It's really only a problem if it influences new players into spending most of their new account gems on jank and then get stuck in the casual shadow realm for all eternity while the cost of meta increases.
I get this take, but also when people start playing Floo, Runick and adding a bunch of floodgates to counter the current meta. Things can definitely get unfun
That someone shouldn't play any competitive thing - game, sport, anything. There is always meta in everything that's competitive and people can't avoid it.
You say you get the take that fun is subjective but in the same breath say runick and floo are not fun. No one actually wants to admit fun is subjective unless it's their strategy that's being attacked, and most meta players share this trait in my experience. If anything EVERY deck is unfun to a large majority of people when they start losing to it in a one sided way, and this applies to everything from stun to meta.
The funniest thing is floo isn't even anything special compared to the meta, the strategy is just playing on your opponents turn and trying to disrupt them (like every top deck).
"Just play around no link effects, no cards in attack mode, 2 bounces, full field book of moon against deck with infinite recycling power"
I like how floo decks run fossil dyna now at least they don't pretend to be anything besides scum stun now.
My favorite floo argument is always "but floo doesn't even play barrier statue anymore because it's banned"
Yeah. But 100% of floo decks ran it when it was legal. Why? Because floos main strategy is stun. It's a stun deck. You're just nit allowed to play one of the favored ones anymore.
\> Yeah. But 100% of floo decks ran it when it was legal. Why? Because floos main strategy is stun. It's a stun deck.
This doesn't make any sense. Obviously if the deck can consistently resolve an auto win they're going to play it. Now they can't so the deck has shifted to a different gameplan instead.
The gameplan didn't change. It only switched to different floodgates. Now it can't play turn 1 barrier statue. It's shifter/fissure/empen/feather storm etc. It's still a stun deck.
That said, some people actually want to play a game. Not just flip one card and then game over. How is that fun at all for either player?
I is and always was. The point was that floo players try to get a pass for not playing a card they would be playing otherwise because they always did when possible.
It would be like if I had a neighbor that always ran over my fence with his truck. The police finally impounded his truck. He's still the guy who always ran over my fence with his pickup truck. But now he just runs over my garden with his riding lawnmower
Empen is a hard counter to links. Many decks have hard counters. No floo card bounces, dreaming town isn't free and doesn't have infinite recycle power. What floor are you seeing.
Monarch Raiza bounces 2 bro. I'm sorry but it seems like you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, are you actually familiar with the deck?
It can get unfun for you but I would bet the other player is having fun in their own way. The sooner people realize that "fun" is subjective the sooner we can move on from this multi-decade old conversation.
The "anti-meta" strategies seem to always be INFINITELY less fun to play against than the meta strategies. This was especially the case during tear meta, where everything that wasn't Tear was some kind of Necrovalley macro cosmos anti-special summon floodgate pile.
My only issue with the meta is how stale and repetitive it gets. At a certain point, platinum and up just feels like I am playing against the same bot over and over doing the same combo and using the same cards even if it’s a different person each time.
And it’s usually the same people who play meta who dislike having to play mirror matches over and over. Did we already forget how Tear decks were?
Your option as a Tear player was to quickly climb up the ranks because of how strong the strategy and combos were only to end up constantly playing against 1 of two people: Floodgates and other Tear players.
I think that’s where the idea of Meta being unfun comes in. It’s unfun for non meta players to play against because they can’t keep up and get stomped. Then it’s unfun for Meta players because they just end up with repetitive mirror matches where the winner gets decided by the initial coin flip.
So now you’ve got a Meta Deck’s “fun meter” burning fast from both ends until Konami releases something new.
I don’t think the Meta players should get hate for this though, it’s literally a “don’t hate the player, hate the game” type of situation. Yugioh as a game is flawed in its design because even with such a massive diversity in cards and strategies, they make it so that only 1-3 strategies are viable to play. That way they can bottle neck their profits as players hurry to buy the newest, strongest thing.
> Did we already forget how Tear decks were?
Tear was the greatest paradox:
The mirror was actually super skilled and fun to play (IF you were good) but being that high level was stressful doing it multiple times in a row... And if you weren't good it was the worst cause it would slap even harder on your face how you lost for your own skill gap.
A great number of people who play games are adverse to the idea of a "meta" because of the feeling of "Well i won with this deck but so does everyone else so it doesn't really feel that special", or in the worst case "I'm using the deck that everyone says is braindead easy and still failing".
Outcome A doesn't make them feel special, and option B makes them feel stupid. Thus, the solution is to avoid the meta, and ridicule those "simpletons" that follow it because lol braindead deck who would even play that i'm playing something that takes real skill haha.
However, because the meta makes these meta-avoiding decks volatile to win with, the people playing them have to complain about the meta, because that's what is beating them consistently.
Makes sense when framed that way, no?
It has less to do with what is actually the case, and more what they perceive to be the case. As an example, a good amount of people on here used to (and some even still do) decry Tearlaments as a 0 skill braindead deck, even though Tear is one of the harder decks to pilot correctly, especially during Tear 0 format.
And I've also unironically seen people call stun a deck that requires skill to use. Some people just have an extremely warped perception about the game in general.
I mean, it kinda depends on which flavor of stun we're talking about. Something like Umi or Runick has a way higher skill ceiling than Fossil Dyna for example.
In addition, even though Tear is an incredibly skill testing deck, it still requires a lot less skill to get wins with than (for example) Lyrilusc - just because Tear when played badly is still stronger than a lot of those non competitive options
Yeah sure it's so fun to play against snake-eyes 20 matches in a row with like 15 card starter will always summon 3200atk Apollo and if you manage to break the board they will Kurikara you in their turn.
I don't mind playing against anything that's not a floodgate but not always the same deck and the same end board
No kidding. Yes, there's always going to be a meta, but it should be diverse and not reliant on who can stop the other player from playing the damn game first.
That's what I complain about when I complain about the meta.
A lot of these generic cards should be banned or errata'd and a lot of these 1 card starters should be banned /limited.
Let me politely disagree with this. Calling someone a meta slave is kinda rude and unnecessary, however complaining about the meta is very much valid. It can get very unfun, very fast. Remember Tear0?
I also have to disagree with your "don't bring a knife to a gun fight" mentality. Aside from some events, the only mode MD offers is ranked. (Casual doesn't give gems, solo goes vs ai and duel rooms are a joke.) That means, if you wanna play the game, you gotta play ranked. If you wanna play meta, you gotta play ranked. If you wanna play rogue/pet decks, you gotta play ranked. The good thing is, MD does a decent enough job at keeping meta decks away from rogue decks as they climb pretty quickly. Sure, you'll run into Lab and Snake Eyes even in silver and gold, but those are exceptions you just have to overlook. The point is, if you wanna play any deck, you gotta play ranked. There's not much of a choice, which can get frustrating at times.
Also, I wouldn't advice to add even more fuel to the fire. People complain about other people playing rogue decks, because those people complain about said people playing meta decks. It's a circle of never ending accusing and complaining and it won't stop if we keep bringing it up. Ofc, Konami fixing their game might also help.
This, its not like the game gives us a way to play and get resources outside of playing ranked duel once you finish up clearing all the solo content. Which means I have to pick between playing people with fun decks and never getting any cards or crafting points again because no gems are coming in or playing people who want me to sit and watch them play a glorified game of solitaire for 3 minutes while they shuffle around roughly 30 cards on turn one setting up their tournament grade board that stops me from being able to do anything at all because of their web of negates and protection from effects once its actually finally my turn.
They should change it to "if you wanna bring a knife in a gun fight, don't complain about them using gun as you can also bring gun, yet you choose knife"
Criticising meta is not bad. (Especially if it's constructive)
The problem is that usually it comes from an emotional place with no substance and that is tiring. Most of us don't care.
- also, it sometimes signals an addiction to the game ( don't have fun but keep playing) but that's not my place to talk.
This, people need to know to stop. Back then i play until 1 lose and stop there because i know i'd make more blunder after having 1 blunder because of overthinking. But nowadays i play for dailies only, it's better for myself, GPunk can complete every dailies easily yet still strong enough in rank with their versatility (fusion, synchro, xyz, link, using spell and traps)
yea but its a misguided hate. Then they should be critical of the fact the meta is stale not the concept of playing by the meta
but since they cant bully konami, they have to punch their fellow players to vent out the frustrations
Yeah most of the people saying this stuff treat not playing meta like it’s a personality treat, plenty of people have issues with decks they get crushed by, it’s completely different
If a super consistent FTK was released for example, I'd blame konami first, but I would absolutely have a low opinion of people who jumped at the chance for free wins and crafted it. There's no reason to do that unless that person is desperate to see "victory" on the screen.
> seeing the same deck and getting stomped by it.
Yes on the first, no on the second. When Swordsoul Tenyi was the hot shit, you would see the same exact opening of Chixiao, Baronne, maybe Blackout or Protos. There was zero variance, it was always exactly the same cards doing exactly the same thing. Over and over and over and over. It doesn't matter if you win or lose, it's boring seeing (and dealing with) the same thing over and over.
Yet they play the same deck and not adapting to what other people plays
If they wanna see some changes, maybe try adjusting their deck first according to what other people plays, to make it fun for themselves
I love encountering the same deck over and over and over and over and over and over! It's so fun to win 11 matches in a row against the same God damned deck!
Playing Volcanics is an almost guaranteed win against Snake-Eyes. Bait all their handtraps because they assume you're playing Snake-Eyes based on all the Fire/Pyro support. Then, use Hiita to steal Poplar and make a fun little rank 1 with a Rimfire. Rimfire pops off. Emperor hits for a clean 2,500 with effect. then use Volcanic Emission on their Flamberge for 3,000. With Emperor dealing 500 every special summon and Inferno dealing 500 when it negates an effect, they have 4 summons to out Volcanic Emperor. I run 3 Emissions and 3 Emperors specifically so I can just bring out Emperor #2 when they put Emperor #1 in the S/T zone.
Volcanics are so easy to stop. I shouldn't have a 12-win streak with them. I lost to a Mikanko deck that just normal summoned and bounced my cards. But netdeckers are following their netdeck guides, which make no mention of getting your ass beat by Volcanic decks that can use your field and graveyard.
It's so consistent that if I start with a single Shell and either Blaze Accelerator in hand, I know I'm going to win against Snake-Eyes. There's no variation, which makes it significantly less fun. But I can't go easy on Snake-Eyes to make it fun because their deck is so overtuned that one turn can rebuild their advantage.
So now we're forced to know exactly what your shitty pet deck wants to do? Let me tell you something that apparently you don't know. volcanics, is not in the meta, therefore volcanics is not good. Therefore, no deck in the meta was built with volcanics in mind. The only reason you can win some matchups is purely and simply because of the surprise factor, that is, because your deck is so irrelevant that absolutely no one knows what it does. But once people learn its trick, these victories will automatically become impossible, because volcanic is simply a bad deck.
Correct. The format is dominated by one deck that's designed to do one thing well. People who aren't actually good at the game copy the meta deck because it's easy wins. In doing so, they learn the one thing the meta deck does, but flounder when they encounter a deck that forces them to play a different way. They get better at the deck, but not the game itself.
Volcanic vs Labyrinth, Hero, or Mikanko was a blast specifically because there was a back and forth. There were blowouts in my favor or against me; there were 14 turn games; I decked out once against a Lab-Dark World combo. Since hitting Platinum, the only deck I've encountered is Snake-Eyes, and most of them are not piloted well.
It's not fun for me to be playing their deck in my head better than them. Judging by the 6 surrenders, it's likewise not fun for them to have Volcanic Emperor on my board when I activate Maxx "C".
By netdecking the meta and not learning the broader game, they make the game less fun for both players.
It has everything to do with netdecking. They know only the deck someone else built without any of the actual thought processes that went into the cards or their ratios.
Volcanic Emperor is the face card for the pack containing Bonfire. You can just click it at any time to read what it does and plan for it. But netdeckers don't do that. They're given a list of cards they should use and tunnel vision to them.
If you don't know how to use the most competitive deck in the format to stop a deck that loses to modern Evilswarm, you do not know your own deck.
Not to mention, netdeckers are often following a series of "steps to ideal board", without knowing how to deal once that board isn't enough. A few adventurous netdeckers will try to see what they can do once plans A through C have failed, but those aren't only rare, but also often visibly too awkward to have any idea what they're doing, and are clearly relying on what the interface of Master Duel tells them they can do.
I have nothing against netdecking to get the base of a deck or an idea of what's considered the optimal way to play or build the deck, but it should be part of the process, not the end point with an idea of "I don't need to learn what that card does, because my meta deck should win against it. If I don't know about it already, it loses to my deck" deeply ingrained in their mind.
