Author Topic: Set Rotation food for thought (Read 19725 times)

The Guardian · « **Reply #25 on:** May 07, 2018, 03:22:24 PM »

Would you believe me if I told you that is exactly the kind of tension we were hoping for?

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #26 on:** May 07, 2018, 03:23:12 PM »

Quote from: Ironisaac on May 07, 2018, 03:18:25 PM

Quote from: Kevinthedude on May 07, 2018, 03:16:38 PM
Quote from: Bobbert on May 07, 2018, 03:12:43 PM
Quote from: Kevinthedude on May 07, 2018, 03:10:52 PM
Quote from: Red on May 07, 2018, 03:06:15 PM
"when placed in territory" NT souls are better than anything in FoM imo.

Covet is fantastic.
Do you know why Covet is fantastic? Because it steals your opponent's Dull.

Yep! Or wander their Dull away and covet their imitate and imitate their lawless every turn. I may get proven wrong once I start actually playing but just from looking at the new cards I don't see how straight O.T. souls is anything but the best soul lineup.

What if they are playing all OT, like you?

Covet whatever their most useful soul left in their deck is so probably prosperity, darkness, or punisher if they have it and it's relevant to one of you. Maybe even covet their covet if you have something left in your deck you don't want them to take.

I think the existence of blind and the O.T. soul unity cards swings it in the favor of O.T. souls. In an O.T. or N.T. mirror it's equal, but against each other O.T. souls counter N.T. souls. There may be some perfect combination of both that works really well and keeps the tension high but barring that I think everyone will be forced to play O.T.

Ironisaac · « **Reply #27 on:** May 07, 2018, 03:26:20 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on May 07, 2018, 03:22:24 PM

Would you believe me if I told you that is exactly the kind of tension we were hoping for?

Yes
And I don't mind it. Because I'm right.

Quote from: Kevinthedude on May 07, 2018, 03:23:12 PM

Covet whatever their most useful soul left in their deck is so probably prosperity, darkness, or punisher if they have it and it's relevant to one of you. Maybe even covet their covet if you have something left in your deck you don't want them to take.

I guess it ultimately comes down to wether you want both players activating and benefitting off all the souls on the table, or no one benefiting off any souls on the table. I prefer the former, so I'll be running NT, at least until I have seen the benefit of no one getting to use their souls.

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #28 on:** May 07, 2018, 03:30:20 PM »

Quote from: Ironisaac on May 07, 2018, 03:26:20 PM

Quote from: Kevinthedude on May 07, 2018, 03:23:12 PM
Covet whatever their most useful soul left in their deck is so probably prosperity, darkness, or punisher if they have it and it's relevant to one of you. Maybe even covet their covet if you have something left in your deck you don't want them to take.

I guess it ultimately comes down to wether you want both players activating and benefitting off all the souls on the table, or no one benefiting off any souls on the table. I prefer the former, so I'll be running NT, at least until I have seen the benefit of no one getting to use their souls.

The one problem with that is that when you go up against an O.T. soul player, not only will your souls not be doing anything, your opponent's souls will be doing something. You either get equal ground or low ground, meanwhile the O.T. player either gets equal ground or high ground.

Ironisaac · « **Reply #29 on:** May 07, 2018, 03:33:07 PM »

However, you will have to run what I view to be inferior souls to fully utilize Covet's Unity. It guess running NT is more high risk/high reward, compared to the OT souls, which are safer, but less powerful imo.

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #30 on:** May 07, 2018, 03:34:56 PM »

Quote from: Ironisaac on May 07, 2018, 03:33:07 PM

However, you will have to run what I view to be inferior souls to fully utilize Covet's Unity. It guess running NT is more high risk/high reward, compared to the OT souls, which are safer, but less powerful imo.

N.T. souls debatably do more proactively in a vacuum but what matters is your soul's performance relative to your opponent's souls for each individual game.

The Guardian · « **Reply #31 on:** May 07, 2018, 03:37:10 PM »

Quote from: Ironisaac on May 07, 2018, 03:33:07 PM

However, you will have to run what I view to be inferior souls to fully utilize Covet's Unity. It guess running NT is more high risk/high reward, compared to the OT souls, which are safer, but less powerful imo.

I feel this is a pretty fair assessment.

I'm also fairly certain there's going to be some very strong LS lineups that include both OT and NT.

Ironisaac · « **Reply #32 on:** May 07, 2018, 03:40:41 PM »

Quote from: Kevinthedude on May 07, 2018, 03:34:56 PM

Quote from: Ironisaac on May 07, 2018, 03:33:07 PM
However, you will have to run what I view to be inferior souls to fully utilize Covet's Unity. It guess running NT is more high risk/high reward, compared to the OT souls, which are safer, but less powerful imo.

N.T. souls debatably do more proactively in a vacuum but what matters is your soul's performance relative to your opponent's souls for each individual game.

Another issue with both of our arguments is that the souls aren't even out yet, so it's not like we have super concrete data to base this off of. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this, at least until the souls have seen plenty of play so we can truly see what is better. I will say though, I really like vindicated and prosperity, and may end up running those this year.

Edit: i missed that you brought up the Blind soul. Are you thinking about playing that? that's another one i just don't see a lot of value in, especially if you are playing covet. You want to steal my NT soul, just to negate it? Doesn't seem that good imo. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #33 on:** May 07, 2018, 03:54:29 PM »

Quote from: Ironisaac on May 07, 2018, 03:40:41 PM

Quote from: Kevinthedude on May 07, 2018, 03:34:56 PM
Quote from: Ironisaac on May 07, 2018, 03:33:07 PM
However, you will have to run what I view to be inferior souls to fully utilize Covet's Unity. It guess running NT is more high risk/high reward, compared to the OT souls, which are safer, but less powerful imo.

N.T. souls debatably do more proactively in a vacuum but what matters is your soul's performance relative to your opponent's souls for each individual game.

Another issue with both of our arguments is that the souls aren't even out yet, so it's not like we have super concrete data to base this off of. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this, at least until the souls have seen plenty of play so we can truly see what is better. I will say though, I really like vindicated and prosperity, and may end up running those this year.

Edit: i missed that you brought up the Blind soul. Are you thinking about playing that? that's another one i just don't see a lot of value in, especially if you are playing covet. You want to steal my NT soul, just to negate it? Doesn't seem that good imo. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You're completely right about the lack of data, but I do enjoy a good ~~argument~~ discussion

I do intend to run Blind, and the thought process is that if running a bunch of N.T. souls is mainstream, it's huge value. The only reason people wouldn't keep running a bunch of N.T. souls is if Blind pushes them out of the meta. If Blind is prevalent enough to push them out of the meta, it means we have a warped format scenario and are running counters to cards that aren't actually played anymore because running them is required to keep those cards from coming back. In that scenario, either my opponent is part of the warp and running Blind as well so we're even or my opponent is hoping people have started to take Blind out of their decks and is running N.T. souls, in which case I get my value. The only way Blind is bad is if everyone is running O.T. and some people start taking out Blind but still running O.T. because they're scared of Blind. If that behavior becomes widespread though, N.T. souls come back and Blind is good again.

TL;DR: The majority of scenarios either put Blind on equal footing or superior footing with my opponent so it's good.

Gabe · « **Reply #34 on:** May 07, 2018, 06:47:43 PM »

I love that “Humble” makes the grade whether we’re talking O.T. or N.T. We need a couple more dual testament souls at some point.

We’ve thought through rotation and have a pretty good idea that we don’t want CBN battle winning removal. That means we probably won’t see a Bravery of David or Samuel’s Edict LR. Probably also won’t ever see AUtO.

Decisions are being made now and going forward with a possible rotation in mind. I wish we could have done better at that the past few years. But we will be prepared if the time comes to implement a rotation format.

The Guardian · « **Reply #35 on:** May 07, 2018, 06:54:28 PM »

Quote

That means we probably won’t see a Bravery of David or Samuel’s Edict LR. Probably also won’t ever see AUtO.

To clarify, we won't see those cards reprinted as they are now...they could be reprinted with different (read: more balanced) abilities.

Red · « **Reply #36 on:** May 07, 2018, 09:20:32 PM »

If the main format was a rotation format, I most likely would hang up my hat. I don't want to see Redemption become like every other main CCG.

SEB · « **Reply #37 on:** May 07, 2018, 10:50:18 PM »

Quote from: Red on May 07, 2018, 09:20:32 PM

If the main format was a rotation format, I most likely would hang up my hat. I don't want to see Redemption become like every other main CCG.

this is why I suggested two formats, but the value of a rotation format is it helps new players. The point of entry for a rotation format isnt as steep, BUT the "Eternal" format needs to be healthy so that once they get used to the game, they can start trading for the older cards and build more dynamic decks with a larger card pool.

