Author Topic: Redemption Game Health Discussion and Solutions  (Read 27468 times)

Offline Gabe

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+69)
  • *****
  • Posts: 10675
  • From Moses to the prophets, it's all about Him!
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Land of Redemption
Re: Redemption Game Health Discussion and Solutions
« Reply #25 on: October 02, 2022, 03:40:16 PM »
+1
I like limiting territory class Enhancements to 1 per turn. That's something we've discussed as far back as pre-Nationals 2021. But with rotation and the delay to the Reserve forthcoming we decided that a limit on TC would be too much at once. Even then I fully expected that to be the next major change we need to make.

The problem with "The Schaefer Solution" is that basing a limit off off the number of rounds is something that players fail to keep track of too often. That's been a problem for as long as I've been in the game.

Veterans are familiar with multiple turn set aside cards and have seen plenty of times that players lose count for any card that lasts more than 1 turn. The longest those tend to run is 4 turns but those have proven difficult to track.

Last year when we were testing the delayed reserve access we started with 3 rounds. One problem with that length of time is that players struggled to keep track of the rounds. Ultimately it was too long of a delay but it reinforced that tracking rounds isn't a good idea.

In both of those examples the people who failed to keep track of rounds are experienced players. We've taken many steps in the past few years to help the game be more friendly to new players and casual players. Adding a feature that we've seen experienced players struggle with seems highly unlikely.
Have you visited the Land of Redemption today?

Offline agurthewise

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • East Central Region
Re: Redemption Game Health Discussion and Solutions
« Reply #26 on: October 04, 2022, 11:16:07 AM »
0
I like limiting territory class Enhancements to 1 per turn. That's something we've discussed as far back as pre-Nationals 2021. But with rotation and the delay to the Reserve forthcoming we decided that a limit on TC would be too much at once. Even then I fully expected that to be the next major change we need to make.


Just a hard limit to 1 TC enhancement per turn is definitely easier to implement. While not my ideal change I like it very much.

Offline marc0090

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • *****
  • Posts: 14
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Redemption Game Health Discussion and Solutions
« Reply #27 on: November 07, 2022, 09:14:34 AM »
+2
My group was assigned the mission of playing a game with the Schaefer Solution and report pros and cons. My group is roughly 10 people and consists mostly newer players and a few that are competitive players. Here is some of their feedback on the Schaefer Solution:

1. Slowed the pace of the game for the first few turns. This was viewed as a positive impact.

2. It made the playing field more level between a really new players (using a slightly modified starter deck) and a player with a few months more experience using a more modified starter deck with LoC cards. Basically, the player with better cards couldn't gain as big of an advantage over their opponent on turn 1.

3. Minor struggles to keep track of what round it was but was mostly a non-issue. A die was sufficient to track.

4. The rule was explained and understood readily.

5. In my personal experience, I feel that this addition of a rule could warrant the elimination of 1 or more rules. The 4 use per turn rule and the reserve rule may not be as necessary if the "resource curve" starts out so low at the beginning of the game.

6. No one used high level decks or tried to break the game. Thus, our ability to find any weaknesses of the Schaefer solution or potential to abuse the game with it was limited.

Lastly, my personal, bird's eye view notes on TC abuse in general:

1. The fundamental problem is the resource curve being inverted in Redemption as discussed by Hymn on the podcast. Whatever solutions are proposed should make it a priority to create a more standard resource curve or at least level it out some. 
   A. The proposed solution to only play TC enhancements on TC characters may limit how easy it is to play TC cards, but it still leaves the resource curve inverted and allows for the potential to abuse TC cards.
   B. The proposed solution of modifying deck building to only allow for a limited number of TC cards also doesn't address the inverted resource curve, but at least puts a cap on the potential of TC abuse. Unfortunately, this also suffers from the criticism that it would be one more rule for players to learn and likely won't be enough to remove any existing rules.
   C. The proposed solution of limiting all TC cards to 1 played per turn still leaves the resource curve inverted, but it does flatten it considerably. This rule change may be enough to eliminate the 4 use per turn and/or reserve rules.

Thanks for indulging my thoughts and thanks to everyone for the constructive manner in which we are discussing this. Biggest thanks to the leadership team who is actually listening to and participating in the conversation with humility and wisdom. This is a great community.

Offline agurthewise

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • East Central Region
Re: Redemption Game Health Discussion and Solutions
« Reply #28 on: November 08, 2022, 05:03:50 PM »
0
Great post, thank you for testing it!


Offline Red

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • *****
  • Posts: 4791
  • It takes time to build the boat.
    • LFG
    • Southeast Region
Re: Redemption Game Health Discussion and Solutions
« Reply #29 on: November 30, 2022, 11:15:46 AM »
0
I've thought long and hard on solutions to the current problem at hand that don't limit what Kevinthedude and I call 'Redemption-Feel." I have two that I'm really fond of that aren't major changes that have strong potential to limit some of the insanity.

