Forum talk:Decks for Free!

Deckbuilder's Discussion
Alright, let me know when you've watched this page (by posting on the page). If you all watch this page, it should be a lot easier to communicate with you all at once. --Tantara (talk) 22:27, July 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. --Blue (Talk) 23:40, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm Following. 01:24, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here. Havent been on the wikia for a while. Took a couple of requests. ~NYKid 80.78.79.153 (talk) 17:04, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Hey NYKid, I've seen a lot of your stuff on TCGplayer. Anyways, I'll wait till everyone posts here. I have an idea that I'd like to bring up. --Tantara (talk) 20:38, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Here as well.--Akiza Izayoi (talk • contribs) 01:02, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Mmm... The other deckbuilders better show up soon. Anyways, NYKid, don't contradict a deckbuilder on the actual thread, it makes the deckbuilder look bad. Put it on the deckbuilder's talk page and let them fix it. --Tantara (talk) 21:09, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

TwosidedDragon hasn't been on since the 25'th of June, and Flushy since March. I don't think they'll be on anytime soon...--Akiza Izayoi (talk • contribs) 22:22, July 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Meh, I'll remove Flushy. I'll give TwosidedDragon a chance though. Does anyone know anyone who might like to join us (that's good?) we need someone to help us pick up the pace, here. --Tantara (talk) 22:43, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be gone for the next four days. 18:19, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, i'm still here... I have neglected to tell anyone that i would be gone for about a little while. Very sorry i didn't update. Anyway, i shall continue deckbuilding as soon as i get the time. I'm also making headway on my alien deck guide... but i'll save that for the deck guide forum  ~ TSD, The Envoy Of Light and Darkness ~ 21:15, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, since most of us are following, I'll just say what I have in mind. I'm thinking that we should split Decks for Free! into two pages. This should help with the huge wait that requesters have after posting a deck. I say that we make all the deck revisions on one page and all the original deck requests on another. Does anyone agree? I'd need you to volunteer for this. --Tantara (talk) 21:25, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

What i think we should do is enforce the rules a little more harshly... and immediately delete any requests that break the rules and do not respond after the warning. Also, archive decks as soon as they are finished (i'm not sure how archives work so this may not be possible). The majority of posts there are abandon requests. Also, i notice that lots of people editing it don't have accounts. THis makes it hard to notify them. So another rule should be made stating that you must be signed in to make a request. Tell me what you think =] ~ TSD, The Envoy Of Light and Darkness ~ 03:03, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand how that would help speed up the process... i feel that it would just overcomplicate things...

also, the archives are VERY inconvinient to go through... instead, i recommend a deck gallery/ies... the archives take a long to go through... and i have trouble finding decks there even if i'm looking for them. Anyway, that's all i have to say...  ~ TSD, The Envoy Of Light and Darkness ~ 03:12, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Think of it as taking one cup of water, pouring it into two cups, and then having a person drink each. Having another person working on the oldest requests should make the process go a lot faster. Hope that makes sense to you... Anyways, I guess the gallery idea could work. It'd take a lot of work though. In the archives, just ctrl+F the deck you're looking for. I put a rule on the list in which we're supposed to delete requests that don't follow the rules immediately... You CAN delete them on sight. The majority of requests are abandoned because we take too long in getting to them... it's our fault. And if we make it so that you have to have an account, we'll lose half of our requesters. --Tantara (talk) 17:53, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * If we split the page and had one deckmaker do what I do and do the oldest requests, it should make the process go a lot faster.

I know I'm not a deck-builder type person, but why not create archive page, call it finished, and put all finished decks in it, and make a list at the top of the Decks for Free page that lists the finished decks? It would also make for a good time to clear out abandoned/ incorrectly done requests, and the page would be a lot shorter for all of the deckbuilders to navigate. Jon Kovacs (talk • contribs) 18:20, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

