it comes to coaxing out targets for on-reverse effects, or towards making your opponent not play climaxes at specific times, or to have your opponent think X card is no longer useful… the list goes on.

I didn’t link the rest of the post, but it mostly talks about how MtG is super complex (true) and how WS isn’t MtG, so it can’t be in the same dimension of complexity (not true). It makes the incorrect assumption that a lack of interaction belies a lack of skill. Yes, there is less skill involved, because MtG involves a greater amount and variety of skill than basically any two-player game. No, that does not give you free rein to simplify WS in such a manner. In fact, there was one bit where a list of skills in MtG was rattled off, and literally every one had an important equivalent in WS. Timing is obviously important in both games, though WS is far more proactive about making you decide, simply because the game moves faster. Goading the opponent is a skill in literally every cardgame out there, as is bluffing. Neither is any less present in WS. Making someone commit to a climax combo when you have a sac counter in hand. Doing your best to ensure your opponent sees how many copies of antidamage are in the discard. Pokerfacing through a terrible climax screw. Nothing new. Managing mana? In WS you manage every zone on your side of the field. If you’re referring to manabases, colour balancing for 3-colour decks has eerie similarities between WS and Magic, actually. Strategic attacks and blocks? Uh…

Also, to everyone who kept saying I was being condescending – I apologise and will keep it in mind for future posts, but if we could just stop for a moment and consider what it is I’m doing – I’m picking specific rebuttals and critiques directed at my beliefs and aspirations for a game I am passionate about, and I am doing my best to refute them one-by-one. I’m not in a debate, I’m not trying to convince third parties – I am simply refuting points on the Internet because I don’t agree with them, and I’m making it public. That’s a mighty condescending task before any tone is mentioned at all, so honestly, making this a condescension-free post would have been a pretty Herculean task. Oh, and I didn’t spend that much time thinking about my rebuttals, because my points basically remain the same and a lot of disagreement here is because we have completely different assumptions about the game.


It’s not condescending to newer players maybe, but to the older players who debated these points into the ground years ago it feels like someone is trying to sound smart using long settled arguments.

I don’t see how this in any way, shape or form invalidates anything I’ve said. Just because older veteran players have come to a conclusion does not mean points never ever need to be dredged back up again, and especially not when it comes to something that has completely flattened any prospect of a competitive culture. Seniority has no bearing on competitive drive and has only a minor influence on validity of opinions, especially when everyone agreeing with you seems to come from the same place (and possibly community).

If you have something to say that refutes my points, say it. I would absolutely welcome any perspectives from players older than myself, especially if you’ve debated these points into the ground. If you’re tired of discussing a topic that has not been brought up in years, then cool. Don’t discuss it. Just don’t jump in and cry ‘condescension’ when you bring nothing to the table other than vague hints that you’ve done this specific topic to death. It’s actually a bit irritating.

If you have specific queries, complaints or other issues you want to bring up, please feel free to comment, and I will get back to you when time allows. I wasn’t actually kidding about work getting in the way.

About lycheepunnet

the victim in an abusive relationship with cardboard
This entry was posted in Ramblings, srs, Strategy and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Responding to Feedback on my Almost-Buzzfeed Article

  1. ronelm2000 says:

    > That being said it doesn’t make the game very appealing on a competitive level if a person can buy two starter decks shuffle them together and win a regional vs designed and developed decks just because they can damage check a climax.

    Who in the actual f*** replied like this? We all know that Trial Decks (especially recent ones) are now being designed to be actually winnable. Not to mention Gold TDs like SIF2, CG, AoT, among others, in which winner cards are within them. And you could say the same for Cardfight! Vanguard with Legend Decks.

    It was ALWAYS about player skill. I’ve seen games where me and my opponent literally switched decks (even TDs against meta decks) and played Bo2 on each time. Guess who won 70-80% of the time? Yes, the better player. The mere fact that you can legally manipulate luck in more ways than Reach Mahjong supports this. WS is not “just an RNG game”. Heck, say “KC is just an RNG game” and you’d be met with severe butthurt comments (KC is definitely not just an RNG game).

    • Hewigkeyt says:

      Trial decks are now designed to be better than old ones, but not to win in any case. There may be a bunch a good cards in them, but there are still shitty cards when a meta deck is full of great cards.

