What kind of format do you prefer? – Poll

Written by | July 12, 2009 | 40 comments | 155 views | Rating: +1

Today we have a poll for you to answer…

What kind of format do you prefer?

  • Wide open playing field (45%, 25 Votes)
  • Two to four solid decks (33%, 18 Votes)
  • One clear cut best deck (22%, 12 Votes)

Total Voters: 55

Loading ... Loading ...

Let us know what you think! Did you enjoy playing Pokemon last year when Gardevoir/Gallade was dominant all year? Do you like having a couple solid options to choose from? Or do you prefer a format where every deck has a fighting chance? Cast your vote and join the discussion!

(Jeremy and I will post our responses at a later date as we do not want to influence the voting.)

Please login or register in order to rate this article.

You should write for 6P! Click here to get started...
Image Credits: Pokemon Paradijs, Pokegym, Pokebeach

Like Us!

Commenting Etiquette

Be cool. That's all we ask. The writers and editors put a lot of time into bringing you these articles, so show some respect. It's ok to be critical, but please be civil about it. Don't embarrass yourself in front of everyone by making juvenile remarks because you may regret it later. If you have issue with someone, "Get a room." Nobody wants to see your childish back-and-forth banter. Think twice before commenting, use proper grammar, HAVE FUN, and thanks for adding to the conversation!

  • quaziko

    The more options, the more strategy with deck choices, and many more interesting matches that one must be aware of. A format full of one or two dominant decks is dull, and ruins the fun of trying out new ideas or decks, instead of just finding the one tech or two to put in the dominant deck to get a slight edge. No one likes playing constant mirror matches, no matter how much an edge they might feel they have.

    The best format in the last 5 years was undoubtedly the Absolutions year, with a plethora of good decks to use, such as RaiEggs, Metanite, Absolutions, Flygon ex, Infernape, Banette ex, Flariados, etc. That was a fun and exciting year, especially the later and larger tournaments.

  • quaziko

    The more options, the more strategy with deck choices, and many more interesting matches that one must be aware of. A format full of one or two dominant decks is dull, and ruins the fun of trying out new ideas or decks, instead of just finding the one tech or two to put in the dominant deck to get a slight edge. No one likes playing constant mirror matches, no matter how much an edge they might feel they have.

    The best format in the last 5 years was undoubtedly the Absolutions year, with a plethora of good decks to use, such as RaiEggs, Metanite, Absolutions, Flygon ex, Infernape, Banette ex, Flariados, etc. That was a fun and exciting year, especially the later and larger tournaments.

  • http://nigredo.proboards.com/ BiskitFoo

    Having a wide open format has its positives and negatives. I constantly hear from people today that it’s too difficult to figure out a deck decision for a premier event in order to do well. Games, I see too often, come down to what techs you have for so-and-so bad match ups. Techs, sometimes, can be game winners, and then there’s the times that they can be flat out dead weight in your deck. On the positive side, there is no dominant deck, which is healthy, as much as I hate to say it. Every archetype seems to have a solid chance to win a tournament. On another note, you don’t have to play constant mirrors in a tournament, which keeps the format fresh, and fun. I will admit it is MUCH easier to play in a format with only a few dominant archetypes, they can be countered much more easily. I, sometimes, get frustrated that there isn’t the rogue deck out there can sweep a large tournament with ease, such as Queendom did in 2005, or Delta did in Nationals 2006.

    I will have to say my favorite format was the 2005-2006 format. Delta, LBS, Flariados, MewTric, DragTrode, ZRE, LunaRock, Metanite, Shedinja Stall, LudiCargo, SMP, and Queendom. All great decks, with some that didn’t have any bad match ups.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7RI3R7YN4GXE4Z7N53MHNEZF7E Dakota Streck

      What about Eeveelutions?

  • http://nigredo.proboards.com BiskitFoo

    Having a wide open format has its positives and negatives. I constantly hear from people today that it’s too difficult to figure out a deck decision for a premier event in order to do well. Games, I see too often, come down to what techs you have for so-and-so bad match ups. Techs, sometimes, can be game winners, and then there’s the times that they can be flat out dead weight in your deck. On the positive side, there is no dominant deck, which is healthy, as much as I hate to say it. Every archetype seems to have a solid chance to win a tournament. On another note, you don’t have to play constant mirrors in a tournament, which keeps the format fresh, and fun. I will admit it is MUCH easier to play in a format with only a few dominant archetypes, they can be countered much more easily. I, sometimes, get frustrated that there isn’t the rogue deck out there can sweep a large tournament with ease, such as Queendom did in 2005, or Delta did in Nationals 2006.

    I will have to say my favorite format was the 2005-2006 format. Delta, LBS, Flariados, MewTric, DragTrode, ZRE, LunaRock, Metanite, Shedinja Stall, LudiCargo, SMP, and Queendom. All great decks, with some that didn’t have any bad match ups.

  • http://www.adamcapriola.com/ Adam Capriola

    Now THAT is a comment! Thanks for the insight BiskitFoo! 2005-2006 was a good format, there were a lot of deck choices out there and yes, not having to play mirror matches or against the same deck every round was really nice.

  • http://www.sixprizes.com Adam

    Now THAT is a comment! Thanks for the insight BiskitFoo! 2005-2006 was a good format, there were a lot of deck choices out there and yes, not having to play mirror matches or against the same deck every round was really nice.

  • Xicious

    I like smaller formats where the two best decks are obvious. It gives me plenty of time to learn the deck inside and out, I get to customize it with my own techs and builds, and I learn what to do against the other decks in the format. With a wide open field a lot of testing for different decks has to be done and time is a rarity these days for a lot of people. Not to mention I hate testing on apprentice. Just seems like too much if you ask me.

  • Xicious

    I like smaller formats where the two best decks are obvious. It gives me plenty of time to learn the deck inside and out, I get to customize it with my own techs and builds, and I learn what to do against the other decks in the format. With a wide open field a lot of testing for different decks has to be done and time is a rarity these days for a lot of people. Not to mention I hate testing on apprentice. Just seems like too much if you ask me.

  • Xicious

    I like smaller formats where the two best decks are obvious. It gives me plenty of time to learn the deck inside and out, I get to customize it with my own techs and builds, and I learn what to do against the other decks in the format. With a wide open field a lot of testing for different decks has to be done and time is a rarity these days for a lot of people. Not to mention I hate testing on apprentice. Just seems like too much if you ask me.

  • yoyofsho16

    People can say they hated GG all they want… but I LOVED it. As noted my Jeremy, way easier to tech against and such.

    This year’s Nationals was the hardest tournament to prepare for, ever. There are so many decks, it is crazy. So much was decided by who you got paired up with.

  • yoyofsho16

    People can say they hated GG all they want… but I LOVED it. As noted my Jeremy, way easier to tech against and such.

    This year’s Nationals was the hardest tournament to prepare for, ever. There are so many decks, it is crazy. So much was decided by who you got paired up with.

  • yoyofsho16

    People can say they hated GG all they want… but I LOVED it. As noted my Jeremy, way easier to tech against and such.

    This year’s Nationals was the hardest tournament to prepare for, ever. There are so many decks, it is crazy. So much was decided by who you got paired up with.

  • http://www.adamcapriola.com/ Adam Capriola

    That’s rad that we have people going all ways on this topic. Nice to hear everyone’s viewpoints.

  • http://www.adamcapriola.com/ Adam Capriola

    That’s rad that we have people going all ways on this topic. Nice to hear everyone’s viewpoints.

  • http://www.sixprizes.com Adam

    That’s rad that we have people going all ways on this topic. Nice to hear everyone’s viewpoints.

  • vitor2097

    like biskit said before: “Having a wide open format has its positives and negatives.”

  • vitor2097

    like biskit said before: “Having a wide open format has its positives and negatives.”

  • vitor2097

    like biskit said before: “Having a wide open format has its positives and negatives.”

  • Stigma

    I personally love 2-4 dominant decks, where a ROGUE can be found to beat them. This format is missing that rogue deck…I honestly can’t find ANYTHING that would have a + matchup the entire format, or at least 50-50. Not healthy, imo.

  • Stigma

    I personally love 2-4 dominant decks, where a ROGUE can be found to beat them. This format is missing that rogue deck…I honestly can’t find ANYTHING that would have a + matchup the entire format, or at least 50-50. Not healthy, imo.

  • Stigma

    I personally love 2-4 dominant decks, where a ROGUE can be found to beat them. This format is missing that rogue deck…I honestly can’t find ANYTHING that would have a + matchup the entire format, or at least 50-50. Not healthy, imo.

