Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I think this should thread should be deleted IMO. It has turned into a shootout, and is def off the original topic. If a Mod could remove this I would sincerely appreciate it.

Not sure how talking about rule changes to fix dominant slapjack in a thread about dominant slapjack being an issue is off topic. The dominant rules tend to manifest their problems most often with Mayhem, but they are not exclusive to Mayhem by any means.

A reboot would be great for the game. The only way to save the game is to start a reboot category where there would be, as said before, not a lot of OP doms and cards that are so OP they should not have ever been printed. I remember when I was about 8 years old and I lost a game against a very competitive player because my hands were not fast enough. So I definitely think we should work on fixing slapjack.

The game doesn't need a reboot, and fixing Dom's =/= stopping speed. I'd rather see the rules cleaned up than anything at this point.

The game doesn't necessarily need a reboot, but it would be an easy fix for a ton of the issues that plague it.

Quote from: Drrek on April 06, 2014, 07:54:56 PM

Quote from: lp670sv on April 06, 2014, 07:51:48 PM

The game doesn't need a reboot, and fixing Dom's =/= stopping speed. I'd rather see the rules cleaned up than anything at this point.

The game doesn't necessarily need a reboot, but it would be an easy fix for a ton of the issues that plague it.

It would also alienate a large portion of the player base, something an already hurting game probably can't afford.

I don't think it would have to alienate the player base if there was an unlimited format as well.

This forum has less than 100 active members. Seeing its opinions as the opinions of the entire redemption community, or most of it, is short cited. When people start showing up to Nats and find out the decks theyve been building and spending money on are illegal in the main event they aren't going to care as much that they can compete in a side shot event.

Quote from: Korunks on April 06, 2014, 08:36:58 AM

And as PA/MD group member the trend of players letting competitive spirits overrule fellowship and courtesy is one of the things that is quickly souring me on this game.  A competitive spirit is slightly selfish in nature and we need start placing an emphasis on to tempering it with Christian fellowship and courtesy for the health of the game and the region.

Can you provide one tangible example of this?  Literally one?

Yes I can.  I have had the following feedback since our meta shift to more competitive play:

A family of 8-9 redemption players who no longer attend my tournaments because, last I heard from them they have more fun in an environment where they don't feel the rules change everyday and people don't take advantage of their level of play.  They have more fun away from our meta.

A player who I have had to have multiple conversations with to keep him from quitting multiple tournaments because of his feelings of being taken advantage of by higher level players.

Members of my local play group lamenting to me" Shawn, remember when tournaments used to be fun?"

Several visitors to our tournaments who decided against getting into redemption because they did not like the tension in the atmosphere. 

I feel this list is sufficient but I have many more stories.

Prior to yesterday's event I had intentionally played subpar decks at the previous 2 tournaments.  Neither of the decks were speed and neither of them was designed around stopping my opponent from playing cards. Neither of those decks prevented my opponent from having a hand.  This was to help provide opportunity for other people to win and to have games that included real battles.  What would you like me to do to continue to encourage fun and fellowship?  I attend as many tournaments your way and usually bring Charles to add people to the pool and support you as a host. I havnt seen you at a tournament in pa since states 2012.

Low blow man, I have had many personal and medical issues in the past year.  It was the most I could do to keep hosting. I am sorry I didn't make it to more your way. Had you asked me you might have known why I didn't come.  And I applaud you restraint, wish more competitive players showed it.

Not to be rude but the only person I've seen get really upset at tournament is you.  I find it a little condescending to bash your play group while you don't support half of it. I think Jesus said something about this, it had to do with a spec and a plank. I will give you this you have personally apologized to people after difficult situations and that is admirable. That doesn't excuse the behavior though.

Now you are making this personal, you should have PM'ed this part, but since you made it personal and public I'll play along. I have gotten mad in the past.  The ultra competitive play style is a stumbling block for me.  You admit you have seen it be a stumbling block for me, and yet you think it a good play style.  Paul had a lot to say about the strong yielding to the weak when their liberty caused a stumbling block.  Competitive play has robbed me of many friends that no longer attends my tourneys so I have strong feelings towards it, in addition to my disappointment to losing.  The Lord has been dealing with in this area of my walk.  I would appreciate your prayers over your condemnation.  I am not perfect but I am trying.

Personally I'm proud of our play area. Everyone is getting better and becoming stronger players and I have not seen a decrease in fun or fellowship; rather the opposite is it true. People have Been interested in helping one another, and supporting one another as we have tried to rival the great MN play groups. (This is a fun way not a over bearing competitive way, just clarifying) I'm proud of that.

 I just wish more could enjoy the current format, we have lost many who will likely never return.

Quote from: Korunks on April 06, 2014, 09:07:20 AM

Everyone should play their best, but I believe graciousness should overrule winning a game.  If my taking an action in my best interest knowing it will infuriate my opponent and cause them to have anger, I should consider being gracious.

I completely disagree with you that 'letting someone win' (which is what you are suggesting if you say not to take the most competitive action just because someone might be upset) should be a part of this game, or that not doing so is 'not Christian'.  We are playing a game, and we are playing to win.  I will not cheat.  I will not lie.  I do not even intentionally deceive (like has been talked about in other threads).  But I will make the plays that give me the best chance to win, and I will capitalize on errors or good luck.  That's the point of playing the game.  Afterwards, I will laugh and fellowship and be gracious, win or lose (been working on the second part, and have been getting better), but that does not mean I won't try to win.  Saying I shouldn't try to win at a tournament is nonsensical to me.

On a side note, I am moving this out of Ruling Questions.  There isn't really a rule or ruling being discussed here, more of a 'how this is being currently played' discussion.  Also, since I am in the thick of this one, I shouldn't be the moderator that determines if anything is amiss here.

And we will likely never agree on this.  I believe what I believe because The Bible calls us to meekness, and I believe that applies to all walks of a Christians life, including the games they play.  I am as entitled to my opinion as you are yours.  I didn't say you weren't a Christian, or a bad person.  I just stated my opinion that I believe players should show more meekness.

As an aside I most definitely would have Pm'd my concerns to all necessary parties if the stage had been set in a private situation. However, in this situation the stage was set publicly and I felt the need to defend a group of players that was being misrepresented by an outlier opinion. I didn't feel it was appropriate to place an  over arching stereotype on this or any group of players.

And I felt the need to defend what is left of my non competitive play group. New players staying interested is vital for the games future, they don't usually start competitive.  You can call mine an outlier opinion but I have a perspective on the MD play group that you do not have because I was hosting long before we had our meta shift.  I was hoping my perspective would allow us to have a better understanding of each others side.  But now I know where I stand in the other host's eyes.

Shawn, are you arguing that I should intentionally lose in order to spare people's feelings? This is not a sarcastic question.

No I am saying that instead of completely dominating an weaker opponent a seasoned player could perhaps ease of the gas and not ruthlessly crush weaker players(As I have witnessed).  I do not, and have never advocated throwing a game.  I just want the losing players to have a chance at enjoying the games even if they lose(which I believe is possible).

I would estimate that 90-99% of the issues I encounter with dominants are related to Mayhem or Vain Philosophy. I'm willing to bet that most players could estimate similar numbers. Solving the problem with those will more or less solve the problem entirely. I'm willing to deal with issues that matter in 1% of games.

A game covered in band aids does not need another bandaid, when the next mayhem comes down the line you can either deal with it and the SOG/Burial crap now or you can just deal with ALL of them now. Making dominants only playable on your own turn or in battle solves 100% of the issues, even going back to of FTM was still a thing, and it avoids having to errata cards or create rules specifically for 1 or 2 cards instead of the overarching card type. It creates a lot less confusion than an errata as well.

In that situation I would expect the player to adapt and play FA on their turn. Which, really, if your opponent has 3 LSs rescued and you have falling away in hand you should have already played in. SOG/NJ says hi. But the point of the rule change would be to eliminate slapjack situations. Twoliner-Burial vs SOG/NJ being the primary focus outside of Mayhem. There are going to  be situation in which the rule change would give someone a slight advantage vs how the rule is now, but there would be no debate as to rather a card was played correctly or who has the right to play a dominant or anything like that which is what needs to be eliminated.

Quote from: lp670sv on April 07, 2014, 01:45:00 PM

In that situation I would expect the player to adapt and play FA on their turn. Which, really, if your opponent has 3 LSs rescued and you have falling away in hand you should have already played in. SOG/NJ says hi. But the point of the rule change would be to eliminate slapjack situations. Twoliner-Burial vs SOG/NJ being the primary focus outside of Mayhem. There are going to  be situation in which the rule change would give someone a slight advantage vs how the rule is now, but there would be no debate as to rather a card was played correctly or who has the right to play a dominant or anything like that which is what needs to be eliminated.

Making it so you can only play doms during battle or your turn would still leave at least one slapjack situation I can think of.  Forced draw via something like TGW to soul gen for SoG/NJ when the person who's drawing has burial in hand.

You have a valid point, perhaps dominants should also need initiative to play in battle?

I think this rule would be amazing. It would make doms a lot less OP and make games more interesting than a slap jack win.

Can you think of another way to solve the situation that Drrek described?

Yes--currently we have a judging guideline for slapjack that says if a player is responding to his own action he has first dibs on playing a dominant otherwise the opponent can play a dominant. Why not simply upgrade this from a judging guideline to a game rule? So after taking each action a player would either play a dominant or effectively ask his opponent if he would like to play a dominant. Right now this is currently how AotL and CM are played in battle.  Even when they obviously have initiative because of numbers, most experienced players ask, "My initiative?" to give their opponent a chance to play the dominant. In addition to the existing set of checks, you would end up adding in courtesy checks like, "I am done drawing, and I will play a dominant." and "I am done with prep phase; would you like to play a dominant?"

So under this proposal, Drrek's situation gets resolved as follows. Player A plays TGW to force player B to draw, which means Player A would get the first chance to play a dominant. In order to ensure that he knows when the action is complete Player A would simply tell Player B, "Please let me know when you are done drawing, so I can ask for an initiative check."

I would much prefer to simply codify the existing standards rather than completely re-writing the rules for playing dominants.