Author Topic: Simplicity or Balance?  (Read 31823 times)

Offline christiangamer25

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
  • In brightest day, in blackest night...
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Simplicity or Balance?
« Reply #50 on: October 13, 2011, 09:07:07 AM »
0
this rule is a bad idea for advanced play it seems that should matter too not just new players
No evil shall escape my sight, Let those who worship evil beware my power, Green Lantern's light

Offline TechnoEthicist

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+46)
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
  • My little knight
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Simplicity or Balance?
« Reply #51 on: October 13, 2011, 09:28:25 AM »
0
Do you mean the thread where people type paragraphs of wild speculation, then then end with

Bryon, with all due respect, I am confused by this response. As anyone could see if they have read the posts since you and the other playtesters proposed this rule, there have been multiple threads devoted to this very topic, and I just went back and read the feedback thread from Root and understood everyone's position. (Where is the non-ROOT feedback thread by the way? I would like to comment on what effects OPP LS only rule had on Gretel and my games). Can you clarify what specifically you mean by wild speculation rather than blanket statements? Appreciate it.

Offline Bryon

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Dare to Tread into the Dawn
    • -
    • Southwest Region
    • Redemption California
Re: Simplicity or Balance?
« Reply #52 on: October 13, 2011, 09:59:08 AM »
0
Someone made the comment that "if playtesters make this change against the wishes of players, then that means they don't care about the wishes of the players."  Let me put your mind at ease:

1) The rule is being tested.  Most players on the boards have not played enough games with this rule to make anything close to an informed decision.  I'm pretty much ignoring speculation posts.  I've liked reading results of other players' games who have used the rule.  Mostly, I've read things like "didn't really make a difference" or "it made the game closer" or "I felt like I had a chance" or "it was frustrating to have the Big Two in hand and not have the autowin that they usually give me."

2) The wishes of the players are not set in stone.  Opinions may change after some time actually using this rule, and especially trying different types of decks using the rule (Speed, Balanced, Turtle, Heroless, etc.) and seeing how they fare under the proposed rule vs. how they perform with the old rules.  You cannot seriously expect your old deck to perform as well with the proposed rule as with the old.

3) The wishes of the playtesters are not set in stone.  If evidence is shown that the new rule creates too many time-outs or lockouts, then I for one will drop my support of the rule.  So far, I've seen nothing that would make me drop my support.

4) Even now, the playtesters are not united.  They span the spectrum that the players do: from whole-hearted support to "this would be terrible for the game."

5) Playtesters have made unpopular decisions in the past that have upset some players enough that they left the game.  But that does not mean that the descision were not right.  One of those decisions was that Son of God cannot rescue lost souls that are protected from rescue.  If you were not here when that was announced, you missed some crazy fireworks!  It was far less popular than even this proposed change.  Yet the game improved as a result.  That is not to say that this rather unpopular proposed change would certainly have an equally positive impact on the game, but it does mean that it could be the right thing, in spite of its lack of popularity.

6) Redemption isn't a democracy.  It is a benevolent dictatorship, and the King (Rob) has some advisors he trusts.  Rob sometimes wants to know how popular an idea is with the players as a whole before changing big rules.  Rob has expressed wilingness to limit NJ to opponent's Land of Bondage, but didn't want to limit SoG, at least not without a Son of God that can negate and rescue a Lost Soul. 

If you read to the end of this, thank you.  Rather than pick apart my post and respond to it, please go play another couple dozen games with the proposed rule with a mind open to both sides of the issue.  Better still, try to break it.  See if you can create a deck where the new rule makes a broken situation.  We know that the proposed rule weakens the power of the "Big Two," and weakens the usefulness of the Lost Souls card, and makes players need to increase either defense or lost soul generation.  We know that it makes most games a little bit longer, but shortens games when no defense is drawn.  We know it makes most games a little bit closer.  Point out some things we don't know yet.

Again, I really don't care what you think about my post.  I want to know how the games are going with the proposed rule.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 10:01:15 AM by Bryon »

Offline SomeKittens

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • *****
  • Posts: 8102
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Simplicity or Balance?
« Reply #53 on: October 13, 2011, 10:01:23 AM »
0
I didnt read the rule book. I watched people play in a tournament for 5 hours....

That reminds me. Don't listen to anything that comes out of Randall's mouth. He's busy trying to convince us that Son of God should be considered human for Herod's Temple.

He's also tried to convince me I can't martyr OT heroes (because they aren't Christians, Jesus wasn't born yet), CAN rescue the NT only LS with SOG (which actually just makes sense, how is Jesus NOT a new testament hero? The whole new testament is about him dangit!)