  • http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=logo#/profile.php?id=552027746&ref=profile brian

    ^Luxape was rouge and has solid matchups across the board, at least against most decks. Gigas was rouge when it came out and had solid matchups too, at least against non-champ infected decks. Legos had solid matchups across the board, against minus champ….Sounds like rogue decks need to be basic based and have some sort of answer to champ to be successful. lol

  • http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=logo#/profile.php?id=552027746&ref=profile brian

    ^Luxape was rouge and has solid matchups across the board, at least against most decks. Gigas was rouge when it came out and had solid matchups too, at least against non-champ infected decks. Legos had solid matchups across the board, against minus champ….Sounds like rogue decks need to be basic based and have some sort of answer to champ to be successful. lol

  • http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=logo#/profile.php?id=552027746&ref=profile brian

    ^Luxape was rouge and has solid matchups across the board, at least against most decks. Gigas was rouge when it came out and had solid matchups too, at least against non-champ infected decks. Legos had solid matchups across the board, against minus champ….Sounds like rogue decks need to be basic based and have some sort of answer to champ to be successful. lol

  • Stigma

    Luxape definitely wasn’t rogue, trust me. A LOT of people were testing it and keeping it back from BRs for a while because it took a while to perfect. Just because you couldn’t see something that was blatantly obvious coming DOESN’T make it rogue.

  • Stigma

    Luxape definitely wasn’t rogue, trust me. A LOT of people were testing it and keeping it back from BRs for a while because it took a while to perfect. Just because you couldn’t see something that was blatantly obvious coming DOESN’T make it rogue.

  • Stigma

    Luxape definitely wasn’t rogue, trust me. A LOT of people were testing it and keeping it back from BRs for a while because it took a while to perfect. Just because you couldn’t see something that was blatantly obvious coming DOESN’T make it rogue.

  • http://www.adamcapriola.com/ Adam Capriola

    Yeah from what I understand, all everyone was talking about before Nationals was Luxray/Infernape. I didn’t go, but I am fairly certain it was not rogue.

  • http://www.adamcapriola.com/ Adam Capriola

    Yeah from what I understand, all everyone was talking about before Nationals was Luxray/Infernape. I didn’t go, but I am fairly certain it was not rogue.

  • http://www.sixprizes.com Adam

    Yeah from what I understand, all everyone was talking about before Nationals was Luxray/Infernape. I didn’t go, but I am fairly certain it was not rogue.

  • CoolCallum

    I liked the format with the team rocket set in.

  • CoolCallum

    I liked the format with the team rocket set in.

  • CoolCallum

    I liked the format with the team rocket set in.

  • jimbo

    I love a very narrow format of decks, allows interesting techs and unique blends from every player.
    (FIRST COMMENT ON THIS POST FOR 6 MONTHS)

  • jimbo

    I love a very narrow format of decks, allows interesting techs and unique blends from every player.
    (FIRST COMMENT ON THIS POST FOR 6 MONTHS)

  • jimbo

    I love a very narrow format of decks, allows interesting techs and unique blends from every player.
    (FIRST COMMENT ON THIS POST FOR 6 MONTHS)

  • SMGausch

    Jimbo thanks for posting, I never would have seen this otherwise. I like the format how it is now, with so many options. Last weekend I attended two CC’s about 40 miles apart the decks that went 5-0/4-1 and places the 1st 1-4/3-2 the next. Anyone with a good list can do well with some luck in pairings and good play. This allows newer players to have a shot at doing well and you don’t have to spend a ton of money on the main lines everyone else wants. I just think its good for the game, and The best players still find themselves at the top more than not.

  • SMGausch

    Jimbo thanks for posting, I never would have seen this otherwise. I like the format how it is now, with so many options. Last weekend I attended two CC’s about 40 miles apart the decks that went 5-0/4-1 and places the 1st 1-4/3-2 the next. Anyone with a good list can do well with some luck in pairings and good play. This allows newer players to have a shot at doing well and you don’t have to spend a ton of money on the main lines everyone else wants. I just think its good for the game, and The best players still find themselves at the top more than not.

  • SMGausch

    Jimbo thanks for posting, I never would have seen this otherwise. I like the format how it is now, with so many options. Last weekend I attended two CC’s about 40 miles apart the decks that went 5-0/4-1 and places the 1st 1-4/3-2 the next. Anyone with a good list can do well with some luck in pairings and good play. This allows newer players to have a shot at doing well and you don’t have to spend a ton of money on the main lines everyone else wants. I just think its good for the game, and The best players still find themselves at the top more than not.