Welcome to the Official Redemption® Message Board!
Quote from: lp670sv on October 14, 2011, 12:56:05 AMQuote from: lightningninja on October 14, 2011, 12:50:17 AM1. Once again, you're not accounting for adjustments. If the rule goes into play, people WILL change their decks. Then, since both players are playing with the same rules, it will balance out. It has to.2. Why shouldn't a new player with a starter deck lost 5-0 to me? No matter with the rule or without, I expect to beat that player 5-0, I'm sure Gabe or any other top player will as well. It won't change how it works, because once again people will adjust to the new rule.1) "it will balance out. It has to."? So instead of making an informed decision about the rule change, we should just implement it and have faith that it'll all work out in the end? Excuse me, but lolwut?!?2) wait....what? So why exactly do you support this rule if you think the premise on which it was based (giving lesser players a chance) is faulty in this place? This isn't going to hurt speed, it will actually make my deck a little faster since I can use AS and grab yet another card out of my deck, and all of the cards like AS that will become staples. So why are you in favor of this rule?1. There is a reason it will balance out. A new rule goes into place. BOTH players have to wait for ls. BOTH players will adjust their decks for the rule. Scores will remain relatively unchanged. It will balance out. I gave a reason.2. When did I say that? It doesn't give lesser players a chance. That's never been the problem. The point of the rule is to simplify (maybe?) the game and help curb speed. New players having a better chance has never been a reason.
Quote from: lightningninja on October 14, 2011, 12:50:17 AM1. Once again, you're not accounting for adjustments. If the rule goes into play, people WILL change their decks. Then, since both players are playing with the same rules, it will balance out. It has to.2. Why shouldn't a new player with a starter deck lost 5-0 to me? No matter with the rule or without, I expect to beat that player 5-0, I'm sure Gabe or any other top player will as well. It won't change how it works, because once again people will adjust to the new rule.1) "it will balance out. It has to."? So instead of making an informed decision about the rule change, we should just implement it and have faith that it'll all work out in the end? Excuse me, but lolwut?!?2) wait....what? So why exactly do you support this rule if you think the premise on which it was based (giving lesser players a chance) is faulty in this place? This isn't going to hurt speed, it will actually make my deck a little faster since I can use AS and grab yet another card out of my deck, and all of the cards like AS that will become staples. So why are you in favor of this rule?
1. Once again, you're not accounting for adjustments. If the rule goes into play, people WILL change their decks. Then, since both players are playing with the same rules, it will balance out. It has to.2. Why shouldn't a new player with a starter deck lost 5-0 to me? No matter with the rule or without, I expect to beat that player 5-0, I'm sure Gabe or any other top player will as well. It won't change how it works, because once again people will adjust to the new rule.
I don't understand how that's different from now. There's luck now. There's luck then. It doesn't change the amount of luck. It just makes you create a deck that tries its best to counter luck in a different way (aka ls generation instead of speed).
Just to clear up the confusion about this rule:The primary reason is to transform NJ from a 2-edged sword into a 1-edged sword. It can only be used offensively, and not defensively. That reduces its usefulness. That takes almost half the teeth out of what many players see as the most-desired-to-be-banned card in the game.
A secondary benefit is the decrease in the appeal of speed, due to the decreased benefit of getting NJ first, and the increased threat of drawing lost souls that you have to defend (which you can't defend with NJ).
A tertiary benefit is the simpler rescue rule. It is simpler to tell kids "You can only rescue lost souls in opponents' lands of bondage" then to have one rule for heroes and another for rescue abilities. A secondary benefit of this benefit is that it allows us to create more cards like Primary Objective without having to add "from opponent's land of bondage."
Other benefits that have been discovered in playtesting are: closer games, time to catch up, more legit reasons NOT to use a draw ability, and others.
