Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Other Gaming => Board & Card Games => Topic started by: TheHobbit13 on June 14, 2009, 05:01:46 PM
-
I have been playing Redemption for five years now. My father and I would often go to tournaments in Rochester or outstate tournaments. Through the blessing of God and our wonderful church, the gang here in Minnesota has been able to organize a highly functional play group.
Redemption has been a really good thing for me because not only do I get to play a Christian card game ( a previous Oxymoron) I get to be apart of a Christian community were I have found many good friends. In the Redemption community in Minnesota everyone is included, no one is rejected, judged or turned away for their appearence or how they act. Sadly this is not the case in the rest of the world. At schools and the workplace people are constantly being rejected, slandered and ridiculed for who they are. You might say I have been spoiled to have a chance to participate in such a loving friendly community, and you would be right. Unfortunately this is usually the exception and not the rule :- :(. I love the game of Redemption because it has helped me to grow in Christ and to see what fun and fellowship is really about bringing me to realize how perverted the world really is. Because of Redemption I have a deeper understanding of of who God is , I have many friends (true friends), and I have grown closer to God through this amazing experience .Thank you Rob Anderson for making this game to glorify God. I hope you know how many lives you have changed. :) Thank you.
Over the years I have experienced new set after new set and I have been unimpressed by the power curve these sets have introduced. I think that the game has gone away form the classic game play standard that is actually quite fun. Classic battles for lost souls are to few and far between for my liking. Currently Redemption is a game of the draw ( when two experienced players meet) and not surprislingly. When the cards virtually have no cost and when you have such potent drawing ( primarily the built in 3 card drawing mechanic) there is no question what so ever why this game is so random (once you get to a certain level). Not to mention the fact that lost souls are easlly hidden in the deck leading to NPE situations. New cards like Jacob , uzzah, trembling demon and Garden Tomb etc... destroy the very hope of every having an epic battle again (for me any ways). The Zero tolerance of banning cards only makes the situations worse, creating an unbalanced CCG. NPE decks run rampant when there are no banned cards, it happens. It is natural to make mistakes and to mess up the intention of the card (that is COMPLETLY OKAY) but you cant always put a band-aid on the wound, sometimes you have to pull things up by the roots to fully fix the problem. I am fully aware of the alternative ways of balancing cards such as making counters or making an errata. But frankly a one or two card direct counter is far weaker than the card that is being countered, in fact in most cases it is better to not use the counter at all. Lastly I am not a fan of making cards that undermine old tactics. Garden Tomb is a perfect example of this. Ever since I have been playing I have been taught to keep evil characters in my hand. The Garden Tomb completely undermines this tactical manuever. I am not convinced that this is a terrible thing but I do question the thought process behind it. You can spew and spount and get your feathers in a bundle, but if their is no real proof of these things affecting the game it is futile. Unfortunately their is plenty of proof.
Type1. Type ! is the most popular catagory of Redemption, and rightfully so. In past years I remeber the scores being closer together than they are now. There used to be alot of 5-4 games. 5-4 games are awsome! Now with the recent sets out, the scores in Type 1 games are getting farther and farther apart. The last tourney I went to I cant tell you how many 5-2 and under games their were. Having a "easy" game for someone doesn't help any one. The winner isn't helped because his game skills don't improve and the loser is just plain frusterated because he knows that there was nothing he could have done. I am not refering to the games were you just get slaughtered fair and square. I am refering to the luck of the draw games that can be so frusterating sometimes. With every card game there is a luck of the draw factor, I understand that much, but what I don't understand is why----- when there is so much of a luck factor incorporated into the foundation of the game----- cards are still being made to take advantage of this luck. factor. With that all being said I enjoy playing type1 and there is and always will be a deck builder, but I think there needs to be more work done ( I know there has been positive efforts) to try and balance out the cards, perhaps it is to late but I still think that the game has the potential to be so much better.
Continued post coming soon.
-
Type 2. Type 2 focuses on far less luck than Type1 (which is why I often defer to playing Type 2). This is mainly because of the amount of cards in the deck and the sheer numbers of the power cards you can play with. Still I have my frustrations. I love the fact that type 2 is a tactical beast, but I dislike the fact that there are so many play-first characters and enhancements/CBNs being abused (you have to abuse them to stay competitve). Not to mention the plethora of auto block baddies. All these things take away from an epic battle that could be experienced. The fact is that in type 2 you don't get to play your cards when you play a NPE deck because of the extreme power that is running around ( pre- block ingnores, horses, The Garden Tomb, etc). What fun is that? Who cares if you lose? However if you lose and don't get to play your cards that is a second , undeserved slap in the face. That totally defeats the purpose of playing a CCG. I really like type 2 don't get me wrong, but it has gotten to be, build a NPE deck or lose.
I wanted to post this to have an intelligent discussion, not to ripe on Cactus. Rob ,Shaef, Justin, Bryon etc... have formed a wonderful game with solid mechanics and awsome gameplay and I am really grateful. Every game however isn't perfect and is inclined to hear constructive critisism from its players. This post is intended to portray constructive critisism to the design team in hopes that Redemption can become the best CCG around. I love Redemption and I only want what is best for it.
What does every one else think ? Do you agree or disagree? Your thoughts are welcome.
-
I hear what you're saying... I'm not sure if I agree with all of it though. I think the best thing that Cactus does is come up with cards that counter current strategies. Now people will argue with me about how speed hasn't been countered successfully, and for the most part, I would agree with them. However, speed is such a dominate archetype that you don't want to completely get rid of it through the creation of one card... This is what happened to FBN decks. They came up with so many counters to it that the decks see almost no play nowadays...
Type 2 is a behemoth. I agree that it consists of more strategy as far as deck-building goes, but to me the gameplay is very boring. You simply watch as your opponent pulls off one unstoppable combination after another and applaud him for his cleverness to come up with it. Then you go ahead and do the same thing to him/her. I would argue that T2 is more luck of draw based (over the entire game... not the beginning hand) then T1.
Other than that, there are only two cards that I don't like. One being New Jerusalem. The other being the Garden Tomb. Not that I don't like the way they are played (I use both of them in my decks). But a card like the Garden Tomb creates a two card combo that can go into any deck... no matter the color. and NJ... well that was just plain unnecessary.
Just my 2 cents. :)
-
Nate, great job communicating your thoughts and feelings on this subject in a polite and respectful way.
I understand where you're coming from and I agree that there are less "epic" battles because of the nature of some of the new powerful strategies. Epic battles still happen, just not as often. I do agree that it's fun for both players when we both play a few enhancements during a rescue attempt. But I also enjoy being able to render your entire defense useless with cards like TGT or Jake + RTC.
I actually experience more 5-4 games now than I used to. A few years ago it wasn't uncommon for me to win several games 6-0 or 6-1. Granted, we don't play past 5 now (in T1) but I don't see as many games ending 5-0 or 5-1. A lot of that depends on the opponent though and what deck they're playing.
Overall I think that Redemption is getting better. I like the additional strategies that are available now that weren't a couple years ago. I like the way that it's not about just tossing all the power cards into your deck anymore (although that's still surprising effective). I think that the cultural themes they're pushing in each brigade are fun to build a deck around.
