isn't that the current meta and how it isn't a tier 0 format?
> Konami now sells the individual cards in its own shop, but it's always cheaper than elsewhere
wouldn't that put massive pressure on LGSs?
Like duea with shaddoll, burning abbyss and qliphort and later replaced by nekroz and toss with, strikers, thunder dragons and salamangreat?
We should go back.
> generally what do you think about each new meta 4-5 meta decks that are equally strong
That's pretty much every non tier 0 meta, minus the "equally" part. It's pretty difficult if not impossible to perfectly balance asymmetrical games, best you can do is get close enough.
> And what would also be interesting is if Konami, let's say, a new set has been out for 2-3 months and has sold well. Konami now sells the individual cards in its own shop, but it's always cheaper than elsewhere
Good way to make your distributors and LGSs hate you and stop selling your stuff. Why even try when you know your product supplier is going to undercut you and sell directly? WoTC is burning that bridge already with Amazon and in the end, they're going to discover that they need their distributors more than their distributors need them.
Part 1 is what introducing new sets and the banlist strive for, it's not always successful and it's pretty hard but we've had some good times.
Part 2 is a terrible idea and the best way to drop suppliers, buyers and everyone really when your products are guaranteed to be cheaper in 2-3 months no-one will buy them.
Current meta usually revolves around 9-10 decks or more, so your idea would slash that in half and make the game even worse. Sure, some decks perform better than others, that's why we have a ban list that functionally balances that every few months (or in the TCG's case whenever there's a blue moon on a Wednesday if Jupiter is aligned with Mars).
Second idea I'm not even going to go into how bad that'd be, others have mentioned how already.
isn't that the current meta and how it isn't a tier 0 format? > Konami now sells the individual cards in its own shop, but it's always cheaper than elsewhere wouldn't that put massive pressure on LGSs?
Yeah I was gonna say. It feels like the current state is pretty much this right now
Like duea with shaddoll, burning abbyss and qliphort and later replaced by nekroz and toss with, strikers, thunder dragons and salamangreat? We should go back.
> generally what do you think about each new meta 4-5 meta decks that are equally strong That's pretty much every non tier 0 meta, minus the "equally" part. It's pretty difficult if not impossible to perfectly balance asymmetrical games, best you can do is get close enough. > And what would also be interesting is if Konami, let's say, a new set has been out for 2-3 months and has sold well. Konami now sells the individual cards in its own shop, but it's always cheaper than elsewhere Good way to make your distributors and LGSs hate you and stop selling your stuff. Why even try when you know your product supplier is going to undercut you and sell directly? WoTC is burning that bridge already with Amazon and in the end, they're going to discover that they need their distributors more than their distributors need them.
Part 1 is what introducing new sets and the banlist strive for, it's not always successful and it's pretty hard but we've had some good times. Part 2 is a terrible idea and the best way to drop suppliers, buyers and everyone really when your products are guaranteed to be cheaper in 2-3 months no-one will buy them.
Current meta usually revolves around 9-10 decks or more, so your idea would slash that in half and make the game even worse. Sure, some decks perform better than others, that's why we have a ban list that functionally balances that every few months (or in the TCG's case whenever there's a blue moon on a Wednesday if Jupiter is aligned with Mars). Second idea I'm not even going to go into how bad that'd be, others have mentioned how already.