Author Topic: Simplicity or Balance? (Read 32637 times)

lightningninja · « **Reply #75 on:** October 13, 2011, 06:35:41 PM »

Thanks Bryon for taking the time to give us a logical outline of how the rule is fairing in the eyes of the community thus far. I agree with most of your points. I for one am looking forward to the rule change (if it happens) to see how it changes the game.

As for the ROOT games, so far I've seen three types of responses, primarily.

1. Loved it, gave me a chance or let me win on a comeback.

for the rule

2. Hated it, I had sog/nj, couldn't use it, I decked out and just had to wait.

for the rule, this is a good thing considering all the complaining for the past 9001 years about speed decks.

3. This rule destroys the game/is based solely on luck/I hate it I didn't win. +0 for either side because this doesn't make sense.

browarod · « **Reply #76 on:** October 13, 2011, 07:34:50 PM »

I like how Bryon takes my (admittedly completely opinionated) post and uses it to invalidate an entire thread of good discourse and discussion. Way to go Bryon, really shows us you care....

SomeKittens · « **Reply #77 on:** October 13, 2011, 07:43:21 PM »

Quote from: lightningninja on October 13, 2011, 06:35:41 PM

3. This rule destroys the game/is based solely on luck/I hate it I didn't win. +0 for either side because this doesn't make sense.

How does this not make sense? Drawing souls is entirely luck based.

browarod · « **Reply #78 on:** October 13, 2011, 08:04:58 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on October 13, 2011, 07:43:21 PM

Quote from: lightningninja on October 13, 2011, 06:35:41 PM
3. This rule destroys the game/is based solely on luck/I hate it I didn't win. +0 for either side because this doesn't make sense.
How does this not make sense? Drawing souls is entirely luck based.

It's not entirely luck-based. If anything, though, it's skewed far too much in the direction of drawing souls less often, though, with cards like Susanna, Divination, etc. I don't know of any cards that specifically sort souls to the top of a deck. Maybe that's an idea for cards in the starter decks next year to balance things?

SomeKittens · « **Reply #79 on:** October 13, 2011, 08:18:03 PM »

It is entirely luck based, you can just change your luck.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #80 on:** October 13, 2011, 08:39:56 PM »

Plumbing Line
Artifact
"During each draw phase before player draws, you may look at top 3 and bottom 3 cards of his deck. You may switch the location of those cards."

lp670sv · « **Reply #81 on:** October 13, 2011, 08:53:33 PM »

Quote from: lightningninja on October 13, 2011, 06:35:41 PM

3. This rule destroys the game/is based solely on luck/I hate it I didn't win. +0 for either side because this doesn't make sense.

Try explaining how anything I've said doesn't make sense if you're so sure it doesn't.

lightningninja · « **Reply #82 on:** October 13, 2011, 09:38:19 PM »

Quote from: browarod on October 13, 2011, 07:34:50 PM

I like how Bryon takes my (admittedly completely opinionated) post and uses it to invalidate an entire thread of good discourse and discussion. Way to go Bryon, really shows us you care....

He didn't invalidate it, he responded to it. Trust me, Bryon cares a lot. You're talking to the person who has made 80%+ cards in EVERY set since about Patriarchs, for hardly anything. He tests the cards he designs more than anyone else in the game, and is constantly thinking of new ways to appease the community. I've personally heard tons of ideas that were in the making, but didn't get here because they were thoughtfully rejected. This idea is a good one, made it past preliminary testing, and Bryon took the time to write a very comprehensive list of why the rule is a good idea, specifically responding to almost every point made at one point or other in the ROOT thread.

You should consider the issues and think about who you are talking to before you make blatantly untrue personal attacks. Not that unfounded personal attacks should be tolerated against anyone.

Quote from: SomeKittens on October 13, 2011, 07:43:21 PM

How does this not make sense? Drawing souls is entirely luck based.

