Author Topic: Simplicity or Balance? (Read 31921 times)

lp670sv · « **Reply #100 on:** October 14, 2011, 01:22:09 AM »

Quote from: lightningninja 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.

1) Drawing of lost souls is already based on luck, now we're putting a spot light on the problem. Unless we implement a rule that each player has to evenly space LSs in their deck it's not going to work out like that. and yeah, 8/10 games the rule isn't going to cause a problem. But those 2/10 have the potential to swing tournament results in a way that's not fair. My game isn't going to decide this months ROOT but if I hadn't lost my first game it could have. That's the problem. If I had gone undefeated and lost the tournament by 2 or less in LS differential, I would not be happy because those 2 were the direct result of nothing but luck. My opponent didn't draw a single lost soul for 7 TURNS!. That's 21 cards out of 56 that did not contain a lost soul. How does that have anything to do with skill or deck building? I used my hopper, I used my harvest time, I used my revealer, but 21 cards in a row not containing a lost soul is something that has nothing to do with the skill or deck building of either player and yet changed the LS differential of my game, even though she never made a real successful rescue attempt against me. I gave her the shuffler to shuffle my own souls away, and then fell it away, and her last rescue attempt I tapped the three liner without blocking simply because I had been about 25 minutes since I had last made a rescue attempt and I was bored and wanted to get her next draw faster. I knew she wasn't getting through my defense I hadn't even used my best EE's yet.

2) I'm still not getting how SOG/NJ being able to rescue own LSs is so incredibly confusing, and I don't want to have to be the one to explain to all the current RLKs that play the game why they can't do that anymore. You wanna talk about confusion.

lightningninja · « **Reply #101 on:** October 14, 2011, 01:27:43 AM »

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).

lp670sv · « **Reply #102 on:** October 14, 2011, 01:32:31 AM »

Quote from: lightningninja on October 14, 2011, 01:27:43 AM

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).

It does change the luck because it means I have to wait for my opponent to draw even more of those LSs that are buried entirely by luck. Without the new rule, the fact that so many of her LSs were buried would not have come in to play, when I rescued my 3rd LS I had SOG/NJ in hand and 4 LSs in my land of bondage, but I couldn't rescue those I had to wait for her to draw LSs and she didn't draw any for 7 turns based entirely on the luck of them being buried, how can you say that's no different that's a difference of 7 turns and 2 LSs (she got her SOG/NJ during those 7 turns) based entirely off of the new rule, it didn't effect the outcome of that particular game, it didn't simplify ot balance out anything, all it did was frustrate the heck out of me and could have potentially cost me a tournament for something that is completely out of my hands and my opponents.

Bryon · « **Reply #103 on:** October 14, 2011, 01:36:18 AM »

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.

lp670sv · « **Reply #104 on:** October 14, 2011, 02:00:29 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on October 14, 2011, 01:36:18 AM

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.

Why must it also apply to SOG then?

Quote from: Bryon on October 14, 2011, 01:36:18 AM

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).

I thought that this would happen to but having played a couple games I don't think this is the case, the only thing I'm going to change about my deck is to add soul gen cards that just make it even faster since some of them grab cards out of my deck, and will still use speed to get to these soul gen cards. there's really no way to kill speed. Getting to the cards you need as fast as possible, no matter what those cards are, will always be a strategic advantage.

Quote from: Bryon on October 14, 2011, 01:36:18 AM

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."

It seems to me that it's going to be a lot harder to explain to current players that the cards they've been using a certain way for a long time no longer work the way they always have then to explain that you can only "attack" your opponent but SOG/NJ can rescue any soul in play which includes your own.

Quote from: Bryon on October 14, 2011, 01:36:18 AM

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.

if the closer games were a universal thing then I would see this being good for the game, but it's not universal it's just increasing the luck factor when it comes to soul drought.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #105 on:** October 14, 2011, 03:38:08 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on October 14, 2011, 01:36:18 AM

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).

Unfortunately that's simply not true.

As long as Redemption is a game with a single win condition, Speed will always be the most viable option. Even with a dominant cap, Speed is still the most viable option. Even is you ban NJ, speed is still the most viable option. Even if you remove every dominant from the game, speed will still probably be the most viable option.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #106 on:** October 14, 2011, 07:47:08 AM »

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on October 14, 2011, 03:38:08 AM

Speed 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.

Quote from: lp670sv on October 14, 2011, 01:32:31 AM

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

More of these frustrating experiences, and we'll start to see some changes. People say they'll just add more LS generation, but then like Bryon said, people will start playing with J-Tower or Blue Tassels. Then speed decks will have to either include defense to buy them time while waiting for opponent's LSs to show up -OR- they'll have to include more counters to take out J-Tower and Blue Tassels.