Despite being small, Treasures from the Past is going to give us some solutions to the "problems" you mentioned. They aren't just counters either, but cards that will be useful against most decks because of their versatility. There's still going to be a new card that everyone comlains about. From what I've seen in the past few years I've played Redemption, that's pretty much to be expected though.
-
I agree with the Hobbit.
I have not played Redemption in about 8 months now, and some of the people I used to play with have moved on.
Redemption at its core is becoming increasingly difficult for new players to start playing, as the cost of a competitive deck seems to have risen, at least in our region. It doesn't help that the new cards are completely geared to type 1, while we here play almost exclusively type 2. No new players and the loss of old players is adding up to no tournaments in our region, which is the only place I have played in the past year. The game is no longer fun casually for me, even if I could find someone to play with. I cannot find a reason to continue buying product to stay tournament competitive if I never play casual games.
The biggest flaws I see in the game are a lack of set rotation; leading to massive power creep in the new sets as the only way to sell new cards is to make the old unplayable. The lack of a cost to playing a card has lead a game where the winner is determined by the luck of the draw. Often the winner is determined by who starts, as they get to both draw first and rescue first, hence win first.
-
the only way to sell new cards is to make the old unplayable.
I disagree, the new sets have quite often made OLD cards useful. Take for example the #1 complained about card reciently... TGT. Would you EVER have put some of those older heroes that can use TGT in a deck?
The game does a very good job of making older cards useful if you ask me. Besides, if you looked at some of my decks, you'll find a lot of older and underused cards in there.
-
Another good example is Windows of Narrow Light.
-
Simeon.
-
I just played a local tournament using a deck setup that I doubt most power players would even want to try. I won two rounds out of three, my second game required me to use every single trick in the book to stay ahead of the opponent's FBN offense and pull off the win, and my loss in the final round (to the category champion) came down to my opponent having SoG/NJ in his second or third turn, and my not having a critical card I needed until halfway through the deck when it was too late to matter. For all of that, I was still able to hold him off for a long time, and claw my way to three points before he just overwhelmed my defense.
After the tournament, I sat down with the second place finisher since we did not play during. Both of us decked out and continued to play for another 5-6 turns before he finally beat me, again 5-3. And that was a situation where I had wiped out his defense and could have walked away with all the points I needed, but he did some masterful manipulation of his Lost Souls to keep me from running him down, and keep me scrambling on defense. Also, despite having a Genesis offense, he never once considered using a zero-hand Zebulun ignore against me because he knew it wouldn't work.
And no, this was not a tournament consisting of me and 9 other 10-year-olds. Some of the best Ohio players were there, as well as Kirk Dennison (though not in my category; he was busy showing the Type 2 players how a pure orange defense can give you fits).
I can't say I agree that there are no more epic battles in the game, nor that it is unbalanced. In addition to which, the new cards will only help more against the cards that are problems for some now.
As for whether new players can come in, I invite you to look at what this particular local was all about:
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15566.0 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15566.0)
We held this tournament at a card shop that holds Yu-Gi-Oh tournaments every Saturday. We taught the game to numerous kids who showed up before their tournament started, and two of them even ditched the YGO tournament to play in Type 1 that same day! I think people sometimes get a little tunnel vision about the complexity of the game when they come on here and try to puzzle out one-in-a-million combos when you have these two cards against this guy on the second Tuesday of the month if the moon is full. A lot of the basics of the game have remained just as they are, and to this day teaching initiative is still the single biggest hurdle to getting the game across to new players, imo. Most of the basic powers I find are easy to sum up in ten words or less, if you don't bog it down with the miniscule details. What we found yesterday was a lot of enthusiasm for a new game with a low cost of entry and some generous hosts; we gave out half a dozen commons-only decks that were reasonably competitive and enhanced by cards from the packs they opened.
-
Also, you might want to define the term NPE at least once in your post, since not everybody knows what it means (I would in fact suggest that most people don't), and it's important in a discussion like this for everyone to understand exactly what is being said up front.
-
yes wat is NPE?
-
Would you EVER have put some of those older heroes that can use TGT in a deck?
Never...ever...count.
Another good example is Windows of Narrow Light.
Not only that, Check out Hidden treasures, Judges seat, Genesis heroes, etc.
Despite being small, Treasures from the Past is going to give us some solutions to the "problems" you mentioned. They aren't just counters either, but cards that will be useful against most decks because of their versatility. There's still going to be a new card that everyone comlains about. From what I've seen in the past few years I've played Redemption, that's pretty much to be expected though.
+1 Dude. Cept... Philistines... *Shudder, Shudder, Shudder*
I just played a local tournament using a deck setup that I doubt most power players would even want to try.
You gotta tell me what it was :D
The biggest flaws I see in the game are a lack of set rotation; leading to massive power creep in the new sets as the only way to sell new cards is to make the old unplayable. The lack of a cost to playing a card has lead a game where the winner is determined by the luck of the draw. Often the winner is determined by who starts, as they get to both draw first and rescue first, hence win first.
I will start out first and foremost saying I do NOT play with normal decks and use a very odd playing style. People have taken my deck ideas before and cannot use them due to them not having my play style. That being said. I have a TON of epic battles but that is of cuz I use a very large defensive decks and try to be different. You see there are tons of viable uses for cards, it just requires thinking and creativity, and as with all games a lot of players just will throw all the strongest cards in and get high ranks. It happens it doesn't make a game good or bad. I played yugioh, they have a "top deck type" and the rest are "inferior" its going to happen. Redemption has done a great job of it all honestly. Also T2 is very luck driven, my ANB deck proves that ;) as is T1 but I prefer T1, My decks dont get shut down turn 5 in t1. Honestly, If more people were willing to break from the norm (and if they don't. Pfft they will hate the new set) you would see alot more epic battles. Most people just use heavy offense to quick win, if others used heavy defense it'd really even the playing field.
/EndRantAboutPlayingOdd
Signed,
Someone Who Never Counts.
-
I get to take part in tons of epic battles when I play Redemption as well. However, alot of that goes back to what Josh stated. Like him, I don't use run of the mill decks. That gives me a huge advantage playing against all the overused strategies referenced in this thread.
There is also one simple solution if you think that certain strategies are throwing the game out of whack. Simply play the counters to them. That is what I do, and I can count the number of times one one hand that I have lost to any of the deck types that you have mentioned. I am not trying to take away from the fact that certain strategies are very powerful. However, there are plenty of counters that lay a knockout punch to these strategies. The biggest problem is that many players simply refuse to change their deckbuilding habits.
Kirk
-
There will always be a measure of luck involved in Redemption. That being said, I gave up playing T1 this year just for the very reason that I could (and did) lose a game in the first three turns. The game lasted all of 5 minutes and it only lasted that long because it was on RTS.
What I have noticed is that the game is still VERY strategic. I will agree that the emphasis has switched away from the battle phase of the current turn. Most of the strategy now takes place in different phases and different turns. I really like this aspect. Some very famous battles in human history experienced very little actual fighting as there was excellent preparation performed by the leaders.
I will always be a Type 2 player. If a solution for the five minute 5-0 T1 games is ever found, I may switch back to playing Type 1. Until then Type 2 and Booster draft will keep me playing for years to come. :)
-
If a solution for the five minute 5-0 T1 games is ever found, I may switch back to playing Type 1.