I guess it's a similar issue with "banned" cards. As the game continues to add cards to the pool, the need for a rotation format will become greater and greater.

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #38 on:** May 07, 2018, 11:59:24 PM »

Quote from: Red on May 07, 2018, 09:20:32 PM

If the main format was a rotation format, I most likely would hang up my hat. I don't want to see Redemption become like every other main CCG.

Would you want Redemption to sacrifice being a better game just so it can retain an arbitrary sense of uniqueness?

Daniel · « **Reply #39 on:** May 08, 2018, 12:41:02 AM »

Quote from: Red on May 07, 2018, 09:20:32 PM

If the main format was a rotation format, I most likely would hang up my hat. I don't want to see Redemption become like every other main CCG.

Isn’t this, like the 9th time you’ve threatened to quit the game over new changes?

The Guardian · « **Reply #40 on:** May 08, 2018, 01:04:37 AM »

Quote from: Kevinthedude on May 07, 2018, 11:59:24 PM

Quote from: Red on May 07, 2018, 09:20:32 PM
If the main format was a rotation format, I most likely would hang up my hat. I don't want to see Redemption become like every other main CCG.

Would you want Redemption to sacrifice being a better game just so it can retain an arbitrary sense of uniqueness?

Not everyone believes set rotation would make Redemption a better game therefore to them, there is no sacrifice.

Red · « **Reply #41 on:** May 08, 2018, 07:43:41 AM »

Quote from: Kevinthedude on May 07, 2018, 11:59:24 PM

Quote from: Red on May 07, 2018, 09:20:32 PM
If the main format was a rotation format, I most likely would hang up my hat. I don't want to see Redemption become like every other main CCG.

Would you want Redemption to sacrifice being a better game just so it can retain an arbitrary sense of uniqueness?

Lowering the playable card pool would not make Redemption a better game. I personally find Legacy and Modern to be better MtG formats than Standard.

SEB · « **Reply #42 on:** May 08, 2018, 07:45:26 AM »

Quote from: Kevinthedude on May 07, 2018, 11:59:24 PM

Quote from: Red on May 07, 2018, 09:20:32 PM
If the main format was a rotation format, I most likely would hang up my hat. I don't want to see Redemption become like every other main CCG.

Would you want Redemption to sacrifice being a better game just so it can retain an arbitrary sense of uniqueness?

So, the 20 year old battle that CCG/TCG games struggle with is a two part querry: how to help new players enter a game that has 20 years worth of baggage (not a bad thing, but things like expansions, rule changes, visual card changes, etc etc) and how to help current players stay invested.

I know I have been gone for quite a bit, which perhaps, gives me a more unique perspective than others who travel these forums; but I think the Elders have done a fabulous job with part 2 of the above. Given their solid track record over the last few years, I want to extend to them a level of trust. Instead of bulking at a rotation format, I attempted to aid in their thought process and discussion.

Also, speaking from a "new player" prospective (let's face it after this many years, im basically new), a rotation format is very attractive. I dont have to learn as many cards to get to a competitive level, friends and family who I want to introduce to the game may have an easier point of entry, and it will be awesome to see how the design team makes new cards (it should push them to a new level) to compensate for two formats.

Ill say this again: I really hope there is an additional format introduced that rotates sets, and I hope there is the current T1 & T2.

@Red, you voiced an opposition, which I am glad you did. Could you help me understand your frustration and list some of your reasons why you are against a rotating format?

SEB · « **Reply #43 on:** May 08, 2018, 07:47:43 AM »

Quote from: Red on May 08, 2018, 07:43:41 AM

Quote from: Kevinthedude on May 07, 2018, 11:59:24 PM
Quote from: Red on May 07, 2018, 09:20:32 PM
If the main format was a rotation format, I most likely would hang up my hat. I don't want to see Redemption become like every other main CCG.

Would you want Redemption to sacrifice being a better game just so it can retain an arbitrary sense of uniqueness?
Lowering the playable card pool would not make Redemption a better game. I personally find Legacy and Modern to be better MtG formats than Standard.

