Caps and Crap

Level 4 weak effect beaters = 1500 ATK
Level 4 normals / drawback effect mons = 1700 ATK

This may change as Ash and Aqua's argument progresses.

In general both Norms and DB Effs want to acquire the same goal: Defeat powerful Level 1-4 monsters the opponent controls (because this discussion has yet to expand into Level 5+) from destroying high-defense defenders (which commonly is looked down upon as stalling), to destroying effect monsters with threatening effects, and destroying high ATK effect monsters that cause problems. Since normal monsters get no higher than 1500, DB-Effs and Norms are allowed to have higher stats to remove these threats.

DB-Effs justify their higher ATK by having a drawback that reduces their effectiveness, and Norms justify their higher ATK by having no effect at all. DB-Effs of course have the ability to ascend past Max ATK Effect monsters and high ATK Normals, using their drawback as justification.

Both of these cards can however, benefit from Skill Draining and effect negation. As pretty much every card submitted here has shown, effect monsters are the most prevalent subtype submitted.

When effect monsters lose their effects, their lower ATK/DEF makes them vulnerable to the Norms. When DBEffs have their effects negated however, what originally justified them having more potent killing power than both max ATK effs & normals is now negated, and they have free reign to destroy anything that isn't stronger than them. Strong monsters that rely on their effects become weak, and weak monsters relying on their effects to become strong gain nothing, while strong monsters held back by their effects become stronger (in theory).

Without either Normals or Drawback Effect Beatsticks, the game will be dominated by Level 4 monsters with the highest ATK they're allowed and the best removal effects they can get. Why tribute for a tribute monster, when your Level 4s gain more ATK than those monsters ever will, and can survive better, avoid negation easier, and don't provide Unnecessary risk?

In a game dominated by effects (both good and bad), keeping balance via effect negation is essential. Summoning cards are of course the most vulnerable to causing powercreeps because their future targets might be able to summon them, leading to giant summoning chains. Summoning a beatstick monster and negating its effect for that reason is the same as summoning a Normal Monster for the same role.

Drawback Effect Monsters
(+) Allow effect monsters to forsake positive effects to answer high-ATK threats and deal more damage.
(+) Make effects that blindly/massively negate monster effects more risky for the opponent, as their negation will make the opponent's monsters stronger.
(+) It takes more thought to run a dangerous risky card that, if misused, will become a burden or put you behind.
(-) Creating Support for Drawback monsters is difficult, and are outclassed by Max ATK Level 4 Effect Monsters.
(-) When a deck or strategy can turn the card's drawback into a strength or neutralizes it, newly submitted cards from stupid people attempting to match, copy or overcome that monster's ATK threat will cause a powercreep.
(-) If it's justification for it's ATK is too ridiculous or hard to work around, its primary goal is negated.

Normal Monsters
(+) Are the beatstick and wall standards for many cards, when a card in the deck relies solely on their stats, and do not need to summon other monsters, antagonize the opponent or push for advantage.
(+) Difficult to unbalance as normal monsters don't outclass each other easily, only the cards that can Summon/Buff/Protect them can. Normal Monsters are the easiest to balance and can be used as a standard for effect monsters.
(-) Level 2 and lower monsters have stats too low to compete with moderate ATK/DEF effect monsters and find themselves with little use on their own.
(-) People find them boring.
(-) As opposed to DB Effs, which can have incentives to not negate their effects, Normals have no incentive to be used beyond their high ATK/DEF or beneficial support. There can never be Tribute Normal Monsters above level 9 due to resistance to the idea of changing game mechanics.

I'll be back to finish this

To add TB, these are the points given by Ash/Aqua in the chat:

DB Effs
(-) If the ATK is higher than 1700, Normal Monsters will not be relevant.
(-) If the ATK is higher than 1700 (or no cap is given), will cause power creep, and Normal Monsters have to have much stronger S/T support to compensate

Normal Monsters
(-) If the ATK of DBEffs are higher than 1700, Normal Monster Support has to be WAY Stronger than the norm, creating a power creep.

I gather the biggest problem is Power Creep, or the tendency for cardmakers to keep pushing the 'boundaries' because they aren't clearly defined.

Most of this is because people want Normal Monsters to be relevant. If there were no normal monsters, drawback monsters could have looser restrictions (quoted from Ash/Aqua)

Note: You can make DB Effs with beneficial effects as well as negative ones. Here's an example:

Suicide Bomber
Warrior | DARK | Level 4
During the End Phase: Destroy this card, and inflict 700 damage to the opponent.
[ 1700 / 0 ]

(-) If the ATK of DBEffs are higher than 1700, Normal Monster Support has to be WAY Stronger than the norm, creating a power creep.

If the DBEff has a just reason for having that much ATK with a balanced and acceptable DB, then that's it. It's not a power-creep if it's high ATK is justified and doesn't power creep in itself. If the DB creates deck consistency or the monster just comes out as an effectlessly neutral beatstick, and no attempts to address it come along, it becomes a power creep.

