Am I playing auto-pilot?

There has been alot of discussion over auto-pilot decks and everyone keeps bashing them out there, so I thought it would be appropriate to define and discuss them.

An auto-pilot deck is a "linear deck that has consistent priorities regardless of the matchup, meaningthat once you
understand a relatively small group of standard decisions, you don't have to deviate from that set of plans" (Jason, Yugiohetc)

So what does this mean? First up, it tells us that the deck has one end point in mind and usually goes about aiming for it in the same manner all the time. Regardless of what it is playing againt, some decks will continue to make the same optimal moves. As a result the deck is very easy to learn because once you have identified that set of moves you understand the deck to a degree that would usually take hours of play time to garner.

Secondly there is often a very standard deck design which provides more than a basic skeleton for the deck. The effect attached to this though is that it results in limited options for the player but that is what made the deck so powerful in the beginning.

Finally the plays it is trying to pull off are often very simple combos and result in a straightforward playstyle.

The conclusion is that most decks out there are auto pilot because they end up doing the same thing over and over to win.
All these things lead players to bash on the deck. It is much easier to build a deck that attempts to perform specific combos rather than one which seeks to make multiple plays. By aiming to perform specific plays, players can focus all the cards in the deck to do this and therefore increase the consistency of this happening.

Agents are a good example of this:
In the beginning the Agent play seeks to summon The Agent of Creation Venus and use her effect to summon free monsters and set up the game to easily summon their powerhouses. After that they simply seek to summon Master Hyperion to gain advantage and Archlord Krystisa to limit the opponents counter plays.

Because their is an optimal way of getting to a point, once that optimal build is discovered it doesn't make sense to deviate from it unless you intend to change the goal of the deck.

Again I look at Agents:
They play: multiple copies of all the cards required to pull off their combo, cards which increase the probabilty of that happening, power spells and a standard spell and trap line up. It allows for little creativity. When players do seek to add creativity to their deck they often seek to include more plays which make for more versatile decks. Both TGU-Agents and TG-Agents seek to do this by forgoiong standard protection for a more robust monster line-up which allows for variety of plays. And yet because theu work they have become standard variations.

And lastly because the deck is easy to understand and play with it is often the type of deck newer players seek to play.

Auto-pilot. Not necessarily bad.

MutG wrote:

Auto-pilot. Not necessarily bad.

says the AUTO-PILOT KING.

Woaaaah. Slow down there. Plants = not auto-pilot. and quite honestly i think that was the least auto-pilot deck of the format(s). and i still managed to win with it. yes? I wouldn't say much there tim...GK is auto-pilot. gadgets is. Gb is. Frogs is to an extent. I know I play Rabbit and people go herpderp auto-pilot...WRONG. Auto-pilot if you open into rabbit yes? Then any deck is auto-pilot. You summoning piper means it's auto-pilot then.

Self Destruction Button was an awesome Auto Pilot Deck played by Uqual "the Champ" Abrahams.

The epitomy of auto-pilot

Auto-Pilot KING

MutG wrote:

Woaaaah. Slow down there. Plants = not auto-pilot. and quite honestly i think that was the least auto-pilot deck of the format(s). and i still managed to win with it. yes? I wouldn't say much there tim...GK is auto-pilot. gadgets is. Gb is. Frogs is to an extent. I know I play Rabbit and people go herpderp auto-pilot...WRONG. Auto-pilot if you open into rabbit yes? Then any deck is auto-pilot. You summoning piper means it's auto-pilot then.

dude, there is a fine line between auto pilot, and basic play.
auto pilot decks have the same play everytime without fail. basic play means that the situation is transferable. GB is so not auto pilot. piper is not entirely auto pilot. it simply sets up for a multitude of different plays later in the game.

auuutttooo-piiiilooootttt. good game. good players are good!

So if i follow my deck's strategy I am on auto-pilot? Or does the deck have to have multiple strategies? I find that pretty difficult to achieve while trying to keep it flowing with a count 45 cards or so...

I mean if my win count against a gladiator deck which tributes, summons from fusion deck and returns into the deck, with a somewhat tedious rhythm, is low then the deck is serving its purpose...

I guess I am trying to say i don't really get the definition or the concept for that matter. The whole game is based on auto-pilot then, especially competitively.

If I am not deviating from my plans regardless of match up and doing well then the deck and therefore my strategy in making that situation happen for me is well-thought out. If I am deviating from my plan I need to make the plan an option again.

Again I myself prefer having a couple of strategies when approaching the battle, as you might not know the match-up. But if the one strategy works and your cards (spell, traps effects) are making it work for you... The concept could stand in booster tourneys, where your cards are unknown and your skill comes in when building your deck.

If you can get any card (as the ban lists allows) you will aim to build your deck to do something specific. Otherwise you are just there waiting and believing in the heart of the cards (doesn't work that well , I speak from experience).
Maybe i am way off but any clarification is welcome. Especially multilateral strategies with a 40-45 card count.