Disclaimer:All of those things were said one time, in jest he was not actually trying to convince me of those things. 
I never argued that bit about the NT only.  You're probably thinking of the time I attempted to prove that Disciples (and other NT purple heroes) could use Royal Parade.

Bryon, with all due respect, that thread has a lot of interesting debate going on.  It's not wild speculation, a lot of the points made were backed up with actual (ROOT) games.

Red Warrior, as a fellow playgroup starter, I have to disagree.  Every player I've seen learn has learned from another player instructing them, not the rulebook.
Mind not the ignorant fool on the other side of the screen!-BubbleBoy
Code: [Select]
postcount.add(1);

Offline Bryon

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Dare to Tread into the Dawn
    • -
    • Southwest Region
    • Redemption California
Re: Simplicity or Balance?
« Reply #54 on: October 13, 2011, 10:03:38 AM »
+1
Or, we could simplify the whole thing by simplifying the "rescue attempt" rule to a "rescue" rule.  (you can only rescue a lost soul from your opponent's Land of Bondage).
Said rule would only destroy the meta-game.



have you been keeping up with the ROOT testing thread?
Evidently not.
Do you mean the thread where people type paragraphs of wild speculation, then then end with
It's not wild speculation. It's fact. The rescue rule destroys the game.
How is this post supposed to help, other than to decrease my opinion of your opinion?

Offline christiangamer25

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
  • In brightest day, in blackest night...
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Simplicity or Balance?
« Reply #55 on: October 13, 2011, 10:04:30 AM »
0
yeah thats good to teach the basics but they should still read the rulebook its like going to lecture at college and never reading the textbook same thing.
No evil shall escape my sight, Let those who worship evil beware my power, Green Lantern's light

Rawrlolsauce!

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Simplicity or Balance?
« Reply #56 on: October 13, 2011, 10:05:31 AM »
+1
#OccupyWhateverStreetCactusHQIsLocatedOn!

Offline SomeKittens

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • *****
  • Posts: 8102
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Simplicity or Balance?
« Reply #57 on: October 13, 2011, 10:07:22 AM »
0
yeah thats good to teach the basics but they should still read the rulebook its like going to lecture at college and never reading the textbook same thing.
*Actually in a lecture right now, didn't read the textbook*

I don't like steering players to the rulebook.  It's fairly old now, and any questions they have can be quickly answered by either me or you guys on the ruling boards.

#OccupyWhateverStreetCactusHQIsLocatedOn!
751 Tusquittee Road, Hayesville, NC 28904
Mind not the ignorant fool on the other side of the screen!-BubbleBoy
Code: [Select]
postcount.add(1);

Offline christiangamer25

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
  • In brightest day, in blackest night...
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Simplicity or Balance?
« Reply #58 on: October 13, 2011, 10:11:04 AM »
0
except thats just the point there being answered a million diffrent ways because nobody knows what the rules actually say since no one reads them. and new rules are only gonna make that worse
No evil shall escape my sight, Let those who worship evil beware my power, Green Lantern's light

Offline SomeKittens

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • *****
  • Posts: 8102
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Simplicity or Balance?
« Reply #59 on: October 13, 2011, 10:13:59 AM »
0
Almost every question is answered quickly and correctly, and the conflicts arise when the rulebook/REG doesn't have the answers.
Mind not the ignorant fool on the other side of the screen!-BubbleBoy
Code: [Select]
postcount.add(1);

Offline christiangamer25

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
  • In brightest day, in blackest night...
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Simplicity or Balance?
« Reply #60 on: October 13, 2011, 10:16:46 AM »
0
and thats a complete lie theres been how many debates not answered quickly that could have been solved by reading the actual rulebook not just the reg heck some of the things asked could be handled just by reading without needing to ask at all.
No evil shall escape my sight, Let those who worship evil beware my power, Green Lantern's light

Offline SomeKittens

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • *****
  • Posts: 8102
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Simplicity or Balance?
« Reply #61 on: October 13, 2011, 10:25:22 AM »
0
and thats a complete lie theres been how many debates not answered quickly that could have been solved by reading the actual rulebook not just the reg heck some of the things asked could be handled just by reading without needing to ask at all.
If it's such a complete lie, then the facts should clearly disprove it.  Of the front page of the Ruling Questions sections (an appropriate sample) there are 13 threads.  (I disregarded the locked one, as that's a clear outlier.  The question was answered early, but people were arguing *sigh*.  Said arguing did not come from your claim of not reading the rulebook/REG.)  There are a total of 47 replies, leading to a mathematical conclusion of 3.6 replies per question.  (5.4 with the locked thread)  This doesn't take into consideration followup questions, elder +1's, or multiple questions per thread topic.  This seems to be a perfectly acceptable number.  As to the questions that could have been answered through reading the rulebook, oftentimes it's quicker to ask here.
Mind not the ignorant fool on the other side of the screen!-BubbleBoy
Code: [Select]
postcount.add(1);

Offline christiangamer25

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
  • In brightest day, in blackest night...
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Simplicity or Balance?
« Reply #62 on: October 13, 2011, 10:28:28 AM »
0
quicker haha maybe still often takes days when a rulebook takes a few minutes to get the same answer
No evil shall escape my sight, Let those who worship evil beware my power, Green Lantern's light

Rawrlolsauce!