Try a 30+ card defense. ;)
-
Also, you might want to define the term NPE at least once in your post, since not everybody knows what it means (I would in fact suggest that most people don't), and it's important in a discussion like this for everyone to understand exactly what is being said up front.
NPE= NO player experience
-
One of the big strengths of Redemption as a game has been the battle system. In some other otherwise games, you might just choose attackers, choose targets, and compare numbers and powers. The system of enhancements being played on the "current loser" and interrupting other cards played against you (or even by you) is neat. But all along the way there have been things that lessen the experience.
The Era of Few Abilities: Base Set through Women. Very few abilities, numbers ruled the school. Enhancements were pretty boring, only a handful per brigade even with an ability, often not even good ones. Banding, discarding, capturing, healing, ignoring brigades, and a couple (at the time) oddball cards like Repentance and Obedience of Noah were about all you'd see for abilities. With so few negate/interrupt cards, once a "battle winner" was played, that likely ended the battle. Without the battle winners, you had the opportunities for some lengthy battles of number comparison, but there's just something missing.
The Era of Negation: Warriors set up several new dynamics. Besides just adding more abilities and types of abilities, the flow of battle significantly changed with the introduction of a number of interrupt, prevent, and negate cards. Now there could be more "Take that!" "Oh no you don't!" "Well how about backup plan G?" "Oh snap!" moments. This added some variety and what others are calling "epicness" to the battle phase, which was fantastic. However, a few things ended up causing more harm than good, and the effects are still being felt a decade later. The most prominent was the introduction of BTN characters, probably intended for adding another source of versatility in each brigade (so a Blue offense could stick in an Ira for tough situations), but often used en masse to remove options from the other player. And therein lies a problem that we still see - it is effective strategically to limit your opponent's options, but it hurts the game as a whole to cut back on the interactivity of battles. This also brought the introduction of Fortresses and Artifacts. Extra factors were added to battles, whether changing numbers with Elijah's Mantle and Crown of Thorns or limiting the power of Great Image and Authority of Christ with some limited protection via Goshen or Kingdoms of the World.
The Era of Correction: In the next few sets, a couple cards were released to stop the powerhouses that kill interactivity: "cannot be negated" cards. Now your Benaiah doesn't bother me, because Balaam's Disobedience can't be negated, so ha! I'll attack with Thomas so that King of Tyrus doesn't kill all my fun! Unfortuntely, this swing in the opposite direction caused the same effect - while they did do their part against BTN, they also stopped battles dead in their tracks most of the time. In addition, there were more ways to win a battle before it began, with, for instance, Unholy Writ and Three Nails. Also some cards were made whose intentions were one thing but their abilities were another, like Ethiopian Treasurer and Household Idols. It's no surprise that the ones that do what they weren't supposed to ended up being the most widely used. Part of this stems from a rules and wording system that was not consistent or simple, and by a ruling system of exceptions and corner cases.
Wait, We Meant This: Kings and Angel Wars were the expansions that "should have been" Warriors and its immediate successors. "No no, you don't negate everything, just non-warrior things." "It's not an unstoppable card, you just can't prevent it." As for Angel Wars, very few of those cards see much use, because with the card base there is, "not broken" cards aren't going to get used as much as "broken" cards. Battle interaction stayed at about the same level.
Let's Take It in a Different Direction: Priests and the tin sets have tried to make every card usable, after sets like Angel Wars and Apostles contained gobs of "lame" cards. A couple things have been latched onto, like a resurgence of ignore abilities, again the ones that limit battle interaction. Redemption walks a weird tightrope: The game shines with battles, and the best decks eliminate battles. Therefore, the best decks make for the worst games. As a result, it's more fun to play just casually, without any "experts." The catch 22 is that to play correctly, with the mess of rules that the game currently has, you pretty much have to be an expert or at least have one at the ready. It's frustrating.
-
Tim makes an excellent point about eliminating battles. When I'm playing T2 my number one goal is usually to just not let my opponent play his cards when he wants to. If I know I can't get around him, I don't attack. If I know I'm gonna get torched by blocking (and it will affect future turns), I don't block.
I played a T2 game against SK the other day. I'm fairly certain he did not play a single evil enhancement the entire game either because he couldn't or because it wouldn't do anything, but if you think that means I crushed him, it was still a 7-5 game. There were many instances where he "blocked" simply by having the right cards in his hand so that I would not attack him that turn.
I think the underlying purpose of Nathan's post is that he just wants Urim and Thummim banned... ;)
P.S. excellent discussion everyone...wish more discussions were this civil...
-
Hey,
Epic battles are fun. But to top players, epic battles are not desirable. In order for a battle to become epic it can't go smoothly. In order for me to play a second enhancement in battle the first enhancement had to fail in its goal of ending the battle. As more cards become available top players will find more ways to make battles go smoothly which will decrease the frequency of epic battles. It seems somewhat inevitable to me.
In Type 1, I see the epic battle ideal being replaced with an epic game concept. Rather than going back and forth within a battle the players go back and forth over the course of a game. It is a change, but it's a change I think is acceptable. The potential flaw is when there is no viable counter to something, when the "back" is unstoppable there can be no "forth". I think the two color set-asides and The Garden Tomb are as close to having no viable counter as we've seen since choose the blocker in 03-04 or possibly even since Fight-by-the-Numbers in pre-2nd Edition 2001.
In Type 2, the build an NPE deck or lose mentality appears very sound in theory, but consider the fact that I won Nationals with a deck last year that primarily came at my opponents with a Captain banding chain and dared them to stop me.
I agree that Redemption's level of player interaction is no longer what it once was, and that is something that the playtesters can hopefully improve upon in future sets. But I also think that there is an approach to playing Redemption that circumvents the fun-sapping strategies you have mentioned. Kirk and Josh have hinted at this different approach, and I like to think that my method of game play utilizes it as well.
But even if the Redemption isn't fun the fellowship will always be there. I have been to a lot of Redemption tournaments where I didn't really enjoy any of the games I played. But there hasn't been a single Redemption tournament in the last three years that I've been to that I didn't have a blast at, because of all the awesome people I get to hang out with at tournaments. You just need to start wearing crazy outfits and bringing dinosaurs to tournaments.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
And weird hats!
-
Dinosaurs for the win.
I agree with Tim and Tim. The epic battle has changed to the epic game. The usage of Forts and Arts, the manipulation of Souls and the ability to catch an opponent off-guard are what make most games epic to me these days. If I have a super-powerful offense (especially in T2) that my opponent's defense has no realistic chance at stopping, but through his use of Artifacts and manipulation of Souls he is able to fend me off, that's epic. If I find some crazy combination of Artifacts and Heroes to keep his beefy defense from touching me, that's epic. And all this is not to say that epic battles are completely gone. Sometimes a battle is epic just in the way it turns the game around. A surprise Women as Snares to cripple a loaded defense, a couple Plots to shut down a huge offense or finding the one way to play the one card you need to despite your opponent's best efforts to stop you--those are all epic.
I'm so in the mood to play T2 MP right now...I find many of those games to be epic. :)
-
I'm willing to have another go at the multi-hour AIM T2MP game we tried with Kirk that one night. Although I had a headache the next day from keeping the location of about 300 cards straight, it was a blast.