      You talk about the VG Legendary deck ? Ok the deck is cool, but doesn’t stand a chance against meta decks. Reason: wrong ratio, and vanilla cards as long as you can’t stride. In fact, it’s even worse than vanilla cause vanilla have more power, which is super relevant in VG. So don’t expect to win with this deck against any player with at least a little experience of the game.

      Then you pretend that you won against your friend with a worse deck, and make a really bad comparison with riichi mahjong. You won ? Good for you, but I guess you didn’t have unlucky stacks during your games. Because I can also say that I won my first game with a trial against a good player with a good deck, when I barely knew how to play, and on the other hand I often lose to unexperienced players because I refresh on a climax and trigger 3 of them.

      Will a beginner win at riichi mahjong ? No. Not a chance, even if mahjong seems so random at first glance. A beginner may win one hand, with tsumo, but the gap between new and experienced players in mahjong is so huge that the beginner can’t even imagine winning the game. If you want the reasons, I’d say that the guy wouldn’t be able to see how to build his hand most of the time, and he’d get ron”ed by the three other players, because he is a beginner.

      During the mahjong worlds, the top cut was almost only Japanese players. When I go to WS tournaments, either in my country or in Japan, I know who the best players are, and I can see that they are far from always win, and sometimes ended 0-X.

      You can argue as long as you want to let people know WS is a skill involved game and you are a skilled player but please use good comparisons, and NOT riichi mahjong.

      Now I’m going to leave a random answer to people who say that WS isn’t more RNG than YGO or VG. When I lose in VG or YGO, I think of the game, and see what I could/should have done to win. And most of the time I don’t blame the RNG. When I lose in WS, most of the time, I say “I wouldn’t have eaten the 7 in a row if I hadn’t triggered those 2 climaxes”.

      I don’t say WS isn’t skill based, but I do say that I believe some people in here are in a denial concerning how much luck is involved, and how it can change games.

      PS: I didn’t get answer to my other comment. I’m sad *insert sadface*.

      • lycheepunnet says:

        people like to argue in extremes

        as i see it, ws has more luck involved than basically any cardgame, but that only makes any skill involving manipulation of luck doubly important, and introduces a whole new range of relevant skills that are marginal at best in other cardgames

        if i didn’t address your points then it’s most likely because i was running off 1 hour of free wifi a day (since my new place has no internet yet), so im updating the post as i go because of this

        • Hewigkeyt says:

          [as i see it, ws has more luck involved than basically any cardgame, but that only makes any skill involving manipulation of luck doubly important, and introduces a whole new range of relevant skills that are marginal at best in other cardgames]

          I can’t agree more, except that I think that the present meta almost takes into oblivion those skills, cf my comment in “Five big obstacles”. Take your time to answer if you have internet issues.

          • lycheepunnet says:

            i dont think i agree 100% with the assessment that the older heal-based meta was more skilful, and i started back when LB starduster and DC seitokai were the decks on top

            while that meta showcased the resource management element of WS a lot better, i dont think there was nearly as much field interaction as there is now – knowing what your advantage engines opponent might have and being able to appropriately counter them is a skill far more significant now than back then, even though misakuro was prevalent

            i also think that a lot of the meta back then was a lot more diverse and that games were far less likely to resemble mirrors – i think mirror matches are some of the most skilful types of matches in any game, which is part of why i think there is a lot of skill involved in the current-day WS to-and-fro

            i do agree that encouraging rush > finishers with every new set is kind of making the game dull, though i think the real offender is plussing brainstorms in every set

            also, of course waifu wars are superficially more interesting, you get to see ‘bad’ cards that dont reach a meta standard, as well as how people have adapted their decks around them

      • ronelm2000 says:

