New Redemption Grab Bag now includes an assortment of 500 cards from five (5) different expansion sets. Available at Cactus website.
The larger a card pool gets, the more consistent decks become across the board. The most consistent decks become, the easier it is to determine that one deck is objectively better than another. This means that as a card pool grows, decks become less diverse and individual games play out increasing similar to each other.If you want an example, I present CoL. That deck does the exact same thing every single game and I have a higher personal win percentage with it in testing and tournaments that I have with any other deck. Using the final polished version of the deck, I did not lose a single game in testing prior to Nats or during all but one game of Iron Man at nats (Which was against almost the exact same deck). During the actual tournament I had 1 loss and 1 tie, both of which were lost because of exactly 1 objective misplay I made during each.To back up that data, I am objectively not a top tier Redemption tournament player and normally hover around a 50% winrate at decent sized tournaments. The one and only reason CoL performs the way it does is because there are a critical mass of consistency cards in the game that allow the deck to literally pilot itself to victory the exact same ways every single game.Even only rotating very old sets would lower the consistency of CoL (It runs one consistency piece each from Angel Wars and Kings) and rotating Priests would give the deck a meaningful weakness in the form of the loss of Ram's Horn, in addition to removing one of it's very important consistency Evil Characters (Sabbath Breaker).
May I start things off by proposing a question/agreement format for this thread where we tackle a series of questions and determine whether we agree on them so the discussion can be centered on where we disagree.Questions I would propose asking:What does set rotation accomplish?In what situations is set rotation needed?speaking about Redemption nowWhat are the main problems with Redemption that set rotation can solve?Do old sets need to be rotated out before we can rotate out newer sets?And more questions obviously.I suggest that we agree on what we are going to discuss before we start and do it in a methodical way so that we can have a productive less confusing discussion.
Quote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 03:59:00 PMThe larger a card pool gets, the more consistent decks become across the board. The most consistent decks become, the easier it is to determine that one deck is objectively better than another. This means that as a card pool grows, decks become less diverse and individual games play out increasing similar to each other.If you want an example, I present CoL. That deck does the exact same thing every single game and I have a higher personal win percentage with it in testing and tournaments that I have with any other deck. Using the final polished version of the deck, I did not lose a single game in testing prior to Nats or during all but one game of Iron Man at nats (Which was against almost the exact same deck). During the actual tournament I had 1 loss and 1 tie, both of which were lost because of exactly 1 objective misplay I made during each.To back up that data, I am objectively not a top tier Redemption tournament player and normally hover around a 50% winrate at decent sized tournaments. The one and only reason CoL performs the way it does is because there are a critical mass of consistency cards in the game that allow the deck to literally pilot itself to victory the exact same ways every single game.Even only rotating very old sets would lower the consistency of CoL (It runs one consistency piece each from Angel Wars and Kings) and rotating Priests would give the deck a meaningful weakness in the form of the loss of Ram's Horn, in addition to removing one of it's very important consistency Evil Characters (Sabbath Breaker).What happens if you replace CoL with any other character? How does that effect your win rate?
Quote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 03:33:23 PMFor starters, what is your opinion of the mathematical inevitability of consistency creep sans rotation and the specific example of how it is already plaguing Redemption in the form of the CoL deck?I believe arguments about mathematics need to be shown to have a relation to reality. I look at the CoL deck list from Nats and I see few cards that would be rotated out (under the proposals here), and the ones that would are not the real culprits. Looking at the deck it also seems to me that CoL is the card that is way above the curve, and one that should not have been printed knowing nothing more than what was in the set immediately before.Since you disagree, please explain to me how any of the proposed set rotation schems would make the CoL deck less OP. Please do not, however, put forward the claim that it will help things in four or five years, unless you can show that CoL will still be a problem in four or five years. Back in the day TGT was a similar above-curve card. It seriously warped the meta for over two years. Nowadays no one seems to have much of a problem with it. By the time CoL would rotate out (under any of the proposals here), it too will most likely be an after thought in the meta.
For starters, what is your opinion of the mathematical inevitability of consistency creep sans rotation and the specific example of how it is already plaguing Redemption in the form of the CoL deck?
Quote from: EmJayBee83 on February 21, 2018, 04:08:28 PMQuote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 03:59:00 PMIf you want an example, I present CoL. What happens if you replace CoL with any other character? How does that effect your win rate?Your point being that were CoL to not exist, the CoL deck would not exist?
Quote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 03:59:00 PMIf you want an example, I present CoL. What happens if you replace CoL with any other character? How does that effect your win rate?
If you want an example, I present CoL.
Children of Light doesn't make the deck consistent by itself, it's the combination of all of the cards used in the deck that makes it consistent.
Quote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 04:13:02 PMQuote from: EmJayBee83 on February 21, 2018, 04:08:28 PMQuote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 03:59:00 PMIf you want an example, I present CoL. What happens if you replace CoL with any other character? How does that effect your win rate?Your point being that were CoL to not exist, the CoL deck would not exist? My point was to ask a question, which is how often does your super-duper-fantastically consistent deck win without CoL? Put mathematically you have found a local maximum in deck goodness space; I am asking how that maximum changes if you replace one card. If it goes away completely it shows the problem is with that one card.Quote from: tripleplayNa1 on February 21, 2018, 04:15:17 PMChildren of Light doesn't make the deck consistent by itself, it's the combination of all of the cards used in the deck that makes it consistent. Without CoL there is *no* deck. I am Creator and Ram's Horn and all the other older cards are tertiary issues at best.Put another way, if you removed all of the older cards (say Priests and before), CoL would still be a dominant deck wouldn't it? Do you have any reason to believe it would be less dominant than it is today if all opposing decks were also similarly restrained?
A major part of the issue with CoL is how quickly it gets set up, and that's where the consistency factor comes in. I'll expound more later when I write my dissertation on CoL.
In fairness, that's not just an issue with CoL. Certain Throne decks can have Throne active turn one in over 80% of their games (90% if the player goes second and gets the first draw) barring any counters used by the opponent.
Quote from: The Guardian on February 21, 2018, 05:15:10 PMA major part of the issue with CoL is how quickly it gets set up, and that's where the consistency factor comes in. I'll expound more later when I write my dissertation on CoL. This, exactly. To tie this into set rotation, I have had many games where my only way to Children was IaC in my opening hand. Even removing that one Angel Wars card would cause the deck's win % to take a notable hit.
And what pre-Priests cards are used to help that--Zaccheus?
Quote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 05:22:07 PMQuote from: The Guardian on February 21, 2018, 05:15:10 PMA major part of the issue with CoL is how quickly it gets set up, and that's where the consistency factor comes in. I'll expound more later when I write my dissertation on CoL. This, exactly. To tie this into set rotation, I have had many games where my only way to Children was IaC in my opening hand. Even removing that one Angel Wars card would cause the deck's win % to take a notable hit.And you know that removing all of the older cards would have a smaller effect on all of the decks facing CoL than it would on CoL?For example, if CoL is truly unblockable doesn't getting a sure "block" from one of the liners mean that opposing decks will get a bigger bump than CoL? If I am Creator bumps your win percentage notably, wouldn't HSR which can stop that and any other searching be a bigger win for opposing decks?
Quote from: The Guardian on February 21, 2018, 05:15:10 PMA major part of the issue with CoL is how quickly it gets set up, and that's where the consistency factor comes in. I'll expound more later when I write my dissertation on CoL. Something has come up and I may not get to this tonight. However, now I'm thinking of turning it into an article for Land of Redemption--perhaps in conjunction with kevinthedude if he's interested.
Article? I want an apology letter. I GOT TO PLAY TYPE 2 MULTI. Also Kony makes Red sad.
CoL is not worse than TGT's prime. I speak from the experience of both occasions. In fact, I could produce a dissertation on this subject. (Would much prefer a lecture, I much prefer speaking)