If only there was a way RTS could manage multiplayer games...
-
We should try to play one of those games next weekend. That was super fun.
Kirk
-
Dinosaurs for the win.
the manipulation of Souls
These are 3 apparent problems that Redemption has.
1
The Huge problem with redemption is the natural manipulation of souls. IMO it would be better to start out the game with all the lost souls in your deck and put them in your land of bondage and let the strategic elimination of lost souls go from there. Let's face it when your opponent draws little to no lost souls and walks all over you in ten turns, there is no skill invovled. The game would be much better off because you would be able to take out of your deck a few previously needed staples. However one of the major issues with this is that site deck would be in a load of trouble. No body would play site decks maybe, and then we wouldn't need the one to 2 staples of site access in each deck! It is a win win ;) Another problem would be that the Games Would go much quicker and the victories potentially more lopsided. Fail.
What if an extra Ls pile was made, taking all the lost souls in the deck (at the begining of the game) out and putting it in an area out of play. Every 2 turns a player would then select a LS form his or her pile and place it in his or her Land of Bondage. This would leave cards like hopper, AS and harvestime still playable but not neccesarily worth of a staple spot in a deck. A major issue would be that heroes such as hur, and seeker wouldn't be as powerful (finally) not to mention all of the cards that this change would effect ( I cant think of very many off hand) and strategies. The pros probabley wouldn't out weigh the cons in this situation, but their has to be some way to correct this. In Every other major ccg ( to my knowledge) you can successfully work towards the game goal each turn, of course their are minor exception but redemption doesn't even come close to this.
2
Don't get me started yall about the diminishing Redemption battle phase. Pokemon has a better, cooler battle phase then Redemption.... That is rather sad.
3. The overload of drawing abilities is gross. The combination of excessive turn based drawing and many draw cards make the game of Redemption more random. ( I am not even going to talk about searching) The ability to get your power cards that fast is unheard of in all the other major CCG. I personally don't think people really understand this. In EVERY major CCG the drawing is limited so that the game will not become broken, and it has a cost. Pair massive drawing abilities/search to no cost cards and you have recipe for disaster.
-
I don't know why it's sad that one of the most popular card games on the planet, backed by one of the largest entertainment companies on the planet, would have a good battle phase. I don't begrudge them that.
Limiting draw cards stops games from breaking, and no cost is a recipe for disaster. Is Redemption broken, and/or is it in a disastrous state?
-
Hey,
a couple Plots to shut down a huge offense ... --those are all epic.
I'm sorry Justin, that's not epic, it's evil.
Nathan, while one player not drawing any lost souls does lead to unfun and uncompetitive games, the manipulation of lost souls does add an interesting wrinkle to the game. Perhaps if we created more effective but different ways to generate lost souls (a la Harvest Time and Hopper) it would help keep lost soul manipulation as a strength and not a drawback for Redemption.
The issue I see with draw and search abilities is how hard they are to stop. How do you stop Gifts of the Magi/Hur other than Destruction of Nehushtan? How do you stop Pentecost other than Rain becomes Dust? And while Magic the Gathering banned the first (and I think only) "search your draw pile for any card" card, Redemption has in recent sets made False Peace and Search harder to negate and easier to recur. Which is asking for trouble in a game that has dominants that are inherently overpowered cards that everyone uses.
Limiting draw cards stops games from breaking, and no cost is a recipe for disaster. Is Redemption broken, and/or is it in a disastrous state?
The discussion was civil and productive until this point. I am deleting the flames with the hope we can continue a productive discussion without the spleen venting and sarcasm. Thank you, Rob.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Perhaps if we created more effective but different ways to generate lost souls (a la Harvest Time and Hopper) it would help keep lost soul manipulation as a strength and not a drawback for Redemption.
Gold NT offense?
Which is asking for trouble in a game that has dominants that are inherently overpowered cards that everyone uses.
Given the nature and purpose of the game, I disagree with the notion that the cards are "inherently overpowered". Their power seems exactly right for their intent.
-
Well I consider myself an Old School player since ive been playing for around 10 years (Has it been 10 already?) I still use 63 card decks as the norm. and I think Teal is evil. Redemption in how its played has changed much from what it was preKings, and as Hobbit has stated the epic battles that decided how a game would turn out are now gone (any one remeber Second Seal, Fallen Warrior and Siege hahaha good times) and it has been replaced by preblocker ignore, Zeal CBN style kills and other crazy cheapness moves. The game has imo modernized itsself which for the better or worse is how the game has turned out. And im sad to say this but the days of epic battles that decide a game are gone and it has been replaced by themes and a plethora of other things, though there are still those of us out there that will still use ANB, Primary Objective and 63+ card decks to help remind every one how the game used to be :)
-
How are you getting this impression?
-
Perhaps if we created more effective but different ways to generate lost souls (a la Harvest Time and Hopper) it would help keep lost soul manipulation as a strength and not a drawback for Redemption.
Gold NT offense?
...so what do the other 7 good brigades fall on then?
Which is asking for trouble in a game that has dominants that are inherently overpowered cards that everyone uses.
Given the nature and purpose of the game, I disagree with the notion that the cards are "inherently overpowered". Their power seems exactly right for their intent.
if this was the 'nature' and 'purpose' of the game, why doesnt every card have dominant status? and yes, im sure their power is exactly right for their intent...which are incredibly powerful broken cards with hardly any counter. trust me, nix dominants and this game becomes BOUNDS more balanced.
-
I can't find the thread (I think it was lost in the plurge), but I think your guesses were pretty accurate. The ol' "Black is weak" came up a few times, but I'm not really sure that they really wanted that changed...
-
Black is not weak nor is red ::)
-
pokemon also has a whopping zero cards banned.
...apart from every card made by Wizards of the Coast. But that's not because of being OP'd. That's just because they wanted Churches to stop calling Pokemon "from the devil." ;D
-
Hobbit, thanks for the post. And thanks for the thoughtfulness and good intentions and careful tone. Couching your constructive criticism as you did goes a long way in making your voice heard.
Every fall, I sit down with players here and we chat about what the new set has brought to the game. We discuss what we think are the weak points of the game (what cards are too strong, etc.). I take notes. I watch closely at the top tables of tournaments to see what wins during that tournament year. I take notes. I listen to what is being said on the boards. Almost every year, I post about brigade/theme weaknesses and collect the more thoughtful insights from players. Gabe and others have given TONS of very valuable insights and suggestions in the last couple years.
Of course the game is not perfect. No game is. I understand what the current weak points are. I play Redemption almost every day, and usually twice or three times a day, so I know personally what it feels like to face certain kinds of decks. (Gabe's nats-winning deck and Tim Mierz's nats-winning deck are common enemies). I host a tournament every 4 weeks, and see what strategies win and what strategies make opponents frown about the most. I read a ton of posts and get a ton of advice from players here, and a couple of the top players here have been extremely helpful. You need only read the articles about the new set to see that the playtesters have listened. We know your concerns.
Tim Maly, I think you'd get more playtesters talking as you did if most of these threads remained as civil as Hobbit's first post. There are some who don't understand that rudeness and exageration do not help to move a conversation in a positive direction. Further, that exageration tends to weaken the credibility of those complaints, and of the complainer.