#1 - The Artifact Activation Solution with a Delivered ban.
My proposal: Place all artifact actions at the very end of Preparation phase.
Explanation: This solution seems incredibly miniscule, but considering that Denarius/Four-Drachma Coin/The New Covenant allow for a player to draw into more territory class gas that then enables explosive starts with Numerous as the Stars/Star of Bethelehem, it's a fairly significant change. However, it would require banning delivered, otherwise delivered makes it a non-fix.

#2 - No Territory Class cards round one
This solution is self-explanatory. Both players get a turn 1 attack before being able to play TC enhancements. This increases the efficacy of anti-territory class artifacts and Moses (CoW) while implicitly dissuading players from loading their deck with 10+ TC GEs.

Both of these solutions maintain the unique Redemption feature of being able to play several cards per turn, while reducing the gap between the players who go first and second, while also dissuading the current vogue in deck building of playing a million TC GEs.
Ironman 2016 and 2018 Winner.
3rd T1-2P 2018, 3rd T2-2P 2019
I survived the Flood twice.

Offline Sean

  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4024
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Redemption Game Health Discussion and Solutions
« Reply #30 on: November 30, 2022, 12:18:18 PM »
0
I like # 2 but not #1.

I don't like #1 because it forces a ban of a card that would otherwise not be ban worthy (unless it is, but I don't feel like it is). I feel like it makes more sense to ban the cards like Numerous, Denarius, Four-Drachma, etc... that make it so easy to draw 10% or more of your deck in one phase (let alone 1 turn). These cards create the same disproportional card advantage on later turns/rounds as they do on first turn. Granted, the impact of first turn is definitely greater than later turns.

I still feel like strategic card bans/rotation is the way to go and would make #2 unnecessary even though I think it would also work.
May you prosper greatly!
Daniel 4:1b

Offline agurthewise

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • East Central Region
Re: Redemption Game Health Discussion and Solutions
« Reply #31 on: November 30, 2022, 12:52:08 PM »
0
I would like either of these more than the current state, but overall I dont feel they go far enough.

Its funny about what people view as Redemption-Feel. I feel like Choke-hold (Limit - 1 TC enh per phase) or Schaeffer Solution are the most Redemption-Feel solutions.

From my background in the early years playing casually in late 90s the game was really all about the battle phase, the era before TC cards only a few cards were ever played outside of combat.

Its why I love chokehold or the S solution. The 2 solutions you mentioned definitely could hinder speed and solo play, but at the end of the day they will still be very viable. Again this is a lot of feelings and opinions, I cant claim objective truth here, just giving my 2 cents.

Offline CtheTree

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • *****
  • Posts: 260
    • -
    • Northwest Region
Re: Redemption Game Health Discussion and Solutions
« Reply #32 on: November 30, 2022, 01:11:56 PM »
+1
I appreciate all the discussions happening regarding the health of the game and respect those who have contributed their thoughts. Josh P, Jay C, John H, and Jared S in particular are some of the finest minds in the game. I do think something needs to change but personally I would vouch for a more conservative approach. I have said already and will repeat: the rules of Redemption have gone under more changes in the past year and few months than had happened in many years before it. This past year has seen the implementation of Rotation, the Reserve rule, the new rule on determining who goes first, and the rule limiting ability activations to four per turn. Many seem to feel these changes are not enough and the game still is not at a healthy spot. I hear terms like "Solitaire" being used to describe game play that occurs at the top levels. All that to say I do not believe the culprit is the current set up of the rules but rather a few specific cards that enable bonkers amounts of speed. I truly believe if Numerous as the Stars is banned, Star of Bethlehem is banned, High Places is banned, and Denarius is banned we arrive at a place in the game where there is far more balance due to the already implemented rule changes. Bottom line: when a card is able to net more than four cards in one fell swoop that is super powerful. This is why Mayhem has been and continues to be such a good card. That being said Mayhem is capped at 6 and often does not get there due to cards being in hand you do not want to burn. Numerous as the Stars, Star of Bethlehem, and The First Combo net 5+ cards with ease on a regular basis. If one of these is dealt with the other becomes the dominant speed engine in the meta. I believe if these three bonkers speed engines are dealt with we arrive at a spot in the game where there is far more balance.

The reason is without these ways of generating huge card advantage you are left with Mayhem, 4DC, and then tutors that get one card. You can have a TC heavy deck but the result is something like my Once Upon a Time in Zion build that is in reality a glass cannon. It does not run many counters and has no defense. It becomes much harder to both lock down the board and generate a strong rescue suite together when you do not have absurd ways to get 5+ cards in one fell swoop. Pair that with the rise of Salty and running a TC heavy deck becomes far more risky. The reason TC heavy strategies have been so strong for a while is they get you to a way to multiple ways to generate 5+ cards with ease and blitz through your deck. If Numerous, Star of Bethlehem, and The First Combo are eliminated there is no way in the game to net more than 6 cards in one fell swoop. Mayhem becomes the card that can net the most card advantage and then 4DC behind it. 4DC requires Peter being in play and therefore is much more situational. Mayhem is a fantastic card but it has proven in years past to be balanced and not to shift the game too far in the advantage of the user as it also resets the opponents hand giving them a chance to get resources. This is particularly risky against a Salty deck for instance. I do advocate for Denarius being banned since it has become the new Endless Treasures and works on its own without needing other cards to draw. Matthew is strong but limiting brigade count and cards like Crowds LS do hurt him a fair amount. I have spent many hours deck building and playing the game since August of this year post-Nationals. I really do believe the existing rule changes made in the last year are enough and we just need to ban some busted cards that create excessive card advantage. Once that is done the game I truly believe will be in a wonderful spot.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2022, 01:15:31 PM by CtheTree »
Christian, Husband, Father, Youth Pastor, Romans 11:33-36.