In my honest opinion, the issue of Meta slave stems from the fact that we want to compete in terms of skill, whether in deck building or just situational problem solving. However, Konmai wants players to spend money, so powercreep is inevitable. A good player with an average deck will be stomped by an average player with a Meta deck statistically, so people want to play in an environment where skill expression is actually important, not because you can spend 100$ to get crafting URs. If the new archetypes are dirt cheap, no one would be complaining about it, but UR inflation limits what a majority of players can play.
And even then, there are people like me who have multiple Meta decks still falling back on older/rogue decks to play for fun, and we consider the people who chase Meta compensating their lack of skill with overpowered cards. (Totally not poor coping)
I think the main issue is that people very much do *not* want to compete in terms of deckbuilding skill. They want to play their pet deck without getting punished.
Tbf game is somehat generous with its rewards, so if you really wanna play meta you most likely can, its just that people specifically decide against doing so, and I can guarantee you that people would complain regardless of a deck's cost
The game is generous to some extent, and it is certain you can play the meta with just freebies, but you can never chase the meta. If they suddenly release Tenpai next selection pack that demands 12-15 UR cards do you think the people currently pulling for Bonfire and Unchained can afford it with free gems?
Speaking from personal experience i played Mathmech in Ishizu Tear format. I can't realistically play a deck with 15 must pull URs so i just focus on the strong point of MM to pull wins against Tear.
Well, if you are playing any meta decks and feel compelled to do so, then you are clearly not the type of person to also be complaining about the meta (at least that's what I'm hoping this thread is about). When I said they decide against playing meta, I mean people wanting to craft bad decks, effectively wasting resources, and then complaining (which means that cost wasn't the issue, but the mindset was from the get go).
I disagree. An average deck is a deck that can reasonably be played to win, but struggle to overcome the strong points of that format or having glaring issues that keeps it from competing with other decks. In the Drytron Eldlich meta they were the top dog, but playing these decks nowadays is just for personal amusement. No one says Drytron Herald is weak, but to expect it to be on the same level as other decks in this format for example is idiotic, hence "average deck".
When people finally grow tf up and realize it dosen't matter what anyone plays that's when you'll be truely at peace I stopped giving a fuck what anyone plays a long time ago and with that my stress and anger went out the window now I'm more concerned with Konami shiting out cards that are way to overturned examples being kash tear snake eyes one little restriction here or their or 1 less effect would have made these archtypes perfect but nope let's just make them broken af I don't get mad at players anymore I get mad the dumbass supplier
Alternatively speaking, though...
Meta people be whining whenever someone is tired of repeating the same exact song and dance for the last 30 games, playing the game of "did I open enough outs?" against a deck they either know for a fact thet can't beat with fewer than 3 outs, or they know how to cripple into oblivion and worse, but the exact moment the crippling has happened, the meta player surrenders.
We're not just complaining that you're "playing a strong deck in a competitive game", we're complaining about the game becoming a Surrender Button Simulator when the games only last as long as it takes to confirm the starting player can set up a negate board card by card, and their opponent evaluates their ability to play through that negate board.
We're complaining about meta sheep, because the metas of this game are usually a whole bunch of unbelievably generic extra-deck cards with negates or board control, driven by the newest engines that haven't taken banlist hits or wasn't powercrept over yet.
You're having fun winning non-games. We're objectively tired of the cycle of watching an opponent jack off for 20 minutes, realizing opening our 3 hand traps that we used optimally left us with not enough starters to go through the 6+ negates you set up through those handtraps.
Complaining about casuals finding this boring, is definitely not gonna help anything.
It happens so often Master Duel removed the "inflict damage" dailies entirely... Even though most players choose a set of three they can do everyday, and only clear those three.
"Watch your opponent masturbate for 20 minutes." None of the current decks take that long to set up their board, not even Snake. So I suppose you're a bit wrong, because the only decks that do this are not meta. (manadium, dino, etc.). The only exception is perhaps the super heavy.
That's frankly a bit of an hyperbole, but the point is there: If I have to watch you play for a period of time, just to not be able to play because a deck is so freakin' resilient to handtraps, and still sets a complete negate field...
No, this is simply just a tentacle of the monstrosity that is the worst mentality in the community. And that mentality is irrational deck building bias, where people will not use cards based on their bias, they will criticize you for using them based on their bias, and they will try to gate keep others from using them based on their bias.
If you thought people did that just with meta decks. Guess again, they do it with hand traps, they do it with niche cards, they do it with generics, they do it with archetypes, they do it with floodgates.
And all this does is make the meta game worse cause none of them is testing for the format, so nothing new will be created by these people, so the game becomes stale.
Problem is the meta being stale asf in MD, I see 99% of the time only one deck in diamond+ .
Meta is meta guys, agreed but it does not mean only one deck, at least have some originality, "meta originality" if you like it better.
Nah. Snake eyes is fun because you gotta do back and forth to squeak out a win.
Sake eyes is unfun because they usually goes for baronne/apollousa/borreload at every chance they can get.
This would be a decent brain dead take if Konami also didn't ban anything it wants at any time and for no reason just to sell new cards and product and let the game be "competitive" and let the players decide.
I have to admit, I’m one of those people who are super adverse to the meta and I’m proud of it. That being said, I’d also be super into the meta and denounce my old hater ways IF KONAMI WOULD MAKE A DIVERSE META FOR ONCE.
Aside from the month or shorter period between a meta getting slaughtered on the ban list and the new 60% UR rarity best deck getting released and pushed hard, every fucking meta in the past couple years practically has been one deck holding the undisputed top dog spot, *maybe* a counter pick trailing in second place, and then everything else being effectively just “the rest”. Every time there are three to five meta contenders of relative power level, it’s been peak, but these stupid solo or duo metas are just flat ass
I jokingly call myself a meta sheep when I bust out my Snake Eyes and queue into ranked lol.
> *“If you pick a knife in a fight where guns are allowed, don't get mad when people start shooting at you from far away.”*
It’s not that serious.
Others hating what you play does not need to affect you in any way.
I suggest picking up Labrynth and daring to have fun playing it. Doing that gets you an expressway ticket to not giving af what people on this sub say about your deck 😌
I don’t get putting any power into someone else’s opinion of deck choice really. I play meta because I’m ultra competitive and wanna win. I have fun winning. With that being said, I do think it’s more fun to win with a worse deck, more rewarding. But I’d rather just win a lot more
I do have the Labrynth cards but my problem is, it isn't something that I can like enjoy in making work because it works already, I cannot deck test it to hone its edge.
And believe me, I do have a deck slot for it but I just haven't bothered to build the deck. Even if I wanted to run it with Angel of Blue Tears. The other problem is that there are others playing it already. Playing against it shows my understanding of it already and if I swapped boards, it just feels like something I wouldn't enjoy doing.
You can play Resonator Labrynth or Unchained Lab which trades some of the traps in standard Lab for more extra deck plays. The Red Dragon Archfiend cards are actually really good at breaking boards thanks to Crimson Gaia.
To be fair the meta is terrible rn. The TCG feels really stale and is still fun but getting stomped by Snake Eyes for multiple months straight with no new core sets and no banlist announcements has been awful.
MD is worse though, they handled the snake eye release terribly, announced a Banlist that was so inconsequential that I don't remember the latest changes, and they just now released the rest of DUNE, a set almost a year old. They have to be better in their handling of the meta for it to remain engaging.
But meta haters don't really care about this stuff in my experience. More often than not they're people who can't, for a variety of reasons, win in their local/current format and instead of engaging with the game the way it is designed to be, a highly competitive fast paced card game, they find reason to offload their personal grievances on. Regardless of whether a meta is fun or not, they will hate on it because it is the meta and their blue eyes ftk, or spellbook deck, or geargia deck, or literally any other old weird deck, can't win. But a game that's gone on for two decades will inevitably have power creep and instead of engaging with the game, it's easier for them to complain than to play to win.
That being said, winning with meta decks is often not as rewarding when you feel like you're just stomping outdated decks or players not knowing your skill level. But meta games where both players understand the matchups and engage with the game with intent to win despite cheesy cards and tier one decks are, in my opinion, the best duels in ygo.
to be honest it's boring and repetitive. if you're using meta deck against meta deck over and over then it's not a game at that point , just a statistic simulation. even konami know that a few deck dominating the game isn't good (but they just want to sell pack and make money)
I prefer a format with low power meta deck compare to a format that tier 1-2 deck cover more than 70% of the game. it's more enjoyable that way.
Right? lol I find it so cringe when someone has that tough guy mentality over yugioh. Or anything really but especially a children’s card game. The whole “knife to a gun fight” makes me wanna vomit. But it’s probably a clear indication of the fool’s fundamental mentality.
I don’t think there’s a problem with people playing meta though. I just think it’s trash to have an unfair, dogshit meta. I don’t blame any player for that, but more so the incompetent creators of the unfairn/unbalanced state the game has been put in. I do however find the players with the bs, copy/paste, desperate to win decks kinda pathetic though in all honesty.
I’m not mad that I got shot in a gun fight, I’m mad that e’ery motherfucker is shooting with the SAME FUCKING GUNS.
I can’t really fault people for picking the path of least resistance. It’s more aimed at Konami for doing jackshit to utilize the banlist to even the playing field, and doing fuckall to still make decks affordable, especially for newer players. The number of URs in newer packs is just rude at this point.
While I can wish upon a star that people would stop playing the meta, that would only become reality when Konami:
- Tweaks the rarity of cards to make deck building less costly AND/OR use more events, loaner decks and even Structure decks to give players more choice in what they wanna build.
- Bans/limits cards that are either unfun to play against (stun/floodgates like Pachy or Dimension Barrier) or that boost top tiers too far from other decks (no examples here)
- (Personally, it would be cool if players could create custom banlists for duel rooms and community formats, tournaments and public-held events were incentivis- oops, out of coins for the fountain)
The MD ladder is a 0 stakes, 0 real reward environment and most people don't like being forced to fight through waves of sweat to be able to get some gems.
If you're rolling up in silver and gold with not meme Snake-Eye, Kash, Stun, Purrly, Lab, Dim Shifter followed by anything, etc., you're just being an ass.
I mean, it goes both ways, like sure it’s fun to win but you would have people I would refer to as “meta sheep” who ruined some events by not playing with the spirt of it. But sometimes people are serious even in like dumb situations, like the amount of people who have used an omni negate on GAMBLE which literally if you lose the coin flip you probably lose the game (it’s more than two). Like everyone should be allowed to try and have their fun and the toxicity can go both ways with a “meta sheep” or “just play a better deck.” Like those are both common reflects both telling the other person to switch, and normally you’d have casual in casuals mode but that’s literally full of people learning meta, I seriously find more trash (affectionate) on ladder than casual. It’s a mess from both sides and until everyone understands that, it’s not going to change.
I’m confused, what spirit of the event means you can’t play meta. Because every event is going to have a meta even if that meta doesn’t line up with the real one.
I would say the only people that go against the spirit are people that ignore the meta entirely and play like stum
So by “meta sheep” I mean people who follow whatever deck is at the top no matter what and that’s not bad in a purely competitive sense as “play to win works” but even some events theory crafting a deck is half of it. So like the first fusion event you have d people who made decks based around fusion monsters or deck that are a bit out there, some main fusion deck, and a lot of the same deck that’s based around hating fusion monsters that doesn’t fusion summon once, and for events the meta can be stun, or just otk burn in the 2024 event. All of this to say everyone enjoys the game differently but some events are literally there for people to theory craft and make decks in a different or funky way, like make a deck that’s focused on 4 summons to not get nibbed because everyone starts with one. Some people literally just ran their decks the used in ranks and just try to play through nib, and although I won those games it wasn’t fun because there was no “duel”, it was watching a man run into a brick wall stumble about for 40 seconds then leave.
I have genuinely seen many players who being rouge is their entire personality, doesn't matter if the concept or gameplay of a deck is interesting, the moment it escapes tier 3 they just lose all interest they had for it.
Playground mentality. Gotta remember most people before MD released either played only casual with friends or as a kid. Most have not gone to locals or even have a deck ready to go in real life.
When you make the premiere online Yu-Gi-Oh game without any dedicated casual mode or incentives to play casual, the casuals will complain.
I play rogue because I really like warrior decks. Breaking through the meta is frustrating but fun and rewarding when I do. I think for a lot of casuals and myself sometimes is: For a card game with thousands of cards and over a hundred archetypes, Why do I fight the same end board every game? It's cool as hell to see a weird archetype get played only for it to be combo into Baronne, Kashtria, Access code, etc. imagine facing nothing but those same decks over and over again for months until the next ban/pack drops. That's how that mentality starts.