However, I think this discussion is better tabled until AFTER the new set releases. First, since it is too late to do anything about the cards, since their release is only 5 weeks away! But also because the new set will address many of the issues here, and will (likely) being about its own concerns. If we could have this discussion in September through January, that would be the ideal time, as it gives us a better picture of the game while still giving us a chance to do something about it.
Thanks again, Hobbit.
-
if this was the 'nature' and 'purpose' of the game, why doesnt every card have dominant status? and yes, im sure their power is exactly right for their intent...which are incredibly powerful broken cards with hardly any counter. trust me, nix dominants and this game becomes BOUNDS more balanced.
Ever played type nw?
-
Tim Maly, I think you'd get more playtesters talking as you did if most of these threads remained as civil as Hobbit's first post. There are some who don't understand that rudeness and exageration do not help to move a conversation in a positive direction. Further, that exageration tends to weaken the credibility of those complaints, and of the complainer.
Thanks again, Hobbit.
I don't see much different in Shaef's post. Besides Tim Maly is practically a playtester, he has such a vast and extensive knowledge of the rules and how the game functions, not to mention he is an extraordinary player who is leagues above most people in gameplay and deck strategy. Therefore, any "rude" comment ( given the situation I don't think it was terrible or un-called for) should be taken and recieved more openly then the politest comments of a mediocre player. Furthermore, Tim Maly is not being rude, he is simply fighting fire with fire.
Limiting draw cards stops games from breaking, and no cost is a recipe for disaster. Is Redemption broken, and/or is it in a disastrous state?
-
I played garden tomb and zemple together it hurt bad.
-
I don't know why it's sad that one of the most popular card games on the planet, backed by one of the largest entertainment companies on the planet, would have a good battle phase. I don't begrudge them that.
It is sad because Pokemon uses basic battle mechanics that people laugh at (it is more or less a childrens ccg), yet there is more fun battles in pokemon then there is in Redemption. pokemon and Redemption are battle oriented games, Redemption (which has a good battle phase) through the newer sets has unitentionally taken away from the battle phase, pokemon hasn't (from the little knowledge I have about pokemon) and that is why their battle phase is better IMO. The battle phase in pokemon is simple yet more interactive battle phase of Redemption, making it better than the Redemption battle phase IMO.
-
Pokemon doesn't have a "Battle Phase." You do one attack per turn, which ends your turn. Besides, Pokemon has had its issues with battles that were over before they started, immediately after the first set was released. If your Active Pokemon is Asleep or Paralyzed, you can do nothing. That was very frustrating when your opponent's Gastly could knock out your Charizard before you could even attack just because you couldn't flip a stinkin' heads (not that I'm bitter or anything ;) ).
I think the Pokemon analogy does not work in a comparison to Redemption, so it should just be dropped.
-
I don't see much different in Shaef's post... Tim Maly is not being rude, he is simply fighting fire with fire.
Limiting draw cards stops games from breaking, and no cost is a recipe for disaster. Is Redemption broken, and/or is it in a disastrous state?
Can you point out to me what is rude about that comment or not moving the conversation? You made two specific claims that X mechanic leads to Y conclusion. All I did was ask you if Y conclusion came out of the inclusion of either of these mechanics to this point. It is a simple and reasonable question to ask if the things you say will happen, have in fact happened.
It is sad because Pokemon uses basic battle mechanics that people laugh at (it is more or less a childrens ccg)
No more so a child's game than ours, or just about any other that is not deliberately targeting adult players (I would submit that Magic and Vampyre are examples of ones that do). But the battle mechanics basically boil down to a combination of War and Rock-Paper-Scissors, with initiative based on "speed", and Redemption was widely regarded as being at its least fun when it was little more than glorified War (pre-Women).
Redemption (which has a good battle phase) through the newer sets has unitentionally taken away from the battle phase, pokemon hasn't (from the little knowledge I have about pokemon) and that is why their battle phase is better IMO.
And as I said, that's perfectly fine. It's a long-standing well-developed game from a huge company, so I applaud their system for being as good as it is. I simply don't think it's sad that you consider theirs better than ours. We can't be the best at everything, and everybody cannot be the best at something.
-
...constructive criticism...goes a long way in making your voice heard...Gabe and others have given TONS of very valuable insights and suggestions in the last couple years...If we could have this discussion in September through January, that would be the ideal time...
I agree with all of this. Unfortunately, last year there was a severe lack of playtester presence on the boards from September to January. Bryon, Mike B., Justin, Maly, and Rob were all basically non-existent during those months due to various life issues. I'm hoping that this fall will be different :)
-
Pokemon doesn't have a "Battle Phase." You do one attack per turn, which ends your turn.
Knowing little beyond the basic game mechanics of Pokemon, I don't understand what you are saying. The attack is the last thing you can do, but there are at least two other phases that occur before the attack phase. First you draw a card. Then you can do a whole bunch of things like play new Pokemon, evolve them, energize them, etc. Lastly you make your attack. In what way is the pre-slotted portion of your turn dedicated to attack not the equivalent of a "battle phase?"
I think the Pokemon analogy does not work in a comparison to Redemption, so it should just be dropped.
Can you explain this claim?
-
The Redemption Battle Phase is a back-and-forth dynamic that allows both players a chance to play and counter. That is what I though Hobbit was saying he missed.
Pokemon has no such dynamic. The prior phases that you are talking about are akin to the Prep Phase. There really is no Battle Phase in Pokemon. You just choose which attack you are going to use if you have enough Energy attached and nothing is stopping you (i.e. Special Conditions).
The comparison that I saw used was that Pokemon doesn't share the same "dilemma" as Redemption, in that you don't get to do anything to stop your opponent (no back-and-forth). Pokemon has had the equivalent of "pre-block ignore" since its inception.
-
Why is Pokemon even relevant? I want to play Redemption thank you very much. :)
-
Why is Pokemon even relevant? I want to play Redemption thank you very much. :)
That is essentially my point. Pokemon should not have been brought into this discussion.
-
I will agree with YMT. I know how much he used to play the game so I believe he is one of the most qualified persons on this forum to talk about it.
He will try to convince you that he played the game so much because of his son, but we all know the truth... ;)
Kirk
-
I guess I shouldn't mention the Halloween that my wife and I wore matching white t-shirts with a big "R" on them, and I painted my hair blue while my wife painted her's red....
He will try to convince you that he played the game so much because of his son, but we all know the truth... ;)
Actually I only played so that I could have a "better connection" to the Junior Highers at the church I was youth pastoring. Of course, the connection was lost after I beat all of their best decks with my Hit-n-Run deck.
I didn't discover Redemption until I was just about to leave that church position.
-
I stand corrected.
-
The comparison that I saw used was that Pokemon doesn't share the same "dilemma" as Redemption, in that you don't get to do anything to stop your opponent (no back-and-forth). Pokemon has had the equivalent of "pre-block ignore" since its inception.
If that's the case and Redemption's battle phase truly is currently less interesting that Pokemon's, the Hobbit is correct that this is sad situation. (And it really doesn't matter how much money is spent on Pokemon design or marketing or whatever.)
Thanks for the explanation, YMT.
