Author Topic: petition to end big deck t2 wanna be decks in t1 (Read 15113 times)

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #50 on:** December 14, 2010, 07:14:41 PM »

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on December 14, 2010, 04:13:26 PM

Quote from: Ring Wraith on December 14, 2010, 04:09:53 PM
I ran a 105 deck last tournament and always had plenty of souls to rescue. Although my defense managed to stay hidden during one game...and it was over 50% of my deck.
"HERP DERP DURR I'M GOING TO DESTRUCTION WASH BASIN WHEN I KNOW MY OPPONENT HAS THREE NAILS HERPPPPPPP".

I wouldn't call that hidden ;O

I was referring to the game with Scott. He won 5-0 in less than five minutes. We played a rematch and I won 5-2.

The Schaef · « **Reply #51 on:** December 14, 2010, 07:18:14 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on December 14, 2010, 06:56:06 PM

That is sooooo frustrating when people pick cards like that in that game!!!

But that's the POINT of the game. The judge decides!

Sometimes to make sure people keep it loose, I'll just take the red cards I read, shuffle them upside down, flip one over, and that's the winner.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #52 on:** December 14, 2010, 07:34:15 PM »

Yeah, but I reserve the right to be annoyed when the judge chooses "Grandma's Apple Pie" over Hitler for Cruel.

The Schaef · « **Reply #53 on:** December 14, 2010, 07:39:43 PM »

If you tasted grandma's apple pie, you would agree with me. This is why I took it upon myself to start baking them. And if I may be so bold, I make a butt-kicking apple pie.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #54 on:** December 14, 2010, 07:52:04 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on December 14, 2010, 07:39:43 PM

If you tasted grandma's apple pie, you would agree with me. This is why I took it upon myself to start baking them. And if I may be so bold, I make a butt-kicking apple pie.

Bring some to Nats, and then we'll see.

Daniel TS RED · « **Reply #55 on:** December 14, 2010, 08:54:27 PM »

Quote from: Daniel TS RED on December 14, 2010, 03:43:46 PM

Run RTS 100 times and Mayhem will be in your hand over 17.6% I would think. It seems Mayhem and Emp Nero are favorites of RTS on the first draw.

I was bored and fired up RTS and counted what happened at the first d8, not doing any draws for the LS's that were in the d8.

15/100 Mayhem
14/100 emp nero

I was wrong. I thought those both were some kinda weird favorite picks of RTS on first draw. Looks about normal to me.

The Schaef · « **Reply #56 on:** December 14, 2010, 09:12:26 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on December 14, 2010, 07:52:04 PM

Quote from: The Schaef on December 14, 2010, 07:39:43 PM
If you tasted grandma's apple pie, you would agree with me. This is why I took it upon myself to start baking them. And if I may be so bold, I make a butt-kicking apple pie.
Bring some to Nats, and then we'll see.

Done, and done.

Master KChief · « **Reply #57 on:** December 14, 2010, 10:04:47 PM »

Quote from: Daniel TS RED on December 14, 2010, 08:54:27 PM

Quote from: Daniel TS RED on December 14, 2010, 03:43:46 PM
Run RTS 100 times and Mayhem will be in your hand over 17.6% I would think. It seems Mayhem and Emp Nero are favorites of RTS on the first draw.

I was bored and fired up RTS and counted what happened at the first d8, not doing any draws for the LS's that were in the d8.

15/100 Mayhem
14/100 emp nero

I was wrong. I thought those both were some kinda weird favorite picks of RTS on first draw. Looks about normal to me.

you should have drawn off the lost souls, since those technically dont count towards the percentage. if you did, the percentage would have more than likely been closer to what was stated previous in this thread.

The Warrior · « **Reply #58 on:** December 14, 2010, 10:36:09 PM »

2 Words for you CG25...
lolwut

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #59 on:** December 14, 2010, 11:18:59 PM »

To answer the "just use a bunch of soul-searching cards" crowd, I thought we wanted decks more dissimilar? And hated Domiants? Now everyone's supposed to include TAS (and hope a fat deck attacks for that matter, doesn't happen very early very often), WatW, SWJ, HT, and Hopper in every single deck?

My main beef isn't really the odds so much as abusing RTS in ROOT to do things you would never attempt in a real tournament.