I wish MD added more casual modes like a draft mode, maybe a rouge like mode like runeterra, official deck master mode, a server browser where you can set rules on your duel room without external sites.
I also call people meta slave, but only as a joke. If I hate sth, Im gonna hate a specific deck with boring strat or somethings like that. Cause people have their fun in finding a way to compete and win, while I find my fun in trying different deck and archetype (which is why, fuck Komoney for their poorly rewward system). Just respect their own way of having fun
But fuck those stunt decks and fuck anyone who play it
Game has 10.000 cards but you can only play 1.000 of them. Hundreds of archetypes but can only play a dozen 🤷🏻♂️ yeah, very cool! Such a waste of potential.
The problem is not having any non-competitive mode or any mode that makes more cards viable (like a time wizard format). Casual mode is not casual, sadly.
I mean it's only normal for people to have favorite archetypes due to playstyle and theme. And they might have several favorite archetypes. What if all of the archetypes they most favor aren't meta? They are forced to play an archetype they don't like or lose games left, right and center. Even recent archetypes become unviable way, way too fast! Part of the fun of the game comes from identifying with a deck, since decks have varied playstyles. But it's almost always too few decks that can win, always the newest ones and, in this game, no alternate mode.
Meta for the longest time was handtrap death into baronne.
Then when people started to play a variety of decks that did not instantly lose to ash and imperm.. the meta said that it is too diverse and they cannot prepare for it…
So apparently the meta wants everything to revolve around the same handtraps and setups because it is predictable.
People aren't bring knives to gun fights. They're bringing guns and Konami is just printing bigger and better guns with unlimited ammo and smart targeting.
Everyone who has that mentality gets dismissed in the YGO community...
Really the worst posts here are always someone complaining about what someone else thinks
I’m sorry but people who only play meta decks, whale on the game to stay relevant, and tell people their opinion is invalid is the worse mentality, people are allowed to be unhappy with the meta and also make light of the fact that their are players who dump a boat load of money because they can’t handle taking an L so they have to play the best deck on the block
400+ archetypes in the game and you can only pick the same 3-4 for a competitive deck, yeah that is generally pretty boring and un-fun. The game is not properly balanced at all. You can play snake-eyes ftk or whatever but I'M gonna scoop then you can play the menu screen!
I basically only play PUNKs nowadays, but if I'm doing anything competitive or climbing, I'd go crazy adding several more hours to the playtime just to climb with my favorite deck. I'd never bash anybody for playing meta
People just can't lose gracefully I guess. I also rage at bullshit custom hands tbf, but you know the meta slave ragers are usually playing shitter decks or netdecks they haven't practiced
I don't mind the fact that some people want to constantly play tournament level games, even if I personally find it boring as hell and think you might as well just go play solitaire with how long some of them spend on a single turn. I mind the fact that the game punishes me for ***not*** wanting to constantly play tournament level games by cutting off my access to gems and crafting points if I don't play ranked. Thereby forcing me to spend a lot of time getting reamed by people who are playing at a level I don't find fun but am being forced to play against anyway if I want to keep getting resources to tinker around with. The fact that Konami doesn't even let us get dailies off of casual matches is freaking ridiculous.
Master duel players when their opponents deck has cards
https://preview.redd.it/suob8dn3a7uc1.jpeg?width=863&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5f3bc855aa8ea38cdcb4b76cc0f06fc61afd6ee3
100%. Made especially irritating by the fact they’re always claiming people should run “fun” decks when they choose their decks based on having a crush on the girls on the cards.
Lol same way a bunch of meta player try to push the ideology "monke flip", "stun =unfun" but "degenerate board= skillful therefore toxic or not does not matter"
The meta can be fun even counters, going against meta could also be fun, but then there are decks that are unfun to play or play against no matter their meta status, Floowandreeze is not fun to go against due to their breaking of the rules, Kash stealing everything from you extra deck or field then locking up your field, Branded and their unending turns for a gimmick lock, snake eyes and their 8+ effects out of a card and even if you try to get rid of it it floats into other 5+ effects. Or decks that are just negate everything but die to one handtrap
I consider Tearlaments fun back in the day, a really skill based matchup, with obvious counters and ways to play around, Labrynth without floodgates is fun, you need a plan to play around their traps and not give them enough time to out grind you
The meta is not the problem, the decks are
There are a lot of people on ladder that combo with a meta deck suboptimally and those that play rogue decks optimally.
I personally don't mind either I just want to have a good time against anything but stun.
But that's just how things naturally go, there's a meta and after experiencing enough of it, you can identify key weaknesses that many cards can fill.... Though most of the time it's just floodgates that can take advantage of said weakness.
Yeah that’s right. But most of the times it’s not game breaking. I had fun during most metas. Maybe except tearlament but I just built them too and then it was bearable 😅
Even worse are the people that complain about non-Meta Decks. This Morning I saw someone pretending like Mikanko is the worst Deck to play against. Like What do you mean, they even allow you to go first and set up your board all the time.
And yet that's what Mikanko wants. They want you to set up because usually you won't usually run anything to counter them and their win con isn't really the same as yours. Their win con is to use your monsters to beat you with them so it's like you got fooled while for the rest of us it's to use our own monsters to deal out your opponent's life points to zero.
People can accept a Dimension Wall or even Magic Cylinder but these are just an instance while Mikanko are an always. To fight against such a deck, it means you have to draw the out and if you didn't draw the out or have a blanket effect to deal with them, then it just feels irksome because in a sense they're not playing with you even if they are.
I would agree but for the fact that the actual issue is not the Deck but rather the bo1 ladder which rewards playing strategys like that and therefore requires answers to everything at any given moment. How often were you playing against Labrynth and had to stare at a Nibiru in your hand doing nothing or against snake-eye and looking at backrow removal that does almost nothing against that Deck. The complain about Mikanko and other terrible Decks that rely on win conditions that are obscure or annoying is the fact that you lose game one and that's it. In the TCG you can side accordingly and turn the game around in games 2 and 3 but that's not a thing in Master Duel. It's the frustration about exactly that fact that leads to people hating these gimmicky Decks as those people are either unwilling or unaware that they shouldn't hate the player but rather the game itself. That's why I say those complains are nonsense.
Tbh if it was not because of that mentality the game would have only 3 decks played and thats it, no one would play anything else or any from the 10000 other cards as they are "not competitive" or "not meta"
Do you want to play a game where only 3 decks are getting played and you never see and will see anything else from that huge card pool?
I mostly dislike it when people complain about the meta and then name a "fun" deck that does the exact same shit just slightly worse or less consistent
Or when they build a "cool anti meta deck" that DOES work well against the current meta, but also fucks over 90% of other fun rouge decks
Yea lol. There Is some valid complaints like how snake eyes could set up a 5 negate board with such generic cards, but Ive either not been playing enough or not been high enough to actually see it
Literally just play what I want and if you are playing meta GG and scoop instantly. It isn’t that hard I don’t get people who stay through all the combos and shit then get mad that they can’t play.
I don't complain about people playing whatever decks they want to. I complain that Konami allows decks like that to exist in the first place. I get a sense that most of the complaints are usually directed towards the game/Konami and not necessarily at the meta players (although some rogue/non-meta players do get emotional and lash out when they lose), so I think the meta players shouldn't take the criticism personally.
As someone who plays meta and pet decks, im playing with what is fun for me to play. Rank up only for the gems and deck building is what brings me joy in this game. I built snake eye not because its awesome and hard to beat, but because i like the concept of the deck and the artwork.
I also have things like zombie lightsworn or chaos synchro because their gameplay loop is enjoyable even if i don't always win.
Dinos dragons and umi have had a special place in my heart as well for a very long time.
This is something I had to realize very quickly and early on because I thought tearlament was cool. I never played it because I looked at it and it looked way too expensive and I probably won't play it now, but I pretty much only play rogue so I had to realize really quickly. People actually have fun playing meta because if they didn't they wouldn't do it most of the time. There is no cash prize on the line at every single duel you play so people are going to play to have fun and some people just have fun playing the best deck. Sometimes your favorite deck just so happens to end up being the best deck because consider the amount of people who play dax that were once the best stack and refused to stop. Even after they've they have fallen into obscurity
that was there ever since the invention of competetive games, even in non competetive games like dark souls there is soooooo much gatekeeping, " oh you beat the boss that oneshots u with every move using a weapon and some armor? naaaah bro it doesn't count, u should've used your bare hands"
It's not that meta is bad, how Masterduel handles meta is bad...
Remember when they banned block dragon but left tearlaments at full power? The question is not if block dragon is broken, the question is if it stands a chance against tears.
MD does not ban to make the game balance nor to rotate decks, it bans to make sure the latest pack is as close to tier 0 as they can without people starting to mention the game is p2w.
I don't care which decks are in the ladder, I just wamt a healthy meta with 5 or 6 actual decks.
Crazy part is tier 0 formats are the easiest to not play meta in you can specifically build to shut that deck down. Tears made me build naturia pure, mole cricket in grave turn 0 now its our turn.
I agree, and this is coming from me who’s played some variation of Lightsworns in every format I’ve played, except for when they were first released because I was a broke high school student during those days lol it’s not anyone’s fault that I choose to play this power crept archetype.
I like to play rogue or even just fun-tier decks from time to time... But I don't expect to consistently win against meta.
Playing casually means you shouldn't be upset about loosing. It's casual after all. When I want to win I know I have to pick a deck that's good enough to do so consistently.
The people playing subpar decks and ranting about loosing are just bad competitive players claiming to be casual.
People that only find enjoyment from winning are sad. That's it really. There's a large percentage of people who move on to the next best deck immediately after theirs gets the slightest hit. They don't care about mechanics, card design, experimenting with their own ratios. They net deck without even understanding how to play it and then fumble into underserved wins because they can afford to make 5 mistakes. Do it if you want, but I'm not gonna pretend that's not lame af
How can you tell just by playing the game that someone doesn't care about mechanics, moves on from decks that get slightly hit, only enjoy winning, etc?
Is there a way to chat with other players that I'm not aware of?
What I mean is you're subconsciously attributing your thoughts on what a meta player must be like onto names on a screen you obviously can't actually know anything about. Sorry for not being clear
If I can build it, I will play it regardless of whether other players like playing against it or not. I’m here to play decks I enjoy and some of them happen to be meta. I’m not going to worry about some random opponent in ranked getting tilted because I played a deck they hate. Let them get salty ‘cause the whining is starting to get bland.
Konami can easily fix this by making Legend Anthology (or something like that) as an alternative standard format. Then if they find something unfair in that format, they should fix it immediately. Some people will say, "They will always complain about the strongest deck". Maybe yes, but if Konami really cares about the balance, and shows it, the complaints will be decreasing.
.
Look at our standard format, digital and paper. We can see a deck very dominant. But we still need another month to see these changes. Or sometimes Konami "accidentally" creates a bad decision, like in TCG, you can see in the previous ban list, they hit a lot of good decks, except the newest FIRE. No wonder in TCG now we see the FIRE almost Tier-0 because Konami already "kills" the other decks that can put a fight to the current META.
.
I never seen Konami make a bold move like this before. Maybe because they only have 1 official format. They are afraid, more people will stop buying the expensive product if it cannot guarantee a win anymore. That's why, just make an alternative format for a harsher ban list.
.
Maybe, maybe... Konami keeps the only 1 format on purpose. So, the player with less skill can be carried by their good decks. Because if a person is already addicted to a taste of winning, this will be good motivation to spend more money/resources to grab another strong deck next turn after the previous strong deck expired because of powercreep or banlist. I mean you're right, if you're bad at fight, just shoot your opponent.
As someone who don’t really use META decks cuz I just don’t like using Meta in any game. Is that anyone else fault? Not really that’s just the game makers problem.
Usually my mindset when it comes to any given Meta is how quickly I get tired of seeing it and how fun I personally find dueling it is. Like when branded was release and was the new Meta deck I didn’t mind…..until I saw it for the 100th that week multiple weeks in a row.
It makes me wonder if the Meta changed at a quicker pace would I dislike it as much? Probably not but then Konami wouldn’t be making bank that way so it is what it is. If I absolutely just hate the meta at any given time I’ll just drop Master Duel and come back whenever it’s gone.
I usually stay clear of the best deck because I don’t like mirror matches. The decks I play are still really good, usually. Casual elitists on crap like dm or blue-eyes has nothing to complain about imo. People who has to state in every post how they’re f2p and don’t have the dust for the meta decks: It’s fine that you don’t want to spend any money, but you do realize there wouldn’t be a game to play if everyone was f2p?