Speed will always be the most viable option.
it means I have to wait for my opponent to draw even more of those LSs...I had to wait for her to draw LSs...all it did was frustrate
Quote from: lp670sv on October 14, 2011, 12:56:05 AM all of the cards like AS that will become staples. If all those cards become staples, then simply block with an EC that transfers a captured character to an opponent's land of bondage. Or activate Blue Tassels. If these happen enough times, the supposed staples won't be staples for long.
all of the cards like AS that will become staples.
postcount.add(1);
Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on October 14, 2011, 03:38:08 AMSpeed will always be the most viable option.Not if speed players end up waiting all the time. When that happens, their speed was useless because they outpaced the availability of LSs.
There is nothing like watching a speed player have to wait. The speed player fidgets and squirms in his seat because he knows his defense can't possibly protect all the lost souls for long. I've been having that kind of fun.
Ok, that makes sense. But still I'd ask, are people accommodating the rule?
Quote from: lightningninja on October 14, 2011, 02:53:24 PMOk, that makes sense. But still I'd ask, are people accommodating the rule?Yes. By adding a few Samaritans and Water Jar to their Samuel decks.
Quote from: Professoralstad on October 14, 2011, 03:06:05 PMQuote from: lightningninja on October 14, 2011, 02:53:24 PMOk, that makes sense. But still I'd ask, are people accommodating the rule?Yes. By adding a few Samaritans and Water Jar to their Samuel decks.Are those the people complaining about being in the lead but not being able to win? And that's not really your best strategy. You need five to win, they only have 7 ls in their deck. A better strategy is to generate souls, not make your opponent draw theirs.
since speed is still king.
Which brings up the whole other issue of does this rule actually do ANYTHING, since speed is still king.
My argument is that this rule changes does nothing except force speed decks to adapt, and take away one of the few effective blocks that a slower/balanced deck will have vs. a powerhouse offense, which is using SoG/NJ on your own LS's.
Do all the players who oppose this ruling really want NJ to keep its current power level? Drop the secondary speed debate and answer that question.
About the attack on my Christian character: I did not mean "squirm" as in pain. I meant "squirm" as in "I'm winning 3 to 1, but I'm getting nervous that my speed deck that used to win 90% of its games just might lose to a much slower Daniel deck since I'm running out of defense."
If you can't use SoG/NJ defensively, you will be more likely to put defense in your deck.
The only thing people will be more likely to put in is LS generation, which does not necessarily equate to "defense".
I find it humorous that players keep going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on speculating about about a secondary benefit of the ruling. You don't think it will stop speed completely. Fine. I agree. I never said it would.The PRIMARY purpose was to take half the teeth out of NJ, which most players agree is too powerful in Type 1. Do all the players who oppose this ruling really want NJ to keep its current power level? Drop the secondary speed debate and answer that question.In my EXPERIENCE (in dozens of games, not mere speculation),the proposed rescue rule change has given players some situations where they do not want to draw extra cards. In my opinion, that has been good for the game.In my experience, it has given balanced decks a chance to come from behind. It has not usually been quite enough to snatch the victory from the speed deck, but in at least a few cases, it has allowed the balanced deck to win, where it otherwise could not.About the argument that "it takes away a block against a speed deck": Balanced decks have defense for that. If you have not drawn the defense yet, then give up a couple early. You will have a chance to come from behind. It has worked in testing.About the attack on my Christian character: I did not mean "squirm" as in pain. I meant "squirm" as in "I'm winning 3 to 1, but I'm getting nervous that my speed deck that used to win 90% of its games just might lose to a much slower Daniel deck since I'm running out of defense." When a player using a SamuelSpeed deck or a Genespeed deck gets to 3 lost souls quickly, and has to wait for a few turns while you catch up (due to his utter lack of defense), that is good for the game, in my opinion.If you can't use SoG/NJ defensively, you will be more likely to put defense in your deck. At a minimum, it gives (and has given in testing) a balanced deck a chance to compete with Speed. That is good for the game.
Author
Topic: Simplicity or Balance? (Read 31768 times)