-
I don't see much different in Shaef's post... Tim Maly is not being rude, he is simply fighting fire with fire.
Limiting draw cards stops games from breaking, and no cost is a recipe for disaster. Is Redemption broken, and/or is it in a disastrous state?
Can you point out to me what is rude about that comment or not moving the conversation? You made two specific claims that X mechanic leads to Y conclusion. All I did was ask you if Y conclusion came out of the inclusion of either of these mechanics to this point. It is a simple and reasonable question to ask if the things you say will happen, have in fact happened.
It is sad because Pokemon uses basic battle mechanics that people laugh at (it is more or less a childrens ccg)
No more so a child's game than ours, or just about any other that is not deliberately targeting adult players (I would submit that Magic and Vampyre are examples of ones that do). But the battle mechanics basically boil down to a combination of War and Rock-Paper-Scissors, with initiative based on "speed", and Redemption was widely regarded as being at its least fun when it was little more than glorified War (pre-Women).
Redemption (which has a good battle phase) through the newer sets has unitentionally taken away from the battle phase, pokemon hasn't (from the little knowledge I have about pokemon) and that is why their battle phase is better IMO.
And as I said, that's perfectly fine. It's a long-standing well-developed game from a huge company, so I applaud their system for being as good as it is. I simply don't think it's sad that you consider theirs better than ours. We can't be the best at everything, and everybody cannot be the best at something.
I did not find that your post was out of line I was just looking at it through Tims possible point of view, were he could have taken it the wrong way.
(I ment to answer your question in an earlier post) Broken? perhaps, but certainly the drawing and search stuff has gotten really good which I think hurts the game. Unplayable, no. Totally warped and Broken, no. In retrospect to other games, Redemption is most certainly broken ( due to the gameplay and mechanincal layouts), but in itself, I don't belive that Redemption is broken in terms of "unplayable". OR severvly damaged. I personally think that it needs a tune up here and there by banning select cards. :) "Cough" U&T "Cough"
-
I'm afraid I can't understand that paragraph. It's maybe broken, but not totally broken, but certainly broken, but you don't believe it's broken, but it just needs a tune-up. My eyeballs hurt.
-
Pokemon doesn't have a "Battle Phase." You do one attack per turn, which ends your turn. Besides, Pokemon has had its issues with battles that were over before they started, immediately after the first set was released. If your Active Pokemon is Asleep or Paralyzed, you can do nothing. That was very frustrating when your opponent's Gastly could knock out your Charizard before you could even attack just because you couldn't flip a stinkin' heads (not that I'm bitter or anything ;) ).
I think the Pokemon analogy does not work in a comparison to Redemption, so it should just be dropped.
One can make the exact same argument that Redemption doesn't have a battle, by saying that one card stoppers are not much of a battle.
Here is the thing with the paralysis and sleepiness of pokemon, there is a chance that he will become un asleep with the flip of a coin ( antidotes 2 if I remmeber correctly + not all pokemon have this ability, and those that do are weaker in other stats). When Jacob comes in battle and plays RTC ignoring my solid brigade defense ( which is what logically the mechanics of Redemption incourage) their is only a few things I can do ( Martyr and Writ come in to mind). There are preventive measures but not a whole lot of them and remember you have to deck them I have them at the right time.
Believe me Redemption has far more issues of Battles being over before they started.
Let us look at RTC through pokemon's glasses. RTC paralyzes all EC of one brigade ( when played with Jacob) with no chance of un paralyzing them by the flip of a coin. All I am saying is that in pokemon at least there is a hope of attacking (blocking). And attacking every turn for that matter because it does not depend on opponents drawing Ls. Diminishing the need for battles hurts the battle phase as a whole, which is why IMO pokemon as a better battle phase (currently).
I do agree to some extant that it is futile to make comparisons from pokemon to Redemption, however it isn't totally irrelevent to compare the level of player invovlement and interaction ( overall) between the battle phases of pokemon and Redemption to illustrate a point. And when we can look at other card games and see how they have maintained them we (when I say we I mean the playtesters) can take general tips and pointers from them to better the game of Redemption as a whole, withought totally relandscaping the game.
-
I'd turn your argument on you by saying that because of those battle preventors that causes more player interaction when it comes to anticipating, preventing, countering, and evading said preventors. Pokemon, as you say, gives the chance for the turn you just used to go without use when you might have instead used another attack and done damage. Redemption there are measures to take accounting for and attempting to predict those card which make for less interesting games. Pokemon is a rather dull game. Draw, play energy, attack. Sometimes you get to flip a coin. Redemption is draw, think, play, manipulate card options, choose an attack, be defended, and begin manipulating effects again. And in that, even if you lose your RA, you might gain something from cards manipulating your opponent's deck, hand, or cards on the field.
-
Here is the thing with the paralysis and sleepiness of pokemon, there is a chance that he will become un asleep with the flip of a coin ( antidotes 2 if I remmeber correctly + not all pokemon have this ability, and those that do are weaker in other stats). When Jacob comes in battle and plays RTC ignoring my solid brigade defense ( which is what logically the mechanics of Redemption incourage) their is only a few things I can do ( Martyr and Writ come in to mind). There are preventive measures but not a whole lot of them and remember you have to deck them I have them at the right time.
You state that there are things you can still do against RTC, after implying that there is nothing you can do. There are only a few counters to Paralysis, too (Flipping a coin is not one of them - that is for Sleep only).
Believe me Redemption has far more issues of Battles being over before they started.
I don't believe you because I have played both games simultaneously for the past 9 years. There are very few counters to Paralysis and Sleep, and nothing to stop a Pokemon that uses an attack that "prevents all effects of attacks, including damage, done to your Pokemon during your opponent's next turn." I very easily built a deck from the original three sets that none of the players in my area could stop. They were just as frustrated as you seem to be now, and that was 9 years ago. Yet, Pokemon lives on, a gazillion sets later and still on TV every week with new episodes.
Let us look at RTC through pokemon's glasses. RTC paralyzes all EC of one brigade ( when played with Jacob) with no chance of un paralyzing them by the flip of a coin.
You cannot "un-paralyze" with a flip of the coin. That is for Sleep only. Paralysis has no counter other than Full Heal or Scoop Up (which they did not reprint in the Nintendo version of the cards).
All I am saying is that in pokemon at least there is a hope of attacking (blocking). And attacking every turn for that matter because it does not depend on opponents drawing Ls.
Well that's not true at all. You cannot attack unless you have enough of the right type of energy. You have to draw those, just like your opponent needs to draw Lost Soul cards. Pokemon makes it tougher because you only draw one card at a time to start your turn.
I do agree to some extant that it is futile to make comparisons from pokemon to Redemption, ...
See. We can agree! ;D
...
however it isn't totally irrelevent to compare the level of player invovlement and interaction ( overall) between the battle phases of pokemon and Redemption to illustrate a point.
It is irrelevant because Pokemon does not have a Battle Phase, as I stated earlier. There is no player interaction on your turn. Your opponent cannot do anything until it is their turn, and by then they may not be able to do anything.
Redemption does have player interaction, because you can play cards during your opponent's turn, especially dominants. There really is no comparison.
-
Not to mention all the ways you can negate or discard cards, either RTC itself or cards that play it. If anything, YMT's analysis tells me that Redemption has more options to allow a player to unlock his characters and go back to battling.
-
I'm afraid I can't understand that paragraph. It's maybe broken, but not totally broken, but certainly broken, but you don't believe it's broken, but it just needs a tune-up. My eyeballs hurt.
Maybe broken-- I would rather not say if I thought the game is inherently broken because I haven't made my mind up and I don't have time to think of all of the flaws and counter arguments. I will say for now that I don't belive it is broken.
Certainly broken---- This is from another ccg prospective that I base this conclusion. The searching, drawing, minimal cost system and the inherint power of cards. This isn't the only meter of sytem you can use when judging a succesful ccg like Redemption. Successful being the key word. However I do think that this can be a deterant for players who play other ccgs and want to learn Redemption.
Tune up- Yes I do believe Redemption needs a few fixes her and there. At the same time I want to make it clear that Rob, Byron, Shaef + playtesters have done a superb job at making it all happen, this is not a reflection on their work on the ccg (surely not!). No, this is a reflection of natural mistakes that just, well, happen from time to time.
I hoped that helped to clear up your questions.
-
Jumping into this conversation way late, but I just want to express the fact that I am quite pleased Redemption is vastly more about deckbuilding choices than what happens later. Luck of the draw is in unfortunate necessity, as nobody has come up with a good game without that element of randomization yet (and if you have, I will be the first to buy), but beyond that, the single biggest determining factor in who wins the games is what you have chosen to include or not include in your deck, and what your opponent has chosen to include or not include in his deck. Will your Unknown Nation be a lifesaver against a battle-winner deck like Teal or Purple, or will it be completely useless against your opponent's Zebulun offense? Will your decision to rely on Zerubabel's Temple to make your offense invincible enable you to waltz right past a Syrian capture defense, or will you encounter Egyptians worshiping Mildew on the High Places, making your Lampstand useless and your entire offense vulnerable? I, for one, am in favor of the current state of Redemption.
-
I hoped that helped to clear up your questions.
Only partially, since you only addressed two of the four ways you said it is/is not broken. At least in your response you pared it down to just one conclusion, which is sort of the point here.
I don't think you can say a game is "certainly broken" because its mechanics are different from another game. Otherwise, all CCGs would necessarily have to be the exact same way. I could "break" a game with no drawing if I made the object to deck out the other person (as is common across several titles) and then put in cards that shuffled used cards back in so that no one ever decked out. I could "break" a game with a cost system if I skewed the power of cards in relation to their cost.
Any system can be "broken" if its elements are not properly balanced. Likewise, the mechanics you say are problematic have to be exploited to a point where the game is untenable and therefore "broken", and you are saying that Redemption has NOT reached that point. That was what I was driving at: games are not automatically "broken" just because they have certain mechanics, and though those mechanics CAN lead to breaking, all mechanics theoretically CAN lead to breaking, but that doesn't mean they inevitably WILL, and you agree that to this point, they have not.
-
I hoped that helped to clear up your questions.
I don't think you can say a game is "certainly broken" because its mechanics are different from another game.
The game of Redemptions from another CCGers point of view, looking in on the game. (given the person has not played a whole lot of Redemption to see other wise).
I hoped that helped to clear up your questions.
I could "break" a game with no drawing if I made the object to deck out the other person (as is common across several titles) and then put in cards that shuffled used cards back in so that no one ever decked out. I could "break" a game with a cost system if I skewed the power of cards in relation to their cost.
Yes you could, but games like Magic, and LOTR aren't broken. That is the whole point, other ccgs have banned cards/been careful about what kinds of cards they make, in order that the game doesn't lose its pizzaz or become totally broken. Redemption for me has lost some of its pizzaz especially because of the back to back tin sets and because of the NPE decks. Don't get me wrong it is really fun to walk in for free souls, but when I am on the other end of the stick it makes it takes alot of the fun out of the game for me.
I hoped that helped to clear up your questions.
Likewise, the mechanics you say are problematic have to be exploited to a point where the game is untenable and therefore "broken", and you are saying that Redemption has NOT reached that point.
Nothing has to be exploited to the point of brokenness and it is a could thing it hasn't ( due to the counters that were made), but to a certain degree these mechanics have hurt the game by decreasing the interaction level. Sometimes I am not sure whether I am watching a game of Redemption or playing one.
My point is that the game has been harmed by said mechanics and the increase of auto blocks/ auto RA's to the point were it has lost some of its fun.
Not to mention all the ways you can negate or discard cards, either RTC itself or cards that play it. If anything, YMT's analysis tells me that Redemption has more options to allow a player to unlock his characters and go back to battling.
Yes on paper you can negate it or discard it, but in a game situation (even if you put cards in your deck to counter that) it is very very hard to stop.
It doesn't work to just look at the lists of cards and make a conclusion that since their are cards to counter RTC it means that it is easy to stop in a game and or/ it isn't broken. YMT, and yourself seem to dismiss the idea of OP cards because of the fact that their are counters to them. Consequently I cannot get passed that to illustrate my point.
There are many other cards that work like this that work towards NPE. Such as false+momentum change in type two.
Welcome back Pol! I respect your ideas as well as the others.
YMT, I will drop the pokemon thing. It was ment for a simple analogy of why I though the pokemon battle phase was better not the main point of my argument.
Not to mention all the ways you can negate or discard cards, either RTC itself or cards that play it. If anything, YMT's analysis tells me that Redemption has more options to allow a player to unlock his characters and go back to battling.
Jake,
What do you mean by battle preventers? The cards that limit the battle phase like, The Garden Tomb, or Reuben's Torn Clothes? If so these cards decrease player interaction not increase. Perhaps you mispoke. My point about the pokemon is that in that ccg they seem to encorage the battle phase ( like in Redemption) Redemption however has created more cards that minimize the battle phase (the strategy and bottomline fun). This is from limited knowledge of pokemon though. YMT arguments about the game haven't disproven in my mind the claim of the better battle phase.
I think it would be good to discuss Redemption at a later date, in the meantime though I was hoping to hit home for some people on a few of my points.
-
Jumping into this conversation way late, but I just want to express the fact that I am quite pleased Redemption is vastly more about deckbuilding choices than what happens later. Luck of the draw is in unfortunate necessity, as nobody has come up with a good game without that element of randomization yet (and if you have, I will be the first to buy), but beyond that, the single biggest determining factor in who wins the games is what you have chosen to include or not include in your deck, and what your opponent has chosen to include or not include in his deck. Will your Unknown Nation be a lifesaver against a battle-winner deck like Teal or Purple, or will it be completely useless against your opponent's Zebulun offense? Will your decision to rely on Zerubabel's Temple to make your offense invincible enable you to waltz right past a Syrian capture defense, or will you encounter Egyptians worshiping Mildew on the High Places, making your Lampstand useless and your entire offense vulnerable? I, for one, am in favor of the current state of Redemption.
*Hands Pol a chess board ;)*
+1 Redemption is 50% deck building 40% playing 10% luck.
-
YMT, and yourself seem to dismiss the idea of OP cards because of the fact that their are counters to them.
I did not dismiss the idea of OP cards anywhere in this thread. I was talking about your comparison to Pokemon.