Toolboxers, Searchers and Summoners are the general targets of the Max ATK L4s, who use their effects to change the tides of battle in their favor (Iceborn Chimaera for example, while having 1400 ATK, can change a more stronger monster to DEF, and if their DEF is lower, can run it over) while other cards like Black Vanguard, can return Union monsters in the grave back to the deck to draw a card, with the body of 1500 ATK.

Iceborn Chimaeras effect somewhat relies on Chimaera having enough ATK to run over its target, while Black Vanguard's effect is completely independent from whatever it's current ATK/DEF is, and could easily be more suited for a lower powered monster.

Saberhorn Beetle starts with 1400, and you can reveal insects in your hand to either boost it's ATK by 100 for each, or sap the opponent's monsters by 200 for each. While it's a great effect for turning the tides of battle, you don't lose anything at all to gain that boost. All that it will do is give your opponent a view of what you have (and since Mind Crush-like cards don't exist knowing whats in the hand doesn't matter anyway)

Really, it comes down to one thing. People want to make good cards. People want to make good cards that are different too. Rather than everyone building one unified warrior deck and everyone using the same traps/spells as their opponent, they want variety.

The problem is, everything can't be top-tier. If everything is good, nothing is good etc. Something has to be Tier 1, and its really up to everyone to agree how strong something should be so they know when to stop.

In general yugioh is an unfair game and is hard to balance because nobody wants to make Level 1s.

I think the easiest way to achieve balance here is to stop allowing creativity or variety, and focus on tournament level meta-building. Types and Attributes are very uneccessary and contribute nothing to the game that Archetypes can't do better. If your cards are not part of an archetype they must be able to work in any deck.

This will also mean there will be no more confusion over strange pseudoarchetypes like DARK Pyros or WATER Winged Beasts. It will also destroy Chaos and prevent anything porting from the TCG to work effectively.

If it doesn't offer some form of removal, consistency or summon power then it is not allowed to be submitted. Situational cards should be banned from being made, as all cards should be able to function at any time due to consistency. No more high level monsters either, as they lead to dead draws, and put those who use them at a disadvantage, or give the players who can use them effectively at a disproportionate advantage. They offer nothing to the game that non-tribute monsters can't do better.

Players who win the most duels will have more say over which cards are submitted. If you do not win enough duels, your submissions can be revoked or edited by those who have won the most. People who do not play or win are banned from making cards.

Any card that is made must either acquire another card from a different source or affect the opponent's cards in some manner. Cards that don't interact with the opponent make games one-sided and will not be allowed. If your cards are not considered Tier 1 after submissions, or prove to be dead draws, situational, too specific, have a hard-to-pay cost, or are outclassed by better cards, they will be deleted.

I'm kidding of course. I'm drunk lol

really im just overthinking is all, ash is in charge and if he thinks the game would be better off without norms or db-effs then he can get ridofem. i trust his judgement even though ill be a bit sad that norms are going the way of the toons

im like the only one who makes them anyway except for digital but his have no soul in them

I can still write lore on the DP even though nobody will read it or go "ha thats kinda cool". lol my lore aint cool nobody gives a shit why am i even here

but really its effects that have power creeping problems. too much destruction makes destroying in battle pointless, too much card protection makes removal ineffective, too much grave summoning makes the graveyard a second hand, too much tutoring makes shuffling the deck pointless. if we had an index of different cards i'd be good.

Currently we don't have too much of anything? just groups of good cards beating down decks not filled with good cards?

i thought of something. despite the fact that we have only one set we have no stupid broken cards or any otks. fancy that eh? well except when i made reckless recovery

and ultragenesis even though nobody actually used it

seven scythe and carbide croc was an accident tho

im so proud of you guys and stuff I swear this was going to be a repeat of qrev or something like "hey we gonna balance this shit" and then boom tttt happens and then that one set with the griffins, the lccg dies, and then the ark comes along, people are sad that their cards didnt make it on the ark and they dont stick around so the acg comes and saves the day

Toons
(+) Provide a different layer of battling, where toons can only hurt other toons, and toons can attack directly when others are absent
(-) Fuck toons
(-) why dont we take all the anime girl cards and push them into the toon subtype
(-) there are no anime girl cards you fucking fat pink slob
(-) don't talk to patrick like that squidward
(-) fuck you spongebob why dont you go build more bad anti-meta decks?
(-) I will when you stop trying to activate honest on my turn!
(-) but I have priority spongebob, thats how it works! want me to call a judge?
(-) why are you such a tryhard squidward? it's not about winning, its about fun!
(-) if you wanted to have fun why are you playing yugioh?
(-) F is for Fuck You, You Meta Gamer
(-) U is for U Are Gey
(-) N is for End your turn and stop drawing cards
(-) You fucking Tier 1 Biiiiitch

Alright, time to make a post. Here's what I think.