The archives are confusing and annoying. Yes, i know that cntrl + F makes it easier, but there are 6 archives and it takes lots of time to find the deck you are looking for. (i know from experience)
 * I still believe that it is a good idea to prevent requests from anonymous editors... because we can't notify them if. It's easy to make an account anyway, and it would help lessen the number of requests. Right now, the number of requests we have is huge... and we have 5-7 deckbuilders (i forgot how many)...
 * I believe that if someone is so unobservant that they can't read the rules before making a request, they shouldn't be helped and the request should be deleted without a warning. If there is anything that would be confusing to a new user, then we can give clear instructions as to how to do it.
 * As for the deck gallery, any deckbuilder that makes a deck can easily move a finished deck to the gallery when it is finished. It would also be nice to have it in alphabetical order (not completely, just by the first letter)
 * My propositions in the nutshell:
 * 1) You must have a yugioh wikia account to make a request
 * 2) Requests that break the rules will be deleted without warning
 * 3) deck gallery in addition to the archive. Gallery A-J, K-T, U-Z. Decks placed in it as soon as made... shouln't be too hard right?
 * with the following, i believe that two pages will not be necessary.  ~ TSD, The Envoy Of Light and Darkness ~ 19:35, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

If you're doing a gallery, why not make it the main way of storing old decks? Have each post on the page have the deck, its intended use, the person it was originally for, and have the deckbuilder sign it. After a while, it could replace the archives, and make the deckbuilder's jobs easier by making people who want decks made be able to search the gallery easily. Twosideddragon is right; i originally tried to look through the archives, but got confuzzled... but that might just be because the whole computer/internets thing always seems to be working against me..... :/ .... I'll leave now.. sorry.. Jon Kovacs (talk • contribs) 20:39, July 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Mmm, I'm kind of considering the account thing. It'd be good for the wikia, too, to have more users. And TwosidedDragon, you CAN delete those posts on sight. I added that to the list a long time ago (doesn't do much as we're still bogged down). I'm up for the Deck Gallery thing, I guess. The only thing about the Deck Gallery is that people looking through the archives won't be able to see what the requester asked. The account thing should cut down our list by a lot... I'd start on the Deck Gallery, but I have too poor an internet, right now. --Tantara (talk) 22:57, July 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, i noticed that we usually give them a warning before deleting... and then it seems to stay there for a long time before being deleted. User:TwosidedDragon (forgot to sign in)

New things

 * You may delete all requests that don't follow the rules immediately
 * Please put ---TAKEN or ---FINISHED in the title of every request you do/finish.

thanks, --Tantara (talk) 23:13, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for the Deck Gallery. If you can get it up and started, I'll work on moving the decks to the page. I'm also in support of needing an account to make a request.--Akiza Izayoi (talk • contribs) 04:11, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * The account required thing sounds neat. I'm for that. 04:19, July 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll start this^^^ It'll let all the requesters know that they have to register. This should help get rid of any abandoned requests, as well. --Tantara (talk) 20:03, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Deck Galleries
lol i think i screwed it up... but it works nevertheless... i recommend that each of us is assigned to move all of the decks in one of the archives to the galleries. Mainly because this will take a lot of time for one single person to do... so yeah :P
 * Forum:Decks For Free!/Deck Gallery A-J
 * Forum:Decks For Free!/Deck Gallery K-T
 * Forum:Decks For Free!/Deck Gallery U-Z


 * Tantara - archive 1 (done)
 * Akiza - archive 2 (done)
 * Bewk - archive 3 (done)
 * Me - archive 4 (done)
 * Blue - archive 5
 * Martyn - archive 6

 ~ TSD, The Envoy Of Light and Darkness ~ 08:29, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, i've already transferred mine... i'll go ahead and do tantara's... you said you were having connection problems. And sorry if i kinda rushed into this :P i got excited  ~ TSD, The Envoy Of Light and Darkness ~ 08:58, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Ideas
Done with my Archive as well. Also, I have a few more suggestions that we could add...

Formats: I think that we should put something at the top of each Deck Gallery that says "Is the deck you selected not in the right Format? Just go to the Talk Page of any deckbuilder, and they'll help you adjust the deck to the proper Format."