Like Bryon said, did you change your decks to accommodate the rule? Because you should have, and you'll find it's not based on luck, it's based on deckbuilding, just like it is without the rule. If the Sin in the Camp deck kept playing after the new rule of 16 card hand limit was put in play, should the user of the deck blame luck or not accommodating the rule change?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #83 on:** October 13, 2011, 10:55:17 PM »

Quote from: lightningninja on October 13, 2011, 09:38:19 PM

You're talking to the person who has made 80%+ cards in EVERY set since about Patriarchs, for hardly anything. He tests the cards he designs more than anyone else in the game, and is constantly thinking of new ways to appease the community.

Bryon is a Deckcepticon.... he can't be trusted.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #84 on:** October 13, 2011, 11:50:51 PM »

Quote from: lightningninja on October 13, 2011, 09:38:19 PM

Quote from: SomeKittens on October 13, 2011, 07:43:21 PM
How does this not make sense? Drawing souls is entirely luck based.
Like Bryon said, did you change your decks to accommodate the rule? Because you should have, and you'll find it's not based on luck, it's based on deckbuilding, just like it is without the rule. If the Sin in the Camp deck kept playing after the new rule of 16 card hand limit was put in play, should the user of the deck blame luck or not accommodating the rule change?

Fine. I'll concede the point that the ENTIRE COURSE OF THE UNIVERSE can be changed by my deckbuilding skills.

Bryon · « **Reply #85 on:** October 14, 2011, 12:20:40 AM »

Quote from: Red on October 13, 2011, 11:19:17 AM

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.

That is much more coherant. Thank you for your feedback. I have not had the same experience in my testing, but I trust that you did, and that you didn't like it. This is the kind of feedback I'm looking for.

Also, have you tried using ECs that send captured characters to opponent's Land of Bondage? That takes care of many common LS generators: Amalekite's Slave, Pharaoh's Cupbearer, Gibeonite Delegates, etc. I've found Blue Tassels to be a very effective counter to King Amazing, and to the above characters as well. Also, Jerusalem Tower stops Harvest Time and The Woman at the Well. There are several ways to search for Jerusalem Tower, if you are afraid you won't draw it in time. These are not foolproof, since some of them have to beat to the table the cards they counter, but transfering a captured character from your LoB to your opponent's is priceless when playing against a Speed+LSgen deck.

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. I'm still curous what others have experienced.

Bryon · « **Reply #86 on:** October 14, 2011, 12:23:28 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on October 13, 2011, 08:39:56 PM

Plumbing Line
Artifact
"During each draw phase before player draws, you may look at top 3 and bottom 3 cards of his deck. You may switch the location of those cards."

Gold! *copy, paste to "future cards" list*

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on October 13, 2011, 10:55:17 PM

Quote from: lightningninja on October 13, 2011, 09:38:19 PM
You're talking to the person who has made 80%+ cards in EVERY set since about Patriarchs, for hardly anything. He tests the cards he designs more than anyone else in the game, and is constantly thinking of new ways to appease the community.

Bryon is a Deckcepticon.... he can't be trusted.

...as if Redemption really needs another Autoblock...

SomeKittens · « **Reply #87 on:** October 14, 2011, 12:34:28 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on October 14, 2011, 12:20:40 AM

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. I'm still curous what others have experienced.

Yay! Let's enjoy torturing someone who genuinely likes an archetype! That'll bring all sorts of people to the game.

lightningninja · « **Reply #88 on:** October 14, 2011, 12:35:34 AM »

You can call it an arechetype, but for MANY players speed = Redemption. And that's not good. There's no denying it basically dominantes the meta.

Isildur · « **Reply #89 on:** October 14, 2011, 12:36:52 AM »

Quote from: lightningninja on October 14, 2011, 12:35:34 AM

You can call it an arechetype, but for MANY players speed = Redemption. And that's not good. There's no denying it basically dominantes the meta.