The Schaef · « **Reply #60 on:** December 14, 2010, 11:29:31 PM »

No. You don't have to. It was only stated that this is not a problem with no remedy. Just like you don't have to account for FBTN in your decks but you don't really have any room to complain if you take that chance, and they come at you with one and beat you. I seriously doubt any one deck can account for all possible strategies it might face, so deciding which ones you will and will not take your chances against, is what fosters differences in deck compositions.

If you hate Dominants, just don't play them. I've built more than my share of Dom-less and Dom-lite decks in the past. Basically any argument for what "we" want is an argument for greater homogeneity in decks, so feel free to include or exclude whatever "you" want regardless of what you might think "we" want.

Gabe · « **Reply #61 on:** December 15, 2010, 01:33:18 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on December 14, 2010, 11:18:59 PM

My main beef isn't really the odds so much as abusing RTS in ROOT to do things you would never attempt in a real tournament.

That's really my only beef with large decks and the reason I pushed so hard to get a time limit instituted for ROOT. Even though I could never get one of my peers to agree to a realistic time limit it was a step in the right direction. Hopefully some day the time limit will be lowered and those ridiculous decks will be eliminated from competitive online play. Even though I didn't lose to large decks very often they still made the games extremely un-fun. I know that's been a factor in driving a number of people away from ROOT over the course of it's existence. When I played ROOT I wanted to test my decks against things I might face in real life. Not against some turtle that should time out every round before it ever got set up.

The Guardian · « **Reply #62 on:** December 15, 2010, 02:52:04 AM »

Quote

My main beef isn't really the odds so much as abusing RTS in ROOT to do things you would never attempt in a real tournament.

I believe Josh Hey took 2nd place at 2003 Nationals with a 105 card deck. He lost his opening match 6-0 to a small site deck and then went on to win his next 9 games, even beating the eventual champion but taking 2nd on differential.

Obviously the game has changed considerably since then, but I do have a 100+ deck that if I can figure out what to use in it to make it fast enough, I would try it in a tournament.

Edit* Josh took 3rd place, he beat the eventual champ (Kyle H) in round 9, but lost to 2nd place finisher Justin Cannaday in the 10th round.

Ironica · « **Reply #63 on:** December 15, 2010, 03:49:50 AM »

After reading all the pages, I now want to make a 100+ abom deck (and eat some apple pie :p)

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #64 on:** December 15, 2010, 07:41:57 AM »

Guardian, I'm sure I don't have to explain why something that happened in 2003 has absolutely no bearing on this discussion.

You're also very much the exception. I still have less fun playing your big decks than normal decks, but you at least try to make the big decks run as fast as normal decks. You're the exception, not the rule. The rest of the big decks have a mentality of "trollololol I have two hours and a shuffling program gonna use a boring-to-play deck and not attack for 15 turns lol u mad?"

stefferweffer · « **Reply #65 on:** December 15, 2010, 08:47:27 AM »

And again to clarify, (since I am the one who said to include more lost soul generators if it bothers you a lot), I also said that I would be in favor of a 105 card limit for Type 1. It still allows duplicates, but also keeps the size reasonable. But like I said, I don't play online so I have not experienced the frustration you mention. I once faced a 150 card deck in real life, but my 56 card deck had 5-6 cards in it to get more lost souls in play.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #66 on:** December 15, 2010, 08:50:15 AM »

Quote from: stefferweffer on December 15, 2010, 08:47:27 AM

I also said that I would be in favor of a 105 card limit for Type 1.

Which I don't like either. 150 is very effective in TEAMS.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #67 on:** December 15, 2010, 09:12:15 AM »

Quote from: The Schaef on December 14, 2010, 11:29:31 PM

I've built more than my share of Dom-less and Dom-lite decks in the past.

...and never won a big tournament with any of them. Pol is right that all top decks will continue to have many card slots taken up by dominants until there becomes a card that could even possibly balance that kind of power. Something like:

"If you have not played any dominants this game, then discard this artifact to remove all artifacts from all players decks, hands, and discard piles."

Quote from: Gabe on December 15, 2010, 01:33:18 AM

I pushed so hard to get a time limit instituted for ROOT. Even though I could never get one of my peers to agree to a realistic time limit

Nor could you get a majority of the players who voted in 2 separate polls to agree to what you consider a realistic time limit. People in ROOT in the past enjoyed the ability to get to try out decks that they wouldn't normally get to use in a live tournament setting. And some of them were able to develop big defensive decks over time to the point that they actually COULD play them in live tournaments (and win at State or Regional levels).