Normal Monsters and drawbacked monsters cannot coexist if they share the same niche. One will always outclass the other, and then the other may not be used. When chosen solely for ATK/DEF, drawbacked monsters are far more interesting than vanilla monsters, as drawbacked monsters have much more variety in card creation, deckbuilding, and gameplay. Normal Monsters, however, essentially hold no variety whatsoever outside of their Attribute and Type. Therefore, I believe Normal Monsters should not receive higher ATK or DEF than Effect Monsters.

Of course, if we do this, Normal Monsters would have no reason to be played. being weaker in every way than Effect Monsters... On their own, that is. After all, who ever looked at Kabazaul and decided, yes, this card is the reason I play Dino Rabbit? No, the real reason people enjoy Normal Monsters is their support. And as such, I think Normal Monsters should be a deck of their own: An archetype, essentially. I am imagining powerful Spells and Traps to support them, more powerful than the support cards of other decks. A Normal Monster and it's support card should be roughly equal in strength to an Effect Monster and it's support card. This, I believe, would allow Normal Monsters to compete with other decks with much more powerful monsters.

So, to sum it up:
1. Reduce the ATK of Normal Monsters and make them equal to Effect Monsters.
2. Make Normal Monsters their own deck, almost like an archetype
3. Drawbacked monsters will fulfill the role of enhanced ATK/DEF, while Normal Monsters will not.

To counter respond with less inebriated rambling, while Norms and DBEffs occupy the same niche their methodology are different. Normals are in theory the brute force cards of the game, and are more battle reliant than any other card. Their shortcomings for not having effects are made up by the other cards in the deck. While boring they are simple and nearly impossible to make overpowered. Not everything with powerful stats needs to have an effect. Cards that are there solely for destroying in battle without summoning other monsters, gaining LP or dicking around with card advantage or consistency is of course a role that still can be filled. Normal Monsters are weaker targets for effects, and can break less cards in the future. Using your Dino Rabbit example, if Rabbit got to summon Dinosaur Monsters with effects, that would affect future cards way more potently than Normal Monsters. If they summoned the Dinosaur-type Monsters and negated their effects, you might as well have summoned a Normal Dinosaur with good stats instead. Unless of course the targets are DBEffs and work better with their effect negated.

Dinorabbit though isn't a good example because easy synchroing/xyzing would be frowned upon and impossible here. Summoning beatsticks to raise hell on the field would be fine.

Same goes with DBEffs. Their ability to go beyond the stat limits is anchored with their drawbacks. While they make the game more interesting, they are never run by better players unless their drawbacks can be negated or turned into an advantage, which ultimately leads to a power-creep as the card that once was powerful but risky is now just powerful. Normals go to the max, DBEffs go beyond the max while losing something in return. You exchange one advantage you have for more ATK/DEF. It makes you vulnerable in a pinch long enough to overcome threats.

The ultimate goal of the best players is to eliminate all risk from the game for themselves and always get the cards they need to win. DB Effs and Normals will not be relevant until they become risk-free, consistent, and better statistical choices than effect monsters, which is impossible because nothing is better than a +0 Effect Monster with stats that hug the maximum.

On the topic of Normal Monsters only being relevant if they get overpowered support:
* Weaker cards SHOULD get stronger support, just like monsters with lower levels have more lee-way with powerful effects. Judging monsters by their own merit is useless as many cards are aimed to influence others, summon others, protect others, or destroy others.
* To measure good effect monsters against cards without those effects is a bad idea. It's apples to oranges. Those good effect monsters don't get better support because they don't need it. It would push them higher than everything else can go. Weaker cards with powerful support is better than weaker cards alone.
* When the best deck that anyone can ever make is made, what then? Will that deck have to be scaled down so others can beat it? Will this place continue playing the Crabs in a Bucket strategy when the meta becomes stagnant? When can a deck be good in any situation without becoming the target of the vuvuzelas of unbalance?

You cannot balance everything. You cannot make everything top tier.

Unless we are going to mirror match every game so everyone's cards don't have different advantages over each other, condemning weaker subtypes/decktypes because they are not perfect goes against the point of making cards to begin with. It's a CCG, if something is inherently weak, be it a mechanic like Rituals, Toons, Normals or Geminis, who else but CCG members to actually make it playable? Of course they are not going to be at the top of the competitive circle. Ritual Decks cannot defeat Xyz/Synchro Decks due to the advantages granted by Synchro/Xyz and the fact that Synchro/Xyzs can't be dead draw at all. Type-based decks cannot defeat Archetype decks because their support isn't as tightly knit as Archetypical support.

There's so few people here that I don't even think a competitive circle is something to even appreciate. "Oh, this deck is at the top of a meta that only 6 people are deeply involved in, that there are no prizes for and no incentive to win other than to have fun." The goal of this place is to make cards, play against each other with them, and make a overall gaming experience not overly reliant on conforming to the current best formula in order to win.

In general, everybody here wants to have the best deck. Everybody here wants to win. Everybody here wants their cards to be good and not be outdone by other people's cards.

Does anyone want to collaborate with each other to make cards? Does anybody want to build a deck without cards they made themselves? Would anyone even play a deck that isn't guaranteed to win? Is anyone willing to accept that they have to lose sometimes?