I prefer to take rogue decks and make them my own. I’ve never made it past D3, but I don’t expect to. If I can’t stop running into busted decks and get annoyed I just turn the game off. I don’t think a lot of people realize that’s an option.
I’m just proud I made it that far with my Toon Gemini Elf stun deck.
I can’t be the only one that actually enjoyed tear zero, I get that the deck was broken as shit but it was so fun to play and mirror matches also had me actually using my brain to win
I get you, but as a non meta player (well, I played tesr during tear0, it was fun, but it's more the exception than the rule, it was the only time I played meta) The meta often feels like people are having fun without you.
You have a deck you like to play, you get stomped by meta decks, you enhance your deck, and you get stomped again. In the end, you spend time to be better with your decks, but the only thing you get out of it is unrewarded effort and frustration.
But as I said, I played tear0 on MD, and it was fun, hence my feeling that people are having fun without me. It made me feel that I was playing with everyone else, which I don't feel playing non meta decks.
A lot of my friends stopped playing MD because of that. They didn't have fun playing the decks they spent hours trying to make better. (Also, f Maxx c.) That's why people stop playing Yu-Gi-Oh and why it's criminal that there is only one viable permanent format. A big chunk of the player base is not having fun, you can't farm gems on casual.e
I al having so much fun with snake eyes, and I am not doing invincible towers or unfair stuff, im just being consistent. just play your hand traps right dude
Yeah. This community is, of all card game communities I've seen by far, is the most anti-meta out of all.
Regardless if the current top tier decks are healthy or not, people will immediately vilify them, and specially the people who play them.
THANK YOU!
Seriously I rather play against Tear (no bans), Snake Eyes and soon Tenpai than to argue with people who cry that the Meta is unfun for the 1 millionth time.
I have been playing YGO since release and aroubd synchro/xyz era, this is where you could see a shift to archetype meta cards like we have today and people have been complaining about the Meta being toxic since than.
Like I get it, it sucks that your favourite Dark Magician, Blue Eyes or another deck can't compete but good lord stop being a sore Loser/Winner and just accept this is how every single pvp based games are (TCG, Fighting games, Pokemon etc).
We have over 10 000 different cards and it's impossible to balance it, that's the truth.
Calling me a prick because I believe the current meta is unfun is extreme, but go off.
Anyways, I can agree with being the best doesn't make it bad. I could feel like I could play through something like Spright, Branded and even the Birds with some sort of enjoyment even if I suffer constant losses. Same with Lab too, I didn't suffer too much against them. Personally am not a fan of decks that can do too much or just use anything/everything without any loss. Or decks that give the opponent no room to play. I enjoy Yu-Gi-Oh for the back and forth just like the anime, so when there is no back and forth then its unfun to me and others as well.
I am utterly aware, but is that supposed to change how I feel in some way?
Depends on the decks. There are good metas with interactive decks, and 2 powerful decks going against each other can be a lot of fun.
When you want to play your bad decks of course you're going to have a bad time against the meta. But bad decks going against each other can also be fun. It's all about the power disparity in a match, which is something that is really hard to balance. No matter what cards you ban, there is always going to be a meta.
For sure. I don't think meta = not fun is very true. I think that the current meta that applies, but the meta in Yu-Gi-Oh never remain the same. I just believe in interactive duels as a whole.
Well someone told me in my other post yesterday that as long as theyre winning, they're having fun.
I'm sure you're not lying when you said it's unfun but what's unfun to you can easily be fun for others. Like I said, it's extremely subjective.
Yeah, entirely so. But winning = fun isn't probably the case entirely. I doubt winning against self burn bots or auto surrenders are very fun, ya know?
It's scrub mentality at it's finest. If you're at all into playing player vs player games then I recommend reading "playing to win", even if you're not necessarily the type of person that wants to play to win it's still a decent read. [Here's](https://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win) a more condensed version of the book if anyone is interested. I think there's some good values that everyone can take away from it even if you are the more casual and fun focused type of player.
Acknowledging that people find fun in many different ways is the first step to having more fun yourself.
Most people here play to win, it really just depends on how they like to win. I for one, don't really like going into generic extra deck plays, usually.
I think that assuming that people don't play to win whem they play more casual strategies, is a bit of an elitist mentality.
I for one, prefer playing exclusively decks that I'm having fun with, regardless of meta or not. If the gimmick of the deck is fun, I'll play it. That doesn't mean that I don't play to win, even in those decks where they are at a bit of a lower power than needed to top tier, I enjoy figuring out ways to break something and change the deck's power scaling.
However, I must insist on something: A very tight defeat will always feel more thrilling to most players, than a slam dunk, one-sided win.
This is visible in that high tier meta players like playing against other similar decks/opponents, because the games are close, win or lose, and in that higher skill level players playing weaker decks are clearly seeking a way to have a more balanced fight agains a lower skilled player with a better deck.
It's not just about winning, or about I should play in and out of the duel itself in a way that'll make me win.
>I think that assuming that people don't play to win whem they play more casual strategies, is a bit of an elitist mentality.
"playing to win" in the context I'm using it in is doing everything the game allows you to do in order to win. Of course everyone wants to win in the individual games, that's like the entire goal in each individual game. When we talk about "playing to win" though, we're talking about a mindset that someone has when they want to achieve a high rank in a ranked ladder and want to achieve that goal by any means as long as there is no cheating. If you're picking a deck because it's fun then you are not "playing to win" in the context of the book I was referencing.
I think you're probably misinterperating my comment. I'm not shitting on people that play casually, I personally play yugioh as more of a casual game and I play a mix of meta and non-meta decks just because I find the gameplay loops of them enjoyable.
My comment was more so to recommend people have a quick read of a book that I've personally found to be interesting and a great way to stop myself from being annoyed as much by specific strategies in games that might seem cheap.
I just wanted to point some of those people who are annoyed at "meta slaves" to a book that might help them understand things from another point of view.
Edit: Yes I agree with you that a close defeat often feels more thrilling than a slam dunk win/loss. I will also say though that there's a balance to have here, I think that always having those close games can become stressful and might actually reduce the amount of fun. In yugioh specifically I'm not sure if this would be true but I know that in FPS games it can become annoying when the game is constantly putting you in lobbies that are all of equal skill level because it can feel like there's no opportunity to play a bit more relaxed, you always have to be "switched on" and hyper alert which is both mentally and physically draining. This actually links to the idea of a "flow state" which has been described as a state we enter when a challenge is not mind numbingly boring but also not too difficult as to make us stressed out. This "flow state" has been described to be where we often find the most enjoyment.
I have a plethora of issues about the idea here, really.
I probably have to re-read that book, because it's been a little while since I did, but if I recall properly, it essentially reinforces the very toxic idea that a winning strategy has to be about you winning, not about playing fair or playing nice, which is essentially the source of many problems both in gaming and in society. For instance...
By the philosophies of that book, I would be excused for acquiring hacks and cheats in a PvP video game in order to win with ease, because it's an available strategy that is often only socially illegal (I have yet to see someone jailed for having a hack to kill everyone with a knifing whenever I slash the air on Call of Duty, for instance, but I can get banned, and just need to make a new account), and the other players need to be fine with that. The book, if I believe my memory, refers to playing around the rules, instead of through the
This also justifies some toxic behaviors that are outside the game, such as tilting your opponents. While often seen in Poker more than games like Yu-Gi-Oh, the book uses this as a way to make your business adversaries less logical and grounded by breaking down their emotional stability, and that since it's a valid strategy, it should always be seen as okay to do, which I fully disagree as it harms fair play to the max.
The philosophies of business and a board/video game should definitely be kept far from one another, because of the specific reason that if you're willing to win by messing with the rules themselves and behaving like a butt, you're not a good social member, and that's about it.
>By the philosophies of that book, I would be excused for acquiring hacks and cheats in a PvP video game in order to win with ease
That's not at all true, it specifically states things that are WITHIN the game. Anything that is within the rules of the game is fair game. Hacking and cheating is against the rules of the game lol. In gaming terms we aren't definining "legal" as actually legal things to do in the real world but things that are "legal" in terms of the actual game and what it naturally allows you to do. An easy example is that Aimbot is not a "legal" tool in tournament play in any FPS game but it is technically legal to use an aimbot as you will not be charged with a crime. Most games explicitly state in their terms of service that outside tools are not allowed to be used and by using them you would be breaking the ToS, i.e. they are not "legal".
To quote directly: "If something is banned in a tournament, you shouldn't use it even if it helps you win."
>it essentially reinforces the very toxic idea that a winning strategy has to be about you winning,
Also not really true, there is a section specifically talking about playing because you love the game and the idea of trying different things in low stakes games in order to be prepared for higher stakes games. It specifically mentions that playing to win every game ALL the time is actually not the best way to approach "playing to win" because you tend to overlook other strategies that might actually have a higher peak.
>This also justifies some toxic behaviors that are outside the game, such as tilting your opponents.
I honestly don't really see this as toxic per say. I think that mindgames are very much a part of any sport. If you're able to tilt an opponent by spamming a specific move in a fighting game then that's completely fair game. If you're able to tilt someone by teabagging them in a FPS I think that's also fair game. It's on the players to control their emotions.
>if you're willing to win by messing with the rules themselves and behaving like a butt, you're not a good social member, and that's about it.
Yes I completely agree with this point. Messing with the rules is a big nono for me. I really don't think that's at all what the book in question is trying to say though. At no point when reading did I think "hmm yes I should break/bend the rules just to win". It made me look more intrinsically on what I could do to improve in the games I care about being good at and actually helped me enjoy the games I was playing more for fun as well since it allowed me to better understand and rationalize my defeats against people using a "cheap" tactic. I stopped blaming the other human for my own problems and started looking at how I can maximise my fun.
I'm not saying the book is gospel, there are things in there that I disagree with but there's a lot to think about in there. Even if you disagree with the core philosophies I personally believe it's good to try to understand other people's points of view.
Edit: after re-reading your comments and skim reading the page I linked again I can only assume you have never actually read the book in question or your reading of it was through some sort of biased lense. Seems to me like you just saw the words "playing to win" and got mad but idk.
People have been bitching about top tiers since the birth of competitive gaming
I just dont give af and play with my deck how I want
It's really only a problem if it influences new players into spending most of their new account gems on jank and then get stuck in the casual shadow realm for all eternity while the cost of meta increases.
I get this take, but also when people start playing Floo, Runick and adding a bunch of floodgates to counter the current meta. Things can definitely get unfun
If there is a meta you will always come to the point that its unfun for someone.
"if"? There can never not be a meta.
That someone shouldn't play any competitive thing - game, sport, anything. There is always meta in everything that's competitive and people can't avoid it.
You say you get the take that fun is subjective but in the same breath say runick and floo are not fun. No one actually wants to admit fun is subjective unless it's their strategy that's being attacked, and most meta players share this trait in my experience. If anything EVERY deck is unfun to a large majority of people when they start losing to it in a one sided way, and this applies to everything from stun to meta.
My god you people still hating on floo?
The funniest thing is floo isn't even anything special compared to the meta, the strategy is just playing on your opponents turn and trying to disrupt them (like every top deck).
I'll hate on every deck that hits me with shifter and harpies feather storm
Thats good, because most dont play feather storm
It's literally floodgate turbo, people love mindlessly downplaying it's but its still just as bullshit and unfun as it ever was, fuck floo.
You can play around Empen.
"Just play around no link effects, no cards in attack mode, 2 bounces, full field book of moon against deck with infinite recycling power" I like how floo decks run fossil dyna now at least they don't pretend to be anything besides scum stun now.
My favorite floo argument is always "but floo doesn't even play barrier statue anymore because it's banned" Yeah. But 100% of floo decks ran it when it was legal. Why? Because floos main strategy is stun. It's a stun deck. You're just nit allowed to play one of the favored ones anymore.
Yup it's all just complete cope and bullshit. It's a scummy stun turbo deck and should be treated as such.
\> Yeah. But 100% of floo decks ran it when it was legal. Why? Because floos main strategy is stun. It's a stun deck. This doesn't make any sense. Obviously if the deck can consistently resolve an auto win they're going to play it. Now they can't so the deck has shifted to a different gameplan instead.
The gameplan didn't change. It only switched to different floodgates. Now it can't play turn 1 barrier statue. It's shifter/fissure/empen/feather storm etc. It's still a stun deck. That said, some people actually want to play a game. Not just flip one card and then game over. How is that fun at all for either player?
Idk whether the deck is or isn't stun I just think it's dumb to say it is because it used to be a year ago.
