Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Please don't hate on me for asking this question.  I can't imagine how hard it is to playtest new sets, and its because of how hard it must be that I ask this question.

It seems to me that the past several sets have had their couple of cards that were seriously overpowered, or at least had no common way to counter them at the time they came out.  Since I have not heard anyone who playtested these cards come out and say something like "Um, yeah, I think we made a mistake there, or didn't think about it enough." (and since cards are never banned), are we to assume then that the playtesters know how powerful and how difficult to counter these cards are when they create them, and then create them anyway?  (By the way, maybe playtesters HAVE expressed regrets and I just have not seen them).  Is it to make people flock to the new set for the new unbeatable deck?

I don't know what set or what card started all of this, but I'm told that Warriors was a great set but it made FBTN too powerful, without many ways to counter it.  So in this example, why would this not have been "caught" in playtesting?  Wouldn't there be someone playing a strictly FBTN deck that no one could beat, and then someone could sense that this would be a problem?  Why does the counter always seem to come out in subsequent sets, instead of the same set?

I'm sure Priests had its share of cards like this too (Z temple decks maybe?  Speed?), but I started playing when FOOF and ROA came out.  So of course Garden Tomb became all the rage and a HUGE problem, with the only way to counter it (and Holy Grail and AOCP and all the other cards that helped it) being to make a huge defense.  But of course the next set came out with easy to play TC cards that would negate good fortresses, and then came sites with "anti pre-block ignore" abilities.  (And Nazareth came out to help with a Type 2 "problem")  So with Garden Tomb, did the playtesters truly not know what was going to happen when they made that card/set?  If not, why not?  If they DID know, then why would they not release the counters until the following set?

In the latest set we had Thaddeus and especially Fishing Boat (which killed site lockout, a strategy I personally enjoyed).  Fishing Boat was the second (maybe 3rd?) Fortress card that is "set aside" so that it cannot be targeted.  Thaddeus is so powerful, as written, that there are still threads going on to see what exactly can stop him.  Now I don't have my new set yet, so I don't know what "anti Thad" cards might be in it, but I have heard that there are cards in the new set that can deal with Fishing Boat now.  So my question is the same, why NOW and not BEFORE?  When it happens once you consider it a fluke, but when this keeps happening you start to wonder.  OP card that changes practically every deck and everyone starts using that card - next set (or two) comes out with cards to counter the OP card.  Rinse and repeat.  So again, is there just not enough playtesting happening, or are the OP cards deliberately OP? 

I haven't even mentioned dominants, like Falling Away, New Jerusalem, etc, but those eventually get counters too.

Thanks for helping me understand what goes into making the cards for the new sets.

Firstly, your questions are fairly common, and I am more than happy to share my opinions, without any hatred.

I think the rigorous playtesting that goes on nowadays is a fairly recent phenomenon. I have no idea what the playtesting team consisted of previous to Warriors, but I know that there are a lot more playtest games for recent sets than there ever have been. I think this has worked to make recent sets more or less balanced, with a few exceptions. What has helped immensely in that regard is a fairly big number of playtesters, and access to RTS custom expansions of the new set so that playtesters across the country can play each other.

As for cards like Thaddeus and TGT, playtesters have expressed regrets about those two. TGT was a response to the all-too-common standalone defenses that had ruled the day in T1 decks for years. The theory was that TGT would make people start to focus more on building defenses around the new themes that had a common brigade. The problem that may or may not have been realized during playtesting (I wasn't a playtester then) was that decks would be even more focused on small defenses to minimize chances that your defense would help your opponent be able to block, and that territory destruction cards like AoC, Women as Snares, etc. made playing with a larger defense pointless. I know that some of the playtesters wished it had been worded differently, but it is what it is. Thaddeus was a last-minute change that went from being somewhat UP to OP with the addition of one phrase: Cannot be Interrupted. The testing that had gone on before then didn't have that phrase for him, so his ability was easily stopped. We probably should have let that be, but again, it was a last minute decision based on his relative UP-ness that wasn't thoroughly tested. Of course, Thad didn't show up in any of the top three T1 decks at Nats this year (though TGT showed up twice). He did however show up in both of the top two T2 decks, while TGT didn't breach the top 3.

Z's Temple was good, but it didn't win big until TGT came out (the Nats winner the year after ZT came out was Genesis and Romans). When Gabe combined both of the "most annoying Forts in the game" into one deck with TealTomb, then ZT was shown to be good, otherwise it was mostly just complained about. I don't know how the testing went for that either, but I have a feeling the idea was to help make a bunch of obscure Priests useful, and maybe encourage Redemption players to learn more about Jewish history post-exile. I sure learned a lot.

Site lockout, while fun for some, has been seen as a scourge on the game for others. Sites are seen by many as the most faulty mechanic of the game, and it has never been desirable for a person to be able to win by making it so his opponents' Heroes pointless. Fishing Boat provided a reliable way to make site lock virtually disappear (unless it was specially designed to sitelock everyone else with an anti-Disciple defense). I can't remember if any of the playtesters tested sitelock decks vs. Fishing Boat; I know I didn't, but perhaps it was an error, or perhaps it was intentional.