That is a perfectly fair point, but the majority of players are playing standard and move to Modern/Legacy/Type1

Red · « **Reply #44 on:** May 08, 2018, 07:58:19 AM »

Reasons I would be against a Rotating Format as primary tournament format for SEB:

1. Limits Diversity
Lower Card Pool obviously means fewer viable decks. If the format rotated at I/J forward as of post-nationals, Teal would hardly be a brigade, as well as all themes pre-Early Church lose their teeth.

2. Hurts Long-Time Players
I have a gigantic collection. I also like to experiment with various older cards (I placed 5th in T2-2P at Nationals using 4x Provisions and 4x Obedience of Noah, which are 13 and 17 year old cards respectively). A set rotating format as main format would stifle creativity on a grand-scale. I will concede that rotation does assist small-scale creativity.

3. New Players and Cheap Cards
I live in a region that survives off of younger players using cheaper donated cards to build decks. Many of these players eventually can get expansion cards to build with, but that is usually 2ish years into playing. Making a rotation format the primary format would cripple this group, which I am not in favor of.

How I could get behind an implementation of Set Rotation:

1. Make it the Non-Primary Format for first two-three years of existence
2. T2 remains non-rotating
3.T1 Eternal continues to exist and be promoted with the support of ban and errata lists.
4. Make the cardpool start at Cloud of Witnesses or Fall of Man to encourage brigade diversity.
5. Ensure that themes have card advantage and consistency in sets going forward to encourage a game of redemption concluding before midnight

SEB · « **Reply #45 on:** May 08, 2018, 08:06:41 AM »

Quote from: Red on May 08, 2018, 07:58:19 AM

Reasons I would be against a Rotating Format as primary tournament format for SEB:

1. Limits Diversity
Lower Card Pool obviously means fewer viable decks. If the format rotated at I/J forward as of post-nationals, Teal would hardly be a brigade, as well as all themes pre-Early Church lose their teeth.

2. Hurts Long-Time Players
I have a gigantic collection. I also like to experiment with various older cards (I placed 5th in T2-2P at Nationals using 4x Provisions and 4x Obedience of Noah, which are 13 and 17 year old cards respectively). A set rotating format as main format would stifle creativity on a grand-scale. I will concede that rotation does assist small-scale creativity.

3. New Players and Cheap Cards
I live in a region that survives off of younger players using cheaper donated cards to build decks. Many of these players eventually can get expansion cards to build with, but that is usually 2ish years into playing. Making a rotation format the primary format would cripple this group, which I am not in favor of.

How I could get behind an implementation of Set Rotation:

1. Make it the Non-Primary Format for first two-three years of existence
2. T2 remains non-rotating
3.T1 Eternal continues to exist and be promoted with the support of ban and errata lists.
4. Make the cardpool start at Cloud of Witnesses or Fall of Man to encourage brigade diversity.
5. Ensure that themes have card advantage and consistency in sets going forward to encourage a game of redemption concluding before midnight

Thanks, Red! These are great points, and overall I agree with you. I am an eternal player by nature, but I have to recognize that I am in a minority compared to the "masses."

1. I dont know that this would be good, if it's a "non-existant" format no one will play it, which will make the designers not take it into account, and tournament organizers wont have reason to include it when it goes "live."
2. yup!
3. yup!
4. This goes with #1. I would rather the format start out as healthy as we can make it to give it a fighting chance of survival
5. yup!

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #46 on:** May 08, 2018, 09:10:25 AM »

Quote from: Red on May 08, 2018, 07:43:41 AM

Quote from: Kevinthedude on May 07, 2018, 11:59:24 PM
Quote from: Red on May 07, 2018, 09:20:32 PM
If the main format was a rotation format, I most likely would hang up my hat. I don't want to see Redemption become like every other main CCG.

Would you want Redemption to sacrifice being a better game just so it can retain an arbitrary sense of uniqueness?
Lowering the playable card pool would not make Redemption a better game. I personally find Legacy and Modern to be better MtG formats than Standard.

Legacy and Modern may be better than standard but is Vintage? Current Redemption is Vintage, not Modern. Someday Redemption hopefully will have a large enough card pool for a format like Modern to exist but unfortunately right now our choices are pretty much just Vintage or Standard.

Quote from: The Guardian on May 08, 2018, 01:04:37 AM

Quote from: Kevinthedude on May 07, 2018, 11:59:24 PM
Quote from: Red on May 07, 2018, 09:20:32 PM
If the main format was a rotation format, I most likely would hang up my hat. I don't want to see Redemption become like every other main CCG.