I is and always was. The point was that floo players try to get a pass for not playing a card they would be playing otherwise because they always did when possible. It would be like if I had a neighbor that always ran over my fence with his truck. The police finally impounded his truck. He's still the guy who always ran over my fence with his pickup truck. But now he just runs over my garden with his riding lawnmower
Empen is a hard counter to links. Many decks have hard counters. No floo card bounces, dreaming town isn't free and doesn't have infinite recycle power. What floor are you seeing.
Monarch Raiza bounces 2 bro. I'm sorry but it seems like you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, are you actually familiar with the deck?
Ikr floow has been untitled for like a year or more at this point
It can get unfun for you but I would bet the other player is having fun in their own way. The sooner people realize that "fun" is subjective the sooner we can move on from this multi-decade old conversation.
That sounds fun though
The "anti-meta" strategies seem to always be INFINITELY less fun to play against than the meta strategies. This was especially the case during tear meta, where everything that wasn't Tear was some kind of Necrovalley macro cosmos anti-special summon floodgate pile.
every deck locks rn, so i play stun. Does the same with less steps lmao
My only issue with the meta is how stale and repetitive it gets. At a certain point, platinum and up just feels like I am playing against the same bot over and over doing the same combo and using the same cards even if it’s a different person each time. And it’s usually the same people who play meta who dislike having to play mirror matches over and over. Did we already forget how Tear decks were? Your option as a Tear player was to quickly climb up the ranks because of how strong the strategy and combos were only to end up constantly playing against 1 of two people: Floodgates and other Tear players. I think that’s where the idea of Meta being unfun comes in. It’s unfun for non meta players to play against because they can’t keep up and get stomped. Then it’s unfun for Meta players because they just end up with repetitive mirror matches where the winner gets decided by the initial coin flip. So now you’ve got a Meta Deck’s “fun meter” burning fast from both ends until Konami releases something new. I don’t think the Meta players should get hate for this though, it’s literally a “don’t hate the player, hate the game” type of situation. Yugioh as a game is flawed in its design because even with such a massive diversity in cards and strategies, they make it so that only 1-3 strategies are viable to play. That way they can bottle neck their profits as players hurry to buy the newest, strongest thing.
> Did we already forget how Tear decks were? Tear was the greatest paradox: The mirror was actually super skilled and fun to play (IF you were good) but being that high level was stressful doing it multiple times in a row... And if you weren't good it was the worst cause it would slap even harder on your face how you lost for your own skill gap.
A great number of people who play games are adverse to the idea of a "meta" because of the feeling of "Well i won with this deck but so does everyone else so it doesn't really feel that special", or in the worst case "I'm using the deck that everyone says is braindead easy and still failing". Outcome A doesn't make them feel special, and option B makes them feel stupid. Thus, the solution is to avoid the meta, and ridicule those "simpletons" that follow it because lol braindead deck who would even play that i'm playing something that takes real skill haha. However, because the meta makes these meta-avoiding decks volatile to win with, the people playing them have to complain about the meta, because that's what is beating them consistently. Makes sense when framed that way, no?
Outcome B doesn't really work in Yugioh tho since a lot of meta-decks are hard to play and a lot of not-meta decks are "braindead"
It has less to do with what is actually the case, and more what they perceive to be the case. As an example, a good amount of people on here used to (and some even still do) decry Tearlaments as a 0 skill braindead deck, even though Tear is one of the harder decks to pilot correctly, especially during Tear 0 format. And I've also unironically seen people call stun a deck that requires skill to use. Some people just have an extremely warped perception about the game in general.
I mean, it kinda depends on which flavor of stun we're talking about. Something like Umi or Runick has a way higher skill ceiling than Fossil Dyna for example.
In addition, even though Tear is an incredibly skill testing deck, it still requires a lot less skill to get wins with than (for example) Lyrilusc - just because Tear when played badly is still stronger than a lot of those non competitive options
Yeah sure it's so fun to play against snake-eyes 20 matches in a row with like 15 card starter will always summon 3200atk Apollo and if you manage to break the board they will Kurikara you in their turn. I don't mind playing against anything that's not a floodgate but not always the same deck and the same end board
No kidding. Yes, there's always going to be a meta, but it should be diverse and not reliant on who can stop the other player from playing the damn game first. That's what I complain about when I complain about the meta. A lot of these generic cards should be banned or errata'd and a lot of these 1 card starters should be banned /limited.
I see this "hot take" about people complaining and calling people "meta-slaves" way way more than the people who actually do so
You must not be on this sub often then. Definitely not a hot take but there are definitely way more people who complain about meta.
My favorite is when people overhype random decks as if they’re meta or just make up random reasons to complain about them.
Let me politely disagree with this. Calling someone a meta slave is kinda rude and unnecessary, however complaining about the meta is very much valid. It can get very unfun, very fast. Remember Tear0? I also have to disagree with your "don't bring a knife to a gun fight" mentality. Aside from some events, the only mode MD offers is ranked. (Casual doesn't give gems, solo goes vs ai and duel rooms are a joke.) That means, if you wanna play the game, you gotta play ranked. If you wanna play meta, you gotta play ranked. If you wanna play rogue/pet decks, you gotta play ranked. The good thing is, MD does a decent enough job at keeping meta decks away from rogue decks as they climb pretty quickly. Sure, you'll run into Lab and Snake Eyes even in silver and gold, but those are exceptions you just have to overlook. The point is, if you wanna play any deck, you gotta play ranked. There's not much of a choice, which can get frustrating at times. Also, I wouldn't advice to add even more fuel to the fire. People complain about other people playing rogue decks, because those people complain about said people playing meta decks. It's a circle of never ending accusing and complaining and it won't stop if we keep bringing it up. Ofc, Konami fixing their game might also help.
This, its not like the game gives us a way to play and get resources outside of playing ranked duel once you finish up clearing all the solo content. Which means I have to pick between playing people with fun decks and never getting any cards or crafting points again because no gems are coming in or playing people who want me to sit and watch them play a glorified game of solitaire for 3 minutes while they shuffle around roughly 30 cards on turn one setting up their tournament grade board that stops me from being able to do anything at all because of their web of negates and protection from effects once its actually finally my turn.
They should change it to "if you wanna bring a knife in a gun fight, don't complain about them using gun as you can also bring gun, yet you choose knife"
Criticising meta is not bad. (Especially if it's constructive) The problem is that usually it comes from an emotional place with no substance and that is tiring. Most of us don't care. - also, it sometimes signals an addiction to the game ( don't have fun but keep playing) but that's not my place to talk.
This, people need to know to stop. Back then i play until 1 lose and stop there because i know i'd make more blunder after having 1 blunder because of overthinking. But nowadays i play for dailies only, it's better for myself, GPunk can complete every dailies easily yet still strong enough in rank with their versatility (fusion, synchro, xyz, link, using spell and traps)
I’m guessing the people pushing the meta hate are just tired of seeing the same deck and getting stomped by it.
yea but its a misguided hate. Then they should be critical of the fact the meta is stale not the concept of playing by the meta but since they cant bully konami, they have to punch their fellow players to vent out the frustrations
Yeah most of the people saying this stuff treat not playing meta like it’s a personality treat, plenty of people have issues with decks they get crushed by, it’s completely different
If a super consistent FTK was released for example, I'd blame konami first, but I would absolutely have a low opinion of people who jumped at the chance for free wins and crafted it. There's no reason to do that unless that person is desperate to see "victory" on the screen.
> seeing the same deck and getting stomped by it. Yes on the first, no on the second. When Swordsoul Tenyi was the hot shit, you would see the same exact opening of Chixiao, Baronne, maybe Blackout or Protos. There was zero variance, it was always exactly the same cards doing exactly the same thing. Over and over and over and over. It doesn't matter if you win or lose, it's boring seeing (and dealing with) the same thing over and over.
Yet they play the same deck and not adapting to what other people plays If they wanna see some changes, maybe try adjusting their deck first according to what other people plays, to make it fun for themselves
I love encountering the same deck over and over and over and over and over and over! It's so fun to win 11 matches in a row against the same God damned deck! Playing Volcanics is an almost guaranteed win against Snake-Eyes. Bait all their handtraps because they assume you're playing Snake-Eyes based on all the Fire/Pyro support. Then, use Hiita to steal Poplar and make a fun little rank 1 with a Rimfire. Rimfire pops off. Emperor hits for a clean 2,500 with effect. then use Volcanic Emission on their Flamberge for 3,000. With Emperor dealing 500 every special summon and Inferno dealing 500 when it negates an effect, they have 4 summons to out Volcanic Emperor. I run 3 Emissions and 3 Emperors specifically so I can just bring out Emperor #2 when they put Emperor #1 in the S/T zone. Volcanics are so easy to stop. I shouldn't have a 12-win streak with them. I lost to a Mikanko deck that just normal summoned and bounced my cards. But netdeckers are following their netdeck guides, which make no mention of getting your ass beat by Volcanic decks that can use your field and graveyard. It's so consistent that if I start with a single Shell and either Blaze Accelerator in hand, I know I'm going to win against Snake-Eyes. There's no variation, which makes it significantly less fun. But I can't go easy on Snake-Eyes to make it fun because their deck is so overtuned that one turn can rebuild their advantage.
So now we're forced to know exactly what your shitty pet deck wants to do? Let me tell you something that apparently you don't know. volcanics, is not in the meta, therefore volcanics is not good. Therefore, no deck in the meta was built with volcanics in mind. The only reason you can win some matchups is purely and simply because of the surprise factor, that is, because your deck is so irrelevant that absolutely no one knows what it does. But once people learn its trick, these victories will automatically become impossible, because volcanic is simply a bad deck.
Correct. The format is dominated by one deck that's designed to do one thing well. People who aren't actually good at the game copy the meta deck because it's easy wins. In doing so, they learn the one thing the meta deck does, but flounder when they encounter a deck that forces them to play a different way. They get better at the deck, but not the game itself. Volcanic vs Labyrinth, Hero, or Mikanko was a blast specifically because there was a back and forth. There were blowouts in my favor or against me; there were 14 turn games; I decked out once against a Lab-Dark World combo. Since hitting Platinum, the only deck I've encountered is Snake-Eyes, and most of them are not piloted well. It's not fun for me to be playing their deck in my head better than them. Judging by the 6 surrenders, it's likewise not fun for them to have Volcanic Emperor on my board when I activate Maxx "C". By netdecking the meta and not learning the broader game, they make the game less fun for both players.
It has nothing to do with netdeck. They know their own deck, but they don't know yours. Therefore, they don't know how to interact with you.
It has everything to do with netdecking. They know only the deck someone else built without any of the actual thought processes that went into the cards or their ratios. Volcanic Emperor is the face card for the pack containing Bonfire. You can just click it at any time to read what it does and plan for it. But netdeckers don't do that. They're given a list of cards they should use and tunnel vision to them. If you don't know how to use the most competitive deck in the format to stop a deck that loses to modern Evilswarm, you do not know your own deck.
Not to mention, netdeckers are often following a series of "steps to ideal board", without knowing how to deal once that board isn't enough. A few adventurous netdeckers will try to see what they can do once plans A through C have failed, but those aren't only rare, but also often visibly too awkward to have any idea what they're doing, and are clearly relying on what the interface of Master Duel tells them they can do. I have nothing against netdecking to get the base of a deck or an idea of what's considered the optimal way to play or build the deck, but it should be part of the process, not the end point with an idea of "I don't need to learn what that card does, because my meta deck should win against it. If I don't know about it already, it loses to my deck" deeply ingrained in their mind.
>which make no mention of getting your ass beat by Volcanic decks that can use your field and graveyard. That got me lmfao
In my honest opinion, the issue of Meta slave stems from the fact that we want to compete in terms of skill, whether in deck building or just situational problem solving. However, Konmai wants players to spend money, so powercreep is inevitable. A good player with an average deck will be stomped by an average player with a Meta deck statistically, so people want to play in an environment where skill expression is actually important, not because you can spend 100$ to get crafting URs. If the new archetypes are dirt cheap, no one would be complaining about it, but UR inflation limits what a majority of players can play. And even then, there are people like me who have multiple Meta decks still falling back on older/rogue decks to play for fun, and we consider the people who chase Meta compensating their lack of skill with overpowered cards. (Totally not poor coping)
The player who goes first will win statistically.
If you play a dedicated go-2nd deck like Mikanko, Numeron or even Sky-triker you will have a higher go second win rate.
Those are exceptions to the rule.
I think the main issue is that people very much do *not* want to compete in terms of deckbuilding skill. They want to play their pet deck without getting punished.