I understand that you and Pol have a different style of play, and don't personally enjoy longer games, but some players enjoy the intensity of an extended game where a single misplay could cost you the game, but that if you play just right, you can stop even the most dominating speed offense, and end up coming back for the win late in the game. I wouldn't change the rules of the game to make it impossible to play a speed deck, so why would anyone change the rules to make it impossible to play a defense-heavy deck?

The Schaef · « **Reply #68 on:** December 15, 2010, 09:20:30 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on December 15, 2010, 09:12:15 AM

Quote from: The Schaef on December 14, 2010, 11:29:31 PM
I've built more than my share of Dom-less and Dom-lite decks in the past.
...and never won a big tournament with any of them. Pol is right that all top decks will continue to have many card slots taken up by dominants until there becomes a card that could even possibly balance that kind of power.

Yes, but there is a reason for that which I believe was stated earlier in this thread. People don't win big tournaments with dom-less decks, and people don't win big tournaments with giant decks that exist for no other reason than to exploit the benefits of online play. So there's no reason to believe that soul-searching cards are REQUIRED staples in EVERY deck in order to account for this small percentage of decks that show up in a tournament engaged by a small percentage of players.

Quote from: Gabe on December 15, 2010, 01:33:18 AM

I wouldn't change the rules of the game to make it impossible to play a speed deck, so why would anyone change the rules to make it impossible to play a defense-heavy deck?

EXACTLY. And frankly, between the two, I consider the speed deck the greater detriment to the game, which when you put it that way, only diminishes my sympathy more for people frustrated by slow decks.

Gabe · « **Reply #69 on:** December 15, 2010, 09:44:51 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on December 15, 2010, 09:12:15 AM

Nor could you get a majority of the players who voted in 2 separate polls to agree to what you consider a realistic time limit.

The only survey that matters is the one that involved actual ROOT players. You tallied the results and skewed them towards your bias. Even still we had to go with the longer time limit instead of the one that got the most votes just to get you to agree. But don't take my word for it, see the results for yourself here.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on December 15, 2010, 09:12:15 AM

People in ROOT in the past enjoyed the ability to get to try out decks that they wouldn't normally get to use in a live tournament setting. And some of them were able to develop big defensive decks over time to the point that they actually COULD play them in live tournaments (and win at State or Regional levels).

I challenge you to provide examples of State or Regional winning "turtles" that evolved from ROOT. I doubt you can come up with even one.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on December 15, 2010, 09:12:15 AM

I understand that you and Pol have a different style of play, and don't personally enjoy longer games, but some players enjoy the intensity of an extended game where a single misplay could cost you the game...

I do enjoy that type of game occasionally, provided both players are actually participating in the long game. Nobody enjoys sitting around waiting two hours for their opponent to set up and finally make their move. Those type of decks are a detriment to ROOT and one of the reasons it remains small.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on December 15, 2010, 09:12:15 AM

I wouldn't change the rules of the game to make it impossible to play a speed deck, so why would anyone change the rules to make it impossible to play a defense-heavy deck?

Are we talking about the rules of the game now or the rules of ROOT? The only place the defense heavy decks exist in this fashion is online. They fail to be top tier in a live, timed tournament setting so they are seldom played and even less often successful.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #70 on:** December 15, 2010, 10:13:28 AM »

I know the conversation has evolved to ROOT time limits, but back to the original premise of this thread, I love 154 card decks. I especially love putting three Haman's Plots in decks like that. With the disciples theme and their fishing boat along with my fast drawing Philistines or Babylonians with a splash of brown of course, it is all I can do to contain myself. The irony, because of all of the talk of getting your dominants first, is that in a deck that size I tend to not play with dominants at all. I figure, "What's the point!"

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #71 on:** December 15, 2010, 10:29:26 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on December 15, 2010, 09:44:51 AM

The only survey that matters is the one that involved actual ROOT players. You tallied the results and skewed them towards your bias. Even still we had to go with the longer time limit instead of the one that got the most votes just to get you to agree.

Actually the only times that got more than a vote or two were 1.5 hours (7 votes), 2 hours (6 votes), and infinite time (6 votes). So we went with the middle of the 3 most popular options. There was no skewing or bias, you just didn't like the outcome. But don't take my word for it, see the results for yourself here.