Offline Red

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • *****
  • Posts: 4791
  • It takes time to build the boat.
    • LFG
    • Southeast Region
Re: Redemption Game Health Discussion and Solutions
« Reply #33 on: November 30, 2022, 01:35:25 PM »
0
I like # 2 but not #1.

I don't like #1 because it forces a ban of a card that would otherwise not be ban worthy (unless it is, but I don't feel like it is). I feel like it makes more sense to ban the cards like Numerous, Denarius, Four-Drachma, etc... that make it so easy to draw 10% or more of your deck in one phase (let alone 1 turn). These cards create the same disproportional card advantage on later turns/rounds as they do on first turn. Granted, the impact of first turn is definitely greater than later turns.

I still feel like strategic card bans/rotation is the way to go and would make #2 unnecessary even though I think it would also work.
Delivered is unilaterally the most broken consistency card in the game and it in-and-of itself does more to contribute to the current game state than either 4dcoin or denarius. Furthermore, it makes no sense to weave 4 different artifact activations through the prep phase and those activations fuel oppressive game states.
Ironman 2016 and 2018 Winner.
3rd T1-2P 2018, 3rd T2-2P 2019
I survived the Flood twice.

Offline Sean

  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4024
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Redemption Game Health Discussion and Solutions
« Reply #34 on: November 30, 2022, 01:52:12 PM »
0
I just had another idea that I've not heard previously.

New rule: Any cards drawn during the preparation phase may not be played from hand in that same preparation phase.
May you prosper greatly!
Daniel 4:1b

Offline Crashfach2002

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+145)
  • *****
  • Posts: 3058
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Redemption Game Health Discussion and Solutions
« Reply #35 on: November 30, 2022, 05:35:16 PM »
0
I just had another idea that I've not heard previously.

New rule: Any cards drawn during the preparation phase may not be played from hand in that same preparation phase.

While the thoughts of this are solid, in function this simply won't work. We are at the mercy of people being honest here. Generally speaking you will have no idea what was in my hand and what I drew, so the honor system is king. While this game has always been based on that, recent rulings have taken steps to make this less of a necessity. Not because no one can be trusted, but mostly because certain people in certain circumstances will simply be tempted to cheat, so we want to avoid putting people in that position as much as possible.

Offline Sean

  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4024
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Redemption Game Health Discussion and Solutions
« Reply #36 on: November 30, 2022, 09:19:44 PM »
0
I just had another idea that I've not heard previously.

New rule: Any cards drawn during the preparation phase may not be played from hand in that same preparation phase.

While the thoughts of this are solid, in function this simply won't work. We are at the mercy of people being honest here. Generally speaking you will have no idea what was in my hand and what I drew, so the honor system is king. While this game has always been based on that, recent rulings have taken steps to make this less of a necessity. Not because no one can be trusted, but mostly because certain people in certain circumstances will simply be tempted to cheat, so we want to avoid putting people in that position as much as possible.
I did not think of it in that way but I would definitely put a high value on limiting temptation. Your logic is solid.
May you prosper greatly!
Daniel 4:1b

Offline CtheTree

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • *****
  • Posts: 260
    • -
    • Northwest Region
Re: Redemption Game Health Discussion and Solutions
« Reply #37 on: December 04, 2022, 11:53:01 AM »
0
So yesterday I tried my hand at building my first Type 2 deck ever. I realized something: the rule requiring an equal number of good and evil cards in the deck limits turbo speedy strategies to a point. What if that rule were applied to Type 1? Evil cards do not have nearly the same amount of TC madness as good. Especially in type 1 with it being singleton overall I could see this really solving a lot of what people are concerned about. The hyper Numerous Nativity decks really would be hard to pull off with needing to have equal good and evil cards.

Type 2 has always been loved for the nice back and forth created and I think a lot of the reason that exists is this deck building rule establishing you have to have an equal number of good and evil cards. I really think this might be what is needed for T1-2P to be more balanced and is a change that is very easy to digest and understand for new and old players alike.

I still think Numerous as the Stars should be banned since even in Type 2 it creates bonkers consistency but if this rule change were implemented that would be the only ban needed I think.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2022, 11:55:18 AM by CtheTree »
Christian, Husband, Father, Youth Pastor, Romans 11:33-36.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal