Author Topic: Ironing out side boarding to hopefully try it out in root (Read 21198 times)

Master KChief · « **Reply #50 on:** December 29, 2012, 02:45:29 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on December 29, 2012, 02:05:13 PM

Just remember that if there wasn't an Atari 2600 there would probably never be an Xbox 360. And people were really happy with the Atari 2600 back when it came out.

My point was why try to give someone something sub-par when you have better options readily available. I'm pretty sure if the Xbox 360 was released in 1977 as well, there wouldn't be a shadow of a doubt which system people would pick. Which do the majority of people pick now? That is the only thing that is relevant.

Quote

But just keep in mind that it probably won't be happening at any live tournaments for a long time.

Again, this is besides the entire point of the thread, but I'll play. IIRC, Rob recently made a post in favor of implementing top cut in tournaments with over 31 players, an idea that you claim has little support. What possibly gives you the idea that best 2 of 3 with siding, a practice that further perpetuates the balance and fairness of top cut in the first place, won't be possible for a 'long time'? You are apparently the authority on what has support and what doesn't, what becomes a reality and what doesn't, and the time frame associated with such realities, so this is, of course, why I ask you.

Quote

...then it might be better to test out ingame sideboarding like we've been discussing later in this thread

Since you're such a strong proponent of democracy when it comes to ROOT, I suggest you let the people vote and decide which rules they would like to test out. And let's just simply avoid the embarrassment of putting frivolous long-standing rules on the ballot that, again, only serve one persons agenda.

wyatt_marcum · « **Reply #51 on:** December 29, 2012, 02:55:25 PM »

I'll help you out with testing tonight if you want. just PM me when your ready and I'll help.

Bryon · « **Reply #52 on:** December 29, 2012, 03:07:08 PM »

I am a big fan of top cut in big tournaments. But there are only a few tournaments per year that are big enough. Nats plus a couple regionals and probably one state tournament. And just because we have a top cut doesn't mean that we will have enough time for a best 2 out of 3.

For the vast majority of tournaments, and in the likely event that we never begin a 2 of 3 playoff even at the top tournaments, I think it would be best to come up with the best possible in-game access to your sideboard. A lot of options have been suggested. We need to decide what we want to test:

Access time:
1) once per prep phase
2) when you draw a lost soul
3) when your opponent rescues a lost soul

What to do at access time:
1) exchange a card in hand with card in sideboard
2) remove a hand card from game, take a sideboard card into hand.
3) put a card from hand into sideboard, shuffle a sideboard card into deck, draw 1
4) remove a hand card from the game, shuffle a sideboard card into deck, draw 1

Sideboard size:
1) = lost soul count. Most seem OK with this simple option.

Sideboard contents:
1) no restrictions
2) no dominants
3) no dominants or single-color sites (possibly needed if the sideboarded card goes straight to your hand after a soul draw).

Deck contents
1) no dominants. These must go in sideboard (or perhaps a seperate dominant pile) and only shuffled into deck as you draw lost souls. As much as I like this option, I don't see it happening without tremendous player support.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #53 on:** December 29, 2012, 03:18:04 PM »

Quote

And just because we have a top cut doesn't mean that we will have enough time for a best 2 out of 3.

I disagree. After the first few rounds, the top couple of tables were finished with their games in 5-10 minutes with very, very few exceptions. Best 2:3 would not use the same time limits as the normal tournament, and since it's only the best players at the biggest tournaments, no time would need to be factored in for reading cards or any of that tom-foolery that causes games to last longer than 15 minutes at most.

Bryon · « **Reply #54 on:** December 29, 2012, 03:31:38 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on December 29, 2012, 03:18:04 PM

Best 2:3 would not use the same time limits as the normal tournament, and since it's only the best players at the biggest tournaments, no time would need to be factored in for reading cards or any of that tom-foolery that causes games to last longer than 15 minutes at most.

Like using defense? I've seen games at top tables go all the way to time. Ever seen a 150-card deck at a top table at nationals? I have.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #55 on:** December 29, 2012, 03:52:43 PM »

FTR, my opposition to Top Cut does not filter over to sideboards. I am willing to test these at my tournaments once the details mentioned above by Bryon are decided. I think players will enjoy the flexibility, especially when most of my players are torn between a few cards that they wanted to include in their deck anyway.

Master KChief · « **Reply #56 on:** December 29, 2012, 04:05:44 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on December 29, 2012, 03:31:38 PM

Like using defense? I've seen games at top tables go all the way to time. Ever seen a 150-card deck at a top table at nationals? I have.

Since I assume we're talking T1, these are isolated incidents that are nowhere near the norm. These are also troll decks that would time out under almost any condition. I also do not see why these matches going to time would even be a problem in the first place, even under best 2 of 3.

Isildur · « **Reply #57 on:** December 29, 2012, 04:39:16 PM »

Even at a nationals the people using the 150 card decks and get to the top table will be good players who know what they are doing and would not need extra "time for reading cards or any of that tom-foolery" to cause a time out. I used to run a 77 card deck all the time at our tournies and I never clocked out I was still usually one of the first people done with their game.

Chris · « **Reply #58 on:** December 29, 2012, 04:50:30 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on December 29, 2012, 03:31:38 PM

Quote from: Minister Polarius on December 29, 2012, 03:18:04 PM
Best 2:3 would not use the same time limits as the normal tournament, and since it's only the best players at the biggest tournaments, no time would need to be factored in for reading cards or any of that tom-foolery that causes games to last longer than 15 minutes at most.
Like using defense? I've seen games at top tables go all the way to time. Ever seen a 150-card deck at a top table at nationals? I have.

Right. When was the last time that happened? The biggest deck at top tables this year was Greeson's, and he was moving right along.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #59 on:** December 29, 2012, 06:44:26 PM »

Quote from: Chris on December 29, 2012, 04:50:30 PM

Quote from: Bryon on December 29, 2012, 03:31:38 PM
Like using defense? I've seen games at top tables go all the way to time. Ever seen a 150-card deck at a top table at nationals? I have.
Right. When was the last time that happened? The biggest deck at top tables this year was Greeson's, and he was moving right along.

I think my deck at Nats was 63 cards of mainly defense, and I did have issues with time limits. My last game was against Jon Pequinot who had a 154 card deck that was up near the top for a lot of the day despite him having timeout problems consistently.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #60 on:** December 29, 2012, 06:45:22 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on December 29, 2012, 04:05:44 PM

Since I assume we're talking T1, these are isolated incidents that are nowhere near the norm. These are also troll decks that would time out under almost any condition. I also do not see why these matches going to time would even be a problem in the first place, even under best 2 of 3.

My playgroup has jokingly discussed best 2/3 T2 before, we were fairly sure that it would take an entire weekend and would probably be a test of mental endurance (at least for me and my complex deck strategies).

I'd be really interested to see how a sideboard (however it ends up working) affects T2.

Master KChief · « **Reply #61 on:** December 29, 2012, 06:48:06 PM »

In-game siding would be a nightmare for T2. So much shuffling.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #62 on:** December 29, 2012, 06:54:45 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on December 29, 2012, 03:07:08 PM

A) Access time:
1) once per prep phase [I think this is too often, and would lengthen games too much]
2) when you draw a lost soul [This is the best frequency, and also mitigates LS bleed]
3) when your opponent rescues a lost soul [This would probably only happen 3X per game]

B) What to do at access time:
1) exchange a card in hand with card in sideboard [This is OP. It allows any 1 card to show up too fast]
2) remove a hand card from game, take a sideboard card into hand. [This hurts people who draw their LS on the first turn and don't know for sure what they won't need.]
3) put a card from hand into sideboard, shuffle a sideboard card into deck, draw 1 [This is perfect]
4) remove a hand card from the game, shuffle a sideboard card into deck, draw 1 [This is worse than #2]

C) Sideboard size:
1) = lost soul count. Most seem OK with this simple option. [This is also really great]

D) Sideboard contents:
1) no restrictions [Freedom is usually a good thing]
2) no dominants [This is only important if sideboard cards went straight to hand, which they shouldn't]
3) no dominants or single-color sites (possibly needed if the sideboarded card goes straight to your hand after a soul draw). [Same as #2]
4) all dominants. These must go in sideboard (or perhaps a separate dominant pile) and only shuffled into deck as you draw lost souls. As much as I like this option, I don't see it happening without tremendous player support. [This is my favorite option]

OK, so my votes are:
A2
B3
C1
D4 (with D1 as 2nd pick)

wyatt_marcum · « **Reply #63 on:** December 29, 2012, 09:34:42 PM »

A2
B3
C1
D1
I dont like D4 because it is very limiting to most decks. and not everyone has seven doms. I onl have six, so My sideboard would be less than other competetors.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #64 on:** December 29, 2012, 10:50:09 PM »

Maybe we could try a traditional sideboarding method first then after testing move to a more complex method if needed?

with best 2 out of 3, of course.

Chris · « **Reply #65 on:** December 29, 2012, 10:58:57 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on December 29, 2012, 06:44:26 PM

I think my deck at Nats was 63 cards of mainly defense, and I did have issues with time limits. My last game was against Jon Pequinot who had a 154 card deck that was up near the top for a lot of the day despite him having timeout problems consistently.

I didn't realize your deck was that large, though I knew it was mostly defense. You're one of the better defensive players I know, and if you cannot pilot a 63 card deck (let alone anything bigger) to the top ten, who exactly is going to? It's easy to dismiss an idea like this because of time issues with people who likes to play defense, but the odds are stacked against defense to begin with, so I'm not particularly inclined to accommodate such a small percentage of players, when I would assume that more people would be in favor of best 2 out of 3 top cut than those opposed because of time issues. Again, those of us who are pushing for best 2 out of 3 are only doing it with top cut in mind, which would only be the final four rounds, and with a small percentage of the total player base. Time issues aren't really going to be a huge problem, since the majority of players at that level will be playing small decks.

I'm strongly opposed to any in-game sideboard, including the dominant ones (no pun intended). The whole point of sideboard is for best 2 out of 3, so that the game is more competitive. Otherwise, I think we're just changing things for the sake of changing them.

Gabe · « **Reply #66 on:** December 29, 2012, 11:05:32 PM »

A2
B3
C1
D1

There are three major problems I see with D4, forcing all Dominants from the deck to the sideboard.

First, it adds another level of complexity to teaching new players the game.

Second it makes sideboards required in order to have any chance to compete. I strongly believe that sideboards should be optional.

Third it defeats the purpose of introducing sideboards to the game in the first place, that is to add strategy and provide a way to use counters without taking up valuable deck space.

If we're looking for a way to nueter Dominants worse that we already have, then just play the optional 2 Good Dom/2 Evil Dom format Rob created. Don't ruin sideboards because of your hate for Dominants.

Bryon · « **Reply #67 on:** December 29, 2012, 11:34:06 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on December 29, 2012, 06:48:06 PM

In-game siding would be a nightmare for T2. So much shuffling.

Agreed.

As for voting, I agree with Gabe's votes (which agree with Mark's for the most part). I think the dominant part is another issue entirely and really should be in its own thread.

Any chance this could be tested in Jan ROOT? Too soon?

Master KChief · « **Reply #68 on:** December 29, 2012, 11:41:35 PM »

Quote from: Chris on December 29, 2012, 10:58:57 PM

I'm strongly opposed to any in-game sideboard, including the dominant ones (no pun intended). The whole point of sideboard is for best 2 out of 3, so that the game is more competitive. Otherwise, I think we're just changing things for the sake of changing them.

Agreed, 'in-game' siding is just an extra in-game location branding itself as a severely watered down version of what traditional siding actually accomplishes. All in-game siding achieves is introducing an extra pile from which to circulate cards through, which in turn just means you made your deck bigger without adhering to lost soul ratio rules. Some variants of this new game mechanic don't even parallel the strategic elements of actual siding in the slightest. Gaining access to this extra pile only at very specific times is completely counter intuitive to what siding is actually aimed at doing. The only way to achieve anything even remotely similar to the benefits of actual siding is the scenario where the cards shuffled in will have even a mere possibility at making an impact upon the game. Gaining access only as certain events are being fulfilled just doesn't cut it, both soul drought and drawing first turn souls soundly defeats the purpose. Gaining access once per prep phase gives a player a solid chance at seeing a single extra pile card in a single game, and I have yet to see a single argument disputing the veracity of it outside of the ambiguity of 'too often' (yes, clearly adding anything that creates a more strategic and balanced gamestate 'too often' is a bad thing). Cards put in the extra pile during a game also shouldn't be allowed to be circulated back into the deck again.

wyatt_marcum · « **Reply #69 on:** December 29, 2012, 11:51:52 PM »

I dont think it really matters on what is circulated in or out. and the size for the most part if it is limited to getting the cards out with lost souls. you could have 15 cards, but you can still only get out seven cards from it. unless you shuffle your souls and do it all again. so I could go for a 15 card sideboard.

Isildur · « **Reply #70 on:** December 30, 2012, 12:09:47 AM »

We need to have it tested both ways. I fully agree with Master KChief whats the reason not to use A1? For many Redemption players siding is a foreign concept and if we are going to use in-game siding it has to be done frequently other wise it just becomes a gimmick. When I posted about Middle Earth CCG and its concept of in-game siding vet. players would be swapping cards in and out from their side board almost every turn allowing your deck to be EXTREMELY flexible.

I would be more open to the...
A2
B3
C1
D2
If cards were made that allowed you to forgo the normal "waiting period" to use your sideboard. This is what Middle Earth CCG did and it worked fantastically.

soul seeker · « **Reply #71 on:** December 30, 2012, 01:21:12 AM »

I've mostly stayed out of the discussion because I can see the different sides, and I like various parts of what has been suggested.
At this point (because on some of the below issues I can still be swayed in my opinion):
I like and prefer the sideboard to be best utilized as part of a best 2 of 3 games (though most people know I have an aggressive play style).

However, with in-game siding (which is the current discussion). Here are my current leanings (multiple answers are presented in the order of my current preference):
A2: This will help prevent the hiding of Lost Souls since Lost Souls triggers the use of the sideboard.
It also gives some benefit to those who have "bled out" lost souls.

B2: This makes the sideboard most useful verses speed or FBTN by getting counter cards quickly. Also, there is a cost to be paid for not braving the card in the original deck.
B3: Would be my next preference but I am not sure how useful an in-game sideboard would be when you are burying your counter into your deck hoping to redraw it at some point. If that is what you want to do, then why not just start with the card in your deck for a better chance to get it because of the initial 8 cards.

C2 (not sure why people are even mentioning a "C" because 1 option is not really a vote) but I like the idea of a 10 card sideboard. 10 cards allow for an actual flip in offense or defense or both. I may be the only one to be willing to mess up deck building simplicity (which I understand its importance) but I wanted to keep this option on the table.

D1 I like the freedom of moving whatever cards around because I think this maximizes the strategy aspect.
D2a-->Limited Doms in SideBoard Because I am a fan of cards going to hand, then this could limit potential abuse. However, I also prefer the option of swapping a Guardian out of deck (if they have used their FA before it was drawn) for a FA. Or swap out a burial into sideboard if Lampstand is active.
D2b-->No Doms whatsoever Just to limit free searches for Doms or free protection of Doms from Confusion, etc.
D3 I like this because of the ability to limit GoS abuse.

It's late and I'm tired, so hopefully my initial thoughts are coherent and thought provoking.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #72 on:** December 30, 2012, 10:28:52 AM »

Other things to consider:

1.) If we access the sideboard only when we draw a lost soul, then we are at a disadvantage if our Lost Souls are pulled out of our deck by other methods (i.e. the Revealer LS).
2.) I think that the sideboard should be able to be accessed frequently, but that cards taken out from the deck should not be able to be accessed until the other cards in the sideboard have been exhausted, if at all.
3.) I think the cards taken out from the current deck should be revealed before exchanging for a sideboard card, just to be a deterrent for cheating. The sideboard cards would have already been checked by the host, so they do not need to be revealed.
4.) MKC mentioned deck-building rule circumvention, which I would be concerned about. I think the sideboard should be restricted. Can a player really have 7 AoCp in his sideboard and just keep bringing them in once they get ET? What about Haman's Plots? Site-lockout would be much easier if you had seven sites in your deck and seven sites in your sideboard. I think normal deck-building rules need to apply to the sideboard. The host would check in the deck normally, and then the sideboard cards as if they are part of the same deck. I would not support a completely unrestricted sideboard. I think one of the sideboard cards should be required to be a LS to keep the deck-buiding guidelines. There are plenty of strategic uses of a LS in sideboard.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #73 on:** December 30, 2012, 02:14:18 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on December 29, 2012, 11:34:06 PM

Any chance this could be tested in Jan ROOT? Too soon?

My current thinking is to use Jan/Feb ROOT to try out the best 2 or 3 format with an extra 7 card sideboard that is available to switch between games (by putting a different 7 cards face down at the start of each game.

Then, by late Feb, we should have this in-game sideboard thing worked out, and we can try that out for the second ROOT of 2013 (Feb/Mar).

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #74 on:** December 30, 2012, 11:09:58 PM »

Sounds good Mark. What about timed games and scoring?

News:

Author Topic: Ironing out side boarding to hopefully try it out in root (Read 21198 times)

Chris

Chris