Yo guys, it's Enndo again.
The past few seasons of the War League (the most competitive GOAT format championship) have shown a lot of upsets. A lot of unpredictable wins and losses. Superteams and Legends went down blaming luck and the “sacky” character of this format: “Format sucks, what do you expect?” Some others have theorized that the new gen has really become as good as the old. But I have my own theories.
It's true that a lot of players have gotten better over the years. It's also true that if two players play at the exact same level, only luck can decide their encounter. But looking at the replays, you can still see more misplays in the “new great players” games and crazy plays/bluffs made by the “legends.” There's still a difference in level. So what's the problem? The difference is not enough for it to matter more than luck in the current conditions.
The only reason you always see the same people in the top cut of tournaments is because there's skill involved in this game. Skill only comes down to playing a good deck, outplaying your opponent, and not outplaying yourself. This very simple theory took most top players very far until now. They chose the best deck of the format in terms of power and consistency and prayed to the GOAT format gods to give them good hands. The problem is that if your opponent is doing the same, to win you will need him to misplay somewhere. And if he refuses to do so, you will need to be able to provoke a misplay.
In chess, when a professional player plays an average player, he doesn't change his play pattern. He knows that at some point the dude will misplay (make an imprecision, as we say in chess). But it's a completely different story if he plays against a player that is just a bit worse than him — a candidate master, for example. In this case, he will start thinking: “Ok, I know my opponent will hold the draw if I just let him play as he wants. He is good, he won't misplay by himself. I need to choose a strategy that will increase the strategic or tactical complexity of the game and reveal his true level.” Chess masters know that you can't just expect the position to be sufficiently complex for you to outplay your opponent. You have to MAKE the position more complex.
You will immediately tell me: “But there's no draw in YGO, so the comparison doesn't hold!” And you would be missing the point. What I am saying is that when the position is sufficiently complex, the better player almost always wins — in both games. In chess, when the position is too simple, the worse player (who can still play “ok”) will hold the draw. In YGO, when the position is too simple, luck will be the deciding factor. Both players play the best deck, both players don't make misplays, it's impossible to force misplays --> it all comes down to luck.
So now that we've come to this conclusion, where does this leave us? How do you actually “up the complexity”? What does that even mean? It actually means two things. First, there need to be more actual cards and/or turns played. Second, there need to be more CRITICAL decisions to be made by your opponent. And they need to be harder.
It's very easy to figure that out. Just look at “good players'” games in WL and ask yourself: “When do they misplay?” You will notice the same thing as me:
- When there are too many cards to think about and the calculation has become non-trivial
- When they are under tremendous pressure and it's impossible to clearly calculate a way to stay alive no matter what
People are not dumb. If there's a logical way out, a clear best play that can be found in under two minutes, they will find it — even if they're just good. Complexity is what happens when the right play, the way out, would need countless discussions and back-and-forth arguments from multiple sides. That's the type of games top players should strive for to win against good players, to show the difference between them.
Now, before finishing this article, a couple of points. First off, yes I'm implying that Turbo and Warrior lead to too many non-skill matches — or just “minimal skill” matches. Top Players will need to cook something that is objectively as good as those two decks and, at the same time, much more complex more consistently (not just “sometimes it leads to complex games” — it needs to be all the time). Secondly, the deck would need to have “comeback potential no matter what.” If you want skill to be more important than luck, you need not to lose against bursts of luck from the good player. Deck can't fold to just one or two Trinity. Finally, you need to be aware of the control deck trap. Yes, this deck can lead to complex game states; yes, you can come back from almost anything. But you're not putting pressure. The fact of the matter is that even if cards are amassing on both sides, if there's no pressure, the opponent won't make misplays.
So I don't have all the answers to my own questions, but the problem is laid out. If some top players decide to give up on their deck edge over a lot of the bullshit you see running around (Earth Aggro, Zombie, regular GC, etc.), and choose instead to embrace a deck that has no edge over anything, isn't worse than anything either, but in return can reliably complexify the game state AND put tremendous pressure, I predict that they will start tracing a definite line again between themselves and the masses.