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Simplicity or Balance?
« Reply #63 on: October 13, 2011, 10:32:27 AM »
0
Most of the questions that take days are advanced and just can't be answered by a rule book. Like the 6 months it took for someone to explain why Far Country doesn't work even though it should.

Offline christiangamer25

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
  • In brightest day, in blackest night...
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Simplicity or Balance?
« Reply #64 on: October 13, 2011, 10:39:03 AM »
0
ok so there advanced so is sog/nj to a new player when it says any and we tell them oh no it means any except yours thats still an added stress we really don't need speed decks are a result of poor design on the part of the playtesters but ive seen anti meta decks out there the solution isn't new rules its making stuff to encourage them and not giving speeed anything stop making drawing cards stop making cbn everything let the game catch up with itself
No evil shall escape my sight, Let those who worship evil beware my power, Green Lantern's light

Offline SomeKittens

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • *****
  • Posts: 8102
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Simplicity or Balance?
« Reply #65 on: October 13, 2011, 10:55:59 AM »
0
In terms of the time investment by me, posting is quicker.  Usually, I don't need the answer immediately.
Mind not the ignorant fool on the other side of the screen!-BubbleBoy
Code: [Select]
postcount.add(1);

Rawrlolsauce!

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Simplicity or Balance?
« Reply #66 on: October 13, 2011, 11:12:00 AM »
0
investment by me
So you're not going to #OccupyTusquitteeRoad?

Offline SomeKittens

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • *****
  • Posts: 8102
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Simplicity or Balance?
« Reply #67 on: October 13, 2011, 11:13:32 AM »
+1
Nope, I'm a rich businessman who thinks those little punks need to suck it up and let Jesus rescue whoever he wants.
Mind not the ignorant fool on the other side of the screen!-BubbleBoy
Code: [Select]
postcount.add(1);

Offline christiangamer25

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
  • In brightest day, in blackest night...
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Simplicity or Balance?
« Reply #68 on: October 13, 2011, 11:14:03 AM »
0
well normally for me im in a game and need the answer immediately to finish the game
No evil shall escape my sight, Let those who worship evil beware my power, Green Lantern's light

Offline Red

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • *****
  • Posts: 4791
  • It takes time to build the boat.
    • LFG
    • Southeast Region
Re: Simplicity or Balance?
« Reply #69 on: October 13, 2011, 11:19:17 AM »
0
Or, we could simplify the whole thing by simplifying the "rescue attempt" rule to a "rescue" rule.  (you can only rescue a lost soul from your opponent's Land of Bondage).
Said rule would only destroy the meta-game.



have you been keeping up with the ROOT testing thread?
Evidently not.
Do you mean the thread where people type paragraphs of wild speculation, then then end with
It's not wild speculation. It's fact. The rescue rule destroys the game.
How is this post supposed to help, other than to decrease my opinion of your opinion?
I was simply stating my opinion. The reason I said what I did is because of the fact every single time I have played with your so-called proposed rule change it has effected the game in asinine ways to the point to where the game was simply no longer fun and degenerate, turning into soul generation wars.
Ironman 2016 and 2018 Winner.
3rd T1-2P 2018, 3rd T2-2P 2019
I survived the Flood twice.

lp670sv

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Simplicity or Balance?
« Reply #70 on: October 13, 2011, 11:53:33 AM »
0
have you been keeping up with the ROOT testing thread?
Evidently not.
Do you mean the thread where people type a paragraph of wild speculation, but then end with
Quote
Disclaimer: I have not actually played any games with this rule, I am speaking strictly from hypothetical impact.

I have played dozens and dozens of games with this rule, and I have seen it change how I play the game. 

Before, the game was always about the "Big Two," and the most consistent way to get them was speed.  There were no drawbacks to drawing tons of cards.  You could tell who was winning a game most often by looking at who had the smallest deck left.

