|
|
Post by JerkJerk on Feb 19, 2014 2:40:36 GMT -6
This is a relatively controversial thing that many players differ with. How do you eliminate cards? How do you know that a certain ratio is better than another? When do ratios become "consistent"?
These types of questions are hard to answer.
So, I ask you, how do you cut cards from your build, and why do you do it?
|
|
|
|
Post by thursday on Feb 19, 2014 3:30:20 GMT -6
Unless it's power cards or combo pieces, I like to test with two and work my way from there. If I'm not seeing it enough or at times I need it, I'll bump it to three. If I find it dead often or I draw it at times when I don't need it I'll bump it down to one.
With combo pieces I tend to start at three where I see fit and work my way down through tons of testing. This way if I get a card(s) that I draw too much or draw when they're not needed I can cut them for more useful cards I wouldn't mind drawing in place of the extra copies.
So really, it boils down to how cards and ratios test in actual duels. Of course not everyone plays the same. Some people play more aggressive and others play more conservatively, so the ratios aren't going to be the same for everyone. I tend to only explode when I know it's a good opportunity so I feel like I can afford only playing two of certain cards, where as someone who likes to go balls to the wall would be much better off playing three copies of the same card because they potentially lose them more often.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragda on Feb 19, 2014 5:23:07 GMT -6
Certain ratios are decided upon not only on the basis of frequency or consistency, but to also to meet the demands of the locals.
Depending on what your locals play, you may decide to not max out on backrow removal but more negation. Kinda like choosing to be proactive or reactive. Maybe too many backrow is easily chainable, so MST looks worse here. You may consider Seven Tools if it's very Trap heavy of a backrow. In cases where you see something in between, you then decide to get a combination of ratios of both cards, or other similar cards that fit those roles.
On that note, different cards that play similar roles can interchangeably swap slots. 3 MST can be 2 MST 1 Trap Stun, MSTs could be swapped out for Forbidden Lances, Effect Veilers and Fiendish Chains, Swift Scarecrow and Battle Fader if you're not deciding to pack both, etc.
The case for redundancy is also important. Depending on your deck's goals, you may find you will burn through copies of particular cards more often than you'd like, so having 3 and 2 copies can mean a difference there, and that is much more pronounced when 2 copies vs 1 is the case instead. Sometimes you don't want to draw all the copies too soon. You might like to keep at least 1 target left in deck for something like Obedience School, and if you pack only 1 copy of such cards it summons, then that play is unavailable for the rest of the duel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ursiel on Feb 21, 2014 10:35:43 GMT -6
To me it depends on the type of deck you play. I play a lot of combo-oriented decks so I use a lot of cards in full sets. After that I decide what is most needed to support the combo pieces, play testing helps decide whether 2 is better than 3 of those so that I can fit in more "all purpose" cards.
|
|
|
|
Post by bystander on Feb 21, 2014 12:44:49 GMT -6
Unless it's power cards or combo pieces, I like to test with two and work my way from there. If I'm not seeing it enough or at times I need it, I'll bump it to three. If I find it dead often or I draw it at times when I don't need it I'll bump it down to one. I usually start @ 3 then work my way down. But it also depends on the deck type, playstyle, and personal preference. |
|
|
|
Post by thursday on Feb 22, 2014 17:18:09 GMT -6
Unless it's power cards or combo pieces, I like to test with two and work my way from there. If I'm not seeing it enough or at times I need it, I'll bump it to three. If I find it dead often or I draw it at times when I don't need it I'll bump it down to one. I usually start @ 3 then work my way down. But it also depends on the deck type, playstyle, and personal preference. Yah, personal preference is a huge part of it. |
|
|
|
Post by ragda on Feb 23, 2014 3:07:49 GMT -6
And for some, it's a matter of availability (if talking about IRL). Playstyle and personal stuff aside, there's usually some logic behind not going full three or doing so. For example, one would hopefully never need to have 3 Gagaga Cowboy, that's kind of a waste, and you really only summon it for the one turn to burn LP 800 or less. You never really expect it to live longer than that anyways, and you don't want to "waste" two more monsters to do the same job (in one turn) that the first Cowboy can do if it survives the first turn it's around.
|
|
|
|
Post by bystander on Feb 23, 2014 7:51:53 GMT -6
And for some, it's a matter of availability (if talking about IRL). Playstyle and personal stuff aside, there's usually some logic behind not going full three or doing so. For example, one would hopefully never need to have 3 Gagaga Cowboy, that's kind of a waste, and you really only summon it for the one turn to burn LP 800 or less. You never really expect it to live longer than that anyways, and you don't want to "waste" two more monsters to do the same job (in one turn) that the first Cowboy can do if it survives the first turn it's around. ^ true enough. |
|