Quote from: Gabe on December 15, 2010, 09:44:51 AM

I challenge you to provide examples of State or Regional winning "turtles" that evolved from ROOT. I doubt you can come up with even one.

Actually I came in 1st place at an OH State and at a KY State with my Zeb deck that I developed using ROOT. I also came in 2nd at an EC Regional with that deck. John Early (RDT) also had significant success up in MN, with his Zeb deck that he developed in ROOT.

Quote from: Gabe on December 15, 2010, 09:44:51 AM

Quote from: Prof Underwood on December 15, 2010, 09:12:15 AM
I wouldn't change the rules of the game to make it impossible to play a speed deck, so why would anyone change the rules to make it impossible to play a defense-heavy deck?
Are we talking about the rules of the game now or the rules of ROOT?

I'm talking about both. I wouldn't want the rules to change to eliminate big decks (like the original topic of this thread). Nor would I like the rules of ROOT to change to make it impossible for people to play defensive heavy decks (like you are encouraging).

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #72 on:** December 15, 2010, 11:01:35 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on December 15, 2010, 10:29:26 AM

Quote from: Gabe on December 15, 2010, 09:44:51 AM
The only survey that matters is the one that involved actual ROOT players. You tallied the results and skewed them towards your bias. Even still we had to go with the longer time limit instead of the one that got the most votes just to get you to agree.
Actually the only times that got more than a vote or two were 1.5 hours (7 votes), 2 hours (6 votes), and infinite time (6 votes). So we went with the middle of the 3 most popular options. There was no skewing or bias, you just didn't like the outcome. But don't take my word for it, see the results for yourself here.

I thought the person with the most votes was supposed to win elections?

Quote

Quote from: Gabe on December 15, 2010, 09:44:51 AM
I challenge you to provide examples of State or Regional winning "turtles" that evolved from ROOT. I doubt you can come up with even one.
Actually I came in 1st place at an OH State and at a KY State with my Zeb deck that I developed using ROOT. I also came in 2nd at an EC Regional with that deck. John Early (RDT) also had significant success up in MN, with his Zeb deck that he developed in ROOT.

I got second at NE regionals with a turtle I did not develop on Root. The existance of both items does not necessarily mean that one of them, turtle success will always lead to another. Also, if I do recall, Earley won more often with his TGT, not his Zeb.

Quote

Quote from: Gabe on December 15, 2010, 09:44:51 AM
Quote from: Prof Underwood on December 15, 2010, 09:12:15 AM
I wouldn't change the rules of the game to make it impossible to play a speed deck, so why would anyone change the rules to make it impossible to play a defense-heavy deck?
Are we talking about the rules of the game now or the rules of ROOT?
I'm talking about both. I wouldn't want the rules to change to eliminate big decks (like the original topic of this thread). Nor would I like the rules of ROOT to change to make it impossible for people to play defensive heavy decks (like you are encouraging).

I don't want to eliminate big deck, I simply want to play in a realistic online tournament where I don't have to wade through the 150 card decks that will never be played in an real tournament with any success. If I lose and play a big deck while towards the bottom of the standings, so be it, because that's where they typically are found, but it is frustrating to have the tournament won by decks that, if played in real life, would be low tier. The goal of the tournament is to make people better at Redemption. I think that facing realistic scenarios would improve people more than playing mammoths that don't hit the real tournament scene.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #73 on:** December 15, 2010, 11:17:50 AM »

Quote

Also, if I do recall, Earley won more often with his TGT, not his Zeb.

^This. Over the two years that I played my Zeb deck it won locals and districts, and tied for third at a regional. I didn't play it in high level tournaments in the '09-'10 season. Additionally, my Zeb deck isn't a 105 card deck, in fact it's not even a 63 card deck, some versions of it weren't even 56. I very, very rarely timed out with it, both in real life settings, and watching the clock to see if I could do it online. That's simply not true of 105+ decks.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #74 on:** December 15, 2010, 12:02:47 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on December 15, 2010, 11:01:35 AM

I thought the person with the most votes was supposed to win elections?

Al Gore says hello.

News:

Author Topic: petition to end big deck t2 wanna be decks in t1 (Read 15113 times)

Warrior_Monk

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

Ironica

Warrior_Monk

The Schaef

Rawrlolsauce!