As for the new set, I personally think it is one of the most balanced overall. Are their some really powerful cards that will lead to really good strategies? Yes. But I think both offense and defense got great cards to the point where the several games I've played have neither been lockout/timeout games, but neither have they been offense-dominant 4-turn games either.

The one thing that playtesters can't do is think of every possible use for every designed card. We do our best to catch mistakes, but whether it just happens that some crazy combo gets through, or a card was changed soon before release and wasn't able to be tested, it does happen. Then when OP'd strategies emerge, we need to determine what can be done to counter them, but we have to wait until next set to do it. I wouldn't say that we deliberately make cards OP, it is more the much bigger player base that use the new cards in ways that weren't thought of with the 2000+ other old cards that makes us go, "huh, probably should have thought of that." But our hope is that with each set, we will become better at reducing the number of OP'd cards, or at least balancing them to the point where many strategies are viable. I think this set did a great job in not necessarily replacing last year's viable strategies, but merely adding new ones to the table. And that is a good thing.

Sometimes they are just a mistake, take Thadd for example. Originally his ability was considered to be nearly useless so they changed it right before Disciples was sent to print, without much or maybe any playtesting and boom.

I think the more appropriate response though is that no matter how much you playtest, it's impossible to test every possible situation in which a card can be used. There's how many play testers? Even if you include their playgroups you won't have a very large sample size and they can only play so much Redemption so I'd guess that each card gets used only a few hundred times before it is sent to print. Then when it's sent to print it's getting played thousands of times. Maybe the situation in which it's OP is 1 in 10,000 that it will be found, but once it's found it spreads like wildfire and suddenly everybody is playing it's OP'ed ness.

I also think the term OP is thrown around way to much. The only way a card can be truly OP is if it is a guaranteed battle winner and can be used multiple times on it's own. I don't consider Thadd to be truly OP because you can still do anything you want to him in territory and has no protection from Christian Martyr, plus just because you can't kill him doesn't mean you can't stop your opponent from rescuing the LS, as long as Thadd doesn't win the battle it's not a successful rescue attempt. That's not even counting that his power is completely dependent on 10-11 other cards.

I agree with some of this, but I wasn't really talking about elusive and complex combos (many of which find their abuse in Type 2, which maybe isn't playtested as much as T1?).  I agree that Thad is limited by the number of Disciples in play, which I appreciate.  But is Garden Tomb (which fit your OP criteria by the way) + WAS + AOCP + HG + Jephthah + Ark of the Covenant +++ a "combo" that somebody thought of?  I don't consider that so elusive.  Most of those cards were already very popular even before Garden Tomb came out, so I'm not sure how they could "sneak up on" playtesters unexpectedly (But I am happy to hear that playetesters at least regret what happened afterward).  For Warriors, which introduced so many FBTN heroes AND the "armor of god" series of multi enhancements, was that a "combo" that was hard to foresee?  (My very first deck that I made a few years ago was a Warriors FBTN deck, and that's before I even knew about these forums.  And I almost won my very first tournament with it.)  In this thread we hear that Fishing Boat was apparently made to frustrate site lock as a strategy (when in truth it negated the one thing that could have slowed disciples down).  Fine, but then why make a card in the NEXT set that can get rid of Fishing Boat?  Do we want sitelock or not?  Now I'm not sure. 

Steffer: The problem with Boat was that there were no cards that could target it (save ANB, where's STAMP?).  Rob didn't like this, and so now there is a card that can target it.

lp: Ethiopian Treasurer says hi.  What cards target a good fortress (not counting the newest set)?  Moses and Elders (a white brigade card) can recur any good non-dom card.

Try telling Gabe that you're only allowed to use TGT heroes in a TGT deck.

Did I ever say any of those things?  Cool down man.

Great history, Alex, I'd love to see it updated.

I think what you have to understand is how these cards have countered other themes.

I think you are correct about FBTN. I was around when this was popular, and yeah, it couldn't be stopped. Back in the FBTN day I won 2 regional and 3 state tournaments. It just wasn't fair, and I can't account for how this wasn't tested for. Although I would say there were a LOT less people playtesting, and also the game was still relatively new.

I would agree that TGT was, for the most part, a failure. It ended up encouraging small defenses more than discouraging them, and therefore failed in its purpose. I can talk a little bit about playtesting, though. I was at least aware of this card well before it was created. Bryon knew it was going to be a very good card (it would have to be to change how defenses were built for the past 3-4 years). But he truly believed (as did many other playtesters) that it was going to be countered. Honestly, a big defense CAN beat TGT. But people weren't really willing to beat them. The counters existed, and in this example I think the counters predated the card itself: protection fortresses. Assyrian Camp can protect your Assyrians from pretty much everything TGT can throw at you, and versatile ways to get rid of Assyrian Camp weren't made until Thesaurus, so TGT really couldn't counter this counter. The problem is, most people would rather use TGT than counter it. I rarely lost to TGT because I didn't want to lose to it, so I built defenses. If more people built large defenses, it wouldn't have gained such popularity.

