Cactus Game Design Message Boards

i still dont understand what the big boo-hoo is over people using big decks. so what if someone uses a big deck in root? if you want to play in an official tournament with normal time limits, then go find an official IRL tournament to play in. more than anything, im GLAD to see a format that fosters a turtle deck. im sure there are just as many turtlers that are sick of not having enough time in IRL tournaments to get their deck going and getting stomped by rush decks. they finally have their day in a SINGLE format and the best we can muster is complaining about it? shame.

and this is coming from the guy that adheres to a strict policy of 50 card decks!

I think the problem is that Redemption is a slow game compared to most card games, games take 1/2 an hour in T1 and an hour in T2 (at least something like that) and that's with aggressive type decks.  Whereas most card games can get a 3 game round in that much time, so a turtle deck works better because it can usually win in a few turns once it goes off, whereas in redemption it takes at least 3 (assuming before it goes off it doesn't rescue)  So when a turtle deck comes in redemption so it makes the games even longer.

So the problem isn't with turtle decks or large decks, but with the redemption game mechanic that in a time limit will make most turtle decks time out and almost unplayable in a T1 tournament (and difficult in T2) and also Turtle deck games tend to be even longer (I've had 2+ hour games against my friend who plays defensively)

Having fun with random decks isn't what ROOT is. ROOT is an official tournament. If you want to have fun with random decks, just play pick-up games.

I have fun with random decks in official tournaments.

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on December 16, 2010, 01:39:41 AM

(I've had 2+ hour games against my friend who plays defensively)

I've totally been the cause of some 2-3 hour games. 

Yeah, that's part of the problem.

The point is, it's very rude in a tournament game. Sure, you may be having fun sitting around behind your wall well beyond when you normally would have lost 0-2, but that attitude is assuming your opponent's time is not valuable.

Furthermore, turtles are not needed to stem the tide of rush decks. The new set fixed that problem, and a rush deck will lose to a balanced deck most of the time. Not to mention, a turtle will lose to a balanced deck most of the time. The problem isn't that turtles are hard to beat, the issue is that they are not fun to play against, and waste massive amounts of time.

I've had some games against Disciple/TGT speed decks that weren't much fun to play against...and afterwards felt like it was a waste of time...

A waste of 10 minutes is a lot different than a waste of 2 hours, as I'm sure you are aware.

Quote

I've had some games against Disciple/TGT speed decks that weren't much fun to play against...and afterwards felt like it was a waste of time...

A waste of 10 minutes is a lot different than a waste of 2 hours, as I'm sure you are aware.

So what's an acceptable amount of time that is okay to be wasted?

The problem isn't that turtles are hard to beat, the issue is that they are not fun to play against, and waste massive amounts of time.

So, in fact, there is NO need to add a new batch of cards to the list of required staples, as was supposed previously.

Whether or not large decks are hard to beat is a different aspect of the argument from whether large decks are hard to beat?

I've maintained consistently that big decks aren't hard to beat with a balanced deck. Check the entire thread and you'll find I never said otherwise. What I did say is that from time to time, big decks will get impossibly lucky with soul burying, and that players can sometimes lose to them because they're not standard decks. My gripe was with people having to prepare for decks that are squarely outside the scope of a real tournament meta when playing ROOT, not that turtles are too good.

I don't know why Schaef wants to keep revisiting that part of the argument when we're now talking about time wasting, but there's my position, once again, unchanged throughout the thread.

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on December 16, 2010, 01:42:41 AM

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on December 16, 2010, 01:39:41 AM

(I've had 2+ hour games against my friend who plays defensively)

I've totally been the cause of some 2-3 hour games. 

Yeah, that's part of the problem.

The point is, it's very rude in a tournament game. Sure, you may be having fun sitting around behind your wall well beyond when you normally would have lost 0-2, but that attitude is assuming your opponent's time is not valuable.