You're probably right that at first people will just add the counters because they're addicted to speed. But every card they add to counter those and every card they add to generate LSs is one less card of defense (allowing even easier walk-ins by their opponents) or one less card of offense (which means less speed). Both of these outcomes will lead to less wins, and therefore in the long run will lead to less people playing straight speed. Variety ftw!

SomeKittens · « **Reply #107 on:** October 14, 2011, 09:18:27 AM »

Quote from: Bryon 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.

That's what they said about Sam. And Genesis. And Thaddeus. And TGT. And Z-Temple.

There's a difference between counters existing and effective counters existing. Oh, and what happens if I don't draw my counters? I'll need to add some draw abilities so I can ensure I'll get them faster. Oh look, we're still all playing speed.

There'll be less variety because now everyone will use Tassels, JT, AS, HT, Hopper, King Amazing, etc, etc. What'll I take out to put in the new soul gen? No, not my speed, I need that to get my soul gen. I'll take out the fun quirks I work into my decks. Yup, now I'm like everyone else.

Bryon · « **Reply #108 on:** October 14, 2011, 09:56:46 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on October 14, 2011, 07:47:08 AM

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on October 14, 2011, 03:38:08 AM
Speed 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.

Correct. Further, this is not just speculation. It is already happening here. RedDragonThorn is correct that some drawing is still making its way into nearly all decks, but in many cases it is drawing so that you can get some defense. Not just draw, draw, draw, dominants, offense, dominants, offense.

And if you don't have souls to protect, you don't use the draw abilities.

With emphasis on the "Lucky big 2" being reduced by a factor of 2, the game becomes about timing smart drawing, not the old stupid speed.

STAMP · « **Reply #109 on:** October 14, 2011, 11:08:14 AM »

Needs more balance:

browarod · « **Reply #110 on:** October 14, 2011, 01:09:53 PM »

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.

So how exactly are my logical musings on how games will play out so much worse than your, frankly, not very Christian comments about deriving pleasure from watching people squirm? I just don't understand how you can sit there and say things like that and at the same time just throw out everything other people say for doing the same thing you are doing.

Also, I agree with Kittens, RDT, and lp670sv, though apparently my opinion is worth less than 0%.

lightningninja · « **Reply #111 on:** October 14, 2011, 02:28:10 PM »

I'm hoping your comment is a joke. UnChristian? Lolwut? If your opponent is honestly in pain because he built his deck poorly, he needs to check his priorities. I have fun, yes FUN watching my opponents try to figure out how to beat my decks, unsuccessfully. That's squirming, it's not them actually in pain because of something you are doing. And almost everyone on Bryon's side of this debate, including Bryon, have taken time to respond to people's claims, even admitting faults like the one presented by Red Dragon Thorn. I'm assuming he'd just rather not worry about your ad hominem attacks.

browarod · « **Reply #112 on:** October 14, 2011, 02:49:50 PM »

I'm sorry if I was offensive at all, I did not mean such. I'm just trying to explain my position.

No, I really don't think it's a very good attitude to enjoy when any player is losing a game due to poor luck. Bryon mentioned that one of the positive things about this rule change is that people who are behind get to have a chance to come back and not feel as bad since they at least got some souls, but as has been posted (by people who HAVE played games with this rule, so it's not even just my "unfounded" ramblings) the people who are ahead just end up getting frustrated by the whole thing. Bryon seems to think the players losing deserve to have more fun (looking at his comments about "stupid speed" and the one I quoted previously about enjoying seeing people squirm), but who are we to decide who is allowed to have more fun? Isn't this supposed to be a game of fun and fellowship for all? I don't think it's right or appropriate for the rules to dictate who gets to have fun.

lightningninja · « **Reply #113 on:** October 14, 2011, 02:53:24 PM »

Ok, that makes sense. But still I'd ask, are people accommodating the rule?

Professoralstad · « **Reply #114 on:** October 14, 2011, 03:06:05 PM »

Quote from: lightningninja on October 14, 2011, 02:53:24 PM

Ok, 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.

lightningninja · « **Reply #115 on:** October 14, 2011, 03:08:45 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on October 14, 2011, 03:06:05 PM

Quote from: lightningninja on October 14, 2011, 02:53:24 PM
Ok, 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.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #116 on:** October 14, 2011, 03:16:29 PM »

Quote from: lightningninja on October 14, 2011, 03:08:45 PM

Quote from: Professoralstad on October 14, 2011, 03:06:05 PM
Quote from: lightningninja on October 14, 2011, 02:53:24 PM
Ok, 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.

Actually, with the new rule, a majority of people have at least 8 LS's in their deck...and if they don't draw hopper before you get W@tW and/or SWJ, they'll be stuck with it. And considering they can't use SoG/NJ on any of their 7-8, then I'd say getting theirs out is a pretty good strat (it's worked well for me, barring the one game where a Di deck pulled off a few more autoblocks than I was able to).