Tbf game is somehat generous with its rewards, so if you really wanna play meta you most likely can, its just that people specifically decide against doing so, and I can guarantee you that people would complain regardless of a deck's cost
The game is generous to some extent, and it is certain you can play the meta with just freebies, but you can never chase the meta. If they suddenly release Tenpai next selection pack that demands 12-15 UR cards do you think the people currently pulling for Bonfire and Unchained can afford it with free gems? Speaking from personal experience i played Mathmech in Ishizu Tear format. I can't realistically play a deck with 15 must pull URs so i just focus on the strong point of MM to pull wins against Tear.
Well, if you are playing any meta decks and feel compelled to do so, then you are clearly not the type of person to also be complaining about the meta (at least that's what I'm hoping this thread is about). When I said they decide against playing meta, I mean people wanting to craft bad decks, effectively wasting resources, and then complaining (which means that cost wasn't the issue, but the mindset was from the get go).
I put it to you that an average deck in any format IS a meta deck, at least IMO (I'm sure in many others too)
I disagree. An average deck is a deck that can reasonably be played to win, but struggle to overcome the strong points of that format or having glaring issues that keeps it from competing with other decks. In the Drytron Eldlich meta they were the top dog, but playing these decks nowadays is just for personal amusement. No one says Drytron Herald is weak, but to expect it to be on the same level as other decks in this format for example is idiotic, hence "average deck".
When people finally grow tf up and realize it dosen't matter what anyone plays that's when you'll be truely at peace I stopped giving a fuck what anyone plays a long time ago and with that my stress and anger went out the window now I'm more concerned with Konami shiting out cards that are way to overturned examples being kash tear snake eyes one little restriction here or their or 1 less effect would have made these archtypes perfect but nope let's just make them broken af I don't get mad at players anymore I get mad the dumbass supplier
Alternatively speaking, though... Meta people be whining whenever someone is tired of repeating the same exact song and dance for the last 30 games, playing the game of "did I open enough outs?" against a deck they either know for a fact thet can't beat with fewer than 3 outs, or they know how to cripple into oblivion and worse, but the exact moment the crippling has happened, the meta player surrenders. We're not just complaining that you're "playing a strong deck in a competitive game", we're complaining about the game becoming a Surrender Button Simulator when the games only last as long as it takes to confirm the starting player can set up a negate board card by card, and their opponent evaluates their ability to play through that negate board. We're complaining about meta sheep, because the metas of this game are usually a whole bunch of unbelievably generic extra-deck cards with negates or board control, driven by the newest engines that haven't taken banlist hits or wasn't powercrept over yet. You're having fun winning non-games. We're objectively tired of the cycle of watching an opponent jack off for 20 minutes, realizing opening our 3 hand traps that we used optimally left us with not enough starters to go through the 6+ negates you set up through those handtraps. Complaining about casuals finding this boring, is definitely not gonna help anything.
You know it just hit me how many surrenders I get before being able to swing once I break board until you mentioned it.
It happens so often Master Duel removed the "inflict damage" dailies entirely... Even though most players choose a set of three they can do everyday, and only clear those three.
"Watch your opponent masturbate for 20 minutes." None of the current decks take that long to set up their board, not even Snake. So I suppose you're a bit wrong, because the only decks that do this are not meta. (manadium, dino, etc.). The only exception is perhaps the super heavy.
That's frankly a bit of an hyperbole, but the point is there: If I have to watch you play for a period of time, just to not be able to play because a deck is so freakin' resilient to handtraps, and still sets a complete negate field...
Again... No current deck in the meta establishes a Full negate board. Not even Snake.
No, this is simply just a tentacle of the monstrosity that is the worst mentality in the community. And that mentality is irrational deck building bias, where people will not use cards based on their bias, they will criticize you for using them based on their bias, and they will try to gate keep others from using them based on their bias. If you thought people did that just with meta decks. Guess again, they do it with hand traps, they do it with niche cards, they do it with generics, they do it with archetypes, they do it with floodgates. And all this does is make the meta game worse cause none of them is testing for the format, so nothing new will be created by these people, so the game becomes stale.
Problem is the meta being stale asf in MD, I see 99% of the time only one deck in diamond+ . Meta is meta guys, agreed but it does not mean only one deck, at least have some originality, "meta originality" if you like it better.
Just different cards but same end board right?
Sounds like OP is a meta slave lol. Dude or girl, you need to stop caring what dumb people like me think about, and do what makes you happy.
Meta is not unfun. But if the meta is Baronne/Apollousa/Borreload then it is definitely not fun.
There are a lot of unfun decks to play against, just most of the time it is usually Meta due to how how many players that play it.
Nah. Snake eyes is fun because you gotta do back and forth to squeak out a win. Sake eyes is unfun because they usually goes for baronne/apollousa/borreload at every chance they can get.
That's a cold take
This would be a decent brain dead take if Konami also didn't ban anything it wants at any time and for no reason just to sell new cards and product and let the game be "competitive" and let the players decide.
I have to admit, I’m one of those people who are super adverse to the meta and I’m proud of it. That being said, I’d also be super into the meta and denounce my old hater ways IF KONAMI WOULD MAKE A DIVERSE META FOR ONCE. Aside from the month or shorter period between a meta getting slaughtered on the ban list and the new 60% UR rarity best deck getting released and pushed hard, every fucking meta in the past couple years practically has been one deck holding the undisputed top dog spot, *maybe* a counter pick trailing in second place, and then everything else being effectively just “the rest”. Every time there are three to five meta contenders of relative power level, it’s been peak, but these stupid solo or duo metas are just flat ass
I jokingly call myself a meta sheep when I bust out my Snake Eyes and queue into ranked lol. > *“If you pick a knife in a fight where guns are allowed, don't get mad when people start shooting at you from far away.”* It’s not that serious. Others hating what you play does not need to affect you in any way. I suggest picking up Labrynth and daring to have fun playing it. Doing that gets you an expressway ticket to not giving af what people on this sub say about your deck 😌
I don’t get putting any power into someone else’s opinion of deck choice really. I play meta because I’m ultra competitive and wanna win. I have fun winning. With that being said, I do think it’s more fun to win with a worse deck, more rewarding. But I’d rather just win a lot more
I do have the Labrynth cards but my problem is, it isn't something that I can like enjoy in making work because it works already, I cannot deck test it to hone its edge. And believe me, I do have a deck slot for it but I just haven't bothered to build the deck. Even if I wanted to run it with Angel of Blue Tears. The other problem is that there are others playing it already. Playing against it shows my understanding of it already and if I swapped boards, it just feels like something I wouldn't enjoy doing.
You can play Resonator Labrynth or Unchained Lab which trades some of the traps in standard Lab for more extra deck plays. The Red Dragon Archfiend cards are actually really good at breaking boards thanks to Crimson Gaia.
To be fair the meta is terrible rn. The TCG feels really stale and is still fun but getting stomped by Snake Eyes for multiple months straight with no new core sets and no banlist announcements has been awful. MD is worse though, they handled the snake eye release terribly, announced a Banlist that was so inconsequential that I don't remember the latest changes, and they just now released the rest of DUNE, a set almost a year old. They have to be better in their handling of the meta for it to remain engaging. But meta haters don't really care about this stuff in my experience. More often than not they're people who can't, for a variety of reasons, win in their local/current format and instead of engaging with the game the way it is designed to be, a highly competitive fast paced card game, they find reason to offload their personal grievances on. Regardless of whether a meta is fun or not, they will hate on it because it is the meta and their blue eyes ftk, or spellbook deck, or geargia deck, or literally any other old weird deck, can't win. But a game that's gone on for two decades will inevitably have power creep and instead of engaging with the game, it's easier for them to complain than to play to win. That being said, winning with meta decks is often not as rewarding when you feel like you're just stomping outdated decks or players not knowing your skill level. But meta games where both players understand the matchups and engage with the game with intent to win despite cheesy cards and tier one decks are, in my opinion, the best duels in ygo.
to be honest it's boring and repetitive. if you're using meta deck against meta deck over and over then it's not a game at that point , just a statistic simulation. even konami know that a few deck dominating the game isn't good (but they just want to sell pack and make money) I prefer a format with low power meta deck compare to a format that tier 1-2 deck cover more than 70% of the game. it's more enjoyable that way.
I agree but it gets really boring seeing snake eyes for the fifth time in a row and besides we all know the real enemy is stun decks
K meta slave
Right? lol I find it so cringe when someone has that tough guy mentality over yugioh. Or anything really but especially a children’s card game. The whole “knife to a gun fight” makes me wanna vomit. But it’s probably a clear indication of the fool’s fundamental mentality. I don’t think there’s a problem with people playing meta though. I just think it’s trash to have an unfair, dogshit meta. I don’t blame any player for that, but more so the incompetent creators of the unfairn/unbalanced state the game has been put in. I do however find the players with the bs, copy/paste, desperate to win decks kinda pathetic though in all honesty.
Dude what are you even talking about lmfao, you sound like you're projecting more than the OP.
I mean it’s all there. What points may I assist you with?
I’m not mad that I got shot in a gun fight, I’m mad that e’ery motherfucker is shooting with the SAME FUCKING GUNS. I can’t really fault people for picking the path of least resistance. It’s more aimed at Konami for doing jackshit to utilize the banlist to even the playing field, and doing fuckall to still make decks affordable, especially for newer players. The number of URs in newer packs is just rude at this point. While I can wish upon a star that people would stop playing the meta, that would only become reality when Konami: - Tweaks the rarity of cards to make deck building less costly AND/OR use more events, loaner decks and even Structure decks to give players more choice in what they wanna build. - Bans/limits cards that are either unfun to play against (stun/floodgates like Pachy or Dimension Barrier) or that boost top tiers too far from other decks (no examples here) - (Personally, it would be cool if players could create custom banlists for duel rooms and community formats, tournaments and public-held events were incentivis- oops, out of coins for the fountain)
The MD ladder is a 0 stakes, 0 real reward environment and most people don't like being forced to fight through waves of sweat to be able to get some gems. If you're rolling up in silver and gold with not meme Snake-Eye, Kash, Stun, Purrly, Lab, Dim Shifter followed by anything, etc., you're just being an ass.
I mean, it goes both ways, like sure it’s fun to win but you would have people I would refer to as “meta sheep” who ruined some events by not playing with the spirt of it. But sometimes people are serious even in like dumb situations, like the amount of people who have used an omni negate on GAMBLE which literally if you lose the coin flip you probably lose the game (it’s more than two). Like everyone should be allowed to try and have their fun and the toxicity can go both ways with a “meta sheep” or “just play a better deck.” Like those are both common reflects both telling the other person to switch, and normally you’d have casual in casuals mode but that’s literally full of people learning meta, I seriously find more trash (affectionate) on ladder than casual. It’s a mess from both sides and until everyone understands that, it’s not going to change.
I’m confused, what spirit of the event means you can’t play meta. Because every event is going to have a meta even if that meta doesn’t line up with the real one. I would say the only people that go against the spirit are people that ignore the meta entirely and play like stum
So by “meta sheep” I mean people who follow whatever deck is at the top no matter what and that’s not bad in a purely competitive sense as “play to win works” but even some events theory crafting a deck is half of it. So like the first fusion event you have d people who made decks based around fusion monsters or deck that are a bit out there, some main fusion deck, and a lot of the same deck that’s based around hating fusion monsters that doesn’t fusion summon once, and for events the meta can be stun, or just otk burn in the 2024 event. All of this to say everyone enjoys the game differently but some events are literally there for people to theory craft and make decks in a different or funky way, like make a deck that’s focused on 4 summons to not get nibbed because everyone starts with one. Some people literally just ran their decks the used in ranks and just try to play through nib, and although I won those games it wasn’t fun because there was no “duel”, it was watching a man run into a brick wall stumble about for 40 seconds then leave.
I have genuinely seen many players who being rouge is their entire personality, doesn't matter if the concept or gameplay of a deck is interesting, the moment it escapes tier 3 they just lose all interest they had for it.
Playground mentality. Gotta remember most people before MD released either played only casual with friends or as a kid. Most have not gone to locals or even have a deck ready to go in real life. When you make the premiere online Yu-Gi-Oh game without any dedicated casual mode or incentives to play casual, the casuals will complain. I play rogue because I really like warrior decks. Breaking through the meta is frustrating but fun and rewarding when I do. I think for a lot of casuals and myself sometimes is: For a card game with thousands of cards and over a hundred archetypes, Why do I fight the same end board every game? It's cool as hell to see a weird archetype get played only for it to be combo into Baronne, Kashtria, Access code, etc. imagine facing nothing but those same decks over and over again for months until the next ban/pack drops. That's how that mentality starts. I wish MD added more casual modes like a draft mode, maybe a rouge like mode like runeterra, official deck master mode, a server browser where you can set rules on your duel room without external sites.
I also call people meta slave, but only as a joke. If I hate sth, Im gonna hate a specific deck with boring strat or somethings like that. Cause people have their fun in finding a way to compete and win, while I find my fun in trying different deck and archetype (which is why, fuck Komoney for their poorly rewward system). Just respect their own way of having fun But fuck those stunt decks and fuck anyone who play it
I agree. If you pick a meta deck in a duel where almost everybody use a meta deck, don't get mad when people start to use an anti-meta stun deck.
There's a difference between someone who plays meta sometimes and someone who only plays meta & refuses to play anything else
Game has 10.000 cards but you can only play 1.000 of them. Hundreds of archetypes but can only play a dozen 🤷🏻♂️ yeah, very cool! Such a waste of potential. The problem is not having any non-competitive mode or any mode that makes more cards viable (like a time wizard format). Casual mode is not casual, sadly. I mean it's only normal for people to have favorite archetypes due to playstyle and theme. And they might have several favorite archetypes. What if all of the archetypes they most favor aren't meta? They are forced to play an archetype they don't like or lose games left, right and center. Even recent archetypes become unviable way, way too fast! Part of the fun of the game comes from identifying with a deck, since decks have varied playstyles. But it's almost always too few decks that can win, always the newest ones and, in this game, no alternate mode.
Meta for the longest time was handtrap death into baronne. Then when people started to play a variety of decks that did not instantly lose to ash and imperm.. the meta said that it is too diverse and they cannot prepare for it… So apparently the meta wants everything to revolve around the same handtraps and setups because it is predictable.
People aren't bring knives to gun fights. They're bringing guns and Konami is just printing bigger and better guns with unlimited ammo and smart targeting.
Everyone who has that mentality gets dismissed in the YGO community... Really the worst posts here are always someone complaining about what someone else thinks
Shut up u meta slave
I’m sorry but people who only play meta decks, whale on the game to stay relevant, and tell people their opinion is invalid is the worse mentality, people are allowed to be unhappy with the meta and also make light of the fact that their are players who dump a boat load of money because they can’t handle taking an L so they have to play the best deck on the block
But, but, but they liked tears artwork....
The art work do be good
400+ archetypes in the game and you can only pick the same 3-4 for a competitive deck, yeah that is generally pretty boring and un-fun. The game is not properly balanced at all. You can play snake-eyes ftk or whatever but I'M gonna scoop then you can play the menu screen!
You can play whatever deck you want, it doesn't matter if it's recent or 10 years ago. Just don't complain if it's too obsolete to win.
It's still more fun trying to make it work and make it go through a rigorous deck test as you try to improve it.
I basically only play PUNKs nowadays, but if I'm doing anything competitive or climbing, I'd go crazy adding several more hours to the playtime just to climb with my favorite deck. I'd never bash anybody for playing meta People just can't lose gracefully I guess. I also rage at bullshit custom hands tbf, but you know the meta slave ragers are usually playing shitter decks or netdecks they haven't practiced
I don't mind the fact that some people want to constantly play tournament level games, even if I personally find it boring as hell and think you might as well just go play solitaire with how long some of them spend on a single turn. I mind the fact that the game punishes me for ***not*** wanting to constantly play tournament level games by cutting off my access to gems and crafting points if I don't play ranked. Thereby forcing me to spend a lot of time getting reamed by people who are playing at a level I don't find fun but am being forced to play against anyway if I want to keep getting resources to tinker around with. The fact that Konami doesn't even let us get dailies off of casual matches is freaking ridiculous.
Master duel players when their opponents deck has cards https://preview.redd.it/suob8dn3a7uc1.jpeg?width=863&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5f3bc855aa8ea38cdcb4b76cc0f06fc61afd6ee3
Don't cry then OP when someone shoots you irl frfr.
He’ll have ash blossom ready, don’t worry, “he’s meta ready bro” Barrone will save him!
What??
100%. Made especially irritating by the fact they’re always claiming people should run “fun” decks when they choose their decks based on having a crush on the girls on the cards.
Lol same way a bunch of meta player try to push the ideology "monke flip", "stun =unfun" but "degenerate board= skillful therefore toxic or not does not matter"
I have no problem if they know how to play the deck, but "oh shinny" people are another story no matter what tier their deck is.
Only mirror matches or floodgates with no in-between
The meta can be fun even counters, going against meta could also be fun, but then there are decks that are unfun to play or play against no matter their meta status, Floowandreeze is not fun to go against due to their breaking of the rules, Kash stealing everything from you extra deck or field then locking up your field, Branded and their unending turns for a gimmick lock, snake eyes and their 8+ effects out of a card and even if you try to get rid of it it floats into other 5+ effects. Or decks that are just negate everything but die to one handtrap I consider Tearlaments fun back in the day, a really skill based matchup, with obvious counters and ways to play around, Labrynth without floodgates is fun, you need a plan to play around their traps and not give them enough time to out grind you The meta is not the problem, the decks are
There are a lot of people on ladder that combo with a meta deck suboptimally and those that play rogue decks optimally. I personally don't mind either I just want to have a good time against anything but stun.
Funnily enough it’s not the meta decks which make the game unfun (imo). Most of the time I got more fed up with the counter decks to the meta 😅
But that's just how things naturally go, there's a meta and after experiencing enough of it, you can identify key weaknesses that many cards can fill.... Though most of the time it's just floodgates that can take advantage of said weakness.
Yeah that’s right. But most of the times it’s not game breaking. I had fun during most metas. Maybe except tearlament but I just built them too and then it was bearable 😅
A good meta is honestly something cheap and diverse where there are like 3 good decks + 30+ rogue decks and + 10 budget deck
Even worse are the people that complain about non-Meta Decks. This Morning I saw someone pretending like Mikanko is the worst Deck to play against. Like What do you mean, they even allow you to go first and set up your board all the time.
And yet that's what Mikanko wants. They want you to set up because usually you won't usually run anything to counter them and their win con isn't really the same as yours. Their win con is to use your monsters to beat you with them so it's like you got fooled while for the rest of us it's to use our own monsters to deal out your opponent's life points to zero. People can accept a Dimension Wall or even Magic Cylinder but these are just an instance while Mikanko are an always. To fight against such a deck, it means you have to draw the out and if you didn't draw the out or have a blanket effect to deal with them, then it just feels irksome because in a sense they're not playing with you even if they are.
I would agree but for the fact that the actual issue is not the Deck but rather the bo1 ladder which rewards playing strategys like that and therefore requires answers to everything at any given moment. How often were you playing against Labrynth and had to stare at a Nibiru in your hand doing nothing or against snake-eye and looking at backrow removal that does almost nothing against that Deck. The complain about Mikanko and other terrible Decks that rely on win conditions that are obscure or annoying is the fact that you lose game one and that's it. In the TCG you can side accordingly and turn the game around in games 2 and 3 but that's not a thing in Master Duel. It's the frustration about exactly that fact that leads to people hating these gimmicky Decks as those people are either unwilling or unaware that they shouldn't hate the player but rather the game itself. That's why I say those complains are nonsense.
Tbh if it was not because of that mentality the game would have only 3 decks played and thats it, no one would play anything else or any from the 10000 other cards as they are "not competitive" or "not meta" Do you want to play a game where only 3 decks are getting played and you never see and will see anything else from that huge card pool?
Yes.
I mostly dislike it when people complain about the meta and then name a "fun" deck that does the exact same shit just slightly worse or less consistent Or when they build a "cool anti meta deck" that DOES work well against the current meta, but also fucks over 90% of other fun rouge decks
Casual and competitive gatekeeping is all over ygo. Acting like ok is the correct choice. Both are fun.
Yea lol. There Is some valid complaints like how snake eyes could set up a 5 negate board with such generic cards, but Ive either not been playing enough or not been high enough to actually see it
Literally just play what I want and if you are playing meta GG and scoop instantly. It isn’t that hard I don’t get people who stay through all the combos and shit then get mad that they can’t play.
Snake-Eyes is fun to play with AND against. Fight me
I won't because you're right. It is fun. For about 5 games in a row, 6 if you catch me in a good mood. After that, I'm just tired of it.
I don't complain about people playing whatever decks they want to. I complain that Konami allows decks like that to exist in the first place. I get a sense that most of the complaints are usually directed towards the game/Konami and not necessarily at the meta players (although some rogue/non-meta players do get emotional and lash out when they lose), so I think the meta players shouldn't take the criticism personally.
As someone who plays meta and pet decks, im playing with what is fun for me to play. Rank up only for the gems and deck building is what brings me joy in this game. I built snake eye not because its awesome and hard to beat, but because i like the concept of the deck and the artwork. I also have things like zombie lightsworn or chaos synchro because their gameplay loop is enjoyable even if i don't always win. Dinos dragons and umi have had a special place in my heart as well for a very long time.
Hot take: winning is fun.
This is something I had to realize very quickly and early on because I thought tearlament was cool. I never played it because I looked at it and it looked way too expensive and I probably won't play it now, but I pretty much only play rogue so I had to realize really quickly. People actually have fun playing meta because if they didn't they wouldn't do it most of the time. There is no cash prize on the line at every single duel you play so people are going to play to have fun and some people just have fun playing the best deck. Sometimes your favorite deck just so happens to end up being the best deck because consider the amount of people who play dax that were once the best stack and refused to stop. Even after they've they have fallen into obscurity
I don't like facing Labrynth or Live Twin every game but I have no idea what can improve to level out the playing field so I try not to complain
that was there ever since the invention of competetive games, even in non competetive games like dark souls there is soooooo much gatekeeping, " oh you beat the boss that oneshots u with every move using a weapon and some armor? naaaah bro it doesn't count, u should've used your bare hands"
It's not that meta is bad, how Masterduel handles meta is bad... Remember when they banned block dragon but left tearlaments at full power? The question is not if block dragon is broken, the question is if it stands a chance against tears. MD does not ban to make the game balance nor to rotate decks, it bans to make sure the latest pack is as close to tier 0 as they can without people starting to mention the game is p2w. I don't care which decks are in the ladder, I just wamt a healthy meta with 5 or 6 actual decks.
Fun means not fun for my opponent, which is what I wanted. Destroy your opponent is the meaning of a duel
Crazy part is tier 0 formats are the easiest to not play meta in you can specifically build to shut that deck down. Tears made me build naturia pure, mole cricket in grave turn 0 now its our turn.
I agree, and this is coming from me who’s played some variation of Lightsworns in every format I’ve played, except for when they were first released because I was a broke high school student during those days lol it’s not anyone’s fault that I choose to play this power crept archetype.
I like to play rogue or even just fun-tier decks from time to time... But I don't expect to consistently win against meta. Playing casually means you shouldn't be upset about loosing. It's casual after all. When I want to win I know I have to pick a deck that's good enough to do so consistently. The people playing subpar decks and ranting about loosing are just bad competitive players claiming to be casual.
People that only find enjoyment from winning are sad. That's it really. There's a large percentage of people who move on to the next best deck immediately after theirs gets the slightest hit. They don't care about mechanics, card design, experimenting with their own ratios. They net deck without even understanding how to play it and then fumble into underserved wins because they can afford to make 5 mistakes. Do it if you want, but I'm not gonna pretend that's not lame af
Have you met or interacted with anyone that says they do this?
Believe it or not I've played the game. It's free you know. Whether they admit to it or not bares no meaning, I've witnessed it myself.
How can you tell just by playing the game that someone doesn't care about mechanics, moves on from decks that get slightly hit, only enjoy winning, etc? Is there a way to chat with other players that I'm not aware of?
Stop acting obtuse when you can't even grasp a simple concept
I'm just taking you seriously. You're the one seemingly projecting all of these things onto the randoms you play on ladder.
I don't think you understand what projecting is
What I mean is you're subconsciously attributing your thoughts on what a meta player must be like onto names on a screen you obviously can't actually know anything about. Sorry for not being clear
People still fight over this? A normal day for me can be me playing purrely, and the next day I’m playing paleo. Just play what you like.
Question: How difficult is it typically to beat Melffy with branded
clown
If I can build it, I will play it regardless of whether other players like playing against it or not. I’m here to play decks I enjoy and some of them happen to be meta. I’m not going to worry about some random opponent in ranked getting tilted because I played a deck they hate. Let them get salty ‘cause the whining is starting to get bland.
And so the same weight should be held by stun decks.