        You are seriously underestimating the amount of power a modern Trial Deck gives you for options to win. Think back on stuff like the first TD of Milky Holmes. It had 0 Level 3s. Charlotte TD has a CIP Heal with a CX combo to search. (If you can’t understand why searching is relevant to how you can lie another turn then I can’t say anymore). CG TDs gave heal, burn, and salvage combos respectively with 1 CX, -1 soul walls, and different triggers. You can literally create a good deck off those parts! Oh and did I mention the Love Live SIF and Love Live Anime TDs and how when worked together they can end matches off Level 2 with the right insight. Those things that can make or break the game, they can’t possibly be seen by the average player (much less a beginner player). Even when I played in demo against players who were obviously seasoned with YGO, CFV, or MTG, they failed to understand the value in each and every card. Modern TDs have introduced ways of manipulating the so-called “luck” in this game, and that’s enough TO win games. Weiss Schwarz is a game that drives on a different set of skills and values, and the ability to see those IS what makes the game so skill-based. Now, if your opponent has similar skill level, the matchup should be around obvious who would win, but you get that point.

        > You talk about the VG Legendary deck ? Ok the deck is cool, but doesn’t stand a chance against meta decks

        > Then you pretend that you won against your friend with a worse deck, and make a really bad comparison with riichi mahjong. You won ? Good for you, but I guess you didn’t have unlucky stacks during your games. …
        This isn’t a once-in-a-lifetime thing. My experience covers most of my games (especially since I’m living in the Philippines, and I had the initial grunt work of pulling out a community from there) It also covers demos I saw and personally experienced myself over the past 2 years (mostly for game promotion). I didn’t JUST win a single game over a friend with swapped decks (4 games -2 Bo2s), I actually lost some games (not just over “hurrdurrtriggered2cxIlose”), but over time, the winner clearly came up. In fact though, there WERE times I got 4 CX out in 2 turns. That didn’t stop me from winning the games I played with that. (I only remember 25 or so games of mine that went with a 4cx dropout, 15 of them I’ve won, 5 I’ve lost with decisions I shouldn’t have done or were caused by decisions of a good player, 3 were just bad luck all over the game, no I mean REALLY bad luck game, 1 was close game, 1 was a double loss.)

        > Will a beginner win at riichi mahjong ? No.
        I’m not going to argue against this one since you’ve probably defined a “beginner” as someone who doesn’t know how to win. That’s worse than a beginner.

        > When I lose in WS, most of the time, I say “I wouldn’t have eaten the 7 in a row if I hadn’t triggered those 2 climaxes”.

        Have you ever thought WHY you triggered those 2 climaxes? What would you have done if you knew those were 2 climaxes? What was your gut telling you at the time. What set of actions did you do that led up to triggering 2 climaxes? What was the deck count? What was your opponent using? Was your opponent using cards that were changing your set actions? If so what are they and why?

        I wouldn’t mind if you executed your plan and made the PERFECT gameplay and lose. But, almost no one has made truely perfect gameplays, not even me. There’s ALWAYS room for improvement.

        I don’t say WS is TOTALLY skill based, but there should be enough skill in it for improvement and self-blame, so long as you see past your failures and move into statistics.

        • Hewigkeyt says:

          You didn’t have to give examples of good cards in recent TDs, I’m aware of them. That doesn’t invalidate my point saying that there are still a bunch of bad cards in the sames TDs, which almost make irrelevant the good level 3s. Staying with the Charlotte TD, a friend of mine asked me to play him to test the TD, and I used a regular deck (not a really good one). The guy got rekt from the beginning, and couldn’t do much more. So yes he could throw a couple of good level 3s, but what’s the point when his field/hand disadvantage had turned into a damage disadvantage ?

          I don’t say you can’t win with a TD (just the opposite in fact), but that requires either a really bad opponent or a strong luck (skill too, I’m aware of that, but mainly luck). Of course if your opponent is bad you’ll win, but in your first comment you were talking about winning a regional tournament with a TD, so I made the assesment that in your country, there are at least a bunch of good players.

          I thought you were going to show me a video of a match with the legendary deck ending up winning against a meta deck despite a grade lock at grade 2. I’m not interested in what those guys are saying, cause I don’t think what they have to say is more legit than you and I can say, or the fact that VG is really balanced (the strenght between clans and archetypes isn’t so huge) but no one in Japan uses the Legendary deck because it’s bad. Just play the deck and see.

          About mahjong, I forgot a part of my sentence :”the guy wouldn’t be able to see how to build his hand in one of the strongest/fastest way most of the time”. That doesn’t change the fact that it takes A LOT of time to learn what hand to aim for, and how to defend against other players’ hand.

