YGO Without Archetypes

[LordCowCow 839]

Everyone knows I know nothing about the game. But I still was thinking about this and wondered something.

How different would YGO be, and could it even function, if it wasn't so based on Archetypes?

[Summer Darj 292]

I can only think the game and decks would be more like Goat Format, Highlander, or recently the "Link goodstuff" decks that spawned in OCG. That is, a bunch of cards and techs that work well without each other without sharing any name or archetype name. Because of "no archetypes", engines wouldn't be an option, however. That means decks like H.A.T.s, other mix & matches of engines, or splashable searchers such as Denglong and PK Rusty Bardiche, wouldn't be things.
Thus, I think it would be an enjoyable game. Not only you will have to be clever enough to build functional and synergistic decks out of techs, also most likely there would be a lot of diversity, as well as players choosing their own "secret techs" for giving personal touches to their decks in addition to surprise factors. Although I guess eventually formats would settle into ~3 deck variants proven to be effective. I think cases of "tier 0" formats would be unlikely, but IDK.

Edited March 7, 2019 by Darj

[Hina's Simp 96]

This question is a massive pain to even consider. This is like MtG without Planes, as archetypes are the equivalent of that for YGO. Holy shit, there would be nothing gimmicky and something else would assume the role of "Archetypes" be it Super Type, Attribute, etc. It is simply that there are decks that need to follow a pattern, with archetypes being a moniker for what those patterns are. Otherwise, it would be something different. 

[Summer Darj 292]

Warriors, Spellcasters and Dinosaurs would be the closest to archetypes, since they got plenty Type-based support around. Maybe Dragons too, if only because Guardragons support Dragons rather than "Guardragon" monsters.

[Sleepy 211]

The game would need to rely on weaker variants of effects with potential for variations of the same essentials (like RotA or removal) to not repeat the issue of Goat Control days when the same 20 to 30 limited cards were staples in the best decks. They'd have to support 2 or so traits of a monster, and with 20 types and 6 attributes the game originally started with, you have 120 combinations that get the chance to cross-support other areas. Plus adding extra types/attributes, support for other mechanics (Trap Monsters, Tokens, Rituals, Fusions, or things like "a monster that can have a counter on it" that Spell Counters are doing).

There's enough combinations for safely designing for a long time, and new releases (realistically speaking) could fill in the role of good old power creep, but now you'd be hunting for support for cards you already potentially have, as opposed to a full brand new archetype of cards needed for a deck. Over time the game would still probably start making cards with a pattern in their effects that are meant to be played together, but without supporting them by name in this case.

I think it'd be a little more effort for Konami to design cards for it, but not unreasonably so, and the model would be a little more friendly towards casuals and newbies, where they can actually buy a pack and expect to potentially pull something they might be able to use regardless of the set and give off the feel you are building your custom strategy even if the developers still intended for certain cards to be used together (unless the individual design is so continuously narrow they might as well be archetypes, in that case, just make archetypes.... I think stuff like the generic cards people sometimes do at CC, that are neither necessarily top tier material nor pack filler without a place).


. . . it depends on execution but the idea itself would not be bad.
 

[Tinkerer 42]

17 hours ago, Darj said:

Warriors, Spellcasters and Dinosaurs would be the closest to archetypes, since they got plenty Type-based support around. Maybe Dragons too, if only because Guardragons support Dragons rather than "Guardragon" monsters.

Those are funny ways of spelling Zombie /j

Sleepy pretty much said it all.  They'd probably try to narrow it down one way or another w/o archetypes.  The most logical thing would be combining traits to support specific cards.  "Return of the Dragon Lords" is a good example of how it'd probably look.  The banlist would probably be relegated almost entirely to generically useful power cards over combo pieces and loop-enablers.

[Summer Darj 292]

Oh yeah, Zombies got a lot of support without relying too much on archetype playstyle. Ironically, Zombie archetypes don't stand out as much as Zombie goodstuff decks xD

I'm starting to think it could be possible to arrange a non-Archetype custom format and give it a shot in a tournament. It would be a matter of banning all cards with effects that support archetypes and see how things turn out. or alternatively make disable the effects by rule, so that we wouldn't have to ban, let's say, Overtex Quatlus, which has an effect that support the "Evolution Pill" archetype of Spells, or access Links such as Rusty Bardiche for its materials and makers, even if its effects would be disabled.