Furthermore, turtles are not needed to stem the tide of rush decks. The new set fixed that problem, and a rush deck will lose to a balanced deck most of the time. Not to mention, a turtle will lose to a balanced deck most of the time. The problem isn't that turtles are hard to beat, the issue is that they are not fun to play against, and waste massive amounts of time.

Except usually the opponent said they had a fun time during my 2-3 hour games. I don't just sit there and do nothing, I make it an intense match.

So you're whining that occasionally, you could lose through bad luck?  Checkers seems like the game for you.

I've maintained consistently that big decks aren't hard to beat with a balanced deck. Check the entire thread and you'll find I never said otherwise. What I did say is that from time to time, big decks will get impossibly lucky with soul burying, and that players can sometimes lose to them because they're not standard decks. My gripe was with people having to prepare for decks that are squarely outside the scope of a real tournament meta when playing ROOT, not that turtles are too good.

I don't know why Schaef wants to keep revisiting that part of the argument when we're now talking about time wasting, but there's my position, once again, unchanged throughout the thread.

Maybe you should read what people say instead of trying to speak for them.  He said what his gripe was and your misrepresenting it.  


I agree that unrealistic environment is an issue with ROOT.  It is the main reason I don't play.  I'm not scared of Big Decks, but I could do 30 - 45 minute rounds I dont have time for 1 - 2 hour matches, especially since I have never seen any of those monster decks at any of the tournaments that I have attended.  I want to practice for real tournaments, and ROOT is not that environment.

Quote from: SomeKittens on December 16, 2010, 02:41:03 PM

So you're whining that occasionally, you could lose through bad luck?  Checkers seems like the game for you.

Quote from: Minister Polarius on December 16, 2010, 02:39:23 PM

I've maintained consistently that big decks aren't hard to beat with a balanced deck. Check the entire thread and you'll find I never said otherwise. What I did say is that from time to time, big decks will get impossibly lucky with soul burying, and that players can sometimes lose to them because they're not standard decks. My gripe was with people having to prepare for decks that are squarely outside the scope of a real tournament meta when playing ROOT, not that turtles are too good.

I don't know why Schaef wants to keep revisiting that part of the argument when we're now talking about time wasting, but there's my position, once again, unchanged throughout the thread.

Maybe you should read what people say instead of trying to speak for them.  He said what his gripe was and your misrepresenting it.  


I agree that unrealistic environment is an issue with ROOT.  It is the main reason I don't play.  I'm not scared of Big Decks, but I could do 30 - 45 minute rounds I dont have time for 1 - 2 hour matches, especially since I have never seen any of those monster decks at any of the tournaments that I have attended.  I want to practice for real tournaments, and ROOT is not that environment.

The past 2 nats winners in t1-2p have used ROOT to playtest and practice.

I've maintained consistently that big decks aren't hard to beat with a balanced deck. Check the entire thread and you'll find I never said otherwise. What I did say is that from time to time, big decks will get impossibly lucky with soul burying,

I know, it is very frusterating when you work on your deck for umpteen hours to go to a tournaments, that are so few and far between, only to lose to someone who spends significantly less time on their deck all because they didn't draw souls.
There is something to be said about fun and fellowship in a card game but it seems to me that "luck is good because it can help newer players win" is a cop out. Why can't we have fun and fellowship and have less luck invovled. Last tournament I beat Guardian because I didn't draw any lost souls, now that isn't very fair to him is it? Frankly, it cheats both of us. We both didn't get legitimate chances to test our decks. I don't exactly know what can be done to correct the problem, maybe add more lost souls to deck building rules (or making a requirement that says you start out win x amount of soul in a territory), still it can be really frusterating and it is hard to feel like having fun or fellowship when you just got anhilated by something you cannot control. Now, I am not opposed to letting newer player win, but on the other hand why should they if they haven't put much time into deck building. Besides that is what type A is for.

As for Root it seems only logical to simulate the most accurate tournament settings possible.