          You talk about your own experience, so I’ll talk about mine. I win most of my games. And guess what, I’m not satisfied most of the time. The reason is that I don’t use a meta deck, when my opponents do, and they are not bad players so I shouldn’t stand a chance. I just rush them when I see some cx in their WR, and I cancel a little damage when they rush or when I’m level 3. SO MUCH SKILL INVOLVED.

          And since you question my ability to play, I’ll answer the self-thoughts you brought out.
          Why did I triggered them ? Cause they were on the top of my deck after my refresh.
          What actions led up to triggering ? Attacking twice.
          What was the deck count ? 8cx in 25 cards.
          What was your opponent using ? His own hands to shuffle and put those cx on the top of my deck.
          In that kind of situation, it’s pretty impossible to know what you’ll trigger, so things like brainstorming the last card of the deck (which isn’t a cx), not performing attacks in case the cards are cx, shredding my compression to reduce the odd of triggering 2 cx… are all stupid. I didn’t deny your skill in my answers, don’t deny mine.

          Basically I think that the current meta isn’t good to see people skill (cf lychee’s answer, only a few decks can really deny the level 1 meta engine, it was the case before, but the advantage wasn’t so huge), it isn’t good to give people the will to play (because only a few series are actually playable), and I think people are in general underlining SKILL way too much, and forgetting that sometimes, the opponent can just cancel 15 times in a row at level 3, and sometimes eat 7 with 5 cx in 14 cards.

          • ronelm2000 says:

            > I don’t say you can’t win with a TD (just the opposite in fact), but that requires either a really bad opponent or a strong luck.
            It doesn’t require TOO much luck, just a knowledgeable insight on statistics on both player’s decks and timing when to strike at 3 or 1.

            > Just play the deck and see.
            I did and beat Lambros, Liberators, etc with it. You’d have to buy at least 2 Legend Decks though to weed out the 8k interceptor. Then again, I’ve barely played it (borrow’d from a friend; I borrow MANY decks CFV, WS, or even Z/X) so I can’t be certain that I beat it by skill (see below).

            >I win most of my games. And guess what, I’m not satisfied most of the time. The reason is that I don’t use a meta deck, when my opponents do, and they are not bad players so I shouldn’t stand a chance. I just rush them when I see some cx in their WR, and I cancel a little damage when they rush or when I’m level 3.
            That’s the thing: I don’t think it’s possible to truly determine if someone is good or bad at this game at first, second, or even third sight. Win rates to determine who’s good or bad? Sure, but a scrub can win ONE tournament with the luck of a thousand Maruyus. Experience in TCGs in general? Sure, but haven’t we established that the skill in WS is very different with the skills in other TCGs?

            >What was your opponent using ? His own hands
            Okay I laughed there. And btw, if I had 8cx in 25 cards, either I shouldn’t have attacked at all, or used cards to check the top (but that’s me). Well, in the end, it usually depends what series you’re up against. And what your opponent uses.

            Also, clarifying, I am absolutely not denying your skill, I was just merely asking questions, seeing if you or I can crop up a case analysis. An analysis isn’t limited by 1 turn, it may just actually scope several turns. And yes, I have lost 8 cx 25 card scenario, but I know exactly what led to it (ie. what did I not do / did for the last 2-3 turns)

            In essence you DO NOT want to leave your deck out shuffled and cut and call an attack without thinking of the statistics. Before doing anything -> Check Statistics -> Strategize is a pretty valid move, and doing it fast gives you an edge amongst other players, imho.

            As an ending note, you’ve always insisted on basing conclusions based on only ONE match. A single loss ultimately does not matter in determining your skill, getting conclusions, nor does a single DERPWIN cover any weakness you might have. So for me, I think that any arguments involving a SINGLE match are useless; this is why I often encourage people for a rematch whether I lose or I win.

            Example: If I use a deck concieved as meta by most of us here (say, R/B CG), challenge a friend , and lose once, does it mean that that deck sucks? Does it mean that I have less skill than my friend? Does it mean Unfitting Pair is a bad card? No, it does not.

            I cannot argue with you because we are on different battlefields. You argue luck is important in winning and I argue skill is important in winning when both can be true; can’t we just agree to disagree?