I agree. Yeah lets all complain because our decks that are clearly op'd dont work! That seems to be the only complaint im hearing from a majority of the players every one else (except type 2 people) seem to be in support of the rule change.

lp670sv · « **Reply #90 on:** October 14, 2011, 12:39:16 AM »

So I see that neither of the people who I specifically asked to evaluate the feedback I've been giving felt the need to actually do so.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #91 on:** October 14, 2011, 12:39:58 AM »

Quote from: lp670sv on October 14, 2011, 12:39:16 AM

So I see that neither of the people who I specifically asked to evaluate the feedback I've been giving felt the need to actually do so.

And you thought ignore dominated the meta last season.

lp670sv · « **Reply #92 on:** October 14, 2011, 12:41:25 AM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on October 14, 2011, 12:39:58 AM

Quote from: lp670sv on October 14, 2011, 12:39:16 AM
So I see that neither of the people who I specifically asked to evaluate the feedback I've been giving felt the need to actually do so.
And you thought ignore dominated the meta last season.

bravo sir

lightningninja · « **Reply #93 on:** October 14, 2011, 12:42:56 AM »

Quote from: lp670sv on October 14, 2011, 12:39:16 AM

So I see that neither of the people who I specifically asked to evaluate the feedback I've been giving felt the need to actually do so.

I wasn't talking directly to you in my post. I was talking about the people who are saying it destroys the game without ever giving a reason. I don't possibly see how this "destroys the game."

lp670sv · « **Reply #94 on:** October 14, 2011, 12:45:57 AM »

Quote from: lightningninja on October 14, 2011, 12:42:56 AM

Quote from: lp670sv on October 14, 2011, 12:39:16 AM
So I see that neither of the people who I specifically asked to evaluate the feedback I've been giving felt the need to actually do so.
I wasn't talking directly to you in my post. I was talking about the people who are saying it destroys the game without ever giving a reason. I don't possibly see how this "destroys the game."

I was talking specifically too you when I said told you to read my feedback on this rule in the other forum but since you chose to ignore that let me provide you with a link to the specific response that provides that window of "how this could destroy the game"

http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-online-official-tournament/feedback-on-opp-lss-only-(used-in-oct-root)/msg447285/#msg447285

lightningninja · « **Reply #95 on:** October 14, 2011, 12:50:17 AM »

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.

Bryon · « **Reply #96 on:** October 14, 2011, 12:54:20 AM »

To Type 2 players: I have not tested the new rule in Type 2 at all. If those who ahve tested it so far do not like it, there are other solutions. Type 2 already has its own special rules for rescuing (rescuer's choice). It is not that big of a step to say that in Type 2, rescue abilities can rescue even your own lost souls, unless specified otherwise (see Primary Objective). NJ isn't really that big of a deal in Type 2.

In Type 1, NJ is pretty much a problem, in my opinion. I'd much rather simplify the rescue rule than ban NJ in Type 1. Some people have the opposite preference. That is fine. Others would prefer to keep status quo. That is a fine opinion, too. We really can't make everyone happy. I'm just hopeful that playtesting the proposed rescue rule will reveal problems (if there are any), and benefits, so we can make an informed decision. Regardless, the change wouldn't happen until the release of the new Starter decks anyway (based on the results of the poll). That is IF it happens at all (which is in no way even close to a guarantee).

The dominant cap is pretty much guaranteed, though. It seems popular with players and playtesters. Given that Rob suggested it, I don't see how that won't happen.

lp670sv · « **Reply #97 on:** October 14, 2011, 12:56:05 AM »

Quote from: lightningninja on October 14, 2011, 12:50:17 AM

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.

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?

Bryon · « **Reply #98 on:** October 14, 2011, 01:01:01 AM »

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.

lightningninja · « **Reply #99 on:** October 14, 2011, 01:05:40 AM »

Quote from: lp670sv on October 14, 2011, 12:56:05 AM

Quote from: lightningninja on October 14, 2011, 12:50:17 AM
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.

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.

News:

Author Topic: Simplicity or Balance? (Read 32637 times)

browarod

browarod

lp670sv

lp670sv

lp670sv

lp670sv

lp670sv