Time for a new set?

One per 2 months, released on the 1st of each intended month.

Discussion thread opened 2 weeks previous - theme, name, intended support, level of "genericness", archetype slots (2 given based on levels of activity, time as a member and current amount of archetypes in the card pool), amount of support to existing deck themes permitted, and any other thoughts to be discussed.

One week prior to release, submissions opened - all submissions by a single person to be kept to one post, all edits made to be specified in a later post. No limit to submissions for each person, but asked that it be kept to a reasonable amount. New Archetypes to be kept to a maximum of 10 cards per archetype, 3 card maximum support for existing Archetypes. Submissions closed 3 days before set release, this time is intended for anybody to raise concerns over any cards, final edits and to collaborate the set, fixing any coding or ocg errors.

We're about a month and some days due. yeah, i know that activity is dwindling and stuffs.
Imo it's better that we have the new set first before the Spring season tournaments, so peeps have slews of new stuffs to test during the tourney. So, discussion starts now.

iirc i was holding sets hostage in exchange for activity

I'm thinking we have this next set to boost activity then say that a tournament has to be ran before we can do a new set?

A no Archetypes set would be awesome.

personally, i like staple set. with added support for as many decks as possible. New decktype is good, but we can expand on what we have right now tbh.

I agree on the staple set!

what

staple set is a fucking awful idea as it gives people license to submit stupid butt broken cards on the basis that it would be a staple.

also we don't need focus on decktype support either - unless every decktype gets supported then it threatens to break up the metagame further by isolating those with strong support at the top and everything else gets shat on.

every single time we say "oh, this time just give x some support this set instead" it turns out fucking terrible by giving some decks support that is too good, or we give decks support that is completely non-synergetic and borderline unusable.

proposed staples and decktype support are fine but must be dealt with IN MODERATION. we're not konami, we want a stable and fair game here

no one ever said "let's make broken cards"...

We meant make splashable cards, not broken cards. Quit raging.

take it easy ash, its just an idea. also since apparently I messed up with the staple set wording so it sounds like a set filled with staples, when i meant it like dylan said, a set with splashable cards. sorry.

A set themed to be filled mostly with cards designed to be staple would suck, yeah. mainly since people may end up remaking non generic cards they have, and make it generic (so the potential of having shitton of broke cards is there, there's been a case where stuff that ended up generic caused some problem iirc).

Still, our synchro and Xyz pool need work. They need variety, and we kinda need more higher ranks Xyz.

not every staple should be in the main deck, right? also

also on supports for existing decks, what i hope it can achieve is to give equal standing to all decks, but i see your point on imbalanced support spread. I agree with it, seeing that what's intended to be supportive may end up being broken, underpowered, or even create a new deck, defeating the whole purpose of supporting a deck.

in short: all staple is horrible, better include cards that fits into many decks or playstyles. Support set can be done, in heavy moderation as you said.

i wasn't raging.

but what i do find annoying is that we try to emphasize generics, balance and an even playing field and then you all go an demand fucking archetypes and sets whenever you want

then later, you decide you don't want archetypes and just want to submit generics and shit and disregard set stability.

we dont need a staples set, a support set or even an archetype set because no matter which, you will overcentralize and that is completely against everything that we're trying to do. are we really unable to have a regular set that caters to each individual need?

arguably all of our worst sets are those that have tried to focus on one aspect of the game and you all want to keep doing that.

so, with all due respect, your suggestions are shit

thanks!

hmm, i agree with you. mainly because i'm bad at explaining and often contradicts myself and also because i see your points
it's a discussion anyway, one idea is sent to the dust bin, and then another idea is special summoned to the discussion side of the field.
so, anyone else wants to contribute?

are we really unable to have a regular set that caters to each individual need?

my suggestion? normal set. no gimmicks, just a moderately sized set with a few archetypes and people submitting some generics and some support.

nice and simple and covers anything you'd want to cover by having a focused set and more.

it's not hard people

but...I supported the Corrupted Clown stuff good, right?