Author Topic: Can We Make Teams Official? (Read 9468 times)

NWJosh · « **Reply #25 on:** June 29, 2009, 01:07:58 AM »

I would actually like to see a teams event replace closed deck. That always seems to be the event that I have to convince people to play in at tournaments. T2 multi usually is made up of more experienced players and taking away an event of the top players isn't good but T1 multi is big because even new players can get into that. Booster draft is alot of players favorite event and although it does cost more its a ton of fun and most players would not want to lose that.

DaClock · « **Reply #26 on:** June 29, 2009, 01:11:10 AM »

Playing to more than 5 we would easily have time constraints. Last year we had to play real short rounds simply because it was late by the time the tournament got over and we wanted to be done before the next day started. I think Teams would require at least 1 hour per round to have a good amount of time.

Personally as a host I would replace Sealed Deck over any other category. However, for our local area it would make sense to replace T2 MP because we're lucky to have 3 T2 players.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #27 on:** June 29, 2009, 01:11:36 AM »

I think the best option would be to say that a host could simply choose 6 of the 7 categories and let them pick whichever they felt like would generate the most interest in their playgroup.

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #28 on:** June 29, 2009, 01:19:39 AM »

Good call on replacing Sealed.

Kirk

DaClock · « **Reply #29 on:** June 29, 2009, 01:21:42 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on June 29, 2009, 01:11:36 AM

I think the best option would be to say that a host could simply choose 6 of the 7 categories and let them pick whichever they felt like would generate the most interest in their playgroup.

I agree. Different hosts/playgroups have different preferences.

Korunks · « **Reply #30 on:** June 29, 2009, 08:15:09 AM »

I have only Co-hosted one Tournament so far but feel I should weigh in as I plan on hosting several this season. I think team is an interesting play style, but if it is mandated to replace either of the MP styles, I don't think it would go over well here. I think IF it became official it should be optional for groups who don't play teams.

TheMarti · « **Reply #31 on:** June 29, 2009, 08:38:09 AM »

Agreed... if it becomes official, they should create some stipulations.

Local tournaments already do not require all categories to be played, so that's not a big deal.
Districts usually only run a day, so maybe only requiring 6 categories at a district would be appropriate, allowing the host to decide what categories to switch out (maybe requiring the 2 player events and then allowing the host to choose 4 others from the 2 closed, 2 multi, and teams)
States and Regionals almost always run 2 days, so requiring teams to be a part of the mix is not a huge stretch.

Just my thoughts, as a host.

~Marti

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #32 on:** June 29, 2009, 10:01:30 AM »

Quote from: The Marti on June 29, 2009, 08:38:09 AM

States and Regionals almost always run 2 days, so requiring teams to be a part of the mix is not a huge stretch.

Indeed, we will be running all 7 events at the East Central Regionals on July 11th. We did all 7 last year at East Central Regionals as well, and it was a great success...

except that we were playing to 7 LSs and one game took about 5 hours to play.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #33 on:** June 29, 2009, 10:16:24 AM »

Quote from: The Marti on June 29, 2009, 08:38:09 AM

States and Regionals almost always run 2 days, so requiring teams to be a part of the mix is not a huge stretch.

This year, the MN State tournament started at 5:00 pm on Friday and play ended at 11:35 pm. Saturday morning we started at 9:00 am, and I left the building at 10:30 pm. Adding another required event would be a slightly larger deal than suggested.

Heck, Nationals is spread over three days and teams get forced into a late night session.

This just means you either are going to officially run 6 of 7 events, or you run teams in parallel with two of the other events and end up cannabalizing players.

Korunks · « **Reply #34 on:** June 29, 2009, 10:30:54 AM »

MD states ran in a day this weekend, adding a forced seventh event would be difficult to fit in a day.

robm · « **Reply #35 on:** June 30, 2009, 10:48:29 AM »

I choose the six current categories.

Considering we only had 3 people for 4 of my 6 events at my district in may. I see difficulty if offering teams over these event. Teams needs four while all other events only need 2 or 3.

The scoring system for points would also be difficult unless you have the same partner at each tournament. Which would be easy for my wife and I to stick to but one of us may want to play the opposite event.

SerpentSlayer · « **Reply #36 on:** June 30, 2009, 03:32:47 PM »

Why would it be hard? Just give both the players points for winning separately.

New Raven BR · « **Reply #37 on:** June 30, 2009, 03:34:02 PM »

i'd be in for playing teams if only there was a suitable teammate for me on the forums

lightningninja · « **Reply #38 on:** June 30, 2009, 04:10:11 PM »

I'm in full support of this and have been trying to get this for years. I think it's an excellent game type, not only because it's fun, but it lets you get to strategize with other great players (aka picking up other good players at a tourney to play teams and preparing last minute), and because I think table talk is awesome! And now it's allowed!

And let's face it... everyone wants to see everybody using Babylonians, so that when you play head of gold, you can capture every hero on the table. XD

Also, I think we should make it a rule that you can play enhancements on your teamate's characters. That would be awesome!

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #39 on:** June 30, 2009, 04:24:35 PM »

Quote from: SoulSaver on June 30, 2009, 03:32:47 PM

Why would it be hard? Just give both the players points for winning separately.

I agree with this. That way, it would be possible to see if someone was good enough to win with a variety of different teammates.

Quote from: lightningninja on June 30, 2009, 04:10:11 PM

Also, I think we should make it a rule that you can play enhancements on your teamate's characters. That would be awesome!

This was done 2 years ago at Nats, but not last year (although you could pass enhs through Storehouse). Personally, I enjoyed last year more, but I am probably biased

The Schaef · « **Reply #40 on:** June 30, 2009, 05:09:52 PM »

The thing about last year's rules, and I don't think Mark had the outside knowledge to be aware of this when he ironed out his rules, but the rules for Teams works very similar to the way Magic's Two-Headed Giant category would work if it were ported over to Redemption. I think there's only like two significant rule differences, and I don't remember them off the top of my head.

This tells me that it's a good foundation on which to establish what could easily be a sanctioned category in future tournament seasons.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #41 on:** June 30, 2009, 05:20:45 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on June 30, 2009, 05:09:52 PM

I don't think Mark had the outside knowledge to be aware...

You calling me ignorant?

Actually you are correct. I've never played Magic, or even watched a game, so I can't really compare. I actually based the rules somewhat off of a CCG that I created back in 1995 called Promise Land, but that I never went far enough to get published. It had a TEAM version that was similar to what we did last year at Nats.

Just to give all credit where it's due, I had played a 2-player version of a CCG called Spellfire previous to creating my game.

Cactus Game Design Message Boards

News:

Author Topic: Can We Make Teams Official? (Read 9468 times)

NWJosh

Re: Can We Make Teams Official?

DaClock

Re: Can We Make Teams Official?

Prof Underwood

Re: Can We Make Teams Official?

Captain Kirk

Re: Can We Make Teams Official?

DaClock

Re: Can We Make Teams Official?

Korunks

Re: Can We Make Teams Official?

TheMarti

Re: Can We Make Teams Official?

Prof Underwood

Re: Can We Make Teams Official?

EmJayBee83

Re: Can We Make Teams Official?

Korunks

Re: Can We Make Teams Official?

robm

Re: Can We Make Teams Official?

SerpentSlayer

Re: Can We Make Teams Official?

New Raven BR

Re: Can We Make Teams Official?

lightningninja

Re: Can We Make Teams Official?

Prof Underwood

Re: Can We Make Teams Official?

The Schaef

Re: Can We Make Teams Official?

Prof Underwood

Re: Can We Make Teams Official?