Thaddeus is a one-hundred percent success imo (in type I, I can see how he's a bit much in type II). I mean, he seriously made people think about site-lock (it's rarely used now). And yet did he break the game and win nationals? No. I think he served his purpose 100%. In fact, the only thing he countered was annoying standalone characters like uzzah and The Amalekites' Slaves. I really don't see any problem with him in Type I.

The new set we have yet to see, but I think it's going to be another good one. 

I think you are correct about FBTN. I was around when this was popular, and yeah, it couldn't be stopped. Back in the FBTN day I won 2 regional and 3 state tournaments. It just wasn't fair, and I can't account for how this wasn't tested for. Although I would say there were a LOT less people playtesting, and also the game was still relatively new.

I don't think the issue was playtesting, I think the issue was a lack of foresight because no one envisioned the game being so successful.

I would agree that TGT was, for the most part, a failure. It ended up encouraging small defenses more than discouraging them, and therefore failed in its purpose. I can talk a little bit about playtesting, though. I was at least aware of this card well before it was created. Bryon knew it was going to be a very good card (it would have to be to change how defenses were built for the past 3-4 years). But he truly believed (as did many other playtesters) that it was going to be countered. Honestly, a big defense CAN beat TGT. But people weren't really willing to beat them. The counters existed, and in this example I think the counters predated the card itself: protection fortresses. Assyrian Camp can protect your Assyrians from pretty much everything TGT can throw at you, and versatile ways to get rid of Assyrian Camp weren't made until Thesaurus, so TGT really couldn't counter this counter. The problem is, most people would rather use TGT than counter it. I rarely lost to TGT because I didn't want to lose to it, so I built defenses. If more people built large defenses, it wouldn't have gained such popularity.

I playtested RoA, and honestly, I think TGT is one of those things that the playtesters saw it as a counter to something bad (which it is) but they didn't foresee it as the incredibly centralizing card that it is. They made the assumption that people would want to counter TGT and play defense, when in reality, it was probably a lot easier to simply use less defense to increase TGT's power. I don't think it was a playtesting issue as much as a misunderstanding of what Redemption players are going to do with a card.

Thaddeus is a one-hundred percent success imo (in type I, I can see how he's a bit much in type II). I mean, he seriously made people think about site-lock (it's rarely used now). And yet did he break the game and win nationals? No. I think he served his purpose 100%. In fact, the only thing he countered was annoying standalone characters like uzzah and The Amalekites' Slaves. I really don't see any problem with him in Type I.

I'll say again, Thaddeus isn't the broken part of Disciples. Disciples were so good because of how many drawing options they had combined with the fact you couldn't get lucky with some early sites to slow them down. They were just made too good too fast.
The new set we have yet to see, but I think it's going to be another good one. 

Quote from: lightningninja on August 25, 2011, 01:35:36 PM

Honestly, a big defense CAN beat TGT.

Here is the problem though. People dislike big defenses in the first place because most of the top offenses just focus on winning before the other player does, rather than trying to destroy the other players offense. In fact, people just use a tiny defense that speeds up their offense.

In my opinion, the BIGGEST problem in redemption is speed. You can have a giant defense, but if you don't draw faster than the opponents offense, you're sunk. I feel we need to focus primarly on shutting down mass drawing, as that turns the game into a race rather than the fun back and forth fights of old.

Kill speed, and you might see balanced decks return.

Actually, I think the bigger issue is that defenses are too good. I have to play speed and heavy offense to have enough firepower to handle the power of defenses these days. And even if I don't have enough firepower, I can at least hope to be out of the gate so fast that I can overcome them before they have the arsenal set up.

Speed is still the biggest problem. If one player is playing a fast deck, then his opponent needs a fast deck to stand a chance. It's a vicious cycle.

I disagree. I can compete with my heavy defense deck. Speed simply makes balanced virtually obsolete. I actually don't think speed itself is the problem. I think the problem is that drawing an extra card on your turn is inherently more powerful than any other ability in the game in most instances regardless of the type of deck being used.

I'm pretty sure I saw once that Gabe did a deck with no doms at all. I couldn't find it though.

I don't think the issue was playtesting, I think the issue was a lack of foresight because no one envisioned the game being so successful.

Right, that's what I meant when I said the game was so new.

I playtested RoA, and honestly, I think TGT is one of those things that the playtesters saw it as a counter to something bad (which it is) but they didn't foresee it as the incredibly centralizing card that it is. They made the assumption that people would want to counter TGT and play defense, when in reality, it was probably a lot easier to simply use less defense to increase TGT's power. I don't think it was a playtesting issue as much as a misunderstanding of what Redemption players are going to do with a card.

You're agreeing with me, right?  Just making sure I'm not missing anything in your post.

I'll say again, Thaddeus isn't the broken part of Disciples. Disciples were so good because of how many drawing options they had combined with the fact you couldn't get lucky with some early sites to slow them down. They were just made too good too fast.

Right, agreed once again.

@Isildur, the problem I don't even think is speed. But I think there needs to be more drawing for defense. If you could make a fast defense-heavy deck, that would seriously balance the game.