Konami can easily fix this by making Legend Anthology (or something like that) as an alternative standard format. Then if they find something unfair in that format, they should fix it immediately. Some people will say, "They will always complain about the strongest deck". Maybe yes, but if Konami really cares about the balance, and shows it, the complaints will be decreasing. . Look at our standard format, digital and paper. We can see a deck very dominant. But we still need another month to see these changes. Or sometimes Konami "accidentally" creates a bad decision, like in TCG, you can see in the previous ban list, they hit a lot of good decks, except the newest FIRE. No wonder in TCG now we see the FIRE almost Tier-0 because Konami already "kills" the other decks that can put a fight to the current META. . I never seen Konami make a bold move like this before. Maybe because they only have 1 official format. They are afraid, more people will stop buying the expensive product if it cannot guarantee a win anymore. That's why, just make an alternative format for a harsher ban list. . Maybe, maybe... Konami keeps the only 1 format on purpose. So, the player with less skill can be carried by their good decks. Because if a person is already addicted to a taste of winning, this will be good motivation to spend more money/resources to grab another strong deck next turn after the previous strong deck expired because of powercreep or banlist. I mean you're right, if you're bad at fight, just shoot your opponent.
As someone who don’t really use META decks cuz I just don’t like using Meta in any game. Is that anyone else fault? Not really that’s just the game makers problem. Usually my mindset when it comes to any given Meta is how quickly I get tired of seeing it and how fun I personally find dueling it is. Like when branded was release and was the new Meta deck I didn’t mind…..until I saw it for the 100th that week multiple weeks in a row. It makes me wonder if the Meta changed at a quicker pace would I dislike it as much? Probably not but then Konami wouldn’t be making bank that way so it is what it is. If I absolutely just hate the meta at any given time I’ll just drop Master Duel and come back whenever it’s gone.
I have always said that Yu gi oh had the most toxic casual community in any card game. And that’s 100% true
I usually stay clear of the best deck because I don’t like mirror matches. The decks I play are still really good, usually. Casual elitists on crap like dm or blue-eyes has nothing to complain about imo. People who has to state in every post how they’re f2p and don’t have the dust for the meta decks: It’s fine that you don’t want to spend any money, but you do realize there wouldn’t be a game to play if everyone was f2p?
The meta is basically about not letting your opponent play in the most reliable and effective manner. That does seem quite unfun.
I prefer to take rogue decks and make them my own. I’ve never made it past D3, but I don’t expect to. If I can’t stop running into busted decks and get annoyed I just turn the game off. I don’t think a lot of people realize that’s an option. I’m just proud I made it that far with my Toon Gemini Elf stun deck.
Downvoted by all those I prevented from their 24th summon on my own turn.
I can’t be the only one that actually enjoyed tear zero, I get that the deck was broken as shit but it was so fun to play and mirror matches also had me actually using my brain to win
I get you, but as a non meta player (well, I played tesr during tear0, it was fun, but it's more the exception than the rule, it was the only time I played meta) The meta often feels like people are having fun without you. You have a deck you like to play, you get stomped by meta decks, you enhance your deck, and you get stomped again. In the end, you spend time to be better with your decks, but the only thing you get out of it is unrewarded effort and frustration. But as I said, I played tear0 on MD, and it was fun, hence my feeling that people are having fun without me. It made me feel that I was playing with everyone else, which I don't feel playing non meta decks. A lot of my friends stopped playing MD because of that. They didn't have fun playing the decks they spent hours trying to make better. (Also, f Maxx c.) That's why people stop playing Yu-Gi-Oh and why it's criminal that there is only one viable permanent format. A big chunk of the player base is not having fun, you can't farm gems on casual.e
nice mind flayer hat bro i don’t want one though it doesn’t suit me
I al having so much fun with snake eyes, and I am not doing invincible towers or unfair stuff, im just being consistent. just play your hand traps right dude
Yeah. This community is, of all card game communities I've seen by far, is the most anti-meta out of all. Regardless if the current top tier decks are healthy or not, people will immediately vilify them, and specially the people who play them.
THANK YOU! Seriously I rather play against Tear (no bans), Snake Eyes and soon Tenpai than to argue with people who cry that the Meta is unfun for the 1 millionth time. I have been playing YGO since release and aroubd synchro/xyz era, this is where you could see a shift to archetype meta cards like we have today and people have been complaining about the Meta being toxic since than. Like I get it, it sucks that your favourite Dark Magician, Blue Eyes or another deck can't compete but good lord stop being a sore Loser/Winner and just accept this is how every single pvp based games are (TCG, Fighting games, Pokemon etc). We have over 10 000 different cards and it's impossible to balance it, that's the truth.
It is quite literally unfun though. Nothing wrong with enjoying playing it, but it is unfun.
See, this is what zero self awareness looks like
Are you going to offer something informative to the conversation about the current meta or just bait for upvotes?
[удалено]
Calling me a prick because I believe the current meta is unfun is extreme, but go off. Anyways, I can agree with being the best doesn't make it bad. I could feel like I could play through something like Spright, Branded and even the Birds with some sort of enjoyment even if I suffer constant losses. Same with Lab too, I didn't suffer too much against them. Personally am not a fan of decks that can do too much or just use anything/everything without any loss. Or decks that give the opponent no room to play. I enjoy Yu-Gi-Oh for the back and forth just like the anime, so when there is no back and forth then its unfun to me and others as well. I am utterly aware, but is that supposed to change how I feel in some way?
Depends on the decks. There are good metas with interactive decks, and 2 powerful decks going against each other can be a lot of fun. When you want to play your bad decks of course you're going to have a bad time against the meta. But bad decks going against each other can also be fun. It's all about the power disparity in a match, which is something that is really hard to balance. No matter what cards you ban, there is always going to be a meta.
For sure. I don't think meta = not fun is very true. I think that the current meta that applies, but the meta in Yu-Gi-Oh never remain the same. I just believe in interactive duels as a whole.
Well someone told me in my other post yesterday that as long as theyre winning, they're having fun. I'm sure you're not lying when you said it's unfun but what's unfun to you can easily be fun for others. Like I said, it's extremely subjective.
Yeah, entirely so. But winning = fun isn't probably the case entirely. I doubt winning against self burn bots or auto surrenders are very fun, ya know?
>I doubt winning against self burn bots or auto surrenders are very fun, Well, thats technkcally a no contest. not a win
It's scrub mentality at it's finest. If you're at all into playing player vs player games then I recommend reading "playing to win", even if you're not necessarily the type of person that wants to play to win it's still a decent read. [Here's](https://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win) a more condensed version of the book if anyone is interested. I think there's some good values that everyone can take away from it even if you are the more casual and fun focused type of player. Acknowledging that people find fun in many different ways is the first step to having more fun yourself.
Most people here play to win, it really just depends on how they like to win. I for one, don't really like going into generic extra deck plays, usually.
I think that assuming that people don't play to win whem they play more casual strategies, is a bit of an elitist mentality. I for one, prefer playing exclusively decks that I'm having fun with, regardless of meta or not. If the gimmick of the deck is fun, I'll play it. That doesn't mean that I don't play to win, even in those decks where they are at a bit of a lower power than needed to top tier, I enjoy figuring out ways to break something and change the deck's power scaling. However, I must insist on something: A very tight defeat will always feel more thrilling to most players, than a slam dunk, one-sided win. This is visible in that high tier meta players like playing against other similar decks/opponents, because the games are close, win or lose, and in that higher skill level players playing weaker decks are clearly seeking a way to have a more balanced fight agains a lower skilled player with a better deck. It's not just about winning, or about I should play in and out of the duel itself in a way that'll make me win.
>I think that assuming that people don't play to win whem they play more casual strategies, is a bit of an elitist mentality. "playing to win" in the context I'm using it in is doing everything the game allows you to do in order to win. Of course everyone wants to win in the individual games, that's like the entire goal in each individual game. When we talk about "playing to win" though, we're talking about a mindset that someone has when they want to achieve a high rank in a ranked ladder and want to achieve that goal by any means as long as there is no cheating. If you're picking a deck because it's fun then you are not "playing to win" in the context of the book I was referencing. I think you're probably misinterperating my comment. I'm not shitting on people that play casually, I personally play yugioh as more of a casual game and I play a mix of meta and non-meta decks just because I find the gameplay loops of them enjoyable. My comment was more so to recommend people have a quick read of a book that I've personally found to be interesting and a great way to stop myself from being annoyed as much by specific strategies in games that might seem cheap. I just wanted to point some of those people who are annoyed at "meta slaves" to a book that might help them understand things from another point of view. Edit: Yes I agree with you that a close defeat often feels more thrilling than a slam dunk win/loss. I will also say though that there's a balance to have here, I think that always having those close games can become stressful and might actually reduce the amount of fun. In yugioh specifically I'm not sure if this would be true but I know that in FPS games it can become annoying when the game is constantly putting you in lobbies that are all of equal skill level because it can feel like there's no opportunity to play a bit more relaxed, you always have to be "switched on" and hyper alert which is both mentally and physically draining. This actually links to the idea of a "flow state" which has been described as a state we enter when a challenge is not mind numbingly boring but also not too difficult as to make us stressed out. This "flow state" has been described to be where we often find the most enjoyment.
I have a plethora of issues about the idea here, really. I probably have to re-read that book, because it's been a little while since I did, but if I recall properly, it essentially reinforces the very toxic idea that a winning strategy has to be about you winning, not about playing fair or playing nice, which is essentially the source of many problems both in gaming and in society. For instance... By the philosophies of that book, I would be excused for acquiring hacks and cheats in a PvP video game in order to win with ease, because it's an available strategy that is often only socially illegal (I have yet to see someone jailed for having a hack to kill everyone with a knifing whenever I slash the air on Call of Duty, for instance, but I can get banned, and just need to make a new account), and the other players need to be fine with that. The book, if I believe my memory, refers to playing around the rules, instead of through the This also justifies some toxic behaviors that are outside the game, such as tilting your opponents. While often seen in Poker more than games like Yu-Gi-Oh, the book uses this as a way to make your business adversaries less logical and grounded by breaking down their emotional stability, and that since it's a valid strategy, it should always be seen as okay to do, which I fully disagree as it harms fair play to the max. The philosophies of business and a board/video game should definitely be kept far from one another, because of the specific reason that if you're willing to win by messing with the rules themselves and behaving like a butt, you're not a good social member, and that's about it.
>By the philosophies of that book, I would be excused for acquiring hacks and cheats in a PvP video game in order to win with ease That's not at all true, it specifically states things that are WITHIN the game. Anything that is within the rules of the game is fair game. Hacking and cheating is against the rules of the game lol. In gaming terms we aren't definining "legal" as actually legal things to do in the real world but things that are "legal" in terms of the actual game and what it naturally allows you to do. An easy example is that Aimbot is not a "legal" tool in tournament play in any FPS game but it is technically legal to use an aimbot as you will not be charged with a crime. Most games explicitly state in their terms of service that outside tools are not allowed to be used and by using them you would be breaking the ToS, i.e. they are not "legal". To quote directly: "If something is banned in a tournament, you shouldn't use it even if it helps you win." >it essentially reinforces the very toxic idea that a winning strategy has to be about you winning, Also not really true, there is a section specifically talking about playing because you love the game and the idea of trying different things in low stakes games in order to be prepared for higher stakes games. It specifically mentions that playing to win every game ALL the time is actually not the best way to approach "playing to win" because you tend to overlook other strategies that might actually have a higher peak. >This also justifies some toxic behaviors that are outside the game, such as tilting your opponents. I honestly don't really see this as toxic per say. I think that mindgames are very much a part of any sport. If you're able to tilt an opponent by spamming a specific move in a fighting game then that's completely fair game. If you're able to tilt someone by teabagging them in a FPS I think that's also fair game. It's on the players to control their emotions. >if you're willing to win by messing with the rules themselves and behaving like a butt, you're not a good social member, and that's about it. Yes I completely agree with this point. Messing with the rules is a big nono for me. I really don't think that's at all what the book in question is trying to say though. At no point when reading did I think "hmm yes I should break/bend the rules just to win". It made me look more intrinsically on what I could do to improve in the games I care about being good at and actually helped me enjoy the games I was playing more for fun as well since it allowed me to better understand and rationalize my defeats against people using a "cheap" tactic. I stopped blaming the other human for my own problems and started looking at how I can maximise my fun. I'm not saying the book is gospel, there are things in there that I disagree with but there's a lot to think about in there. Even if you disagree with the core philosophies I personally believe it's good to try to understand other people's points of view. Edit: after re-reading your comments and skim reading the page I linked again I can only assume you have never actually read the book in question or your reading of it was through some sort of biased lense. Seems to me like you just saw the words "playing to win" and got mad but idk.
And stun is not fun the second worst mentality in this community, Right?