And I have yet to complain about being in the lead but not being able to win, because I have easily been able to generate enough souls (my deck has other ways to generate souls as well, of course) to win. With my Speed deck. The only loss I have had with that deck is vs., like I said, a Di deck (i.e. not what you would call balanced) and it was by one turn.

lightningninja · « **Reply #117 on:** October 14, 2011, 03:18:44 PM »

See that's pretty much what I thought. If you adjust for the rule, you can definitely get by without waiting for souls.

Which brings up the whole other issue of does this rule actually do ANYTHING, since speed is still king. But I didn't think waiting for your opponent to draw ls was that much more of an issue than it already was.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #118 on:** October 14, 2011, 03:39:17 PM »

Quote from: lightningninja on October 14, 2011, 03:18:44 PM

since speed is still king.

Speed will always be King in a game where you need to draw your cards to get them. Various things like counters or rule changes may make speed decks have to adapt, but the concept will always be there.

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.

browarod · « **Reply #119 on:** October 14, 2011, 03:51:06 PM »

Quote from: lightningninja on October 14, 2011, 03:18:44 PM

Which brings up the whole other issue of does this rule actually do ANYTHING, since speed is still king.

I think that's what people like RDT and Kittens have been saying. Sure, it'll cause speed players to change their decks a little, but it doesn't seem like it'll create the drastic change away from speed that Bryon and Underwood think it will. I mean, anti-ignore (like Golgotha) was touted to be the bane of Garden Tomb speed, yet all it did was make people run Benedictus and other cards on their offense to take care of sites, but it didn't really do anything to kill speed (or even TGT, for that matter) and I think is more used for EE recursion nowadays.

Quote from: Professoralstad on October 14, 2011, 03:39:17 PM

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.

Case in point.

lightningninja · « **Reply #120 on:** October 14, 2011, 04:39:03 PM »

Yeah, that's mostly true... but I would argue that, with this new addition, speed will even more need to draw their ls generation, which means you should always have lost souls to rescue AGAINST a speed player. Hold them off for 2 or more turns, you could easily win.

Bryon · « **Reply #121 on:** October 14, 2011, 04:45:40 PM »

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.

browarod · « **Reply #122 on:** October 14, 2011, 05:07:37 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on October 14, 2011, 04:45:40 PM

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.

I've never found anything inherently wrong with NJ. I don't think it should be banned (nothing should be), I don't think it should have game rules made just for it, and I don't think attacking it is the best way of reducing its impact. What about the idea of increasing the number of souls in deck and/or souls needed to win ideas? The dominant cap is an interesting idea, too, though I think NJ is useful enough that people will still include it even if that rule is added, but at least that rule doesn't single a specific card (or two cards) out. If we're trying to make the game simpler, coming up with game rules for specific cards is not, in my opinion, the way to go about that.

Quote from: Bryon on October 14, 2011, 04:45:40 PM

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."

I wouldn't call it an "attack" but whatever. I guess you and I just use different definitions of "squirm", then, so I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Quote from: Bryon on October 14, 2011, 04:45:40 PM

If you can't use SoG/NJ defensively, you will be more likely to put defense in your deck.

I think the only thing that people keep going on (and on and on and on and on and on and on and on) about is their disagreement with the above. The only thing people will be more likely to put in is LS generation, which does not necessarily equate to "defense". If I was going to update my Gardenciples speed deck for this rule, I would end up taking out some of the EC's in favor of self-capturing ones. That's not an increase in defense, that's just a shift in what my defense is composed of.

STAMP · « **Reply #123 on:** October 14, 2011, 05:24:12 PM »

Quote from: browarod on October 14, 2011, 05:07:37 PM

The only thing people will be more likely to put in is LS generation, which does not necessarily equate to "defense".

I don't have the list in front of me, but when players talk about LS generation I hear a lot of TAS, Malchus, DoM, etc., basically cards that are played on defense.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #124 on:** October 14, 2011, 05:26:10 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on October 14, 2011, 04:45:40 PM

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.

I find it humorous that after asking us to drop the secondary argument your very next paragraph talks about drawing cards again.

But, since you wanted a response to your primary argument, my response is that it simply doesn't matter what power level NJ has. The reason for that is that it affects both players. If I can't use my NJ defensively, I don't care, because you can't either. The flaw in your logic is that you believe that NJ gets used defensively by 'Speed' players more often than balanced deck players. This is why we continue to talk about point 2, because point 1 can be mitigated by point 2, a speed player drawing cards to generate lost souls for his NJ to resuce. Since you yourself agree that point 2 isn't completely true either, then we're simply left with point 3, which was a weak argument to begin with.

There are only two possible rule changes that would convince me not to play a speed deck. Instituting a rule ala MtG/YGO where when you can no longer draw cards, you lose.

Or, remove time limits from type 1, so that defensive heavy decks aren't threatened by time-out points.

News:

Author Topic: Simplicity or Balance? (Read 31921 times)

lp670sv

lp670sv

lp670sv

browarod

browarod

browarod

browarod