Misleading Names/Colors: This isn't much of a big deal, but I'd enjoy seeing it happen. The Deck Galleries are one big rainbow right now, and I think it would be much easier if we erased all of the colors from the Deck Templates. Granted, it wouldn't be as pretty, but I think it would be much easier to read. In addition, I think some of the deck names are a bit misleading. Usually, we deckbuilders just copy the name of the original deck and repost it with "-- TANTARA" or "-- AKIZA". However, I saw a "Revenge of Blue-Eyes" deck that Tantara had completed, and I felt that it should be considered more of a "Vanilla Skill Drain" deck. Putting it under the "B" category may be misleading to someone looking for an actual Blue-Eyes White Dragon based deck. These changes probably aren't necessary, but I feel that it could be a project to work on after everything else is finished.--Akiza Izayoi (talk • contribs) 16:28, July 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * And I am officially back! I was in Turkey when i posted and I didn't have my laptop on me so I borrowed my friend's for a minute to check on the Wikia. Sorry about questioning Blue Eyes. I will definitely mind myself but I felt that BEWK's deck really wasn't up to par. I play Gadget and Machina and have a good amount of experience in most variants. I have played the standard Machina Gadget, Armed Gadget, 5th Gadget, and Machina Beatdown and dabbled in Monarch and Dimensional Gadgets as well.

On that note, I want to get to my suggestion. I propose that we assign each deckbuilder a position based on their area of expertise, similar to the TCG Mastermind Program I'm sure you are familiar with as well Tantara. Rogue decks can be taken based on their specifications and similarity to a deckbuilder's position including mechanics and engines. Though there aren't enough Deckbuilders to assign an archetype each, we will have to take on multiple types. BEWK is adept at Gladiator Beasts and X-Sabers, Tantara @ Fairies, TSD @ Dragons (Disaster and Hopeless), Akiza @ Plants, and I @ Machina/Gadgets, Plants (stands to be seen compared to Akiza), and various STUN decks I have studied. Remind me If I've forgotten any though these are the primary areas I'm aware of. We can assign seconds if you all approve and we can start recruiting people based on their specialties.

In response to other ideas, I don't believe seperating the original into two threads would help, rather it would complicate matters.

Names and colors don't really matter but the separate Archives are nice. NYKid8295 (talk • contribs) 16:50, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Although it's true that we have our own areas of expertise, I believe that it would be simpler to just refer the User to which deckbuilder has that area covered. * For example, if a User requested a Gladiator Beast deck, we could simply refer him/her to BEWK. This way, other deckbuilders would have the oppertunity to take the request if they wanted to venture into an unknown archetype and gain experience there. So, if my GB deck wasn't up to par, then BEWK could take over.--Akiza Izayoi (talk • contribs) 17:25, July 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * You can venture into unknown archetypes on your own time. Players come to us for serious help. If there isn't anyone on the team who can take a request it can be up for grabs to the person who thinks they can really handle it and produce something decent. If a builder has too much on his hands, then you can ask to take a request off their hands. NYKid8295 (talk • contribs) 17:33, July 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Please try not to be offensive to BEWK, Martyn. I agree with Akiza, it'd be better for the deckmaker most adept at that deck to take the request. Perhaps we can make a subsection on each duelists stating their specific areas of experience, though this may make people consider the deckmaker inexperienced if they take a deck out of their area of speciality. The mastermind idea is ok for TCGplayer, but this is a small forum and we dont want too much trouble. Remember we have the Deck Galleries if someone requests a mainstream deck; we're mainly dealing with rogue/new decks.. and there are too many deck areas to assign to individual duelists. --Tantara (talk) 17:38, July 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * You mean you agree with me? I said that. Akiza said we should let deckbuilders venture into archetypes they are unfamiliar with. I don't remember seeing any decent meta decks built on the thread for this format and formats are always changing so archives aren't always up to date. I also wasn't trying to offend BEWK, merely trying to point out some card choices I thought were poor due to my experience with the archetype. BTW, are you on AIM? Sign in so we can talk =) NYKid8295 (talk • contribs) 17:54, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Deck Galleries
Should I add them to the main thread? I don't believe they're finished yet. If you made a deck in there's that unsigned, sign it please. --Tantara (talk) 17:42, July 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't find his comment offensive. My first try at Machina Gadgets ought to be rough around the edges. 17:45, July 16, 2010 (UTC)