However, it seems that you are the one dismissing anything that I have said:
YMT arguments about the game haven't disproven in my mind the claim of the better battle phase.
So be it.
-
The game of Redemptions from another CCGers point of view, looking in on the game. (given the person has not played a whole lot of Redemption to see other wise).
I think anyone who calls a game broken without playing it enough to tell if it's broken, that's the problem right there.
As for the POV of other CCG'ers, we just had a tournament on the same day as a YGO tournament a couple weeks ago, and a couple of the YGO players actually ditched their tournament to play in our local. So we also have evidence of people playing other, bigger card games and viewing ours favorably in its current state.
Yes you could, but games like Magic, and LOTR aren't broken. That is the whole point, other ccgs have banned cards/been careful about what kinds of cards they make, in order that the game doesn't lose its pizzaz or become totally broken.
My point, and I thought I had stated this pretty openly in the last post, is that our system isn't broken, either, and that brokenness comes from lack of balance and not from any one mechanic applied.
My point is that the game has been harmed by said mechanics and the increase of auto blocks/ auto RA's to the point were it has lost some of its fun.
And this is the point where we part ways, because I don't think anyone likes auto-wins, but they take time to set up, they have a few counters with more on the way, and more to the point, I enjoy the increased strategy of managing my cards outside of the Battle Phase as well as within. It's like shooters; some people like raw twitch shooters and play CTF until they're blue in the face. I like shooters with vehicle modes, and/or player classes, that allow me to play a little more strategic and a little less rambo. I have a way to compensate for the kiddies with the mad skillz. In TF2, I would probably be the Engineer or the Medic. People may like different types of shooters than I, but because they play different, not because one is objectively better than the other.
And bear in mind I'm referring to full-turn play as a whole, not auto-win cards unto themselves.
Yes on paper you can negate it or discard it, but in a game situation (even if you put cards in your deck to counter that) it is very very hard to stop... YMT, and yourself seem to dismiss the idea of OP cards because of the fact that their are counters to them. Consequently I cannot get passed that to illustrate my point.
I'm not sure what to tell you on that. A lot of what I see in the metagame is not whether a strategy CAN be countered, but whether people really invest their time in killing it. IMO there were enough counters to shut down FBN years ago, but people didn't build enough against them to manage, and therefore they remained dominant past their theoretical prime. I think speed is in that state right now, where it CAN be stopped, but the question is whether it will in the years to come.
As it stands right now, my tournament deck had the potential to stand up to a TGT deck, a Zeb deck, an RTC deck, a FBN deck, an AoCP deck and a Sitelock deck with varying degrees of effectiveness. I'm not saying I would take any one of them apart with ease, only that I did not fear any of them outright. That's why I'm not running up the white flag against auto-ignore, even before the onslaught of new cards.
-
As it stands right now, my tournament deck had the potential to stand up to a TGT deck, a Zeb deck, an RTC deck, a FBN deck, an AoCP deck and a Sitelock deck with varying degrees of effectiveness.
Just to be clear, this is the "tournament deck" that hasn't even won a local right?
Couldn't resist the chance to give you a hard time buddy :)
-
Jumping into this conversation way late, but I just want to express the fact that I am quite pleased Redemption is vastly more about deckbuilding choices than what happens later. Luck of the draw is in unfortunate necessity, as nobody has come up with a good game without that element of randomization yet (and if you have, I will be the first to buy), but beyond that, the single biggest determining factor in who wins the games is what you have chosen to include or not include in your deck, and what your opponent has chosen to include or not include in his deck. Will your Unknown Nation be a lifesaver against a battle-winner deck like Teal or Purple, or will it be completely useless against your opponent's Zebulun offense? Will your decision to rely on Zerubabel's Temple to make your offense invincible enable you to waltz right past a Syrian capture defense, or will you encounter Egyptians worshiping Mildew on the High Places, making your Lampstand useless and your entire offense vulnerable? I, for one, am in favor of the current state of Redemption.
*Hands Pol a chess board ;)*
+1 Redemption is 50% deck building 40% playing 10% luck.
That sounds about right to me. Nice insights, both of you. :)
-
Just to be clear, this is the "tournament deck" that hasn't even won a local right?
It lost to a championship deck that just hammered people with priests and prophets. None of the "overpowered combos" were in his deck.
And you only get to talk trash because I was forced to miss Regionals and therefore the chance to take you all to school. :p
-
You can still come to East Central regionals in two weeks.
Kirk
-
And you only get to talk trash because I was forced to miss Regionals and therefore the chance to take you all to school. :p
Sounds to me like you need to bring your bad self down to EC Regionals in 2 weeks and put your money where your mouth is :)
Seriously, we'd love to have you and your guys come down.
Instaposted.
-
I'd love to do it but we're getting killed financially. That reason unto itself might still have made it impossible for me to attend last weekend even if I didn't have that other thing with the guy and the stuff.
-
I'd love to do it but we're getting killed financially. That reason unto itself might still have made it impossible for me to attend last weekend even if I didn't have that other thing with the guy and the stuff.
I feel bad for you, and hope that things turn around.
-
It is what it is. We have a roof, the boys have food, so praise be to God.
-
It is what it is. We have a roof, the boys have food, so praise be to God.
Good perspective. We are all very blessed!
-
I'm still mad that no one called my Witnesses to Creation/3 Nails/Lampstand T2 deck from 2007 Nationals broken...it only has 3 counters (Madness, The Serpent and Leviathan) and nobody could block me at all...
>:( "I don't get no respect!"
;D
-
Guardian's deck was broken. That's all I have to say.
* Please send the promos to my home address.*
-
Unholy Writ also stops you 3 times, Doubt can block also.
-
Unholy Writ also stops you 3 times, Doubt can block also.
If Writ could capture Angels it would stop me... ::)
If you use Doubt, I applaud your preparation... ;)
-
Justin,
I can do the same combo with different cards within a type 1 game's timeframe. That's why I don't applaud you. ;)
Janissary
PS I didn't know Doubt was a card.
-
Hey,
PS I didn't know Doubt was a card.
It's not, it's just a myth.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Justin,
I can do the same combo with different cards within a type 1 game's timeframe. That's why I don't applaud you. ;)
Janissary
PS I didn't know Doubt was a card.
SoV/TinR/SW/3N is a lot messier and riskier...
If your opponent draws an opening round Gabriel and figures out what you want to do...you're kinda stuck... :P
Furthermore, I'm not claiming to be the creator of the 3 Nails/Witnesses combo but rather a deck that effectively used that combo by surrounding it with the right balance of supporting cards. :)
-
Not even my combo.
My deck dosn't necessarily win, but it definately doesn't lose often.
-
Well, I'm guessing its at least as messy as the other one, otherwise everyone would be using it... ::)
-
Not messy as much as slowish. I may or may not have timed out 5 games at Nats. But I got 2nd at Regionals, lol.
-
Justin,
I definitely used my Witnesses deck at Arkansas State last year, and EVERY guy there who played T2 had 2 or 3 Leviathans splashed in their decks... I thought they were just psychic or something, then one told me that one of the guys always used to use a Witness deck, so it became a staple in their T2 decks.
I managed to still win, but I had to use ol' school TSA Gathered to Michael + Angel's Sword + FSS instead...
Kirk