  2. Gruntlord6 says:

    Once again great article.

  3. K says:

    People who say weiss is an rng game have clearly never played hearthstone

    • NaturalForce says:

      When I tried my first Hearthstone game
      I had this in mind
      “I play Weiss enough, why the hell would I want to play THIS?”

  4. Pingback: Competitive Weiss and you: Making the choice (An appeal to the community) | Weiss and Chill

  5. NaturalForce says:

    One thing I personally REALLY hate Bushiroad for, and is always a driving force actively making me wanting to quit from time to time, is the fact that they made promos garbage.

    There is only one thing I want Bushiroad to copy from Precious Memories, and that is giving out actual promos. Since PreMo is a game that is actually completely meta and tier based where a low tiered deck actually have maybe no chance at all to defeat a top tier deck, the company decides to buff sets with promos. Sometimes the promos are so outrageous they can singlehandedly change a set’s status to recycle bin to tier 1, but what’s wrong with that? Why can’t Bushiroad be giving out some vital promos to some older sets that need them? In 2015 alone Bushiroad released 21 sets including extra boosters, but only TWO sets got a come back campaign, WHY??? This boggles my mind. At least this year’s comeback campaign was highly successful. I personally am a huge victim with Bushiroad’s practice, my actual favourite sets are already relegated to low tier and I need to generally “sack” to win. How about increasing the number of comeback campaign? There is an issue with this, which is the accessibility of the promos. In PreMo, there are some old sets that were top tier with no sets after the base set, but to make it top tier, sometimes the deck would be warped so much that the whole deck minus a few key cards would be a promo card, and I can see issues with that, but I would much rather have it like that, than to have my favourite set condemned forever with me holding onto it, only busting it out and going into a locals to represent my love but expecting to lose the majority of my games, the feeling sucks hard.

    Like you mentioned in the article, pre-Kancolle sets have trouble competing because outdated card mechanics, and Bushiroad is basically telling me to suck it, go love a new anime or beat it. I’m just glad that I have 2 sets right now that I enjoy that’s very serviceable in the meta.

    • lycheepunnet says:

      the main issue is that BSR doesnt care enough about making old sets competitive since it’s not profitable for them – everyone would love more comebacks, but they have feared change ever since NK wrecked the meta, and ive no doubt 1/0 index was tested to death before she was allowed out into the public eye

      i remember thinking the GC comeback was extraordinarily boring

      (only 2 comebacks a year is because the competitive-minded people at BSR only get to take off the brainwashing headcrabs for 2 weeks a year)

      • Zelos says:

        Yes, sadly bushiroad doesn’t care
        While on the other side PreMo just promised every single set a buff to standard via promos that will be released on a steady rate
        And from the first promos that some sets got, it really does help so I’m excited and waiting for my set to make a triumphant return

        I’m sure my favourite set in Weiss is forever doomed though T_T

        • MeisterP says:

          My main is cg & imas, which recently received a very useful 1/0 Haruka bomb that cycles Music on play. While useful, I’m not entirely convinced that it pushes imas into tournament competition quality like 1/0 Index did for Raildex. This is because imas is missing a reliable null counter and finishers that actually finish or don’t require 3 cards instead of 2; another good 1/0 doesn’t do much for a set that already dominates l0 and l1.

          “If you want to win tournaments, play a different set,” is what I’ve been constantly told. I’m starting to see a truth in that. BSR sees that they have to do comebacks and PRs to bring things in line with the new sets; however, KC proceeded to turn everything upside down, TLR was born, and even PRs like Index caused effects that R&D failed to consider.

          Ever since then, BSR has been making safe bets, even fair bets, like the 1/0 Haruka PR. But that’s the problem of fair sets like imas; why be fair, when unfair effects continue to exist?

          • lightswo2 says:

            While this comment is a little bit old(hence since by now the power up set has been released which gives imas a sac counter and a 1/0 2k backup), i still think Imas endgame is perfectly fine/good and its in the tier 1.5 range(The tier that has little to no problems taking games off of tier 1).
            -> Why be fair, when unfair effects continue to exist?

            Ill answer your question with another question: Do you like your set? If yes, then utilize the skills talked about to try and make a difference.

Comments are closed.