Would you want Redemption to sacrifice being a better game just so it can retain an arbitrary sense of uniqueness?

Not everyone believes set rotation would make Redemption a better game therefore to them, there is no sacrifice.

That was poorly worded on my part, since his argument against rotation appeared to be simply that it made Redemption similar to other card games I was attempting to ask if, assuming he acknowledged there was a tradeoff between the health of the competitive scene and the uniqueness of the game, he would choose to keep the uniqueness. This could be set rotation, bans, or anything else that Redemption has tried to stay away from that other games do often.

Red · « **Reply #47 on:** May 08, 2018, 09:14:54 AM »

Quote from: Kevinthedude on May 08, 2018, 09:10:25 AM

Quote from: Red on May 08, 2018, 07:43:41 AM
Quote from: Kevinthedude on May 07, 2018, 11:59:24 PM
Quote from: Red on May 07, 2018, 09:20:32 PM
If the main format was a rotation format, I most likely would hang up my hat. I don't want to see Redemption become like every other main CCG.

Would you want Redemption to sacrifice being a better game just so it can retain an arbitrary sense of uniqueness?
Lowering the playable card pool would not make Redemption a better game. I personally find Legacy and Modern to be better MtG formats than Standard.

Legacy and Modern may be better than standard but is Vintage? Current Redemption is Vintage, not Modern. Someday Redemption hopefully will have a large enough card pool for a format like Modern to exist but unfortunately right now our choices are pretty much just Vintage or Standard.

Quote from: The Guardian on May 08, 2018, 01:04:37 AM
Quote from: Kevinthedude on May 07, 2018, 11:59:24 PM
Quote from: Red on May 07, 2018, 09:20:32 PM
If the main format was a rotation format, I most likely would hang up my hat. I don't want to see Redemption become like every other main CCG.

Would you want Redemption to sacrifice being a better game just so it can retain an arbitrary sense of uniqueness?

Not everyone believes set rotation would make Redemption a better game therefore to them, there is no sacrifice.

That was poorly worded on my part, since his argument against rotation appeared to be simply that it made Redemption similar to other card games I was attempting to ask if, assuming he acknowledged there was a tradeoff between the health of the competitive scene and the uniqueness of the game, he would choose to keep the uniqueness. This could be set rotation, bans, or anything else that Redemption has tried to stay away from that other games do often.

Redemption is not Vintage. Also, Vintage is not a bad format.

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #48 on:** May 08, 2018, 09:25:03 AM »

Quote from: Red on May 08, 2018, 09:14:54 AM

Redemption is not Vintage. Also, Vintage is not a bad format.

It's the equivalent in that it allows every set in the game's history and strives to never have a real ban list. Vintage may not be a bad format but I believe most people would tell you they prefer Modern even if it weren't for the restrictive cost factor of Vintage. Card designers get better as they get more experience and develop more clear visions for the best way to play the game and new formats, whether they be rotating like Standard or static but limited by a certain date of sets like Modern. Maybe the best route for Redemption is to be more like Modern and just set the cutoff at I/J like planned and never rotate again after that, maybe the best route is standard as has received so much discussion lately, but I really can't see that the best route for Redemption is to stay Vintage forever.

Red · « **Reply #49 on:** May 08, 2018, 09:27:09 AM »

Quote from: Kevinthedude on May 08, 2018, 09:25:03 AM

Quote from: Red on May 08, 2018, 09:14:54 AM
Redemption is not Vintage. Also, Vintage is not a bad format.

It's the equivalent in that it allows every set in the game's history and strives to never have a real ban list. Vintage may not be a bad format but I believe most people would tell you they prefer Modern even if it weren't for the restrictive cost factor of Vintage. Card designers get better as they get more experience and develop more clear visions for the best way to play the game and new formats, whether they be rotating like Standard or static but limited by a certain date of sets like Modern. Maybe the best route for Redemption is to be more like Modern and just set the cutoff at I/J like planned and never rotate again after that, maybe the best route is standard as has received so much discussion lately, but I really can't see that the best route for Redemption is to stay Vintage forever.

I can see the argument, I just want to play Vintage (At Nationals) forever. If I can do that, I reckon I'll be good.

News:

Author Topic: Set Rotation food for thought (Read 19725 times)

Daniel