Now, I can build a balanced deck with zero draw abilities and still have a fair fight.  I have also felt hope in games where I would have given up in the past.  I have played dozens of games against Samuel and Genesis decks and had much closer games (and even won a few times) when, in the past, the game would have been over in 5 minutes.  It bought me some time to set up my defense, my sites, etc.  We got a chance to have some battles.

In that other thread, I saw a couple people complain that the proposed rule increases "luck" instead of "skill."  That's hogwash.  For years, people have complained that SoG/NJ makes the game too much about luck.  2 cards give you 40% of the victory condition of the game, PLUS they can be used defensively.  Discarding Son of God from opponent's deck gave you a "lucky win," since it effectively took away half your opponent's defense, not just 40% of their victory. 

If anything, the proposed rule increases "skill" by reducing the power of the 2 cards that are all about Luck.  If anything, the proposed rule increases "skill" by reducing the all-powerful status of "speed," which gets you the "Lucky Big Two" before your opponent.  If anything, the proposed rule increases the need to play defense, or else continue to rely on luck and lost soul generation.

Do you all know that the top 2 Type 1 decks at nationals had a combined total of 1 EE?  Did you know that the EE was not played in 10 rounds?  If you can't rescue your own lost souls with SoG/NJ, then you may have to actually use an evil enhancement to stop your opponent's rescue attempt, rather than just rely on dominants and Uzzah to stall.  Or, you could continue to build decks the old way, then complain about the "increased luck factor" when the luck you rely on doesn't work for you.
'

Yeah I could put more defense in my deck. Or i could just replace that one EE with Amalakites slave, still play my speed deck, throw in a few more soul gen cards and decrease my D even more, cause I'm not taking my offense out. Yeah there's some wild speculation in there, but there's also some good points and I feel like everything I've said in there is a valid point. And I'd like to not wait until this rule has an unfair effect on a major tournament for someone to say "yeah I guess I could see why this is bad" because by then it's already to late. this rule doesn't change anything except maybe screw over people in a tournament when things come down to LS differential. Please read my last post in that thread before responding, I don't want to repeat myself on two different threads.

Offline TechnoEthicist

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+46)
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
  • My little knight
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Simplicity or Balance?
« Reply #71 on: October 13, 2011, 12:34:19 PM »
0
I can appreciate the comments of this new rule affecting type 1, are we seeing a difference in type 2 which does have an equal balance of evil and good cards (I would think that 16 ECs and 18 EEs are plenty)? Especially since I can count on my fingers the number of times I get SOG/NJ together to play before my opponent plays mayhem or A New Beginning, etc...

lp670sv

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Simplicity or Balance?
« Reply #72 on: October 13, 2011, 12:36:23 PM »
0
I can appreciate the comments of this new rule affecting type 1, are we seeing a difference in type 2? Especially since I can count on my fingers the number of times I get SOG/NJ together to play before my opponent plays mayhem or A New Beginning, etc...


Most of the feedback seems to be coming from the ROOT testing, which is T1. If you would help me test it out in T2 i could build a deck (albiet a poor one) though LS drought seems like less of an issue in T2 as a whole

Offline MitchRobStew

  • Trade Count: (+8)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 295
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Simplicity or Balance?
« Reply #73 on: October 13, 2011, 12:53:10 PM »
0
Yeah in T2 it mostly takes away the autoblock with sog/nj.  I got sog/nj every game at nats for blocks.  And in 4/6 games forced opponents to use Son of God without New Jerusalem defensively to stop me from getting to 5 (prior to me playing sog/nj) or getting the win.  Not as big of an impact as T1 I suppose.  But I dislike the impact I think it would have on T2 multiplayer.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 01:08:57 PM by MitchRobStew »

Offline Red Warrior

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+27)
  • *****
  • Posts: 498
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Simplicity or Balance?
« Reply #74 on: October 13, 2011, 12:59:11 PM »
0
yeah thats good to teach the basics but they should still read the rulebook its like going to lecture at college and never reading the textbook same thing.
*Actually in a lecture right now, didn't read the textbook*

I don't like steering players to the rulebook.  It's fairly old now, and any questions they have can be quickly answered by either me or you guys on the ruling boards.

Just a brief point: there have been several references to the rulebook as out of date or inadequate... isn't that the issue at hand?

We're working together to make a rule book that is UP TO DATE and FUNDAMENTAL in its ability to answer questions. So I have no problem agreeing with this point...  I tend to be wired like a Barnabas (go team!) than a Jonah (turn or burn!), so I'm probably naive... but I'm excited to help form a new rulebook.

With that I'll stop occupying this page with Rulebook talk. Let's bring more results (especially PLAYGROUP related results) to the table. ROOT is cool, but it's not the whole picture in the game of Redemption.
-Joey

Red was always playable :)

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal